Sustainable Beer: An overview of sustainable practices

in Southern California craft breweries

A Thesis

Presented to the

Faculty of

California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science

In

Regenerative Studies

By

Stephanie L. Gebhardt

2018

ii

SIGNATURE PAGE

THESIS: SUSTAINABLE BEER: AN OVERVIEW

OF SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CRAFT BREWERIES

AUTHOR: Stephanie L. Gebhardt DATE SUBMITTED: Spring 2018

Lyle Center for Regenerative Studies Dr. Kyle D. Brown _______________________________________ Thesis Committee Chair Landscape Architecture Dr. Kristen Conway-Gomez _______________________________________ Geography and Anthropology Dr. Margie Ferree Jones _______________________________________ Collins College of Hospitality Management

iii

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the entire Lyle Center community for helping me achieve my goals

of the past two years and prepare for completing this thesis. I would also like to thank all at the

Collins College of Hospitality and Management and the College of the Extended University who

introduced me to the brewing industry and connected with many local brewers in Southern

California. I would also like to than our Librarian for the College of Environmental design, Kai

Smith, for her assistance in my research

I would especially like to thank Dr. Kyle Brown, Dr. Kristen Gómez, and Dr. Margie Ferree

for their insightful, critical guidance and words of encouragement throughout this research.

This project could not have been completed without the support of my friends and family,

particularly my parents and loving partner. Thank you for giving me strength whenever I doubted

myself throughout this past year.

Lastly, I would like to thank all the brewery owners, brewers, and operators that took

precious time out of their day to participate in this study, especially those whom I interviewed. For

all in the brewing industry whom I met through the completion of this process, it was a pleasure

meeting you and I hope we see one another again soon. I could not have imagined a nicer, more

welcoming industry for me to have selected for this study.

Cheers,

Stephanie Gebhardt

iv

Abstract

The brewing process is very resource intensive and produces high quantities of waste.

These impacts are particularly important for Southern California brewers to take into account,

considering the region does not have sustainable sources of water or significant amount of locally

grown grain or hops.

Many brewery owners and beer industry organizations, such as the Brewers Association,

claim that environmental stewardship has become a top priority in the industry and that most

breweries across the country are implementing sustainable brewing practices. This study aimed to

verify these claims as they relate to Southern California breweries and uncover which sustainable

practices are common among roughly 261 regional breweries. Through semi-structured interviews

and an online survey, brewery owners and head brewers were asked to describe their attitudes and

mindset concerning sustainable brewing, list what sustainable techniques they practice, and identify

what obstacles hinder them from achieving their sustainability goals. Representatives from

breweries of varying size were interviewed and a total of 67 breweries fully completed the online

survey.

An overwhelming majority of respondents indicated they are concerned about the

environmental implications of their brewing process and are very interested in increasing

sustainability initiatives within their brewery. There are some environmental practices that are very

common among Southern California breweries, including reusing process water and giving spent

grain away for livestock feed. From the respondent’s perspective, the largest obstacles to

implementing more sustainable initiatives are high capital of installing more environmental

technology and simply not knowing cost-effective sustainable alternatives to their current

processes. Though current sustainable practices in Southern California breweries are not as

common or impactful as industry members currently think, there is high potential for positive

environmental improvement to be made throughout this region’s brewing industry.

v

Table of Contents SIGNATURE PAGE .................................................................................................... ii

Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... iii

Abstract ........................................................................................................................ iv

List of Tables ............................................................................................................... vi

List of Figures ............................................................................................................. vii

Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................1

Chapter 2: Literature Review .......................................................................................4

Chapter 3: Methods ..................................................................................................... 41

Chapter 4: Results and Analysis ................................................................................. 47

Chapter 5: Conclusion ................................................................................................. 87

Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 95

Appendix A ................................................................................................................ 101

Appendix B ................................................................................................................ 102

vi

List of Tables

Table 1. Brewery Industry Segments And Vocabulary ......................................................... 11

Table 2. Brewery Ingredients And Environmental Implications .......................................... 14

Table 3. A Sample Of Patterson Et Al.'S 2014 Data .............................................................. 38

Table 4. Industry Segments And Location Results ................................................................ 56

Table 5. Water And Energy Use Results ................................................................................ 59

Table 6. Waste Disposal Methods Results .............................................................................. 64

Table 7. Community Outreach And Sustainability Attitudes Results ................................... 69

vii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Map Of Breweries In Patterson Et Al.'S 2014 National Study .............................. 37

Figure 2. Southern California Breweries ............................................................................... 41

Figure 3. Question 4 Results ................................................................................................... 58

Figure 4 Question 5 Results; Water Reuse ............................................................................. 60

Figure 5 Question 6 Results; Water Use Per Batch ............................................................... 61

Figure 6 Question 11 Results; Water And Energy Metering ................................................. 62

Figure 7. Question 8 Results; Most Energy Intense Brewing Processes ................................ 63

Figure 8. Question 14 Results; Recycled Materials ................................................................ 66

Figure 9. Question 7; Wastewater Treatment ........................................................................ 67

Figure 10. Question 30; Brewers Guild Members .................................................................. 71

Figure 11. Question 25; Obstacles To Sustainability ............................................................. 72

Figure 12. Question 26; Interest In More Sustainability ....................................................... 73

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

Craft beer is one of the largest growing industries in the country, especially in Southern

California. With over 900 breweries across the state, there has been a 300 percent increase in the

total number of breweries in California since 2012, with a total economic impact of $7.3 billion

and accounting for nearly 50,000 jobs in 2016 (Marks, 2017). Southern California accounts for

over 260 (or nearly 30%) of the state’s 900 breweries, meaning the industry contributed $2.1 billion

to the region’s economy and accounted for roughly 15,000 jobs in 2016 (these numbers are

calculated by taking the totals of the California Craft Brewers Association’s latest report (S. Marks,

2017) and scaling them to the number of breweries within this region, or 260 breweries of 900

breweries across the state). Whether they drink local beer or not, most (or 91.4%) California

residents live within five miles of a brewery (Marks, 2017). There are seven breweries within five

miles of Cal Poly Pomona, including the campus’ own Innovation Brew Works (“Yelp,” 2017).

Though some geographers like to point out that the region’s dominance in the industry is beginning

to face fierce economic competition, the overall impact of craft beer in Southern California cannot

be overlooked (Watson, 2016).

Along with the industry’s positive economic impacts, there are many negative

environmental impacts on the region’s natural landscape. There is a very limited supply of water

in Southern California (Ashoori, Dzombak, & Small, 2015), and very insignificant amounts of grain

or hops are grown in the region. Meaning, three of the four main ingredients of beer are not

available to sustainably supply all of the region’s breweries and must be imported from hundreds

and thousands of miles away. Unfortunately, there are negative environmental impacts imbedded

in locally brewed beer before the brewing process even starts. Breweries also use a lot of electricity

and natural gas (Olaljire, 2012), the impacts of which are important to consider in any popular beer

brewing region. And with all the intensive raw ingredient and energy use also comes high waste

and greenhouse gas production.

2

It is important to consider these environmental impacts and their regenerative solutions

from a local perspective because there is regionality to sustainable issues. Obstacles and their

alternative solutions to achieving environmental sustainability in one region may not be present in

others. For instance, Southern California lacks adequate amounts of water, grain, and hops.

However, there is abundant amounts of sunlight all year long in the region, making solar power

technology a logical option for many local breweries. Though there are universal standards

regarding environmental brewing (Brewers Association, 2017), a brewer’s approach to

environmental sustainability should be tailored to consider their regional ecological and social

landscape.

As explained further in a following chapter, the brewing industry has been a major

influence for societal and commercial change throughout history; brewers have generated

innovative solutions for agricultural practices, sanitation, and industrial manufacturing (O’Briean,

2006). Like many brewers in the past, brewers today help unify and support their local

communities. If brewers take on the many environmental issues related to beer production, more

of their customers and commercial partners may be influenced to follow suite.

Convincing many brewers to switch to more sustainable practices often requires finding

the most cost-effective and efficient solutions for each brewery and demonstrating the range of

benefits these changes will bring their brewery, as well as their local community and natural

landscape. In order to help Southern California brewers reduce their collective environmental

impact, it would be helpful to know exactly where the local industry currently stands regarding

sustainability. The current literature suggests there is no such baseline measure of environmental

sustainability for the Southern California brewing industry. The main purpose of this study is to

help reduce the overall environmental impacts of Southern California’s breweries by creating a

baseline through the following questions:

3

- In what ways and to what extent are Southern California craft brewers practicing

sustainable brewing techniques?

- How might a compiled overview of current sustainable and regenerative practices within

the local beer industry encourage more brewers in the area to make their companies more

sustainable?

For this study, the region of Southern California includes Los Angeles County, Orange

County, San Diego County and the Inland Empire of Western San Bernardino and Riverside

Counties. The term “regional” refers to the greater ecological and cultural landscape of Southern

California. Some researchers may consider local communities to be on a smaller scale relative to

city or neighborhood boundaries, but “local” breweries usually serve larger communities than just

their adjacent neighborhoods and thus their impact should be considered on this broader scale.

Thus, the term “local” refers to the direct community within which a brewery resides and the

communities directly adjacent.

The rest of this thesis is organized as follows. Chapter 2: Literature Review outlines the

major scholarly articles and industry standards used to inform this study. Chapter 3: Methods

outlines the mixed methods approach of this study that included qualitative interviews and

quantitative surveys of 261 breweries throughout the region. Chapter 4: Results and Analysis give

the main findings of the interviews and surveys, and synthesizes the results of the entire study.

Chapter 5: Conclusion provides the overall state of sustainable practices and attitudes of Southern

California breweries and discusses how this study contributes to the current literature regarding

current sustainable brewing practices in the United States.

4

Chapter 2: Literature Review

A History of the Craft Beer Industry

From Across the World to America

Beer has had significant social, economic, and environmental impacts throughout history.

The first recipes and receipts for beer were documented in ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, and China,

for beer was a definite byproduct of the agricultural revolution (Mark, 2011). In many ancient and

medieval societies, beer was considered safer to drink than well water and women often brewed

beer as part of their daily homemaking (Ives, 2011; O’Briean, 2006). European Monks began

privatizing the brewing industry in the 14th century, stripping women of their beer making

ownership, and monopolizing brewing in Europe on behalf of the Christian church; some of these

breweries are still in operation today, namely Bayerische Staatsbrauerei Weihenstephan established

in 1040 C.E. (O’Briean, 2006).

American history is also largely rooted in beer. Plymouth Rock was chosen as the

Mayflower’s landing in the new world in 1620 because that is where the ship’s crew ran out of beer

(O’Briean, 2006). The American Revolution was arguably started in brewpubs, where locally

sourced beer was produced and consumed. Craft brewers and homebrewers facilitated community

engagement and embodied truly American values - rejecting foreign imports and relying on

independent production - which fueled the rebellion (O’Briean, 2006). Many of America’s

founding fathers, including George Washington, and of course Sam Adams, were documented

homebrewers (Ives, 2011; Koch, 2017). Locally-produced beer was widely available across the

country, totaling 4,131 legal establishments in 1873.

Industrial Revolution – New rights and wrongs

Many researchers argue that brewing was a principal driver of the Industrial Revolution

(Ives, 2011; O’Briean, 2006). Brewers’ ingenuity helped create many amenities we have today,

including refrigeration, the automated production line, and pasteurization (Ives, 2011). With the

5

technological progress of the Industrial Revolution came consolidation, uniformity that crippled

the independent brewing industry, and decimated the natural environment.

For the American brewing industry in particular, consolidation and, of course, the 18th

Amendment in 1919, lead to a steady decline of individually owned breweries. Many

microbreweries could not survive being completely shut down by Prohibition for 13 years nor

compete with the growing production of macrobreweries (Flack, 1997). Even after the 18th

Amendment was repealed by the 21st in 1933, American breweries struggled to recover, merely 73

breweries existed in 1985. Microbreweries did not gain traction in the industry again for 40 years.

Urbanization and capitalism began their strong hold on American society in the 1950’s, which

destroyed most locally based economies, including small-scale brewing. With the craft beer

economy remaining flat, American beer preferences became homogenous and uninspiring

(O’Briean, 2006); The American light lager seemed to be here to stay.

With industrialization came little concern for the environment throughout all

commercialized industries, clearly leading to the desolate state of the planet’s failing ecosystems

and the rise of global climate change (McWilliams, 2014; O’Briean, 2006; Olaljire, 2012). The

macrobreweries focused on global expansion and protecting their financial bottom line. The early

generations of modern brewing was modeled after a paleotechnic view of brewing that used and

disposed of resources as if there was an endless supply of water, energy, materials, and raw

ingredients. John Lyle defines “paleotechnic” society as wasteful, unsustainable, and reliant on

one-way throughput systems. Conversely, Lyle offers a regenerative alternative, “neotechnic”

society, which would focus on sustaining the current population as well as future generations to

come (Lyle, 1994). Lyle didn’t see the great innovations of the Industrial Revolution and its

aftermath, as exemplified by the global brewing industry in the 1950’s, as particularly helpful or

responsible, but rather destructive and paleotechnic (Lyle, 1994).

Protecting the environment wasn’t a priority until they were forced to start doing so. In

fact, the prevailing American macrobreweries have a significant history of environmental

6

regulation violations throughout the 1960-90’s. For instance, MillerCoors was cited for illegally

dumping hazardous waste into local waterways and violating the Clean Air Act over 240 times

during the 1980’s and 90’s. If it wasn’t for bad press from environmental groups, such as the Sierra

Club, and fines sent by the Environmental Protection Agency, it is unlikely these companies would

have changed (McWilliams, 2014).

This part of big beer’s history does have a slightly happier ending, though. Whether it is to

protect their image or their bank accounts, or because they are starting to make the connection

between the quality of the environment and quality of beer, or because they see it as the right thing

to do, large conglomerate brewing companies are starting to take strides towards implementing

more neotechnic systems and promoting sustainability, as defined by Lyle (1994). Anheuser-Busch

is working within their companies, with their partners and across the industry to use their resources

more sustainably and reduce beer’s environmental impact (Anheuser-Busch Companies, 2016;

Caum, Hall, Haney, Lepre, & Zimmerma, 2010). According to their website, they have reduced

their water usage by 50%, recycle 99.8% of their waste, and have significantly reduced their

packaging materials (Anheuser-Busch Companies, 2016). Though these actions are difficult to

verify, this improvement in their public image is impressive and seems to indicate a positive change

within the entire industry. However, the scale and consolidation of these large breweries partially

negates the positive impact of these environmental actions (Caum, Hall, Haney, Lepre, &

Zimmerma, 2010). Macro scale brewing is still heavily reliant on cheap fossil fuels and seemingly

unlimited resources, and thus, “paleotechnic”; a true change towards a more regenerative,

“neotechnic” brewing future will require a total paradigm shift within the industry to be more

focused on local communities than global corporations (McWilliams, 2014; O’Briean, 2006).

The Craft Beer and The Environmental and Neolocalism Movements

In the 1970’s, craft brewers started separating off from the highly industrialized trend

synonymous with the American beer industry (McWilliams, 2014; O’Briean, 2006). Consumer

awareness largely drove these changes. The environmental movement had been around for over a

7

decade, and a large portion of Rachel Carson’s followers were finally old enough to drink

(McWilliams, 2014). Craft brewers, especially the larger regional craft brewers, have shifted their

focus towards their “triple bottom line”, where their economic stability relies on safeguarding their

local community and environment (Olaljire, 2012). Introduced by the World Business Council on

Sustainable Development, “triple bottom line” indicates that the economy, society, and the

environment depend on one another where “society depends on the economy and the economy

depends on the global ecosystem, whose health represents the ultimate bottom line” (Olaljire, 2012,

p. 7). Craft brewers are raising the standard for environmental sustainability past what

macrobreweries have demonstrated, and though they are considerably smaller, craft breweries are

making large adjustments to the industry through local actions (Gatrell, Reid, & Steiger, 2017).

According to geographers Gatrell and Reid and sociologist Steiger, “The growth of the craft beer

industry resides at the nexus between nature, place, and identity”, meaning, craft beer inherently

connects its product to local people and the local environment. The international conglomerate

macrobreweries have not been able to fully make this connection, at least not yet (2017, p. 1).

Today’s taste for unique, local beer that currently defines the American craft beer industry

is arguably rooted in California. Young Ann Riley from Berkeley, California, helped legalize

homebrewing under Jimmy Carter in 1978 (Tyler & Johnson, 2017), epitomizing the region’s, and

soon the country’s, growing interest in expanding the American beer palette. Anchor Brewing

Company pioneered the first truly American beer style, the California Steam Beer, starting in 1965

(Hoalst-Pullen, Patterson, Mattord, & Vest, 2014, p. 113).

Riley’s efforts and Anchor Brewing Co.’s success revived the brewing industry from the

near brink, anchoring the post-Prohibition survival of local, independent American craft breweries

in America’s emerging neolocalism of the late 1980’s (Flack, 1997; Gatrell, Reid & Steiger, 2017).

“Neolocalism” is an idea where in businesses purposefully connect with their local economy and

create a “sense of place” within their products (Flack, 1997), a value that was largely lost in the

capitalist driven centralized economy of the 1950’and 1960’s (Gatrell et al., 2017), but has since

8

recovered. Cities are even beginning to recognize local breweries as assets and promising aspects

of revitalization (Gatrell, Nemeth, & Yeager, 2014), for craft brewers have been positive drivers of

economic and cultural recovery in post-industrial neighborhoods (Gatrell et al., 2017)

Since Americans rediscovered their thirst for new, local beer, 5,234 independent craft

breweries have opened or reopened as of 2016 across the United States (Watson, 2017). The beer

landscape changed from monochrome to diverse with the rebirth of smaller production, customer

education, and community engagement. Even as Americans drink less beer (Donadini & Porretta,

2017), craft beer sales continue to grow worldwide and craft brewers are successfully gaining space

in the market back from macrobreweries (Gatrell et al., 2017).

Local, independent craft in Southern California

California has remained a leader in the craft beer explosion of the last four decades and is

currently the home to the more breweries than any other state, 900 breweries to be exact (Marks,

2017). Southern California accounts for over 260 of these breweries. Craft beer greatly impacts the

region’s economy and has become well incorporated into every community

However, from an environmentalist standpoint, the size of the impact from Southern

California breweries on the natural landscape is a bit alarming. The region is notorious for having

a short natural water supply and two of the main ingredients, grain and hops, are not currently

grown in the region (Ashoori, Dzombak, &Small, 2015; Swersey, 2018; Turner, Benedict, Darby,

Hoagland, Simson, Sirrine, & Murphy, 2011). The region’s craft beer industry has yet to widely

acknowledge that the landscape does not naturally provide the resources available for brewing.

The massive geographical disconnect between raw ingredients, product manufacturing, and

consumer use is not limited to the beer industry. In Nature's Metropolis: Chicago and the Great

West (1991), William Cronon describes the history of Chicago’s economic development in order

“to understand environmental change in relation to the actions of human beings.” (Cronon, 1991)

Despite the local natural disadvantages, such as the shallow river and swampy marshlands, the

grain, lumber, and meat industries established Chicago as the nation’s “gateway” for trading goods

9

from the Western plains to markets throughout New England in the late 19th century. Human

innovation, such as the expansion of the transcontinental railroad, refrigeration, and the telegraph,

“annihilated distance” and created an intricate network of cities and economic activity that spanned

the entire country. He also describes the commodification of natural resources, where resources are

no longer defined by their natural purpose but rather how much they can be sold for, fueled

centralized mass production, over consumption of resources, and the uncontrollable expansion of

capitalism.

Expansive industries, particularly food industries, are largely possible because to the

convenience of advanced transportation, the homogeneity of consumer goods, as demonstrated by

Chicago’s past. Modern advances in global transportation and agriculture have also erased the

seasonality of produce, which has fueled an unnatural, year-round demand for fruits and vegetables

that were once only available a few months out of the year. In today’s modern industrial society,

nature is controlled by technology to allow food to grow in regions it otherwise would not, and far

from where it is processed and eventually consumed.

Take dairy farms in California, for instance. Despite the lack of locally available water,

and suitable range land, cattle farmers migrated to the western state during the Gold Rush of the

mid 20th century (Bladow, 2015). California is now the top producer of dairy products for the entire

United States, meaning milk often travels a few hundred miles or more from farm to table. And

consumers seem to prefer it that way; most dairy is consumed in cities, where urban dwellers

assume that the best milk is produced in rural areas away from busy city life (Bladow, 2015). Which

is ironic considering the environmental implications of now overcrowded cattle farms that lack

proper water resources and access to nutritional feed, and contaminate local water supplies. The

disconnection between cows and consumers created by the economic migration of the 1960’s is

reinforced by the consumer’s pastoral image of dairy farming that is, in reality, almost non-existent.

Consumers are largely unaware of where their food comes from or how it is produced (for

they mainly do not care), meaning corporations choose how and where to produce and manufacture

10

their products. As Edward Ross historically theorized, this decision is based on wherever and

however is most economical (Ross, 1896). However, socially-responsible and environmentally-

conscious corporations are starting to revert back to some pre-industrial ideologies by taking the

company’s connection to the local community into stronger consideration and creating more

transparency between producers and consumers (Raman, 2007).

The craft beer sector of the beer industry, for instance, has been a strong proponent of

neolocal values, smaller corporation size, and community interaction. There is hope that some

breweries are also beginning to accept the reality of brewing in such an arid landscape (Chappell,

2017; McWilliams, 2014), but the possibility of the beer industry’s regenerative brewing future

will be discussed further in this chapter.

Definitions within the Brewing Industry

The American brewing industry measures beer in barrels (bbl) where 1 bbl. = 31 US

gallons, or 2 standard 15.5 gallon kegs. Other countries typically measure their beer by hectoliters

(hL), where 1 bbl. = 1.17 hL. For the purpose of this study, beer will be measured in barrels.

Table 1 indicates standardized brewing segments within the brewing industry. All

information is available on the Brewers Association website (Brewers Association, 2018b), unless

otherwise indicated.

The Brewing Process

To understand the environmental impacts of brewing in Southern California, resource

allocation and the brewing process must first be explained. This thesis largely focuses on what is

called the “operation phase”, as in what a brewery is directly responsible and in control of, largely

considering what takes place within the brewery (Olaljire, 2012). There are 14 steps within the

operation phase (Patterson, Hoalst-Pullen, & Pierson, 2016). This does not include growing or

delivering ingredients, or when the product is secondarily sold by bars or retailers (Olaljire, 2012).

11

Table 1. Brewery Industry Segments and Vocabulary

Table 1 indicates the main industry segments breweries can be categorized in, as noted by the Brewers Association.

The main ingredients of almost every beer are water, malted grain (typically barley), hops,

and yeast (Olaljire, 2012). These ingredients and their related environmental implications are

Brewery Type and an example

Annual Product-ion (bbl)

% on site

sales

Indepen-dent (≤25% owned by non-craft)

Additional Information

Craft Brewery Less than 6,000,000

Varies Yes Uses traditional production methods and innovative ingredients. Nearly 99% of the breweries in the United States can be considered craft breweries (Patterson, Hoalst-Pullen, & Pierson, 2016)

Nanobrewery Innovation Brew Works in Pomona, CA

Less than 3,000

Nearly all

Yes This brewery segment is not yet defined by the Brewers Association

Microbrewery Anchor Steam Brewing Co in San Francisco, CA

Less than 15,000

75% Yes Newly established microbreweries may only sell onsite until they can expand

Regional Craft Brewery (RCB) Sierra Nevada Brewing Co. in Chico, CA

Between 15,000 and 6,000,000

Less than 75%

Yes Typically, a large distribution area

Brewpub Taps Fish House and Brewery in California

Less than 6,000,000

At least 25%

Varies Associated with a restaurant or bar

Contract Brewer Lucille’s Smokehouse and BBQ

Less than 6,000,000

100% Varies Hires another company to make their beer. For Example, Lucille’s beer is brewed by Golden Road in Los Angeles, CA

Large/ Macrobrewery Anheuser-Busch,Inc. and MillerCoors

More than 6,000,000

Almost none

No Small breweries acquired by macrobreweries are considered macrobreweries from then on. Cannot be classified as craft.

12

summarized in Table 1. Craft brewers sometimes like to add additional ingredients, like fruit and

vegetables, for unique and often local flavor (O’Briean, 2006).

Barley provides the soluble sugars and a lot of the base flavor in beer; most of the barley

in California is grown in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys, over 300 miles away from Los

Angeles County (Lazicki, Geisseler, & Horwath, 2016). Depending on the type of hops the brewer

prefers, this bittering and preservative agent is likely sourced from the Pacific Northwest, or even

further away (Turner et al., 2011).

The source of yeast, the ingredient that primarily transforms the sugars in alcohol and

carbon dioxide, is difficult to accurately discuss. Yeast is a type of fungi that comes in many

different strains, some are perfect for producing beer (O’Briean, 2006). Some yeast strains used in

brewing actually occur naturally in the air and can be cultivated by any brewer. The purest forms

of the most common beer strains come from a fermentation lab, such as the popular White Labs in

San Diego, California or Wyeast in Hood River, Oregon (White & Zainasheff, 2010; Wyeast

Laboratories, 2017).

Lastly, brewers typically get their water from their local municipal water company by

simply turning on the tap. The brewers themselves are not importing the water, but rather the

municipal water districts are doing so. Only 10-12% of the water available in Southern California

is locally sourced while the other 88-90% comes from Northern California and Colorado (Ashoori

et al., 2015) It is important to note that the exact percentages vary between cities and by year. For

instance, Pomona, CA impressively draws 75% of its water from local groundwater sources (City

of Pomona, 2018) while the city of San Diego fits within the Southern California average and only

draws 8% from all local sources (San Diego Public Utilities, 2016). Led by Orange County Water

District starting in 2008, some Sothern California water companies have started reclaiming water

and adding it to the groundwater supply for potable use, adding to the locally sourced supply. San

Diego’s Pure Water Project is scheduled to start producing potable reclaimed water as early as 2021

(“Pure Water San Diego | City of San Diego Official Website,” 2017).

13

The brewing process within the brewery is fairly standard across the industry, variation

depends on style of beer, size of the brewery, and the brewer’s preferences. Each batch starts with

meticulously cleaning every piece of equipment in order to avoid any unwanted contamination.

Then the grain is sent through a mill to crack the husks and expose the dissolvable starch (O’Briean,

2006). The cracked grain is steeped in filtered or pretreated, hot water, like tea, in the mash tun to

extract all the available fermentable sugars. The sugary water is referred to as wort and left over

grain husks as spent grain (Olaljire, 2012). After the spent grain is removed, the wort is transferred

to the boiling kettle, where it will be boiled for 30-90 minutes. Hops and other flavoring ingredients

are added at certain time intervals during the boil to add bitterness and aromas to the wort

(O’Briean, 2006).

Once the boil is finished, the wort is chilled, filtered, and transferred to a primary

fermentation vessel. Here, the yeast is added, or pitched, and the product can officially be called

beer. The next days or weeks are largely out of the brewer’s hands (Olaljire, 2012). During

fermentation, the yeast metabolizes the dissolved sugars and converts it into alcohol and carbon

dioxide. Few breweries, such as Hanger 24 in Redlands, California, save this carbon dioxide to

later carbonate the beer, but typically the gas is just released and the brewers use “forced” carbon

dioxide to carbonate their beer (O’Briean, 2006).

When fermentation is complete, the beer is transferred to conditioning tanks, for the yeast

to settle out and the beer can properly stabilize. After maturation, the beer is ready to be kegged,

bottled, canned, or consumed (Olaljire, 2012)!

14

Table 2. Brewery Ingredients and Environmental Implications Ingredient Purpose Source Source and Disposal

Environmental Implications Water Main

ingredient of beer. Serves as a solvent for the dissolvable sugars.

Local brewers primarily use municipal water sources, which sources water from the Colorado River, Northern California, and local freshwater and/or groundwater sources.

Brewers must use water efficiently in California’s arid climate and high rate of imported water. Wastewater, or effluent, leaving a brewery can pollute freshwater sources with chemicals and organic matter, which depletes dissolved oxygen, causing eutrophication.

Grain Provides the dissolvable sugars for the fermentation process. Imparts flavor and color.

Brewers source their grain from 300 to over 3,000 miles away, from the Sacramento and San Juaquin Valleys to Canada and Europe.

Grain is embedded with transportation-based carbon dioxide. Shipping grain to the area by rail reduces emissions. Brewers can reduce carbon emissions from within the brewery. Brewers should use regenerative disposal practices for their spent grain. If the grain is not reused or composted, it will be wasted by rotting in a landfill.

Hops Imparts bitterness and acts as a preservative.

Most brewers use hops from the Pacific Midwest or from Germany and England, so hops are primarily shipped from over 700 miles away.

Like grain, hops are embedded with transportation related carbon emissions. Brewers can ship hops to the area by rail and reduce other sources of carbon emissions inside the brewery. Hops is conventionally disposed of with wastewater, adding to the organic material content that depletes dissolved oxygen levels. Composting can reduce this impact.

Yeast Converts the dissolved sugar into alcohol and carbon dioxide. Also imparts some flavor.

Most commercial beer yeast is cultivated by White Labs in San Diego, CA, and Wyeast in Hood River, OR. Yeast can be naturally collected from the air or plants.

Yeast has relatively low source related environmental implications. It is easily reused, reducing costs. Once reused, spent yeast is conventionally disposed of with the wastewater, again, adding to the harmful organic material. Instead, spent yeast can be used to directly fertilize crops.

Table 2 summarizes the main ingredients of beer, their purpose in the brewing process, where they are typically sourced from, and the environmental implications related to their use and disposal.

15

The Environmental Impact of Brewing

The main environmental concerns of conventional brewing include high water use, high

energy use, and high waste generation (Amienyo & Azapagic, 2016; Hospido, Moreira, & Feijoo,

2005; Olaljire, 2012). Other environmental impacts include air pollution and greenhouse gas

emissions, and other ecological impacts (Olaljire, 2012; Patterson et al., 2016). The fact is: modern

brewing is an artifact of paleotechnic industrialism, as with other manufacturing industries, so it

hardly seems to be the place to look for sustainability (McWilliams, 2014).

There are many ways to increase process optimization and resource efficiency that can

reduce a brewery’s environmental impacts without compromising the quality of the final product

(Olaljire, 2012). Lyle would call these “regenerative practices” which reuse wastes and positively

impact the local landscape (Lyle, 1994). Recent studies have shown that 95% of all breweries at

least work to meet environmental regulations (Patterson et al., 2016), which is a good thing, but

does not seem good enough, considering many environmental standards aren’t even good enough

to protect the environment, human health, and our sustainable future. Only a small percentage of

breweries currently have a comprehensive sustainability strategies beyond what is legally required

(Olaljire, 2012), and even fewer are thinking regeneratively. Until the majority of craft breweries

switch to greener practices, the industry as a whole will continue to harm and deplete the natural

environment.

Environmentally conscious breweries should look at the entire value chain and when

implementing a sustainability action plan. This means that brewers should consider everything

regarding their resource allocation, their distribution network and how the consumers themselves

interact with their product (Olaljire, 2012). The true environmental impact of beer would consider

all of these factors, however, for simplicity, the thesis strictly focuses on direct brewery action,

especially within their building’s envelope.

Brewers can implement what are known as best environmental management practices

(BEMPs) throughout their brewing process in order to establish or expand their overall

16

environmental initiatives. Most industries have best management practices, or BMPs, however

BEMPs are specific to environmentally-conscious initiatives. BEMPs should be applied to all areas

of a brewery to ensure overall effectiveness and efficiency. Action in one area may be negated by

inaction in another (Olaljire, 2012). This level of process integration requires considering the entire

process and brewers will need to properly plan for their brewing schedule to coincide with other

steps throughout the process for excess resources to be reallocated for secondary use (Muster-

Slawitsch, Weiss, Schnitzer, & Brunner, 2011).

Water Use

Since Southern California is very water scarce (Andrew, 2015; Ashoori et al., 2015), let’s start

by evaluating the impacts of and opportunities to reduce water use within a brewery.

Water is 90-95% of the final product, depending on the alcohol by volume of the beer (Olaljire,

2012). For every glass of beer produced, 4-16 glasses of water are used to produce it. In other

words, the water in to beer out ratio ranges from 4:1 to 16:1, and this is just considering the process

phase. In very efficient and water wise breweries, this ratio is between 4:1 and 7:1, though most

breweries are above 7:1 on average (Olaljire, 2012). If the grain-related water is included, the ratio

goes up to around 300:1.

Water is used throughout the brewing process, including during boiling, packaging, and

cleaning, along with basic water needs, such as in bathrooms. (Olaljire, 2012). The amount of water

used is very process dependent. The beer type and amount of variety, the brewery’s capacity, type

of packaging, the age of the equipment, and the cleaning process all affect the amount of water

used (Olaljire, 2012). Considering the water that does not end up in the glass, 33% is used to

sterilize the equipment, the other 66% is lost during the boil, chilling the wort, or otherwise

disposed of as residual beer left after transfers or absorbed by discarded solid waste (Fillaudeau,

Blanpain-Avet, & Daufin, 2006; Hospido, Moreira, &Feijoo, 2005). There are many opportunities

for optimizing water efficiency within the brewing process to reduce the total amount of water

used.

17

Some water loss is inevitable. Four to twelve percent of the water boils off in the brewhouse.

Unless the steam is recaptured and repurposed, this water accounts for a direct loss (Olaljire, 2012).

Additionally, every time water or beer is transferred, residual liquid remains in the pipes or previous

vessel. Brewers can reduce the number of transfers in their process, but transferring beer, and thus

related water loss, simply cannot be avoided (Fillaudeau, Blanpain-Avet, & Daufin, 2006).

Other water loss is completely avoidable; some of these preventative steps are quite expensive

while others are completely free. Bottling uses more water than kegging or canning because more

sanitation is involved, so if the brewery can afford it, switching the packaging type can significantly

reduce the brewery’s water use. Proper maintenance should be kept up to date to prevent leaks, and

the water should always be shut off when there is a water line break (Olaljire, 2012). Installing

meters and shutoff valves throughout the system is a cheap way to ensure water is being saved and

not wasted. According to a recent survey, over half of all microbreweries and RCBs (56% and 53%,

respectively) reportedly installed meters to measure and control water consumption. Nearly all

microbreweries and RCB’s (84% and 98% respectively) have installed non-metering technology

that reduces water consumption in some capacity (Patterson et al., 2016).

There are also many opportunities for reusing water within a brewery, further reducing its water

consumption (and water bill). Once through cooling is a wasteful process where cool water flows

through a heat exchanger to cool the hot wort, and then is immediately discharged, wasting more

water than perhaps of any other process. However, instead of sending the warmed water down the

drain, this process can be easily adjusted to use this now warm water for the next batch of beer

(Olaljire, 2012). Other waterless cooling systems exist, such as such as Anheuser-Busch’s air

stripping method which uses air to cool the wort instead of fresh water (Olaljire, 2012).

Reducing water use during the cleaning process is usually a matter of optimizing the cleaning

process to reuse water already used for cleaning through a closed water system. Though breweries

will need to install or adapt storage tanks to set up such water reclamation systems (Patterson et al.,

2016), these changes usually pay for themselves through water cost savings within a few years

18

(Olaljire, 2012). Along with using a closed water sanitation systems, brewers can use brushes and

compressed air to remove attached solids and install shutoff nozzles on hoses to severely cut down

cleaning related water use (Olaljire, 2012). Only about 25% of U.S. craft brewers recover and reuse

their water (Patterson et al., 2016). Considering this is partially a symptom of low process

optimization and not just unavailable technology, more breweries can be expected to recover

wastewater as they realize the opportunity for increased efficiency and cost savings.

The level of water scarcity in the local area should be taken into consideration in order to avoid

exploiting vital local water resources. Warmer climates, such as Southern California’s, face higher

rates of evaporation (Olaljire, 2012). However, brewers in western, arid regions are starting to show

interest in reducing their beer to water ratio. Though some breweries are beginning to change in

order to reduce their ecological footprint, others ae beginning to recognize severe water scarcity

poses a major risk to their business. Larger macro corporations have begun researching and

developing cheaper water efficient brewing technology, especially for grain production, the true

start of the brewing process (Anheuser-Busch Companies, 2016). The smaller breweries and the

entire industry indirectly benefits from these actions (McWilliams, 2014).

A currently unpopular, even occasionally rejected option for reducing water use is using

reclaimed water for cleaning and even brewing. Municipal water districts in the region already

utilize this option; Orange County Municipal Water District uses reclaimed water for 30% of the

county’s water supply (Marks, 2005) and San Diego’s Pure Water reclamation project is under way

(Coronilla & Little, 2017). In fact, potable water is indirectly reclaimed and reused by many water

districts throughout the United States. Reclaimed water has been an unconscious resource for

generations, clean water discharged from a sewage treatment plant is “reused” by a water district

further downstream, which claims it as a “fresh” water resource, until that water is discharged into

the ocean (J. Marks, 2005).

In early 2017, Stone Brewing and Ballast Point Brewing took on projects to promote reclaimed

water in San Diego (Chappell, 2017). Working individually, both breweries took the initiative to

19

make a small batch of a new, unconventional beer brewed with reclaimed water and served it

exclusively at promotional events throughout the city. Back in 2015, Stone Brewing’s water

supervisor, Tim Suydam, was excited to experiment with water from a reclamation demonstration

plant that was “higher quality [water] than they were used to” for their Full Circle Pale Ale. Most

attendees, including San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulcaner, praised the beer’s taste and pro-

environmental qualities (Chappell, 2017; Koch, 2017). The public generally does not believe

reclaimed water is suitable for potable drinking water (Marks, 2005). This public perception may

keep reclaimed municipal water from being an option in many breweries in the near future, but at

least these brewers have proven that such water-wise brewing is possible.

For now, water use BEMPs include: using technology that monitors and controls water use,

cutting off water if there is a line break, dry milling grain, minimizing the number of times the

product is transferred to different vessels (fewer transfers result in less waste due to residual beer

left behind in the transfer process), improved production efficiency (especially in packaging), low-

flow fixtures, lower water pressure on cleaning equipment, and replacing old equipment with more

efficient equipment when upgrading (Olaljire, 2012).

Raw Ingredient Use

Southern California does not naturally produce a lot of the raw ingredients used in beer

(Patterson et al., 2016). The state’s agricultural industry in California’s central valley does not

produce any considerable amount of grain or hops, so brewers must rely on imports for most or all

of their beer ingredients.

The disconnect throughout the industry between breweries and the raw ingredients equates to

a de facto increase in polluting air emissions (Patterson et al., 2016). Therefore, like water use,

resource utilization needs to be efficient in order to account for the carbon emissions already

embedded into the ingredients before they arrive at the brewery (Olaljire, 2012). Using resources

efficiently and reducing how much of each is utilized cuts back on the water and energy used and

the amount of waste produced (Hospido et al., 2005).

20

Certain resources can be reused within the brewery, especially yeast. Live yeast cells can be

collected from a fermenter and reused around five times before being discarded (White &

Zainasheff, 2010). Because yeast is relatively expensive, many breweries already practice this

technique (Patterson et al., 2016). Other by-products, such as spent grains and hops, are often

reused outside of the brewery (Olaljire, 2012). More information on by-products is provided further

in this section.

Sustainable, regenerative resource allocation considers the source and production process of

their resources (Patterson et al., 2016). Brewers concerned about the entire value chain can

implement an ethical sourcing policy and focus on sourcing from local vendors whenever possible

(Olaljire, 2012). A strong example of local resource allocation is at Dogfish Head Brewery in

Milton, DE. Founder Sam Calagione incorporates sustainability and community into Dogfish

Head’s commercial actions and partnerships to create an “artisanal food community”, buying

seasonal products from local vendors. This type of decentralized production creates mutual

dependence and a sense of pride for the brewers and their partners (McWilliams, 2014), and is a

perfect example of a truly regenerative brewery practice.

Along with utilizing local economic relationships, breweries can employ their local, natural

landscape. Craft beer and resource allocation can emulate the human-environmental interaction

present within a sense of place (Gatrell et al., 2014). Using local ingredients whenever possible can

help ensure this natural connection between the brewery and its own local landscape. According to

Gatrell, Reid, and Steiger (2017), a large part of environmental sustainability is keeping natural

resources “alive”, meaning brewers must utilize their local landscape while working to sustain and

regenerate it.

Possible resource-use BEMPs include: efficiently using resources to reduce cost and waste

production; reuse by-products such as yeast whenever possible; implementing an ethical sourcing

policy; and staying well connected with resource providers and the local landscape.

21

Energy Use

Nearly every step of the brewing process uses some form of energy. This means that energy

use can be dependent of the design and operation of the brewing system, the beer recipe (which

dictates boiling and fermentation lengths), packaging type, local climate, and starting water

temperature. (Olaljire, 2012). Electricity and thermal energy use typically account for the largest

portion of a brewery’s carbon emissions (O’Briean, 2006).

A well run, energy conscious brewery would use roughly 8 kWh electricity and 150 MJ fuel

energy per 1 hL (26.4 gallons) of beer produced (Olaljire, 2012). To put this into a clearer

perspective, burning 1 MJ of fuel (most likely natural gas), equates to the amount of energy used

by a 100-watt bulb burning for 3 hours. To size that a typical 15.5-gallon keg of beer, the fuel use

in MJ would be the equivalent of burning a 100-watt bulb for roughly 264 hours or 11 days. These

calculations are for a brewery that is using energy as efficiently as possible; most breweries are not

this energy efficient.

Energy Use: Efficiency VS Conservation

Energy efficiency and energy conservation, though related, are not entirely the same.

Efficiency is related to using the same amount of energy in more useful ways while conservation

is reducing the overall amount of energy used. Generally, increasing energy efficiency requires a

change in technology while conservation can be accomplished largely by just changing behavior

(Olaljire, 2012). Conservation can easily be achieved through process optimization, through better

training and proper discipline for employees.

Breweries can categorize their energy use as direct-process and non-process, meaning within

the brewing process or simply within the brewery, respectively. Electricity is generally divided by

process and non-process applications, while thermal energy is almost exclusively used for direct-

process applications (Olaljire, 2012).

22

Energy Use: Electricity

The biggest uses of electrical energy in a brewery are refrigeration, brewhouse operation,

packaging, and water and wastewater treatment (Olaljire, 2012). Because they do not have a lot of

control over how their utility companies generate their power, breweries must look in house for

energy efficiency and alternative sources of power to reduce their total electricity related emissions

(Olaljire, 2012). For example, in 2006, New Belgium Brewing found that municipal energy source

was the biggest contributor to the company’s carbon footprint, meaning the municipal power

generation was heavily reliant on fossil fuels, so operators reduced the overall energy use and

installed the brewery’s own alternative power generation systems (McWilliams, 2014).

The rise of climate change and sustainability market trends are driving energy conservation

and renewable energy to increase throughout the industry (Muster-Slawitsch, Weiss, Schnitzer, &

Brunner, 2011), especially in sunny Southern California (Patterson et al., 2016). A number of

breweries, such as California’s Lagunitas Brewing Company, Bear Republic Brewing Company,

and Stone Brewing, have installed solar arrays, totaling a capacity of 2.5 MW (Solar Resource

Guide, 2016). New Belgium Brewing Company has solar panels, as well as an anaerobic digester

which completely treats their wastewater and produces methane for energy generation. These

digesters can reduce a brewery’s energy demand from the city by 15% (McWilliams, 2014).The

brewery leading alternative energy use is Sierra Nevada Brewing Company. They have solar panels

and an anaerobic digester, but also hydrogen powered fuel cell technology, in total capable of

generating 60% of their electricity, enough for 690 households (McWilliams, 2014). However, the

capital costs of installing these forms of alternative energy is unfortunately a major obstacle to

many smaller and younger breweries wishing to adopt alternative energy technology (Olaljire,

2012).

Luckily, there are many cost effective and inexpensive changes that prioritize efficient or

reduced energy use that smaller breweries can adopt. For instance, one case study found that

replacing one brewery’s 956 light bulbs with energy efficient bulbs saved $5,140 annually in

23

electricity bill costs and the project totally paid for itself within 1.8 years (Olaljire, 2012). And

commonsense good housekeeping measures, such as turning off lights or equipment, especially

non-process equipment, when not in use, can significantly reduce electricity consumption. And if

energy use represents costs, then this type of conservation represents cost savings (Olaljire, 2012)

Electricity use BEMPs include: implementing and enforcing good housekeeping tactics (as in

turning off lights and equipment when not needed); switching to florescent or LED lighting; opting

for more energy efficient equipment when upgrading or repairing the system; installing

computerized controllers to better regulate equipment; installing timers and thermostats to control

heating and cooling; and keeping up on preventative maintenance (Muster-Slawitsch et al., 2011;

Olaljire, 2012).

Energy Use: Thermal Energy

Thermal Energy is mostly used during the boiling process, pasteurization, and packaging. The

boiling process in particular is very energy intense, which means it uses a lot of fuel and produces

high emissions. (Olaljire, 2012). Patterson et al. report that the average boil requires 24-54 MJ of

heat per hL (or 20-46 MJ per bbl.) (Muster-Slawitsch et al., 2011). Because the boil is so energy

intense, some brewers are developing less energy intensive boiling processes, such as internal

boilers and heat recovery systems (Olaljire, 2012). New Belgium, for instance, boils their wort in

a wide, flat boiler and recovers steam off the boil to repurpose it as residual heat, both as ways to

cut energy demand (by half) and optimize the system’s energy use (McWilliams, 2014). Other

brewers are reducing their fossil fuel use by opting out of pasteurization, there is no need for this

energy intense process for beer that is expected to be consumed within a few months (Olaljire,

2012). Like any other food product, beer is best fresh!

There are many ways to lower thermal energy use that many brewers are not applying yet. Few

breweries (only about 20%) recover heat or steam for reuse (Patterson et al., 2016). Also, there are

many possible applications for solar water heating. This would be especially good for breweries in

sunny regions such as Southern California (Olaljire, 2012; Patterson et al., 2016).

24

Thermal energy BEMPs include: installing and improving insulation for HVAC and

refrigeration lines; eliminating steam leakage; adjusting the system of optimal heat integration and

efficient use; ensuring the hot water tank is the optimal size to avoid heating too much water;

installing solar water heating equipment; and using renewable energy wherever else possible

(Muster-Slawitsch et al., 2011; Olaljire, 2012; Patterson et al., 2016).

An efficient brewery is optimized to run off of the lowest amount of energy the system can

possibly allow. Typically, the initial engineers know these details, but the information is often not

passed along to future operators. It is vital for managers and employees to understand energy

management as well as the initial engineers in order to ensure the brewery maintains optimal energy

efficiency (Muster-Slawitsch et al., 2011). System operators must keep equipment properly

maintained and up to date to ensure the system is operating at maximum efficiency (Olaljire, 2012).

In order to properly manage energy use and efficiency, operators need to audit energy use

throughout the facility (Muster-Slawitsch et al., 2011; Olaljire, 2012). Energy auditing helps

establish and measure energy use and progress towards energy use goals, which ultimately requires

employee training and cooperation. Auditing helps target specific areas of the process that would

have the most impactful change (Olaljire, 2012). There is now technology that audits energy use

per process step, which would need to be installed throughout the brewery in order to avoid

collecting incorrect or incomplete data (Olaljire, 2012). Because proper energy management is an

ongoing process, many brewers do not want to keep up with it or they fall out of practice.

Sometimes those with the knowledge move on or the brewery claims to not have the proper

resources to keep up with proper ongoing energy management (Muster-Slawitsch et al., 2011).

There are many opportunities to reduce energy use within a brewery even without complete

auditing; auditing simply ensures these changes are actually achieving the energy savings they are

aimed at (Muster-Slawitsch et al., 2011).

A lot can be achieved without high upfront capital investment – high consumption brewers can

reduce their energy use by 20-50% without spending very much and sometimes without spending

25

anything at all (Olaljire, 2012, p. 2). Because few brewers are aware of all the benefits from energy

efficient practices, they rarely realize that the few low cost and free changes they can make in their

brewery would help save money, which could quickly add to the savings for purchasing bigger

energy efficient technology later (Olaljire, 2012).

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The driving factor of global climate change is elevated concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2),

methane, and other greenhouse gases due to the increased combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal

and natural gas, to meet rising global energy demands. The main sources of greenhouse gas

emissions within a brewery, in particular, are from fossil fuel combustion, fermentation, chemical

offgasing, transportation, and refrigeration, while the brewery is also partially responsible for the

emissions related to the production of the purchased electricity (Olaljire, 2012). Especially in the

context of Southern California which is also inundated with single-use vehicle related carbon

emissions, brewers should be conscious of what emissions they produce and what options are

available for reducing them (Ashoori et al., 2015; OEHHA, 2014).

The CO2 emissions produced within the actual brewery are higher than may be expected. In an

average, conventional brewery, approximately 16 kg of CO2 is generated by the steam boilers in

order to produce 1 hL (or roughly 13.6 kg CO2 per 1 bbl) of beer (Olaljire, 2012, p. 16). However,

the CO2 produced during fermentation is inconsequential; it typically equals the amount of CO2

sequestered by the grain as it grows. Brewers can capture and reuse this CO2 within their brewery,

however (O’Briean, 2006). Many brewers simply do not have the required technology to capture

carbon and CO2 can be purchased cheaply, so “forced” carbonation is the current common practice.

The emissions produced outside of the brewery’s walls are a little more difficult to account for.

As already discussed, brewers have little control over how their electricity provider generates

electricity (Olaljire, 2012). Unless the brewery is capable of installing alternative energy sources,

they must look at other sources of emissions they have more control over reducing.

26

The size of the brewery’s distribution area and amount of product sold out of house will

determine much of a brewery’s carbon footprint. The more product sold in-house, the smaller this

impact will be, assuming their customers are relatively local (Hospido et al., 2005). Of course,

brewers aim to sell their product as widely as possible, and the revenue and notoriety gained by

distributing their beer often outweighs the environmental costs of distribution, that’s just good

business sense. Like with electricity and water use, brewers can prioritize their distribution and

make their delivery route and schedule to be as efficient as possible (O’Briean, 2006). For instance,

Sierra Nevada receives its grain and distributes out 70% of its beer by rail to reduce their

transportation related emissions. New Belgium, though its emissions reduction initiatives,

incentivizes employees to commute to work on their company-issued bicycles or drive electric cars

and utilize the company’s electric charging stations (McWilliams, 2014).

Possible emission reduction BEMPs include: reusing and selling CO2 from fermentation and

using low emitting alternatives for heating and transportation (Olaljire, 2012).

Waste

Brewing generates quite a lot of waste – solid waste, hazardous waste, recyclable materials,

reusable by-products, and, perhaps most importantly, massive amounts of wastewater (Fillaudeau

et al., 2006; Kerby & Vriesekoop, 2017; Olaljire, 2012). Waste and by-products are ultimately

unavoidable in brewing (Kerby & Vriesekoop, 2017). A lot of that waste can be diverted away

from landfills, as in 99.8% of the waste can be recycled or repurposed somehow if the brewery is

waste-conscious (and rich) enough (McWilliams, 2014). The size of a brewery will naturally have

a large influence on the amount of waste it generates, so the waste management system should

really be tailored to each brewery (Fillaudeau et al., 2006). Overall, reducing waste reduces

overconsumption of resources as well as protect the environment by lowering the amounts of

expelled contaminants and air pollution. The best option for reducing waste is to reduce the amount

of materials used at the start of the process (Olaljire, 2012).

27

Waste: Solid Waste

Brewery solid waste includes: “industrial residues, glass, paper, cardboard, plastic, oils, wood,

biological sludge, and green residues” (Olaljire, 2012, p. 2). Industrial and hazardous waste is

ultimately unusable and must go to a landfill, which negatively impacts local communities and

ecosystems. The more a brewery can reduce its landfill waste, the cheaper the waste removal and

the better for the regional landscape. Sierra Nevada and Anheuser-Busch both reportedly divert all

but .2 percent of their solid waste from going to a landfill (Anheuser-Busch Companies, 2016;

McWilliams, 2014). This level of waste diversion requires universal process optimization, proper

training, monitoring, and enforcement throughout the entire brewery (Olaljire, 2012).

A considerable portion of a brewery’s unusable hazardous waste usually comes from using a

diatomaceous earth (DE) filter, also referred to as a kieselguhr sludge filter, that removes yeast and

suspended particles in order to clarify the final product (Olaljire, 2012; Tyler & Johnson, 2017). A

DE filter can contribute 1-2 grams of hazardous waste per gallon of clarified beer produced. These

filters not only create a considerable amount of waste that is expensive to dispose of, but are also

expensive in maintaining and replenishing the DE material (Olaljire, 2012). Alternative filtration

processes do exist, and some are really quite cheap. Some breweries filter their beer using a

centrifuge (which uses centrifugal force to separate the solids from the beer), filter pressing (using

membranes to screen out particles), or simple sedimentation (allowing the particles to naturally

settle to the bottom) (Fillaudeau et al., 2006).

Many solid waste materials from breweries can be conventionally recycled, namely incoming

and outgoing packaging material (Olaljire, 2012). Most breweries (around 86%) claim they do or

plan to use recyclable/reusable packaging (Patterson et al., 2016), thus decreasing the amount of

waste entering the landfill both at the point of the brewery and after the beer is distributed.

The largest portion of solid waste consists of the spent grain, hops, yeast, and other biological

residues produced during the brewing process. Most of these materials are considered by-products,

meaning they have commercial value and can be directly repurposed (Olaljire, 2012).

28

Spent grain is the most commonly repurposed by-product, typically sent to be composted or

used as animal feed. (Olaljire, 2012). Sending spent grain to farmers is usually the cheapest option

for brewers and is by far the most popular technique. It is high in protein and fiber, so it is actually

good for food, whether it is animal feed or baked goods for human consumption (Kerby &

Vriesekoop, 2017). The only possible costs may be fuel and man hours (Kerby & Vriesekoop,

2017). Sierra Nevada avoids these associated costs by owning its own cows to eat their spent grain

(McWilliams, 2014). Many craft brewers tend to have, or quickly develop, a direct relationship

with the by-product users (Kerby & Vriesekoop, 2017). Recycling spent grain is one of the most

regenerative practices a brewery can opt into: the grain is sent to a farmer and local co-dependence

is established (Lyle, 1994; Patterson et al., 2016).

Most other by-products either do not make good quality animal feed or are not produced in

large enough quantities at most craft breweries to be useable (Kerby & Vriesekoop, 2017). Though

yeast can be reused numerous times, once the live yeast cells have died, it typically gets thrown

down the sewer along with the spent hops (Kerby & Vriesekoop, 2017; Olaljire, 2012). If a brewery

has an anaerobic digester on site, these materials can be composted with the brewery’s other organic

wastes and used to generate natural gas (Kerby & Vriesekoop, 2017). Any way a brewery can

repurpose its by-products will simultaneously boost its sustainability and reduce the brewery’s

disposal costs (Fillaudeau et al., 2006; Kerby & Vriesekoop, 2017).

Solid waste BEMPs include: placing an emphasis on recycling and reusing by-products;

reducing overall use and increasing process efficiency; using bulk packaging when possible and

using reusable and returnable kegs, pallets, and crates (Kerby & Vriesekoop, 2017; Olaljire, 2012).

Waste: Wastewater

As stated above, breweries waste on average seven to sixteen gallons of water for every gallon

of beer produced. Leftover organic residues and wasted by-products in the wastewater effluent have

significant environmental implications, especially if it is discharged into the environment untreated.

High organic matter in the effluent leads to eutrophication, which increases aquatic plant growth

29

and decreases dissolved oxygen, killing animal life (Hospido et al., 2005; Walsh, 2015). Chemical

contaminants from cleaning products are also harmful to aquatic habitats (Olaljire, 2012). Reducing

water use and increasing process efficiency ultimately decreases the amount of wastewater

produced and total sewage costs, though, ultimately, some amount of wastewater is impossible to

avoid (McWilliams, 2014; Olaljire, 2012).

It is possible to completely treat wastewater for reuse in the brewery, but this is costly and

problematic for most breweries, especially for those adding this to an already existing brewing

system. Some level of waste water treatment is required for meeting environmental regulations

(Olaljire, 2012). A handful of breweries, such as Sierra Nevada and New Belgium, use an anaerobic

digester to treat their wastewater, a process that not only produces natural gas which can also be

used in the brewery as fuel but also pristine quality water (McWilliams, 2014; Olaljire, 2012).

Apart from installing an anaerobic digester, wastewater BEMPs include: reducing process

transfers to reduce residual beer, maximizing water efficiency and reuse in the brewery, and

filtering or allowing particles to settle out before discharging effluent to the sewer (Fillaudeau et

al., 2006; Olaljire, 2012).

Employee Engagement

Employees add value to the brewery as much as they are capable of negating any sustainability

measures implemented by management (Olaljire, 2012). Properly training employees to understand

how sustainable practices benefit them, and not just the brewery’s triple bottom line, increases

employee retention rate and helps ensure employee health and safety (McWilliams, 2014; Olaljire,

2012). A strong majority of craft brewers put their employees through some level of sustainability

training in addition to state mandated health and safety training (Patterson et al., 2016).

A strong example of employee-focused sustainability is at New Belgium, where sustainable

brewing is considered to be a “big part of everyone’s job,” not just something for leadership to

worry about (McWilliams, 2014). This has led to employees contributing to environmental

innovation, as Lyle would label, “regenerating” the company’s sustainability goals. Employees in

30

New Belgium’s packaging department pointed out how the company could reduce packaging waste

by removing cardboard inserts and just packing the bottles tighter. By giving more autonomy and

responsibility back to employees, the corporation’s focus has shifted from making labor more

productive to making resources more productive, and employees reap the benefits of working for a

more ethical company and stay more satisfied with their work (McWilliams, 2014).

General Brewing BEMPs

Breweries can significantly reduce their environmental footprint by focusing on process

optimization and conservation. End of pipe solutions for reducing the impact of wastewater

effluent, air emissions, and solid waste are costly, so increasing efficiency within the process and

reducing the amount of resource use helps to save money and reduce a brewery’s overall

environmental footprint (Olaljire, 2012). Water and energy meters need to be installed in order to

properly identify the least efficient areas in the brewery and measure progress made towards

reaching sustainability goals (Muster-Slawitsch et al., 2011; Olaljire, 2012). Sustainable initiatives

need to consider the entire brewing system, in addition to properly training all employees on

sustainability, in order to ensure environmental initiatives succeed (Olaljire, 2012).

The obstacles to implementing environmental practices seem to be more related to a lack of

awareness and priority, than funding exactly (Patterson et al., 2016). Funding seems to be touted

as an excuse. In reality, a lot of sustainable practices can be adopted for little to no cost, especially

when considering the amount of savings these changes would procure.

Brewers seem to be becoming more attracted to what would call “commonsense systems”

(Chappell, 2017; Patterson et al., 2016). Not only does adapting current systems to reuse water,

repurpose heat, and reduce waste save money and reduce direct ecological impacts, but also

positively impacts local and global communities (Olaljire, 2012). Highly efficient breweries have

an opportunity to switch focus from utilizing maximum employee efficiency to maximum resources

efficiency, making each individual employee a more valued team member (McWilliams, 2014).

And when breweries are more concerned about the quality and quantity of their resources and

31

wastes, they start being more focused on internal systems along with their company’s role within

their greater community. Brewers can start reissuing their cost savings from environmental

initiatives back to their employees, customers, and community (Patterson et al., 2016).

The American craft beer industry has the potential to become innately environmentally

conscious. Societal forces and business trends may have to further adopt a universal set of

environmental values before the brewing industry is fully sustainable. Then again, perhaps the

brewing industry has a role to play in popularizing industrial sustainability.

Greening an Industry

Industries around the world have far to go in terms of sustainable development. Common

resources are exploited, fossil fuels are burned as if supplies were limitless and the emissions were

harmless, and many communities across the globe are faced with life-threatening consequences of

actions that are not theirs (The Brundtland Commission, 1987). The severity of the planet’s

ecological degeneration and the resulting impact on society has forced some enlightened

entrepreneurs into action (Hockerts & Wustenhagen, 2010). The global economy has seen some

recent increases in sustainable development, usually beginning in smaller firms before growing to

an entire industry (Hockerts & Wustenhagen, 2010). These entrepreneurs are beginning to realize

that “sustainability relates to the balance between current behaviors and conditions and their lasting

impact on future economies, societies, and environments” (Patterson et al., 2016, p. 155) and are

slowly beginning to adjust their practices accordingly (Hockerts & Wustenhagen, 2010; Patterson

et al., 2016).

A new state of corporate power has grown out of ideological shifts within many industries that

incorporate sustainable development, transparency, participation, and/or social capital (Raman,

2007). Over the past 40 years, various industries have begun to recognize a “new understanding of

industrial production”, known as “natural capitalism” or “conscious capitalism”, where ecological

values are inherently associated with capitalism (McWilliams, 2014). This theory is closely related

to a business’ “triple bottom line”, a concept where in the social and environmental values are

32

integrated into a company’s economic stability. To protect one’s triple bottom line, businesses must

understand society is dependent upon the economy as well as the environment, and an unhealthy

society or environment can threaten an economy. (Olaljire, 2012).

Though the triple bottom line is largely driven by ecological health, social market trends are

placing a more obvious and immediate influence on sustainable development (Hockerts &

Wustenhagen, 2010). Companies are namely interested in continuing to make money;

manufacturers must continue to sell their products in order to stay in business. Millennials are the

largest current generation and they tend to prefer conscious products from non-corporate

companies. Products with social responsibility embedded within them somehow are gaining

popularity, and manufacturers are accounting for these trends (Gatrell et al., 2014).

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), through which a corporation considers the ethics of

their social and environmental implications of their business ventures, is starting to gain

corporations positive attention and raise awareness of environmental and social issues within their

industry and greater community (Olaljire, 2012; Raman, 2007). It is important for CSR initiatives

to come after, or at least in conjunction with, eliminating impact on the local community (Raman,

2007); if environmental impacts are reduced without taking the social impacts into consideration,

then the CSR actions may be considered disingenuous or even useless. The ultimate goal of ethical

businesses is to positively contribute to increasing sustainability and social inclusion on a global

scale (Olaljire, 2012).

Sustainable entrepreneurship has developed in other fields such as alternative energy, the auto

industry, and the organic and fair-trade food movements. Many of these industries have followed

a trend that is commonly referred to as “Davids and Goliaths”. According to this popular theory of

entrepreneurship, small, emerging companies (Davids) introduce new practices or trends to an

established field, followed by large, well-established companies (Goliaths) using their size and

captured audience to further develop a practice and use it to fully transform the industry for their

benefit (Hockerts & Wustenhagen, 2010). Small scale production allows for more alternative and

33

creative means of upholding sustainability (Kerby & Vriesekoop, 2017). However, smaller

production can be limited in the amount of funding and resources they have for reaching their

sustainability aspirations and must rely on larger companies to fully research and develop new

sustainable innovations before they can be fully obtainable on a small scale (Hockerts &

Wustenhagen, 2010; Patterson et al., 2016).

To evaluate how the beer industry might become more sustainable, similar industries that have

adopted more environmental practices may be used as examples. Agriculture related industries,

such as the wine industry, have a more direct link to the health of the environment, so they have a

self-interest in promoting sustainable practices. Wineries, for instance, have inherent concern of

the environmental implications of excess irrigation runoff, pesticide and insecticide use, and

wastewater and solid waste generation, and energy use (Fitzmaurice, Cordano, Martinson, & Wise,

2014). Reducing such environmental impacts of food and beverage industries will mostly include:

increasing resource efficiency, use of cogeneration systems; process and resource optimization;

zero-energy building design; shifting towards renewable energy sources; and reusing waste

industrial heat whenever possible. (Fitzmaurice et al., 2014; Muster-Slawitsch et al., 2011).

“Drinking Responsibly”

American craft beer is in the position to use the wine industry and other environmentally-

conscious examples as a model for boosting sustainable development throughout the entire

industry. Craft beer is already bringing old world, artisanal brewing methods into the 21st century

(McWilliams, 2014). This industry is already phenomenal at responding to the needs and wants of

their customers and exploiting niche markets focused on specific values (Gatrell et al., 2014). Beer

drinkers have been growing increasingly concerned about the source and quality of their beer since

about the 1980s, and smaller, local breweries are using this as incentive to go green (McWilliams,

2014; O’Briean, 2006). Craft brewers’ ability to affect change both within the industry and across

others has historical precedence (Ives, 2011; O’Briean, 2006); today, craft brewers adopting

34

sustainable development are “giving new meaning to the directive ‘drink responsibly’”

(McWilliams, 2014, p. 6).

Breweries may face many barriers when going green. The most commonly cited barrier is

the cost of new or altering existing equipment. It can be difficult for breweries to grasp the long-

term monetary and environmental benefits of switching to green brewing techniques. Other barriers

include lack of knowledge or awareness, policy barriers, and the order of priority within the

brewery (Olaljire, 2012). Sustainability is difficult to define within the brewing industry, making

these barriers truly significant and difficult to overcome (Patterson et al., 2016). However, the

leading sustainable breweries such as Sierra Nevada Brewing Company and New Belgium Brewing

Company are showing that change is financially feasible and beneficial to their triple bottom line,

and the whole industry grows stronger as a result (McWilliams, 2014).

Ken Grossman, Sierra Nevada’s founder, made his brewery environmentally sustainable

from his company’s inception in 1979 (McWilliams, 2014). In his book, Beyond The Pale: The

Story of Sierra Nevada Brewing Co. (Grossman, 2013), Grossman discusses how these steps were

driven by financial incentives, while also considering it the “right thing to do”. According to New

Belgium’s Bryan Simpson,” New Belgium was ‘focused on determining how to do this work

differently than what the industrial revolution laid down for us’”, changing the status quo was the

point. (McWilliams, 2014, p. 2). To these brewers, and an increasing number of others, a brewery’s

purpose is more than producing beer, but generating cohesion between the brewery, its community,

and its environment in order to improve the local quality of life (McWilliams, 2014).

These craft breweries influence one another and others within the industry. New Belgium

received peer pressure to become more innovative and sustainable from Sierra Nevada, who

continues to expand while maximizing resource allocation (McWilliams, 2014). Not only are these

breweries increasing their niche market, their more efficient water and energy systems give them a

competitive edge. Going green simply “makes sense” (Grossman, 2013; McWilliams, 2014). They

are increasing their share of the market while making more money per glass of beer produced.

35

These competitive forces are gaining the attention of other brewers, including large macrobreweries

(Patterson et al., 2016).

There are enough large breweries that are copying the regenerative, cost saving, customer-

grabbing brewing practices of newer craft breweries that it seems the beer industry is falling within

the emerging Davids and incumbent Goliaths theory of sustainable entrepreneurship (Caum et al.,

2010; Hockerts & Wustenhagen, 2010; Patterson et al., 2016). Though big corporations are

pursuing some environmental innovation, John Stier of the Brewers Association notes, “they are

still ‘looking to the small guys for innovation. They envy the fact that the small guy can be so

nimble, always looking for a new and innovative niche’” (McWilliams, 2014, p. 6). Some

macrobreweries are trying to compete with craft breweries by producing “crafty” beer brands and

acquiring smaller breweries (Patterson et al., 2016).

Large beer corporations are starting to change their processes to be more sustainable not

only to compete with innovative microbreweries, but also because groups, such as the Political

Economy Research Institute, are publically shaming them for their poor environmental actions and

consumers are beginning to take note of their negative impacts (McWilliams, 2014). Many craft

brewers are working to avoid these types of accusations entirely (O’Briean, 2006). As Simpson of

New Belgium believes, “a progressive, intellectually aware group of folks come to craft brewing”

expecting “paradigms to be upset” (McWilliams, 2014, p. 4). Breweries are looking “ever inward”

at their company own practices and how they impact the economy, environment, and community,

on both local and global scales. (Olaljire, 2012; Patterson et al., 2016).

Community involvement seems like a universal aspect of the craft brewing industry. A

large majority of craft breweries, over 75%, help organize charitable events and volunteer within

their community (Patterson et al., 2016). Chris Swersey, the Brewers Association supply chain

specialist, notes that craft brewers “are tied tightly to their communities and are very aware of the

impact that their operations have on communities” (McWilliams, 2014, p. 5). Place-based

marketing and branding, where the brewers use their local culture and flavor in their marketing

36

strategy, serves as a way to preserve community values, history, and traditions. By utilizing local

culture and values, a brewery has an opportunity to play a role in the local sense of place and give

back to the community (Gatrell et al., 2017).

Just as a brewery’s culture can incorporate and value the local community, so can it

incorporate protecting the local environment and sustainable development. Brewers truly influence

one another and the communities they call home. By adopting more sustainable practices and

incorporating regenerative, environmental values into their core mission, Southern Californian

brewers have the opportunity to continue California’s leadership in the craft beer movement and

promote a healthier environmental outlook throughout Southern California communities, all while

reducing the industry’s regional environmental impact.

What Gets Measured Gets Improved

Famous management consultant Peter Drucker coined the phrase “if it cannot be measured

it cannot be managed,” meaning something needs to be quantifiably measurable in order to see

actual improvement (Drucker, 1954). If someone says she is improving something, but cannot show

the results in a tangible way, then there is no proof the improvements are a result of a specific action

or that they even exist at all. For instance, if a brewer simply says he is improving his facility’s

water efficiency, but is not measuring his water use along the way, there is no way to prove he is

actually improving anything. The same concept can be applied to the industry as a whole; there

needs to be a way to measure the level of improvement regarding region wide sustainable brewing

practices in order to truthfully say the region is improving.

Brewers in Southern California vary greatly in their production, styles, targeted customers,

and focus (Brewers Association, 2018a; Hoalst-Pullen et al., 2014; Murray, 2011). They are

similarly diverse in regards to sustainable practices; some brewers are very environmentally

conscious while others are not at all (Patterson et al., 2016). The first steps in universally increasing

sustainability among local breweries is to determine the current level of sustainability in the

industry by finding the current percentage of brewers applying certain environmentally conscious

37

techniques and attitudes to their brewing process. Geographers from Kennesaw State University in

Georgia, Mark Patterson, Nancy Hoalst-Pullen, and W. Blake Pierson, had the same thought.

Patterson et al. conducted a survey in 2014 with 2822 craft breweries across the country to inquire

about breweries’ sustainable practices and attitudes. They particularly researched what lead to

differences in sustainable practices across industry segments, geographic regions, and

neighborhood settings, and ultimately published their results in 2016. The publication focused on

responses from urban breweries for they are significantly more common than rural breweries.

Figure 1. Map of Breweries in Patterson et al.'s 2014 national study. Map of breweries per state contacted in a 2014 study with the response rate represented by the state's color. California had more breweries contacted than any other state while Arkansas had the highest percentage of breweries responded to the survey (Patterson et al., 2016, p. 158).

The survey design was based on relating the three pillars of sustainability as defined by the

1987 Brundtland report (“Economic”, “Environmental”, and “Equity”) to the beer industry (The

Brundtland Commission, 1987). They asked a variety of 4-point Likert Scale questions pointed

38

Table 3. A sample of Patterson et al.'s 2014 data

Question Brewery Type Used to or Does Not

Currently does or plan to df sig

Economic: Does brewery have a mission/vision statement that includes sustainability commitment?

Brewpub 7 11 2 0.169 Microbrewery 11 94 Regional 1 48 Total 18 (10.5%) 153 (89.4%)

Environmental: Collect spent grains for other purposes

Brewpub 1 66 2 0.638 Microbrewery 2 105 Regional 0 49 Total 3(1.3%) 220 (98.7%)

Environmental: Installed energy meters to measure and control consumption*

Brewpub 48 17 2 0.000 Microbrewery 44 56 Regional 11 34 Total 103 (49.0%) 107 (51.0%)

Environmental: Use alternative sources of energy*

Brewpub 43 24 2 0.002 Microbrewery 61 41 Regional 15 31 Total 119 (55.3%) 96 (44.7%)

Environmental: Recover heat (examples: from wort cooling, keg water systems)

Brewpub 17 48 2 0.140 Microbrewery 21 83 Regional 11 34 Total 49 (22.9%) 165 (77.1%)

Environmental: Installed water meters to measure and control consumption*

Brewpub 40 26 2 0.000 Microbrewery 35 62 Regional 8 40 Total 83 (39.3%) 128 (60.7%)

Environmental: Reduce water use*

Brewpub 18 47 2 0.001 Microbrewery 17 87 Regional 1 47 Total 36 (16.6%) 181 (83.4%)

Environmental: Reduce packaging materials

Brewpub 13 49 2 0.164 Microbrewery 14 89 Regional 4 44 Total 31 (14.6%) 182 (85.4%)

Environmental: Recover water

Brewpub 20 45 2 0.532 Microbrewery 24 79 Regional 1 47 Total 45 (20.8%) 171 (79.2%)

Social: Employees are trained on aspects of sustainability*

Brewpub 27 36 2 0.001 Microbrewery 29 77 Regional 5 43 Total 61 (28.1%) 156 (71.9%)

Social: Support non-profit organizations in the local community

Brewpub 2 65 2 0.218 Microbrewery 1 106 Regional 0 49 Total 3 (1.3%) 220 (98.7%)

Table 3 adapted from Patterson et al.'s 2016 study, summarizing some of their survey results and the corresponding Chi-squared statistical analysis. Some results were statistically variant between brewery type.*Chi-squared significant p< 0.01.

39

towards the brewer’s attitude and multiple-choice questions pointed towards brewery actions.

Patterson et al. received 303 responses to their survey; a map of the number of breweries contacted

and the response rate per state can be seen in Figure 1.

Patterson et al. (2017) found that though the study was initially interested in comparing

rural to urban breweries, they found that there was no statistical difference between the

sustainable practices and attitudes of each. They did find, however, that microbreweries and RCBs

were more likely to take more actions related to supporting the three pillars of sustainability than

brewpubs were. Their assumption for this difference was that brewpubs were not primarily focused

on producing beer and the brewers have a harder time separating out the water and energy use for

beer production from the rest of the brewpub’s business. The modified version of the results

summarized above that were also informative for this thesis can be seen in Table 3. This data will

become relevant in the conclusion and discussion chapters to come.

Considering how region-specific environmental impacts and resource availability can be,

it is valuable to examine sustainable actions and values on a narrower regional scale, rather than

just on a broad scale. Because so little is known about the level of sustainability in the industry in

general, this study seeks input and perspective from all brewery sizes and types (from nanobrewery

through macrobrewery, craft and non-craft).

The literature thus far covers the general environmental impacts of brewing in any setting.

Other aspects of brewing have been researched in more detail, such as the type of niche markets

breweries aim for, or how some regional brewing industries interact with their local communities

and acquire their resources. The recent study by Patterson et al. (2016) covers some of the

sustainable practices currently being implemented across the United States and some breweries

across the world, particularly for breweries located in urban settings. This study had a particularly

low response rate of roughly 11% and did not include any follow up research to further explain

their findings. They conclude by saying, “We hope future studies build upon our initial findings to

40

determine if sustainability has become further entrenched US craft breweries and if the scale of

production influences such trends.” (Patterson et al., 2016, p. 168). And this study does exactly

that, but with a narrower focus on Southern California

This study investigates how many local breweries in Southern California are

environmentally conscious and actively practicing sustainable brewing methods, what methods are

being practiced, and the brewers' motives for practicing (or not practicing) these sustainable

methods. An in-depth analysis of sustainability in the local craft beer industry can help pave the

path to making sustainable brewing the norm in Southern California.

41

Chapter 3: Methods

Research Design

This study consists of a mixed-methods approach with semi-structured interviews with key

informants and a survey of brewers in Southern California. The survey collects quantitative data

on brewery inputs and outputs, which sustainable practices are being used, and qualitative data on

why certain brewers have made decisions regarding their brewery's sustainable practices. The

interviews collected in-depth quantitative data on some aspects of the brewing process, as well as,

extensive qualitative data about sustainable practices, mindset, and motivation within their

breweries

The study area consists of Los Angeles County, Orange County, San Diego County, and

the Inland Empire, which consists of the western portions of Riverside County and Southwestern

San Bernardino Counties, as seen in Figure 2. In total, 261 breweries were asked to participate in

the survey and/or interviews. Based on Patterson et al.’s (2016) response rate, the expected response

rate was between 10-15%. The brewery contact information was largely collected off the Brewer’s

Association and California Craft Brewers Association websites. Some contacts were also gathered

off the breweries’ own websites or Facebook pages, and also in person in their places of business.

This contact information was fully removed from the data before the results were analyzed.

This study was reviewed and approved by Cal Poly Pomona’s Institutional Review Board

under protocol number IRB 18-15 prior to initiating contact with any of the study participants.

Sampling was not used. Rather, all breweries within the study area were contacted regardless of

size, age, or affiliations, and all responses remained confidential between the researcher and the

respondents.

42

Figure 2. Southern California Breweries. This map shows the 261 breweries surveyed in the study area for this investigation, consisting of Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties and parts of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties in California. Each brewery is indicated by a red marker. Data Collection

Interview Design

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with brewery owners and/or head brewers at

four distinct breweries, each representative of a brewery of a certain size and location. Each of

those four interviews consisted of one macrobrewery, one regional craft brewery, and two

microbreweries. This distribution of more microbreweries than other categories was favorable

because there are far more microbreweries in Southern California than any other brewery type

(Watson, 2017).

Each interview lasted one to two hours and used the same interview questions. The full

interview guide can be found in Appendix A. The questions consisted of six “grand tour” style

questions, which prompt the respondent to describe in detail something the, assumedly, know very

well (McCracken, 1988). The brewers were asked to share about their brewing process, their

43

resource inputs and outputs, how they focus their brand or marketing, and how well they feel they

fit and interact with their local community and the rest of the brewing industry as a whole. They

were also asked to explain the brewery’s environmental initiatives, sustainable practices, and their

motivations for their participation level. Lastly, the brewers were also asked to candidly describe

how (in what ways and to what extent) they feel Southern California breweries are starting,

participating in, and spreading sustainable brewing practices.

The interviews were conducted at the brewer’s business and all except one of the interviews

were recorded, as per their consent. The recorded interviews were transcribed and all identifying

information was removed from all transcripts and notes.

The interviews were conducted before the survey questions were finalized because of the

exploratory nature of this study. The available literature used to create the survey was primarily

based on national and international brewing trends and impacts; Southern California specific

information on the brewing industry was limited to newspaper articles and statistical data from the

California Craft Brewers Association website (2018). Some of the interview data was used to

create, eliminate, and tailor some survey questions to be more specific to Southern California and

regional trends identified in the interviews.

Survey Design

The survey was designed to explore the topics Abass Olaljire covered in detail in his 2012

article on the environmental challenges of brewing beer. Many of the question topics were based

on Patterson et al. asked in their 2016 study, however the questions for this study did not follow

the Likert scale style of questioning Patterson et al. used. Instead, the questions were mostly

multiple choice with a few short answer, based on style recommendations by researcher, Arlene

Fink (2013). The survey was intended to take 15 minutes and consisted of 30 questions spanned

over six sub categories: introduction; brewing techniques, resource use, and waste disposal;

packaging and distribution practices; brewing philosophy and branding; brewery operations

regarding environmental sustainability and; general brewery categorizing.

44

The survey was created and distributed using the online survey instrument Survey Monkey.

Once the first draft of questions was complete, four people with experience in the brewing industry

were asked to review and pilot the survey for clarity and relevance of each question. This pilot was

intended to check for the validity and reliability of the survey. No more than four people with the

proper experience could be found to pilot the survey without reducing the relatively small study

population even further. After these pilot runs, a few edits and clarifications were made to the

survey before it was officially distributed. The complete and final survey can be seen in Appendix

B.

Brewery owners were first introduced to the study in Winter 2018, contacted either via

email or in person at their place of business. After the initial point of contact, the owners were

invited to participate in the survey via email. All breweries in the study area whose contact

information could be identified were asked to participate, totaling to 261 breweries contacted. The

researcher intended for the brewery owners, head brewers, or main operators to participate in the

study. Participants were reminded of the study on a weekly basis for the next two months until they

either responded or declined to take the survey. A final thank you email was sent out after data

collection was complete.

It should be noted that one participant requested to have the researcher administer the

survey in person to avoid any confusion. This provided an opportunity to collect some qualitative

data regarding a few of the questions, namely Question 25 regarding obstacles to sustainable

brewing techniques. Also, a few participants requested additional direct links to the survey via

email. All the data was still counted and was not affected by the varying modes of participation.

The survey questions were designed to focus on practices that the literature suggests most

increase the brewing industry’s impact on the environment. As mentioned above, Olaljire (2012)

outlined many of these challenges, such as intense energy use and high waste disposal. Some

questions also inquired about steps brewers were taking (or not taking) to mitigate their negative

environmental impact, such as employee training and utilizing more efficient equipment, and why

45

they were doing so (or not doing so). The survey was intended to provide insight on the local craft

brewing industry's current level of participation in environmental sustainability, how willing

average breweries are to become more sustainable, and what obstacles brewers identify as keeping

them from participating. All identifying information was removed from the survey data before

being analyzed.

Analysis

Interview Analysis

The interview data was analyzed using a two-step multi-sourced process to search for

meaningful trends and outliers. The first step includes placing the quotes on the first tier of a “meta”

or “monster-dog” matrix, where every respondents’ answers are listed for each grand tour question

(Adler, 2015). Quantifiable trends were identified on this tier, though more qualitative data was

revealed through the next step. Common themes and meaningful qualitative trends or outliers were

identified and analyzed. Quotes that support the identified trends or themes were placed on the

second tier of the “monster-dog” matrix. Using the David and the Goliath theory of industry

development (Hockerts & Wustenhagen, 2010), this data was analyzed to determine how far the

beer industry has evolved regarding environmental sustainable brewing practices.

Survey Analysis

Of the 261 breweries asked, 86 breweries responded to the survey, making the response

rate 33%. Of the responses, 16 participants only partially completed the survey, and three disagreed

with the terms of consent (Question 1). A response was considered complete if at least 24/30

questions were answered. After accounting for these adjustments, 67 participants completed the

survey, making the complete response rate 25.7%, which is significantly higher than Patterson et

al’s 11% response rate (2016).

According to https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm, an online confidence calculator,

this response rate yields a confidence level of 10.34 for all questions with 67 respondents, meaning

46

the margin of error for questions with 67 respondents is ±10.34%. Questions with more or less than

67 respondents and their alternative confidence interval will be noted.

The survey results were analyzed using chi-squared statistical analysis. For these tests, an

acceptable p-value of .05 or less, yielding a confidence level of 95% or higher, was considered

statistically significant. However, the results for only three questions were found to be

statistically significant, which is not surprising considering the relatively high margin of error of

roughly ±10.34%. The results were also analyzed using descriptive statistical analysis.

The survey results were also cross referenced with the interview results. The survey results

supported by statistical analysis and interview data, were deemed most accurate for the Southern

California brewing industry.

47

Chapter 4: Results and Analysis

Interview Results

Each brewer interviewed was selected to represent a particular industry segment; two

brewers were from microbreweries, one was from a regional craft brewery (RCB), and the last was

from a macrobrewery. The interviews with the microbreweries and the RCB were voice recorded

and transcribed for further analysis. The macrobrewer representatives did not consent to being

recorded, so all quotes from them seen in this section were recorded in short-hand notes or simply

paraphrased and may not be accurate word for word. The interview results divide into: 1. More

straightforward quantifiable results that directly relate to some of the survey data; and 2. In-depth

qualitative results that convey consistent themes that detail the behavior and attitudes of Southern

California breweries.

Quantifiable Interview Results

The first tier of the “monster-dog” matrix unveils four common, quantifiable trends among

breweries of various sizes throughout the region: solid waste diversion, energy-intense processes,

the need for top-down implementation, and the high cost of common sustainable brewing

equipment. With the exception of the need for top-down implementation, these trends are largely

supported by similar qualitative data from the survey results presented in the next section.

Solid Waste Diversion

All four brewers discussed how they reduce their solid landfill waste stream. Like most

Southern California breweries, they give their grain to local farmers to be used for animal feed. The

microbrewers and macrobrewer also distinctly discussed recycling cardboard, cans, and glass as

another way of reducing their waste stream. The largest brewery interviewed actually only sends

spent hops, yeast, and fruit to the landfill, diverting all other waste to be recycled or repurposed.

Energy-intense Processes

The brewers also agreed that the systems for heating and cooling the beer were the most

energy-intense aspects of their process. Without counting exact kilowatts or megajoules,

48

contemporary natural gas-burning steam boilers for heating and boiling the wort and electric glycol

cooling systems seem to require the most power. Both of these pieces of equipment are vital to the

brewing process and are usually required to run at all times, no matter the size of the brewery.

Top-down Implementation

Every brewer explained how all initiatives, environmental or otherwise, are typically

implemented from the top down. At the microbreweries and RCB, all sustainability initiatives are

simply enforced by management, while the macrobrewery said upper-management incentivizes

sustainability in addition to enforcing sustainable protocols. Nearly every participant distinctly

mentioned standard operating procedures relating to sustainability, as well as employee safety and

equipment operation.

“Sustainability is Expensive”

In terms of future goals, all four brewers expressed interest in implementing more

environmentally sustainable systems. All four brewers spoke about wanting to install carbon

capture equipment in the future to reuse the carbon dioxide produced by fermentation. One

microbrewery and the macrobrewery were also investigating installing solar panels on their

building. According to all four brewers, the capital cost is the major hurdle to installing carbon

capture equipment, solar panels, or other similar equipment. Only breweries that can afford the

equipment are implementing it, and are therefore the only breweries capable of increasing the scope

of their environmental responsibility.

Qualitative Interview Data

The second tier of the “monster-dog” matrix revealed five meaningful overarching themes

between the four breweries. The main reasons for choosing to be sustainable are very similar among

the respondents, as are the types of obstacles they face in implementing additional sustainable

practices. The brewers also all feel a strong connection to their local community as well as with the

greater brewing industry. Lastly, all the brewers acknowledge that the local brewing industry still

49

needs to improve its environmental practices, but they have varying opinions on exactly how

sustainable the local industry is currently.

Theme 1 – All brewing is pretty standard

All four brewers reported following the same basic brewing techniques, which are

described as being efficient, straightforward, and generally good for business. As one brewer

proclaimed, “Brewing is brewing, whether you’re home-brewing or brewing the large scale.” Some

standard, commonsense brewing techniques have the added bonus of being sustainable, too! When

referencing why they give their spent grain to local farmers, one microbrewer explained, “It keeps

it out of landfills, we don’t have to pay to dump it, so you know we just make sure that it’s good

for both of us.” The RCB brewer also mentioned reusing water and chemicals multiple times for

cleaning, which saves them money on water and cleaning chemical costs. These practices are

popular because they are economical, not because they are sustainable, however the embedded

sustainability is not lost on these brewers.

Some of the brewers feel that purposefully practicing environmental brewing techniques

can add long-term economic stability to their brewery. One microbrewer discussed how

sustainability benefits them economically, adding, “Yeah, absolutely in the long run, you know you

have to think above and beyond your nose, we were thinking years in advance.” The other

microbrewer also referred to sustainability as a means of survivability, commenting:

“I think it’s a long game thing. I mean we really see ourselves as a legacy brand into the future and I think how we position ourselves now will only help benefit us into the future because there’s going to be a sizable shakedown in this industry. We want to survive it in every way.”

Brewing practices were not the only thing all four brewers had in common. There were

many similarities between all four participants, despite their difference in size, as will be discussed

below.

50

Theme 2 Brewers Truly Want to be Sustainable

In addition to the economic advantages, the brewers reported making environmental

decisions in their breweries because “it’s the right thing to do” and generally makes them feel good.

Some of the brewers reported that they went above what was required of them in some aspects of

their brewery in order to be more sustainable.

For these brewers, sustainability is intuitive to commonsense brewing; they all integrate

some degree of environmental awareness into their businesses’ culture and brewing philosophy.

For example, the regional craft brewer stated:

“Well we always try to do things the most efficient and the most environmentally friendly here. One because it’s the most economical and two because it’s the right thing to do and you know another motto that we have is take care of ourselves, our environment, and our community. And environment is in there. And that’s part of what we as a company believe in.” And not only is sustainability good for business, but brewers are also motivated to practice

sustainable brewing techniques because it makes them feel good. It can be challenging to always

be environmentally responsible in such a wasteful and resource-intense industry. One respondent

lamented:

“The one time I had to dump [the grain] in the trash can and it’s like mm this is not what I want to be doing. I think I need to make sure we get it to somewhere where it’s going to be used because it’s a waste to me, because it can be used for something and just to waste it is just not right.”

A few of them feel so compelled, in fact, that they actually exceed many local environmental

regulations (or do everything they can within local regulations whenever economically viable) in

order to achieve a level of environmental protection they deem acceptable. A brewer whose

business has been growing steadily reported:

“We’re getting to the size where we’re going to be mandated for like wastewater treatment. We have decided to go ahead and do it beforehand before we’re mandated because it’s better for - better for the environment. Better for our business.”

51

Even microbreweries can play a role in raising the standards for brewing sustainably. One

microbrewery demonstrated so accordingly:

“Our mission is to make the best beer possible the most efficient way while protecting the environment while protecting the future. And with that comes making premium beer and premium equipment, a lot of expenditures that we went over and above and beyond to make sure the county and the city was we were above code on that. And we taught the county quite a few things.” Another brewery even insisted on having a cogeneration plant installed to supplement its

energy supply, exceeding local air quality requirements and circumventing restrictions against

installing large solar arrays. When they are funded well enough, some breweries can essentially

“buy” their way to being sustainable by purchasing large, costly equipment designed to reduce their

environmental impact.

Theme 3 Sustainable Brewing is Costly and Highly Regulated

Brewers do face a lot of challenges to being more sustainable, even if environmental

sustainability is a high priority in their company. These brewers believe their sustainability

measures are restricted most by financial and bureaucratic forces, rather than ambivalence.

All four brewers stressed additional sustainability measures were not economically viable

or cost-effective for them at this time. When asked about what obstacles they face, one brewer said,

“The equipment. The capital cost of the equipment, I suppose that would pay itself back in 10-20

years or something, but I don't have that kind of ability.” Even the brewers that can afford such

equipment are not interested in investments’ pay back periods of over three years. Installing such

large equipment is simply not financially sustainable for most breweries.

The size of the equipment can also pose a problem, which may require a costly expansion

in addition to purchasing the equipment. The RCB brewer, who has already nearly filled out their

current facility noted, “I think probably the only thing that’s left is a CO2 recovery system, which

is enormously expensive and takes up a lot of room and it wouldn’t be cost-effective at this point

for us to do that.” The direct and associated costs of installing “sustainable” equipment is, by far,

the most commonly cited obstacle to making breweries more environmentally friendly.

52

Brewers also face additional challenges to sustainability from strict governmental

regulations and landlord restrictions that directly and indirectly block some environmental

practices. The macrobrewery blamed their utility provider for preventing them from installing solar

panels or increasing the capacity of their cogeneration plant. One of the microbreweries also

explained they have to wait until they own more of the entire building they are in before they can

install solar panels on the roof, citing this was because of their utility company’s and landlord’s

regulations.

Theme 4 Community is Essential to Modern Brewing

Local breweries foster a strong sense of community in their tasting rooms, their

neighborhoods, and the brewing industry as a whole. Being well connected to their community is

a key aspect of their companies’ longevity and success, as well as a proven means of sharing

valuable resources.

Breweries are typically active members of their community and take pride in supporting

their local areas as best they can. All four brewers reported being involved with more charities than

they could list by memory. One brewer specified, “The biggest portions of the community that we

like to support are the ones that really need it.” And these brewers happily expect nothing in return,

as one mircrobrewer divulged, “We don’t rest on this idea of community service and charity. I

don’t like to utilize it as any sort of marketing tactic. I think that that makes everything feel

somewhat contrived.”

Southern California breweries generally offer a welcoming, family-friendly atmosphere in

order to serve this sense of community from within the walls of their taprooms. A microbrewer

pointed out:

“You'll notice we don't have any TVs and radios or anything else like that. We have great long tables. We want people to converse with each other. We want people to interact with people. We want reality as opposed to virtual reality.”

53

Like many other breweries in the region, these breweries include dedicated spaces for

children and/or dogs, creating the family-friendly ambience that has come to be expected among

many craft beer drinkers.

Along with their local community and customers, brewers are well connected with other

members of the brewing industry. They find support and resources in the commonalities they share,

and unite behind advocating for their industry’s survival and prosperity.

For instance, many of the participants mentioned ongoing collaborative projects, which

allow them to share brewing ideas and recipes with other local breweries. Many of them also

actively participate in their local brewer’s guilds. The many benefits, as the regional craft brewer

mentioned, include:

“Communication with other breweries, connection with everybody in town that’s in the same business that we are so we can tackle issues that come up whether it’s hop issues, grain issues, public relation issues, acquisition issues - so we have a voice as a brewing community.”

For these brewers, a strong sense of community stretches from the customers out to other

breweries. Some form of the word “community”, however each interviewee may define it, plays a

prominent role in how they operate their business.

Theme 5 Need for Improvement, but There is Hope

All the brewers agree that environmental sustainability is an issue every brewer faces and

the entire would benefit from establishing more universal environmental brewing standards.

However, there is some disagreement on the degree of environmental sustainability currently

present in the local industry.

The two largest breweries feel the industry is already on the right track and that most

brewers understand the importance of implementing sustainability in their breweries. The RCB

brewer explained his perspective:

“I see most of the breweries that I either know guys that work with or have been affiliated all do some sort of sustainability, whether it’s giving their grain to a farmer, having a hot water recovery, energy recovery, or chemical

54

recovery system. I would say 90% of all breweries are doing some sort of thing that’s going to help them stay sustainable.”

The two smaller microbreweries feel much differently about environmental awareness; to

them, the industry still needs a lot of improvement before it can be declared environmentally

sustainable. These brewers were not shy with expressing their opinion, either. For instance, one

brewer criticized the current industry sustainability standards as being:

“Still very archaic. That's my opinion….for the industry in general, you know, there's a lot of practices that other breweries have that are, I don't want to say disrespectful of the environment, but not respectful of the environment. No thought is put into protecting the environment.” The other microbrewer added, “I don’t think people are aware of how much they’re using

and I see a huge need for awareness,” offering a generic justification for the lack of sustainability

throughout the industry.

While it’s clear that most Southern California brewers strive for some measure of

sustainability, it’s equally apparent that financial limitations will provide the most significant

challenge to the industry’s efforts.

Overall, the individual interview results were largely supported by the other interviews.

Additionally, all of interview results were largely supported and reflected by the survey results, as

explained in the next section.

55

Survey Results

As stated in Chapter 3, there were 67 complete survey responses out of 261 breweries

contacted, giving the survey results with 67 responses a confidence interval of about 10.34 (or a

margin of error of ±10.34%). A few questions had fewer than 67 results and their margin of error

are noted below. The results were tested for statistical significance using a chi-squared test for the

responses to the questions most related to Olaljire’s (2012) and Patterson et al.’s (2016) articles,

dividing up the responses by brewery size (as reported in Question 2). Only three chi-squared tests

resulted in a statistically significant p-value ≤0.05, which are discussed further below. All other

chi-squared tests indicate no significant difference in sustainable actions or attitudes between

breweries of different sizes. In all other words, a brewery’s environmental practices and attitudes

do not seem to be determined or influenced by their size.

The chi-squared tests that did generate a significant p-value were with Questions 3, 7 and

12. Question 3, asking the brewery sales, resulted in a p-value of .0009. This test indicates there is

a high level of confidence that most of the smaller nanobreweries (fewer than 2,500 barrels)

primarily sell their beer in-house (75% in-house). Questions 7 and 12 were aimed towards learning

about brewery waste disposal methods, with resulting p-values of 0.0002 and 0.012 respectively.

The significance of the results for questions 7 and 12 are discussed in a following section in this

chapter. All significant p-values are marked with a * symbol in the data tables.

The results can be analyzed through descriptive and basic statistical analysis, while keeping

in mind the calculated confidence level. The survey data analysis is divided into categories largely

related to organization of the literature review: Industry Segments and Location; General Resource

Use; Water Use; Energy Use; Waste; Community Outreach and Interaction; and Sustainability in

the Industry in General. Again, each question after the first was optional, so the number of

responses vary by question. The data in each section is summarized in a table that indicates the

question’s results, margin of error, and the statistical significance.

56

stluseR st

enm

eg S

rytsudn I.4e lba

T

p-va

lue

n/a

0.00

09*

1.44

15,0

01-

3,00

,000

4 4 3 3

7,50

1-15

,000

2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2

2,50

1-7,

500

7 7 3 3 1 7 1 1 5 1 8

0-

2,50

0

54

54

1 6 19

28

54

1 3 23

27

54

Size

:

Con

fiden

ce

IND

UST

RY

SE

GM

EN

TS

±10.

34%

±10.

34%

±10.

34%

%

80.6

0%

10.4

5%

2.99

%

5.97

%

0.00

%

0.00

%

10.4

5%

15.9

4%

31.8

8%

40.5

8%

5.97

%

1.49

%

7.46

%

43.2

8%

41.7

9%

N R

espo

nses

54

7 2 4 0 0 67

7 10

22

28

67

4 1 5 29

28

67

Ans

wer

0-2,

500

2,50

1-7,

500

7,50

1-15

,000

15

,001

-3,0

0,00

0

3,00

0,00

1-6,

000,

000

Ove

r 6,0

00,0

01

Gra

nd T

otal

0-

25%

26-5

0%

51-7

5%

Ove

r 76%

G

rand

Tot

al

Bef

ore

2000

20

00-2

004

2005

-200

9 20

10-2

014

Sinc

e 20

15

Gra

nd T

otal

Que

stio

n

Q2.

How

man

y ba

rrel

s of

beer

doe

s you

r br

ewer

y pr

oduc

e ea

ch y

ear?

Q3.

Wha

t per

cent

age

of

your

sale

s are

sold

in

hous

e (i.

e. in

you

r ta

p ro

om o

r br

ew p

ub)?

Q28

. Whe

n w

as y

our

brew

ery

foun

ded?

al t

c ucitsi odatt p

r s riee hh t

nd t o

a 75%

or t

rr asee l o

f at

ln legi sar hc

mi

he , wh

t s ,s areens

ypo gh

t ise e

r tl asa l

ot ehng

t tn id iat

ound

ecnd

ii f se eg ir a ed wn e

a brs,tnm

ed

nano

g e s

e nt

ery seew pr

re e rb s o nt t pa d ie cita tl

s re t p

artl os

su m r

e ,ay at

e drv s

hisu t oe thngs t

dizei orrm

ma c

cA . esu . 4 anc

ec ie f ous

abl

gni

T is n h

i

57

Industry Segments and Location Results:

As indicated in Table 4, most (80.60%, ± 10.34%) of the participating breweries were

nanobreweries that produce fewer than 2,500 barrels of beer a year, and all but four brewers (out

of 67 respondents) indicated they were a microbrewery that produced fewer than 15,000 barrels a

year. No macrobreweries producing more than 6,000,000 barrels a year participated in the survey,

one macrobrewery only participated in the interview as indicated above. The majority of the

participants (41.79%, ±10.34%) primarily sold their product in their taprooms. As mentioned

above, Question 3’s (asking about where the brewery makes most of its sales) results were

statistically significant, meaning it is extremely likely that most small breweries in Southern

California are less likely to sell much of their product outside of their taproom.

The brewers were asked to indicate the year their company was established and the

responses were categorized by “Before 2000”, “2000-2004”, “2005-2009”, “2010-2014”, and

“Since 2015”. A majority of breweries are relatively young; 85.07% (± 10.34%) were established

since 2010 (combining responses from “2010-2014” and “Since 2015”), more specifically, the

largest number of breweries from this study were founded in 2014.

Brewers at this small size and young age are also less likely to prioritize sustainability over

increasing production and distribution, as they are likely trying to expand their business

(McWilliams, 2014). This means sustainability will need to be highlighted as a way to increase

production and/or distribution by making the brewing process more efficient and less costly. This

way, the brewers are not asked to change their set of priorities, but rather are shown how sustainable

practices are viable options for achieving those goals. Again, these environmentally friendly

options are less focused on installing new, costly equipment, but rather altering the brewing process

and monitoring inputs and wastes (Olaljire, 2012).

58

Resource Use:

Figure 3 illustrates how 67 respondents answered Question 4, which states, “Please rank

the following inputs according to cost per average brew (1 most expensive, 6 cheapest).” On

average, grain was ranked most expensive nearly 40% (±10.34%) of the time, followed by hops

roughly at 33% of the time. Natural gas was ranked cheapest nearly 40% of the time, followed by

water at 25.4% of the time. In other words, roughly 40% of participants ranked grain as the most

expensive input and 40% ranked natural gas as the cheapest input per batch of beer. Figure 3 can

easily be interpreted by looking at the shading of the graph bars; the darker the bar, the more

expensive that item was generally ranked and, conversely, the lighter the bar, the less expensive it

was ranked.

Figure 3 Question 4 Results. This figure represents the results from Question 4, which asked the brewers to rank resource costs from most to least expensive. The darker the bar, the more expensive that resource is generally considered, such as with Grain and Hops.

39.4

%33

.3%

15.4

%

3.0%

4.5%

4.6%

33.3

%39

.4%

13.9

%

10.6

%3.

0%1.

5%

10.6

%15

.2%

26.2

%

25.8

%

17.9

%

4.6%

7.6%

7.6%

15.4

%

24.2

%

23.9

%

21.2

%

3.0%

4.6%

21.5

%

16.7

%

25.4

%

28.8

%

6.1%

0.0%

7.7%

19.7

%25

.4%

39.4

%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Grain

Hops

Electricity

Yeast

Water

Natural Gas

1 (Expensive) 2 3 4 5 6 (Cheap)

59

p- valu

e 0.

92

0.53

0.95

0.71

0.83

0.99

15,0

01-

3,00

,000

2 5 7 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 4 3 3

7,50

1-15

,000

1 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2

2,50

1-7,

500

1 1 2 1 1 4 1 7 1 3 2 1 7 3 1 1 1 1 7 2 3 2 7 7 7

0-

2,50

0 15

39

54

9 27

11

5 1 53

13

25

12

4 54

28

4 2 15

1 1 1 52

28

20

6 54

52

2 54

Size

: C

onfid

ence

W

AT

ER

±1

0.34

%

±10.

66%

±10.

34%

EN

ER

GY

±1

0.77

%

±10.

34%

±10.

55%

%

28.3

6%

71.6

4%

15.6

3%

48.4

4%

23.4

4%

9.38

%

3.13

%

22.3

9%

47.7

6%

20.9

0%

8.96

%

49.2

3%

7.69

%

6.15

%

26.1

5%

1.54

%

3.08

%

1.54

%

1.54

%

49.2

5%

37.3

1%

13.4

3%

96.9

2%

3.08

%

N R

espo

nses

19

48

67

10

31

15

6 2 64

15

32

14

6 67

32

5 4 17

1 2 1 1 63

33

25

9 67

63

2 65

Ans

wer

No

Yes

(ple

ase

spec

ify)

Gra

nd T

otal

1:

1 to

3:1

4:

1 to

5:1

6:

1 to

8:1

9:

1 to

12:1

M

ore

than

12:

1 G

rand

tota

l N

o Y

es, b

oth

Yes

, we

met

er o

ur e

nerg

y us

e Y

es, w

e m

eter

our

wat

er u

se

Gra

nd T

otal

Boi

l B

oth

Boi

l/Gly

col C

hille

r C

rash

ing

Gly

col C

hille

r H

uman

Lab

or

Keg

Was

hing

Ti

me

Was

tew

ater

G

rand

Tot

al

No

Not

Sur

e Y

es (p

leas

e sp

ecify

)

Gra

nd T

otal

N

o Y

es

Gra

nd T

otal

Que

stio

n

Q5.

Do

you

reus

e w

ater

dur

ing

any

part

of

you

r br

ewin

g pr

oces

s? If

"Y

es",

pl

ease

spec

ify.

Q6.

Wha

t wou

ld y

ou e

stim

ate

is y

our

ratio

of w

ater

in to

bee

r pr

oduc

ed

Q11

. Do

you

met

er y

our

wat

er a

nd/o

r en

ergy

use

?

Q8.

Wha

t is

the

mos

t ene

rgy

inte

nse

step

in

you

r br

ewin

g pr

oces

s? (O

pen

resp

onse

ent

ries

pla

ced

into

cat

egor

ies)

Q10

. Doe

s any

of y

our

elec

tric

ity c

ome

from

ren

ewab

le so

urce

s? If

yes

, ple

ase

spec

ify.

Q15

. Do

you

past

euri

ze y

our

beer

?

.e o nc

td a eci usf

ni s ig yi g s ral neci e t tsi osatts e d

mh an

nd t ec

a odu

orr prr y .e e eof h t u

srn r egi e

ar be

wat

m ng

e ih on o

frlt e , al tese gy m

ons r

p ve porte

s eer or rr

al frot e w

e

t ng w

at

e felit of hiac w

ons

ndi ,eli al u

s

,

nes han

6 g y

ons gr

it e

que

r t is es he e t

us le ng

gy us ir er y te e en he t m nd

ttora p po

r

e ere r rt s s

wa

pant re

w

om

eicir t br

f t stul p

ar ost ms os ,e or m s le

hat Ah .t rs t e e s ez ei b

arta l

ci oomum nd c i ors a /

5 e s dat

and

abl

athiT T he

stlues

e R

s Uy

erg

nE dn

er a

taW .5

e lbaT

60

Water Use:

Questions 5, 6, and 11 were aimed at gauging not only how much water Southern California

breweries are using, but also how efficiently it was being used. Questions 11 also related to energy

use and will be discussed a second time further in this chapter. A summary of these results is

presented in Table 5.

According to Question 5’s results, a majority (71%, ±10.34%) of local breweries do in fact

reuse water at some point, while only 29% do not reuse water whatsoever. The respondents that

answered “yes” were also asked to specify how water gets reused in their brewery. These open

responses were then categorized and totaled. Of these responses: 17 brewers reuse water as a

brewing ingredient, typically from the cold liquor tank (CLT) through the heat exchanger to cool

the hot wort and into the hot liquor tank (HLT) to be used in the next batch; 14 reuse water during

the brewing process not as an ingredient, such as for cleaning; 6 reuse water both as an ingredient

and throughout some other part of the process; 1 reuses water for irrigation only; and 11 did not

specify their response. These categorized results of Question 5 are illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 4 Question 5 Results; Water reuse. This figure represents the results from Question 5, if and in what ways respondents reuse water in their brewery. The larger bar indicates the brewers that do reuse water categorizes the different ways in which they do so.

Question 6 asked brewers to estimate how many gallons of water they use per gallon of

beer produced, which is typically referred in ratio format such as 7:1. Nearly half of the brewers

17

14

61

11

19

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Yes No

Q5 Do you reuse water during any part of your brewing process? If "Yes", please specify.

Do not reuse water

Not Specified

For irrigation

As an ingredient and foradditiona process steps

For other parts of the process

As an ingredient (CLT to HLT)

61

(49%) reported using 4 to 5 gallons of water per gallon of beer produced, followed by 6 to 8 gallons

(23%) and then 1 to 3 gallons (15%), all with a margin of error of ± 10.66%. A majority of

respondents (64%, or 49% at 4-5:1 and 15% at 1-3:1) self-reported being more water efficient than

the average American brewery, where the water to beer ratio is 7 gallons of water or more to one

gallon of beer, or 7:1 (Olaljire, 2012). About a quarter of respondents (23%) reported being about

as water efficient as average. The results of Question 6 are summarized in Figure 5.

Questions 5, 6, and 11 were intended to determine whether a brewery is focusing on its water

consumption and/or water efficiency at all; reusing water and metering water use are strong

indicators of responsible water use. The way respondents answered Question 6 regarding water

consumption does not positively correlate with their responses to neither Questions 5 about water

reuse nor Question 11 about metering water and energy use. Question 11’s results are summarized

in Figure 6 below for comparison. A basic cross-tabulation analysis shows that brewers who report

using less water than average in Question 6 are not all the same brewers that report reusing water

in their brewing process in Question 5. This cross-tabulation was tested using a chi-squared test

Figure 5 Question 6 Results; Water use per batch. This figure illustrates the results from Question64, which asked the brewers to estimate how many gallons of water is used per gallon of beer they produce. According to A. Olaljire (2012), most average breweries across the country use 7 gallons of water for every gallon of beer produced).

10

32

15

6

2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1:1 to 3:1 4:1 to 5:1 6:1 to 8:1 9:1 to 12:1 More than 12:1

Q6 What would you estimate is your ratio of water in to beer produced (ex. 5:1 or 5 gallons of water in:1 gallon of beer produced)

62

Figure 6 Question 11 Results; Water and Energy Metering. This graph shows the results for Question 11, asking respondents wheher they meter energy and/or water use. A vast majority mark that they measure both energy and water. and the resulting p-value of .13. This resulting p-value implies further research would be useful to

explore the relationship between water consumption and water reuse practices in Southern

California breweries.

Energy Use:

Questions 8-11 and Question 15 were related to energy use in the brewing process. As

discussed above, Question 11 also asked about water use.

Question 11 indicated that nearly 70% (±10.34%) of the respondents meter their energy

(48.5% meter both energy and water and 20.6 % just meter energy), indicating how well those

brewers understand the energy demand of their brewing process. Electricity was also noted on

average the third most expensive input to the brewing process.

There is a significant difference between electrical and thermal energy, both inside and

outside a brewery. Electrical energy is generally used to run a system’s motor or create light while

thermal energy is often used to create or transfer heat. However, Question 8 asked brewers to

consider which of their process steps they considered most energy intense overall and their open-

ended responses were recorded as a comment form in the survey. Those responses were coded by

33

6

14 15

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Yes, both Yes, we meter our wateruse

Yes, we meter our energyuse

No

Q11 Do you meter your water and/or energy use?

63

Figure 7. Question 8 Results; Most energy intense brewing processes. This figure represents the results from Question 8, which asked brewers to comment on the most energy intense part of their brewing process. These responses were coded according to a simple rubric, and it seems most brewers believe their water heating and wort boiling are the most energy intense elements of their brewery.

the following common trends: process heating (generally more thermal energy intense), such as

boiling water; process chilling (generally more electrical energy intense), such as using a glycol

refrigerant system to keep fermenting tanks or product cool; crashing, or cooling the wort after the

boil; both process heating and chilling equally; keg washing; and miscellaneous. Process heating

was referenced the most at 51% (±10.77%) of the time, followed by process chilling at 27%

(±10.77%) of the time. The total coded responses are summarized in Figure 7.

Question 15 asked about pasteurization, the results of which were used as an indication of

how extensively they use (thermal) energy. Only 3%, (±10.55%) of participants indicated they

pasteurize their beer. Additionally, few brewers (13%, ±10.34%) indicated their electricity comes

from renewable sources for Question 10. Of the 9 that indicated they have some sort of renewable

energy, 6 indicated they have PV solar panels on their building and 3 indicated their electricity

provider generates some or all of their energy from renewable sources.

51%

3%

27%

6%

8%5%

Q8. What is the most energy intense step in your brewing process?

Process Heating

Keg Washing

Process Chilling

Crashing

Process Heating and Cooling

Other

64

P- Val

ue

0.00

02*

0.01

2

0.98

0.9

0.53

3,00

,000

4 4 1 3 4 1 3 4 4 4 3 3

15,0

00

1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2

7,50

0 6 1 7 1 2 4 7 7 7 6 1 7 4 1 1 1 7

2,50 25

25

4 54

1 2 8 43

54

2 1 3 2 46

54

40

5 9 54

16

20

9 9 54

C

onfid

enc

W

aste

±1

0.34

%

±10.

34%

±10.

34%

±10.

34%

±10.

45%

%

38.8

1%

47.7

6%

13.4

3%

2.99

%

4.48

%

22.3

9%

70.1

5%

2.99

%

1.49

%

4.48

%

4.48

%

86.5

7%

76.1

2%

7.46

%

16.4

2%

37.8

8%

31.8

2%

15.1

5%

15.1

5%

N R

espo

nses

26

32

9 67

2 3 15

47

67

2 1 3 3 58

67

51

5 11

67

25

21

10

10

66

Ans

wer

No

Whe

n ne

cess

ary

Yes

, alw

ays

Gra

nd T

otal

D

epth

filtr

atio

n D

iato

mac

eous

ear

th fi

lter

Oth

er (p

leas

e sp

ecify

) W

e le

t par

ticle

s nat

ural

ly se

ttle

out o

r do

not f

ilter

G

rand

Tot

al

Som

e is

give

n to

a fa

rmer

or

othe

r ent

ity fo

r sec

ond

use

(ani

mal

feed

, dog

bisc

uits,

br

ead)

and

Som

e is

thro

wn

out

Som

e is

give

n to

a fa

rmer

or

othe

r ent

ity fo

r sec

ond

use

(ani

mal

feed

, dog

bisc

uits,

br

ead)

and

Som

e is

com

poste

d So

me

or a

ll ge

ts th

row

n ou

t So

me

or a

ll is

com

poste

d So

me

or a

ll is

give

n to

a fa

rmer

G

rand

Tot

al

Mul

tiple

N

one

of T

hese

O

ne

Gra

nd T

otal

K

egge

d, B

ottle

d, a

nd C

anne

d K

egge

d K

egge

d an

d B

ottle

d K

egge

d an

d C

anne

d G

rand

Tot

al

Que

stio

n

Q7.

Do

you

trea

t you

r w

aste

wat

er?

Q12

. How

do

you

filte

r yo

ur b

eer?

Q13

. How

do

you

disp

ose

of y

our

spen

t gra

in?

Mar

k al

l tha

t app

ly.

Q14

. Do

you

recy

cle

glas

s, ca

rdbo

ard,

can

s, an

d/or

pa

per?

Mar

k al

l tha

t app

ly

Q16

. In

wha

t way

s is y

our

finis

hed

beer

pac

kage

d?

(Mar

k al

l tha

t app

ly)

15,0

01-

7,50

1-2,

501-

0-Si

ze

s ytul arss se

r eces a

s ne

hetng

y o

nlan

ire e

m wat .

05, ee t

.w

0 was

tw

as lr lo iile he b tts an

dfa le e ru r ila t s hev nt t-

p eeepo

nd uc

nd 1

2 ha

v de rs ye l r ehe

vitt ca a

7 of sf r

ons

hal ewei yt ls b

rarue ee sQ N e

* h.s t. rst e ofl w

su

te os

re br my al ,ye c lvur o l

s t onal

os i

al tm di

pos f d

o As sdi e cr i on.

itew

at ac atnt

pr ee mnt

was

te di

m e

nd sate al

ar t urret e n

at

was wat

ediol was

t ough

hr

s thehe

ret t t bes n re e iz si eear hpr t

m reum

e r tly ils fal 6

tci ose t

abl si

atT ts an

d m

stlues

Rsdohl M

etasopsi

e D

tsaW

6.

elab

T

65

Waste:

Many brewers divert a lot of their solid waste away from landfills by finding ways to

repurpose or recycle waste materials. However, other waste, such as wastewater, is not as carefully

disposed of. Questions 7, 12-14, and 16 asked brewers about their waste disposal methods. The

results of these questions and their statistical significance are summarized in Table 6. Note that

Questions 7 and 12 are statistically significant, with p-values below 0.05.

Only three brewers (or 4.5%, ±10.34%) reported for Question 13 that they dispose of their

spent grain by throwing it all out. Two others (or 3.0%, ±10.34%) indicated that they throw some

of it out, but also give some of it away to be repurposed. All of these brewers that indicated they

throw some or all of their spent grain out were nanobreweries that produce fewer than 2,500 barrels

of beer a year, meaning their volume of spent grain is also considerably less than larger breweries.

It is safe to assume that at least 95% of all spent grain from Southern California breweries is

diverted away from landfills.

The respondents seemed nearly as inclined to recycle conventional materials such as glass,

cardboard, cans, and paper according to Question 14. Respondents were asked to mark all items

they recycle. More than half of the respondents (54%) indicated they recycle all four types of

materials and a vast majority (77%) marked they recycle at least two of these items (all data had a

margin of error of ± 10.34%). Cardboard was by far the most commonly recycled material (81% of

respondents marked it). Paper was the least commonly recycled material (64% respondents marked

it), though it is recycled by more than half of the respondents. Figure 8 illustrates a summary of

how many respondents recycle multiple materials, only one material, or no materials.

The question about packaging materials (Question 16) was intended to determine whether

brewers choose more sustainable packaging that generates less potential landfill waste. However,

no significant difference was found between respondents. All breweries choose to keg at least some

of their beer. Whether they can or bottle their remaining product seemed more reliant on personal

66

preference, for 39% bottle and can their remaining product, while the rest are evenly split with 14%

canning and 14% (±10.45%) bottling.

Figure 8. Question 14 Results; Recycled materials. This figure demonstrates the results for Question 14 about recyled waste materials. Brewers that recycle often recyle more that one item, such as cardboard and glass.

Modern brewers have typically used diatomaceous earth filters, which generate

considerable amounts of hazardous waste. Question 12 asked brewers to specify how they filter

their beer in order to determine how many brewers are producing hazardous waste or not, as well

as to gauge which alternatives to the conventional, environmentally harmful filtration systems

brewers are currently utilizing. The chi-squared analysis of Question 12 indicated (with a p-value

of 0.012) that noanobreweries are most likely to filter their beer by letting particles naturally settle

out. In fact, this less energy intense practice was most common overall (70%, ±10.34%). Few

(roughly 6%, ±10.34%) of respondents use a diatomaceous earth filter;

More than one-third of respondents (38%, ±10.34%) indicated in Question 7 they do not

treat their wastewater. The chi-squared analysis strongly indicates (with a p-value of 0.0002) that

breweries that brew more than 2,500 bbl annually are more likely to treat their wastewater when

necessary. Nanobreweries (brewing ≤ 2,500 bbl annually) indicated they are most likely to not treat

their wastewater. Question 7’s results are summarized in Figure 9.

77%

16%

7%

Q14 Do you recycle glass, cardboard, cans, and/or paper? Mark all that apply

Multiple

One

None

67

Figure 9. Question 7; wastewater treatment. This figure presents the results for Question 7, indicating the alarmingly high percent of brewers that report they do not treat their wastewater.

Community Outreach and Interaction:

The craft beer movement was largely rooted in growing and connecting smaller,

independently owned breweries in the local communities (O’Briean, 2006). Questions 18-21 and

30 were not intended to test whether respondents felt connected to their community, but rather to

ask in what ways, to what extent, and to which communities are they connected. The summary of

these results can be seen in Table 6. Question 19 was an open-ended question and the responses

were coded before being analyzed; this qualitative data was not included in a table but rather

analyzed below.

15%

47%

38%

Q7 Do you treat your wastewater?

Yes, always

When necessary

No

68

euva

l 97 99

- 86 96

58

p 0. 0. 1 0. 0. 0.

-01 ,0

00

0 0015

,3, 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 2 1 3 3 3 3 3

501- 00

0 7, 15

, 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2

501-

500

2, 7, 5 2 7 6 6 1 6 7 6 1 7 2 5 7 4 2 1 7

500

- 2, 23 12 54 49 52 42 54 40 0 4 54 8 8 3 3 4 4 1 1 2 2 8 1 22 31 54 29 24 1 54

e: ziS

enc

dei 45%

55%

45%

55

%

45

%

45

%

nfo 10.

10.

10.

10.

10.

10.

C ± ± ± ± ± ±

12%

00

%

12%

21

%

16%

79%

13%

43

%

88

%

61%

06

%

91%

55%

84

%

58

%

58%

52%

52

%03

%

48%

97

%

52%

03%

% 12.

50.

12.

21.

4. 4. 95.

7. 7. 78.

1. 1. 3. 73.

4. 5. 13.

1. 37.

60.

56.

40.

3.

sseno

spN

Re

33 14

66

59

62

52

66

49 65

8 8 3 3 5 5 1 1 2 3 4 9 1 25 40 66 37 27 2 66

n d

iol s rs y i tor ) ce

be y a y y y f on

e

o f i d eda a a y ts d a t

our w w w a ec n an m te

w ie e c ep tly us s es a a a es r ed

s er s s n ts of s a d se e e s t

se

e e e n l l s l l l r l w r l te s l i i

t o 15

mi

o 30

mel a ng

wr i ll a a ve a el in an y ye

o m ea

s sg s hi y no

t

sp or 0

3 o 5

mi ot ot a at ot a in

u a l l n ne ot yt t c s ot er a

h ll

nd T

nd T hp

itio

nd T t e yc ( lity t ot

que ty r

N u o

N R

e r n i

er e te d ie ve n

IO os

up t

up t

up t a a nd

T

s a r he

No h s i a m

n e

Un a

t is

T

Ye av

M

r r t uTa Tr

a r s r

RA

CT O G G O Q V G A I I W G

E A

ND

INT R

Y or

?o f T e t te y h d h r t

IND

US

e t an es tt y i wut d ? or eb

AC

Ha rori deh b mp

bt a E rs w i em m i ut H,r

dyR

E er eewU

T

r ber

O r b uouY y

UN

IT o y y am w an or tsMiot Fs .M

eh

ueC

O 8 t1 r

Q Q af

t a w n ut bl bl Ie y olt a nd

m r nd t

a ao o e r bs oba

oba

r

N r rS V G A P P G

sg e

n e rii y

mak

eh t u o t w ic n re ri d y ?

n e i eb ctl t e ul ur i

you b e

l oa ta uhn w fi t d .. e ae w n .%

ha

ar ts o

u h er n t

s sd t 50e re es a - n i

t 0i w os o d 2 ie r r m u pte t eit y s h by

on er t i n e t n so ih

ow w ce

ic te u pt re

Hr ? b e R ed um de

26. ir ur . r7u n2 ns nso utQ a oy Q of c c c

T

mos ? yosry r ie t

w h i s

re y ic

e

IN e s ib r Y tn

you T eI xt

IL en B at i ?

ave A h

o h AIN o

w ebl

na T iT t

US 22

. a

you t

usS Q s

hi b ti

wr alu n uo i q y y ates tun

i ho

W D m.

21.0 m2

Q oc Q

,se an

ons ,osp l

s Ae .r s l ea itot i

t unng

mi

at omccdi

aln c i o,

ns lrio eit hs q

ue ts

d bodi

eeta ml ee r yryr et

ndus we

br

i r he

iehn

t t l i ey eti fl sbi nt

naon

de.se

ai irt e

us p wsan

d s ee rt br

os ri n, m

eh

o ,i et n t

vac io yb tre a il

nt i ted

ica in

abi

nd a

h a td usc in saer As ng

it

ou .e as

yt anc eri c

un i ncn

i

m gnif

i

om

i t s sec

om al recit ntsr i f i

s at e

t t at

ul s cse he ndi

r t i

he

ytit s and

orez ori r aj

ar r m e

m ng of

um

in ms l gi e6 are wh

abl m r

hee

T t ov

stlues

Rsedtu

tti A

tyilibanitasuS dn

ahcaetru

Otyin

mm

uo

C.6e lba

T

69

According to the open-ended responses to question 19, respondents most care

about associating their brands with “craft,” “quality,” and “community.” The word “craft” or

related words, such as “independent” and “hand-crafted”, were mentioned by 25 respondents. For

example, one respondent answered:

“Diversity in flavor and beer offerings, appreciating brewing as a craft and not a manufacturing process (ie. the difference between locally crafted products and manufactured macro-brews).” This demonstrates how important it is to the respondent to be defined as an independently

owned craft brewery that is distinct from more mass-produced brands. Many other brewers stressed

being a craft brewery or independently owned.

Many brewers stated being “community” oriented, or took pride in being a locally owned

business, as many craft brewers often are. The term “community” or “local” appeared 24 times in

the responses given, such as, “Unique flavors with emphasis on locally grown products, and

community involvement.” Brewers also mentioned wanting to use their brand to provide a sense of

community. One respondent wrote, “We aim to bring people together through gathering over beer,”

meaning they not only want to participate in their community, but provide a particular service to

community members. The breweries do not just make beer, but create a sense of communal

belonging or camaraderie.

Making “quality” or “great tasting” beer seemed very important to the survey respondents.

These terms came up 20 times in the results. Brewers mentioned wanting their brand to be

associated with “awesome beer” or “world-class beer brewed to style.” Though it seems inherent

that brewers want to make quality beer, the fact that quality is so important to them will affect what

measures, including environmental measures, they are willing to take, so long as the quality of their

product is preserved.

The term “quality” seems more clearly defined by the average response to Question 21

which asks them to define what quality is most important. A vast majority (78%) of respondents

70

noted that taste was the most important quality. The other qualities provided, including uniqueness,

variety, tradition, quality ingredients or other, were relatively evenly split by the remaining 22% of

respondents. So for brewers that want to preserve the “quality” of their beer, they truly want to

preserve the “quality taste” of their beer. No one wants to brew bad-tasting beer, and all sustainable

measures need to be made under this consideration.

Indicated by Question 18, Southern California breweries have a wide distribution range;

exactly 50% (±10. 45%) distribute some of their product to over 30 miles away. In addition to

wanting to make good tasting beer (as indicated by questions 19 and 21), these breweries want to

sell their beer to enough people to keep their business economically sound. And though product

must travel relatively far to ensure financial sustainability, most Southern California breweries

express a special connection to their own communities. Question 20 indicates that most Southern

California breweries (at least 95%, ±10.55%, of respondents) have rooted their business in their

communities, or that their companies “embody the community in which it is made”, despite how

far they distribute.

Local communities are not the only “community” that breweries can be a part of; the local

brewing organizations, often referred to as “guilds,” also benefit breweries and bring industry

members together. Many of the breweries (88%, ±10.24%) indicated in Question 30 they were a

member of at least one of their local brewers’ guilds. It should be noted that these results are slightly

limited as the question did not ask respondents to specify if they were a member of a guild not

listed. The results of Question 30 are fully presented in Figure 10.

Los Angeles and San Diego brewer’s guilds have high enrollment among participating

breweries, though the Inland Empire and Orange County have much fewer, demonstrating varying

interest in participation between local industry-based organizations. However, location data was

not recorded for the purpose of this study. Thus, it can only be assumed that Los Angeles and San

Diego have robust brewer’s guilds.

71

Figure 10 Question 30; Brewers Guild Members. This graph represents the results from Question 30, which asks the respondents to indicate which local brewer’s associations in which they might participate.

Sustainability in the Industry in General

The last substantive questions, Questions 22-23 and 25-27, asked about the respondents’

attitude towards their breweries’ environmental sustainability, summarized in Table 6.

Question 22 simply asked brewers to report “to what extent” their brewery was sustainable.

Nearly 75% of respondents marked “as much as we can.” Of the remaining respondents, only five

(7.5%) marked “It is not currently a factor.”

Many Southern California breweries have already implemented some form of

environmental sustainability into their brewing process. Question 23 was intended to explore why.

Fifty-nine breweries (or 89% of respondents) marked either “I/the owners want to” or “It is the

right thing to do,” and nearly 55% of those respondents marked both reasons, both percentages with

a margin of error of ±10.45%.

27

6

26

4

8

Los Angeles CountyBrewers Guild

Orange CountyBrewers Guild

San Diego CountyBrewers Guild

Inland EmpireBrewers

None of the above0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Q30 Are you a member of any of the following? Mark all that apply.

72

Nearly half of the respondents (48%, ±10.45%) indicated in Question 23 they choose

sustainable practices if doing so saves them money and 24% (±10.45%) find that some of their

customers prefer sustainably made beer.

Figure 11. Question 25; Obstacles to sustainability. This chart summarizes the most commonly reported obstacles brewers have to implementing more sustainable practices in their brewery.

Question 25’s results regarding the “obstacles to sustainability”, summarized in Figure 11,

also demonstrate the importance of environmental solutions being cost-effective. Exactly 75%

(±10.66%) of respondents marked that the expense of sustainable equipment keeps them from

making their business more sustainable. According to 34% (±10.66%) of the respondents, the

second most common obstacle is not knowing which practices to implement.

Question 27 asks brewers whether they would possibly implement low-cost practices that

have been proven to reduce a brewery’s environmental footprint. Nearly every brewer stated they

would “Absolutely” (56%, ±10.45%) or “Probably” (40%, ±10.45%) consider implementing such

practices if they had enough information on how to do so.

9%

53%

24%

5%

9%

Q25. What obstacles do you have to being more sustainable? Mark all that apply.

There are no obstacles, we find itvery easy to be sustainable

It is too expensive to install theproper equipment

We don't know which steps wouldimpact our footprint the most

It would degrade the quality of thebeer

Other (please specify)

73

Many brewers (61%, ±10.45%) indicated in Question 26 they are “very interested” in

making their brewery more sustainable in the future. In fact, all but one brewery marked having at

least some interest in implementing more sustainability, as seen in Figure 12

Figure 12. Question 26; Interest in more sustainability. This chart shows the results from Question 26, which asks brewers to identify how interested they are in making their brewery more sustainable in the future. Nearly all indicated at least some degree of interest. Survey Results Summary

This survey was designed to gauge what type of breweries are performing environmental

brewing techniques, and to what extent Southern California breweries are or want to be sustainable.

Many of the breweries that participated in the survey are fairly small and young, for over 75% of

respondents are nanobeweries that were established since 2010. More specifically, roughly 57% of

respondents were established in the last four years.

The respondents generally reported similar resource use behaviors, except regarding

overall water consumption. Grain was most commonly selected as the most expensive resource,

followed by Hops, while natural gas was most commonly selected as the cheapest, followed by

water. A majority of breweries reported they do reuse water in some way, and over half indicated

using fewer than six gallons of water per gallon of beer produced, despite the relatively low cost of

water per batch of beer.

61%

37%

2%

Q 26 How interested are you in making your brewery more sustainable in the future?

Very interested

Somewhat interested

Not at all interested

74

When asked whether they meter their water and/or energy use, nearly half of the

respondents reported they meter both. Additionally, another 21% reported only metering energy,

while roughly 9% reported only metering water.

Most respondents reported reducing their landfill waste. Only three nanobreweries reported

they throw their spent grain out, all other participants indicated that at least some of it gets reused

somehow. Also, 92% of respondents marked that they practice at least one type of materials

recycling and 100% indicated they keg some or all of their finished product. Wastewater treatment

is much less universal. Roughly half of the respondents report they only treat their effluent when

necessary, and nearly 40% reported they do not treat it at all.

Lastly, an overwhelming majority of respondents reported that being connected to their

community and producing good tasting beer are high priorities in their companies. Sustainability

is generally prioritized when there are clear economic benefits or they can afford to do so. However,

roughly 98% of respondents indicated some or complete interest in making their breweries more

sustainable in the future.

Synthesized Analysis

Considering the small size of the majority of breweries that participated in this study, it

seems the Southern California brewing industry has many potential “Davids”, or young, emerging

breweries that would be more willing to try out new environmentally friendly techniques than larger

breweries that produce higher quantities of beer (Hockerts & Wustenhagen, 2010). Small batches

allow a brewer to be more flexible, for if a new initiative proves to be less effective than intended,

there was less money, time, and beer wasted on trying the new practice out in the brewery.

However, many local microbreweries have indicated they do not think they could afford

the high capital costs of the conventional sustainable brewing system options that expand past

standard brewing techniques, such as renewable energy infrastructure or more efficient equipment.

No brewer should be expected to make a decision that reduces their environmental impact if it will

hurt them financially. Therefore, brewers wanting to improve their sustainable footprint generally

75

resort to the less technically-dependent sustainable brewing techniques they feel are affordable in

their breweries, such as reusing wastewater or diverting more solid waste away from landfills,

before considering more costly options. These basic sustainable brewing options are not bad, but

they are already pretty standard and are, as one microbrewer stated, “archaic”.

“Archaic” is not bad, just not enough

According to the brewers from the RCB and the macrobrewery who were interviewed,

most breweries are somewhat environmentally conscious and actively apply at least some degree

of sustainable practices in their operation. And unless a brewer completely strays away from

conventional brewing techniques, at least the latter half of this assumption is true. The reason a

brewer practices standard brewing techniques may not be because they are less impactful on the

environment, but rather the most cost-effective and straightforward. But if a particular aspect of

brewing is already as regenerative as it can be, there is no reason brewers should stop practicing it.

The best “archaic” practices

Some cost-effective and, coincidentally, environmental standard brewing techniques are

related to solid waste disposal, water reuse, filtration, and packaging.

One of the most common practices is also one of the most regenerative and paleotechnic

practices of Southern California breweries, as indicated by Question 13. As some of the brewers

who were interviewed indicated, simply throwing out spent grain feels like a waste and it is actually

cheaper to find alternative ways to dispose of it. The grain makes almost a complete circle in its

lifetime: it is grown by a farmer, processed and malted, used to make beer, and sent to livestock

farmers or to composted and turned into fertilizer. Breweries consume a lot of grain and produce a

lot of organic waste; it’s impressive how brewers have made this process so fluid and inherent to

brewing.

To no surprise, many brewers also recycle materials, such as glass and cardboard, as they

would in most conventional residential settings in Southern California. According to Question 14,

it seems that it breweries that practice any form of recycling are more likely to recycle multiple

76

materials rather than just one. It should be noted, though participants reported that paper is less

commonly recycled in their breweries, the other materials listed (cardboard, glass, and cans) are

used in packaging while paper, typically, is not.

According to one of the microbreweries interviewed, brewers that do not reuse or recycle

their materials do so because “they have the money to be able to not care…that’s kind of their

mentality, like they’re making so much money right now that they don’t give a ****.” Sure, the

five nanobreweries in this study that are not recycling or repurposing spent grain could potentially

benefit from the money they could save on their trash bill (and reduce their environmental impact)

if they diverted these materials from their landfill waste. But, for whatever reason, those benefits

are currently not worth the time or energy they would spend on doing so, and thus, these brewers’

waste disposal practices vary from the conventional, sustainable norm.

As indicated above, all breweries in this study keg some or all of their finished beer,

because kegging is cheap and is the easiest way to store and distribute their product. Kegging is

also the most regenerative way of packaging beer because kegs are endlessly washed and reused.

The popularity of kegging beer is just one example of how sustainable brewing practices are more

likely to become the most common brewing practices the easier and more cost-effective they are

for brewers to implement.

Another common brewing technique that is cost-effective and sustainable is reusing water

within the brewing process, as roughly 70% of survey respondents and all four interview

participants reported doing. Water reuse in a brewery is a particularly interesting sustainable

practice because water is considered one of the two cheapest ingredients for brewing, according to

the results for Question 4. If the cost of water is low, then some brewers are not only choosing to

reuse water because of the cost savings. When asked why he reuses his cooling water as brewing

water for the next batch, one interviewee commented “That’s just the way we (brewers) do it.” In

this case, the reason brewers reuse water seems to be related to how “commonsense” these practices

are. The more straightforward a process is, the more likely brewers will be willing to implement it.

77

For a time, diatomaceous earth filters were the universal filtration method for the brewing

industry (Gomez-Corona, Escalona-Buendia, Garcia, Chollet, & Valentin, 2016; Olaljire, 2012).

According to the results of this study, this paleotechnic trend may be being replaced among

Southern California breweries for what Lyle would deem a more neotechnic alternative (1994).

Astonishingly few (only 6%, ±10.34%) respondents in this study indicated using a diatomaceous

earth filter in their brewing process and 70% (±10.34%) indicate they naturally filter their beer

through sedimentation. Currently, “hazy” or unfiltered beers are a growing trend in the beer

industry, which might be influencing brewers’ filtration decisions. However, the overwhelming

majority of brewers choosing not to use diatomaceous earth filtration, but rather low impact

filtration is a positive sign. Few brewers in Southern California need to prioritize finding

alternative, safer filtration methods; luckily, switching to naturally settling filtration is virtually free

and a simple, straightforward concept to apply.

There is another trend in the local brewing industry where the neotechnic is replacing the

paleotechnic, and it’s the decline of pasteurization. As mentioned in the Literature Review above,

brewers played a role in the invention of pasteurization during the Industrial Revolution (Ives,

2011) and it became a common practice in the 1950’s, especially in macrobreweries, to pasteurize

beer as it is packaged in order to extend its shelf life (Bamfoth & Stewart, 2010; O’Briean, 2006).

This step is unnecessary for beer that will be consumed within a year, and so it can be an

unnecessary use of quite a bit of natural gas (Olaljire, 2012). Because so few survey participants

(3%, ±10.55%) indicated they pasteurize their beer, this wasteful, paleotechnic process is not

something of high environmental concern for the local brewing industry. Fortunately, for brewers

who do pasteurize their product and want to make their overall process more sustainable all they

need to do is simply stop pasteurizing. This impactful change is simple, cost-free, and, assuming

they sell their beer within a year’s time, will not reduce the quality of the beer.

78

The Good “Archaic” Practices

There are some practices that are common, but not yet standard, that are cost-effective and

environmentally sustainable, but require a little more extra effort from the brewer. The brewers that

practice these techniques do so because it either protects the quality of the beer and/or helps them

meet their company’s sustainability goals. Namely, sustainable ingredient allocation, metering

water and energy use, renewable energy use and….

The farming and processing of grain and hops can be tracked to ensure they come from

sustainable producers, such as organic or water-efficient farms. The more selective a brewer is in

choosing who they purchase their resources from, the better quality his own product will be. In an

interview, one microbrewer commented, “I want to know that the people growing our ingredients

care about their ingredients as much as we care about the beer.” Dogfish Head Brewery presents a

leading example of regenerative resource allocation, as stated in the Literature Review. Having a

strong working relationship with farmers and other resource providers helps ensure the quality of

the final product and could help reduce its costs. Sustainable resourcing also helps protect the

longevity of both parties and opens up opportunities to make the beer more sustainable before the

ingredients even arrive at the brewery.

Yeast is another equally important ingredient, but its allocation is much less

environmentally impactful than grain or hops. As noted in the Literature Review, brewers generally

reuse their yeast, which is more economical for them and reduces their wastewater treatment

demands (Olaljire, 2012). The main alternative practices regarding yeast would be to ensure its by-

products are repurposed rather than just poured down the drain, though more on wastewater and its

environmental impacts will be reviewed below.

Grain and hops were ranked by the respondents as the two of the most expensive resource

per batch in, yeast was ranked as the third cheapest, as shown in Figure 3 in the chapter above. The

way brewers rank the cost of their resources relates to whether brewers think of these resources as

highly valuable or more expendable. Brewers may be compelled to use the resources they value

79

most, such as grain or hops, more efficiently in order to reduce their costs per batch. Priority would

likely be given to sustainable practices that help conserve the more expensive resources (grain or

hops).

One technique that helps conserve grain and hops is to conserve water. Saving water

translates to saving money, for once the grain and hops are boiled in, the water, now technically

wort, becomes a lot more valuable. Any leaks or spillage from this point until the finished beer is

packaged is wasted money on time, labor, and resources. Some beer spillage during packing may

be necessary to ensure an airtight seal to help protect the beer during storage; it is more cost-

effective to waste some beer during this step of the process in order avoid dumping the entire batch.

Other than managing system leaks, metering both water (or wort) and electricity

throughout the brewing process helps provide a clear picture of exactly where and how much of

each is used throughout the brewery, and helps measure the effectiveness of new improvements

(Olaljire, 2012). As Drucker would agree, metering how much of a resource is used helps manage

and improve the efficient using of this resource (1954; Olaljire, 2012). As shown in Figure 6, 14

brewers reported they meter their energy use but not their water use, while only six reported the

opposite. Considering electricity was reported the third most expensive resource, these results are

not surprising. Note, this analysis assumes that “energy” was interpreted by participants to mean

“electricity” and “thermal energy” because typically billed for both by the utility company. The

validity of this assumption cannot be known for sure without further investigation and the limited

reliability of this data is noted below. Additional research would also help determine exactly why

more brewers choose to pay more attention to their energy use than their water use.

Overall, more Southern California brewers should be focusing on conserving both water

and energy, in order to reduce the industry’s collective impact on the local natural landscape and

its resources. Saving water and natural gas, in particular, is not a high priority from a cost

perspective in a brewery because they are relatively cheap compared to other brewing resources.

Therefore, reshaping water and energy use in terms of their costs and stressing more compelling

80

motives for using these resources more efficiently will be necessary to increase the regenerative

water and energy use across the industry.

Whether brewers work to reduce their energy use or not (which, hopefully they do), they

should research ways to increase their use of more sustainable sources of electricity. Surprisingly

few brewers reported they source some off their electricity from renewable resources considering

the relative cost of electricity in Question 10. The initial cost of purchasing appliances, such as

solar cells, could be a limiting factor but installing these appliances on the brewery’s property is

not the only option. Many local utility companies offer affordable rates on renewably sourced

power, for instance. Six of the nine respondents who reported using renewable energy are

nanobreweries, which proves that smaller breweries can utilize more sustainable energy resources

despite their size. More research on exactly what allows these breweries to afford renewable

energy could determine how to encourage other nanobrweries and microbreweries to do the same.

The “Worst” Archaic Practice

Before continuing, it is important to mention that the intent of this study is not to reprimand

individual breweries or shame the local brewing industry, but rather to unveil a realistic snapshot

of current trends, behaviors, and attitudes, both environmentally good and bad.

One practice that is particularly harmful to local water resources is surprisingly common

among the breweries in this study. A concerning 38.81% (±10.34%) of participants reported in

Question 7 that they do not treat their wastewater (as is generally regulated by municipal service

providers), while only 15% reported that they always do so. Though the culprits are mostly

nanobreweries, producing only 2,500 bbl a year or less, their collective oversight is damaging to

natural waterways, causing eutrophication (Olaljire, 2012). Also alarming is the high statistical

significance (with p-value of 0.0002), which indicates that this data likely represents all Southern

California breweries, not just these survey participants, meaning roughly 40% of all breweries in

the region are likely not treating their wastewater. The good news is that wastewater treatment is

one trend on which the greater industry can drastically improve.

81

The relative interview data did not match this survey data. However, these brewers all had

rather environmentally conscious brewing processes compared to most other breweries

participating in this study. Each of the brewers who participated in the interviews lead the industry

in environmental sustainability, despite the difficulty of overcoming some of the challenges. None

of the brewers were specifically selected for their environmental achievements, however they are

all clearly leaders in sustainability in the brewing industry. They prove that personal experiences

and commitments can sway the direction of an entire business.

Multiple interviewees even indicated they currently treat their effluent beyond their local

wastewater regulations. More education on the importance of properly treating wastewater could

be very influential, especially in consideration of Southern California’s fragile freshwater

resources. Also, brewers that do responsibly treat their wastewater, such as the brewers interviewed,

or even convert their wastewater into natural gas using an anaerobic digester could be used as

possible examples for other brewers looking to develop and strengthen their wastewater treatment

practices.

Local governments also need to be better about enforcing their wastewater regulations.

With some breweries avoiding compliance and others going beyond regulations, it is clear that a

brewer’s individual wastewater treatment practices are not only a function of his individual

responsibility, but also the level of accountability he is held to by his local government. During the

1970’s, activists outed MillerCoors for polluting their local waterways to the Environmental

Protection Agency, who then imposed the associated fines on the macrobrewery until they cleaned

up their act (McWilliams, 2014). Responsible breweries, regardless of their size, should want to act

to ensure they are never fined for improper wastewater treatment. Further in-depth research of local

wastewater regulations is necessary to determine the validity of this observation.

Wastewater treatment, or lack thereof, is not the only common archaic practice among local

breweries, but it is the most prominent uncovered by this study. Wastewater treatment should

absolutely be standard practice among Southern California breweries. Treatment will be more cost-

82

effective in the long run (or at least it should be) and will do nothing to affect the quality of the

beer.

The Sustainable Brewing Toolkit

There is no reason to change industry standards that are cost-effective, good for the beer,

and good for the environment. This thesis aims to help brewers change their brewing practices

which are not good for the environment. Every brewer in this study already has the following tools

in their “sustainable brewing toolkit”, which can be used to implement more best environmental

management practices: standardization, innovation, and the brewing network.

Utilize Standardization

Most common brewing techniques became standard because they are effective at making

consistently good beer, which is one of the most important qualities identified by the brewers in

this study. There is no doubt that the quality and taste of the product will remain an absolute priority

over the environmental friendliness of the process. In an interview, a macrobrewer asserted, “A

decision to hurt beer would never be made. You could make sustainability decisions that would

hurt the beer, but that just wouldn’t happen.”

It is reassuring that most of the simple, straightforward brewing practices are reportedly

both most economically viable and environmentally conscious, as reviewed in the section above.

The standard brewing process already has some degree of sustainability built into it, now it’s a

matter of demonstrating the benefits of reducing a brewery’s environmental impact and adding

more sustainable brewing techniques to its triple bottom line. As described in the Literature

Review, the triple bottom line refers to economic stability that relies on safeguarding the local

community and environment.

Just as there is uniformity in brewing techniques, there is uniformity in the challenges

brewers report they face to increasing sustainability initiatives. There is no silver bullet solution to

increasing sustainability throughout the local brewing industry, but certain practices can be

explored and applied to multiple breweries all using similar brewing systems.

83

For instance, many brewers could follow New Belgium Brewing Company’s lead in

reducing their packaging materials by packing their bottles tighter and removing the need for

cardboard inserts in shipping containers; this change could help reduce a brewer’s packaging costs

and their landfill waste. Or more brewers could try to reuse their cooling water as the water for the

next brew batch by pumping it from the heat exchanger straight into the hot liquor tank; brewers

would be reusing water that has already been heated by the last batch of beer, thus reducing their

overall water and natural gas consumption.

Utilize Innovation

Most brewers indicated they could not afford the upfront costs of installing the “standard”

sustainable systems, such as solar energy or carbon capture. But, as discussed throughout this

thesis, many environmental innovations cost brewers little or no money to implement. The largest

barriers to making the industry more sustainable are not the costs, but perhaps the brewers

themselves. Many brewers have come to accept this fallacy that all sustainable brewing measures

cost money, rather than finding solutions that fit their budget and meet their desire to increase their

breweries’ sustainability. There is a definitive knowledge barrier keeping breweries from

successfully implementing sustainable brewing practices that do not involve installing expensive

new equipment.

While most practices are standard throughout the industry, individual breweries have

different parameters and limitations they must take into consideration. The overarching approach

to sustainability for Southern California needs to be flexible and tailored to each individual business

while still focusing on reducing the industry’s total impact on the local natural environment.

Brewers need to be convinced they are capable of making meaningful changes in their brewing

process. Certain local standards can be set to preserve the region’s most vulnerable resources, water

and energy, but the way to reduce the industry’s impacts will also require each brewery to have its

own separate, though related, approach. A brewery’s approach will be adapted to accommodate for

its exact location, production volume, budget and current level of environmental sustainability.

84

Almost every respondent reported they would or probably would take measures to improve

their brewery’s sustainability if they knew more about more cost-effective environmental practices.

It is clear more alternative brewing methods that are both good for the environment and brewers’

bank accounts need to be developed and more widely shared.

Utilize Local Relationships and the Brewing Network

Almost every brewery, in both the interviews and the surveys, also indicated being well

connected with their local community, and the people and businesses located there. This

overwhelming response supports the idea of “neolocalism,” defined in the Literature Review as an

idea where in businesses purposefully connect with their local economy and create a “sense of

place” within their products (Flack, 1997). Today’s local craft breweries are perpetuating the

historical craft beer movement of the past 25 years. And neolocal business strategies makes

economic sense; for the smaller breweries, their community is a large portion of their customer

base (Murray, 2011). Even the large macrobrewery indicated in the interview originally “wanting

to be a hometown brewery”.

The more breweries interact with the local community and each other, the more sustainable

practices will be exposed and possibly implemented. Many brewers already work with one another

on solving common problems and creating recipes, as the microbrewers and RCB brewer explained

in their interviews. By establishing best practices together and creating more universal awareness,

however, meaningful strides can be taken that will help all brewers until more advanced steps

become practical enough to be in the industry’s self-interests.

The brewing industry isn’t as inclusive and friendly with one another as most brewers

outwardly portray. The opposing relationship between craft breweries and larger macro-breweries

is especially apparent. Craft brewers, in particular, generally hold some animosity towards large,

non-craft breweries, and understandably so. The smaller, independent breweries feel they are

unfairly treated, namely by governing bodies, and must work extra hard in order to hold on to their

share of the market and their political persuasion in the shadow of the multi-national macrobrewery

85

corporations. The regional craft brewer that was interviewed summarized and expanded on this

conflict:

“I would not say we have a relationship with [macrobreweries]. We have excellent relationships with other craft breweries here in town which is almost everyone and that’s simply a function of it’s us against them. A lot of the bigger breweries are starting to buy up the smaller breweries in an effort, as I see it, to be part of the craft beer industry and take it over, so to speak… but they still got 87% of the market worldwide, so it’s nice to feel that we’re actually making a statement.”

When this conflict was generally mentioned during the interview with the macrobrewery,

the response was expressed as a genuine interest in finding ways to overcome, or at least ignore

this divide, in order to make the entire industry as strong as it can be. They presented an earnest

desire to teach workshops on the things they excel in because of their size and capital expenditures,

such as sustainability and safety standards. It is unrealistic to expect such workshops will generate

trust or improve the relationship between industry segments, however they could be useful for

solving industry-wide issues and widening the scope of sustainable brewing standards.

Southern California’s Sustainable Brewing Potential

The results of the survey indicate that Southern California breweries are not currently as

sustainable as they want to be.

For Question 22, 75% of respondents marked that their breweries are sustainable “as much

as they can be”, indicating that a large majority of Southern California breweries are not only open

to increasing sustainability, but willing to do so. Question 22’s results, along with Question 25’s

regarding why breweries choose sustainability, shows that many local brewery owners understand

how their businesses impact the natural environment and care, at least a little bit, to each do what

they can to mitigate those impacts.

The local brewing industry has a lot of work to do in regard to reducing its collective impact

on Southern California’s natural environment. Luckily, participants in this study seem well aware

of the work ahead of them and are open to the idea of increasing sustainable practices in their own

establishments.

86

It is argued that increasing a brewery’s sustainable and regenerative practices will increase

the quality of the final product. When asked if he thinks increasing sustainability increases or

decreases the quality of the beer, one brewer explained:

“Oh, increases. Yeah, because you care more there’s a lot more love into it. That’s the other thing that’s in beer. It’s just like in baking you know if you have a home baked meal it’s going to taste better than a restaurant you know because there’s love in it, even it’s the same ingredients, it’s just going to taste better.” Though it is romantic to assume the brewing industry will increase environmental

sustainability because brewers understand and want to reduce their environmental footprint, such

positive change cannot rely on brewers’ “feelings” alone. Not only do sustainable practices need to

be financially viable, they should also be financially convincing. Sometimes, sustainability can

even give breweries an economic competitive edge; brewing beer more sustainably can help save

resource costs and attract a niche market of environmentally aware consumers (Murray, 2011;

Olaljire, 2012).

The most optimistic result of this study was the overwhelming interest 98% of participants

have in increasing sustainability in their breweries, as indicated in Question 26 above. Changing

the local industry is not a matter of convincing brewers why they should be more sustainable, but

more so teaching them how they are capable of improving, even if they do not have the ability to

spend lots of money on doing so. Hopefully, the results and analysis in this study can provide some

of this information to local Southern California brewers hoping to adopt more sustainable brewing

practices.

87

Chapter 5: Conclusion

Answering the Research Question, Part 1: In what ways and to what extent are Southern California craft brewers practicing sustainable brewing techniques? Southern California breweries are collectively practicing only a small number of

sustainable brewing techniques relative to what is currently available and practical for them to

adopt. The current degree of sustainable action is not as high as it should be, but it is present in the

local brewing industry, nonetheless. An overwhelming majority (over 95%) of local breweries have

a genuine interest in reducing their company’s impact on the natural environment, according to the

collective answers to Questions 26 and 27 regarding future environmental actions.

Though nearly every brewery in this study plans to apply more sustainability to their

brewing processes, the degree to which these breweries currently act on their environmental values

varies. Through many common brewing techniques, brewers already share some standards for

sustainability, such as reducing their landfill waste and trying to increase their water and energy

efficiencies. Though these standards are relatively low in terms of the level of impact, most brewers

agree these techniques are superior to their more wasteful alternatives.

Many brewers wish they could make their brewery more environmentally conscious and

identify similar obstacles to actually implementing more sustainable systems. It seems they rarely

realize, however, there are other means of boosting their companies’ sustainability initiatives that

allow them to circumvent and eventually overcome these obstacles. Instead, these obstacles are

used to justify their current inaction. Meaning, other stakeholders, such as customers or the Brewers

Association, could be useful in teaching them to circumvent these obstacles through more

achievable means. Through their strong connection to local community groups and brewer’s guilds,

they may find the alternative methods that fit their business goals and capabilities.

Collective change has not fully begun throughout every aspect of the local brewing

industry. However, Southern California breweries have great potential for decreasing their shared

environmental footprint, as many brewers have expressed interest in learning how they can do so.

88

Answering the Research Question Part 2: How might a compiled overview of current sustainable practices within the local beer industry encourage more brewers in the area to make their companies more sustainable?

Local breweries have continued the explosive growth of the craft brewing industry since

the 1970’s. Like the craft brewers behind California Steam Beer (Hoalst-Pullen et al., 2014), or

even further back in time to the inventive brewers of the Industrial Revolution (Ives, 2011;

McWilliams, 2014), there are local brewers that are changing the national brewing industry through

their unique flavors and innovative brewing techniques.

As stated in the results chapter, one of the interviewed microbrewers designed his brewery

such that county representatives came in to learn about their particularly sustainable equipment and

brewing methods. Now other breweries in the area have an outstanding example of how a water-

wise brewery can be built in such an arid climate. Other breweries within this study chose to

package their beer in cans before it became more common practice, because cans are less wasteful

packaging materials than glass bottles. One survey respondent mentioned making beer out of

leftover bread and another who can’t currently afford an anaerobic digester gives away their

concentrated effluent to help power a nearby water treatment plant. There is no lack of innovation

and passion in the local brewing industry.

In this regard, many Southern California independent craft breweries are becoming the

“emerging Davids” of influential environmental initiatives for the greater brewing industry. As

explained earlier in the Literature Review, there is a popular business theory referred to as “Davids

and Goliath”, in which emerging companies (Davids) introduce innovative trends into the industry.

These trends eventually attract well-established companies (Goliaths), who in turn, utilize their

more expansive resources to further develop the trend into a more practical practice, thus

transforming the industry as a whole. This theory can be used to gauge the level of sustainable

development among Southern California breweries (Hockerts & Wustenhagen, 2010).

89

There are a number of independent, impressive brewerers that have implemented fresh

brewing techniques in their breweries that are highly effective at reducing their environmental

footprint. Some have even found ways to circumvent traditional obstacles in order to implement

sustainable practices they were otherwise incapable of implementing. The survey respondent that

repurposes their effluent by giving it to a local treatment to be used to generate electricity, for

example. Though they did not specify exactly, it seems they wanted to find a way for their effluent

by-product to be more directly utilized and rather than install a costly anaerobic digester

themselves, they give it to someone who already has one. Not only are they an early adopter for

utilizing their effluent to generate electricity, they were creative in how they implemented this

sustainable practice.

The local larger breweries, even the corporate macrobreweries, have also started to adopt

and develop some of these sustainable practices to benefit their own breweries. No examples

identified within the study can be given without revealing the participant’s identities. However, an

example from the literature review which is common knowledge can be further analyzed.

In 2017, two breweries participated in San Diego’s Pure Water Project’s initial launch

campaign to gather awareness and popular support for the county’s new reclaimed water facility.

Stone Brewing, a craft brewery, and Ballast Point Brewing, a past craft brewery recently acquired

by a macrobrewery corporation in 2015 (Gribbins, 2017), both brewed a small batch specialty beer

using the facilities reclaimed water for a couple of the water district’s promotional events. Though

competitive, or even bitter, beer enthusiasts may say Ballast Point only participated in order to stake

a claim in yet another thing that is distinctly craft. Whatever their motive for participating, Ballast

Point did not let an opportunity to do something unique and eye-catching pass before them. They

saw Stone Brewing’s bold idea, and decided to emulate their smaller competitor’s tenacity in

promoting San Diego’s new reclaimed water project.

There are also examples of how innovation came full circle, from emerging Davids, to

Goliaths, and then to most members of the general population. The craft brewers now distributing

90

their beer in cans rather than bottles are a prime example. Beer has gone through phases of being

generally bottled or canned. Until just a few years ago, most craft brewers were bottling their

product because of a negative stigma regarding canned beers (Rhodes, 2014). However, a few craft

breweries saw the many benefits of canning their beer, including environmental benefits. Soon,

macrobrewers were canning some of their “crafty” brands they had acquired from previously craft

breweries, and now many brewers are choosing to can no matter the style or production volume.

Brewers have more universally “canned” the idea of generating excess waste in the name of protect

aesthetic and reputation, by placing their environmental values above superficial industry

standards.

This copycat pattern has been seen time and time again throughout the history of the

brewing industry. If local “Goliaths” are already adopting and adapting a number of sustainable

brewing initiatives, and some trends are even catching among the greater brewing population, the

greater the chances are for sustainable brewing to be the next trend to catch.

These potential goliaths and universal adopters won’t need a lot of persuasion, either. As

more sustainable practices are introduced and then adapted by industry leaders, other breweries

will be forced to decide whether they follow suite or get left behind. Though sustainable actions

are at different stages of the “David – Goliath” cycle, sustainable attitudes have already spread

across the entire Southern California brewing industry (or at least 98% of it).

Discussion

Limitations

Before discussing this study’s relation to previous data and further questions, the following

limitations of this study must first be considered.

1. Due to the nature of sending out an online survey, complete and accurate representation of the

total survey population was difficult to properly illustrate. However, the response rate was

higher than initially predicted, which increases the accuracy of the survey results. The study

91

population was 261 breweries, and 67 breweries were sampled, meaning the margin of error

was ±10.34%.

2. The brewing industry is ever increasing and some newly established breweries are still

expanding their marketing and outreach, thus making it difficult to reach all the breweries

currently operating within the study area. From the time this study was first proposed, nearly

20 breweries were added to the contacts sheet. It is very possible that a number of breweries

were overlooked, again lessening the accurate representation of all Southern California

breweries in the results.

3. The degree of validity and reliability of some responses are sometimes rather low. After

reviewing the survey data, it is clear some of the questions are worded poorly and/or some

participants misunderstood what they were being asked. This ultimately lead to some results

that are difficult to compare or properly analyze, which means the interpretation of these results

may be an inaccurate representation of reality. A bigger sample size for the pilot study might

have assisted in crafting more precise questions that could have increased the validity and

reliability of these results.

For example, Question 13 asked respondents to “mark all that apply”, meaning many

respondents marked multiple answers in their response. These types of questions make it

difficult to perform chi-squared style statistical analysis, as was initially wanted. Questions 14,

16, 23, 25, and 30 had this same poor design. These questions would need to be reworded for

additional iterations of this survey.

Other questions needed further clarification in their wording in order to avoid the

respondent’s possible confusion. For example, Question 8 was an open-ended question asking

about the most “energy intense” step of the brewing process. The term “energy” can mean

either electrical or thermal energy. Some brewers gave two answers to this question, and all

responses were relatively hard to compare because the responses’ intended meaning were

difficult understand. Some of the survey questions could be rewritten to represent the

92

researcher’s more precise question. However, the responses to Question 8 still proved useful

in illustrating how the brewers interpreted “energy intense”.

4. Lastly, further research is required to confirm the accuracy of many of the survey results. With

relatively few total responses, it was difficult to preform proper statistical analysis of the

results. However, the study design purposefully prepared for a low statistical significance and

the interviews were added to help confirm and illustrate the survey results.

5. The participants’ brewery locations were not recorded in order to keep their and their

companies’ identities confidential. This largely did not affect the data, though more detailed,

location-based comparisons could not be made to help evaluate which additional factors

influences a brewer’s sustainable attitudes and actions.

6. The average brewery size of the sample population was heavily unbalanced; many more

microbreweries participated in the survey than larger breweries. This unbalance is partially

because there are more microbreweries in the region (Watson, 2017). However, the ratio of

microbreweries to larger breweries in the study does not match the actual ratio of such

breweries that exist throughout Southern California.

Despite these limitations, this study identifies some of the sustainable practices currently being

used in Southern California breweries and helps present future measures the industry can make to

raise the standard for sustainable brewing within the area even further.

Comparison to Patterson et al.’s 2016 Study

This regional study was largely informed by the recent national study conducted by Mark

Patterson, Nancy Hoalst-Pullen, and Blake Pierson in 2016, “Sustainability Attitudes and Actions:

An Examination of Craft Breweries in the United States.” Patterson et al.’s conducted a survey of

breweries nation-wide and received 303 responses. The results of this study are difficult to directly

compare with Patterson et al.’s 2016 study because of the differences in research design. However,

it seems that Southern California breweries are universally more open to sustainability than the

national standard and more microbreweries are actively applying more sustainable measures than

93

others across the country. For example, more Southern California microbreweries are installing

energy and water efficient equipment and using alternative sources of energy, than the

microbrewers surveyed in the 2016 study.

Patterson et al.’s concluded their study by proposing the following for further discussion,

“We hope future studies build upon our initial findings to determine if sustainability has become

further entrenched US craft breweries and if the scale of production influences such trends.” (2016,

p. 168). In response, this thesis confirms that sustainability is a growing trend among craft

breweries in Southern California. And the limited response from larger breweries in this study

cannot confirm whether size determines a brewery’s participation in sustainability. However, this

study can confidently say size is not a distinct limiting factor to what practices a brewer can

implement, but rather they are limited by their financial capabilities and creativity.

Further Research

Many of the survey results were not robust enough to be statistically significant. As

discussed earlier in this chapter, further research and additional iterations of these methods could

be used to confirm the survey results or provide more detail between respondent groups. In some

cases, a larger portion of the respondents would need to be from larger breweries in order to more

accurately represent the variety of market segments present in the Southern California brewing

industry. Other studies could more narrowly focus on particular resource use or sections of the

brewing process. The following are the main questions raised by the results of this thesis.

Individualized studies that focus on particular sustainable measures are necessary to further

explore the influential factors of particular brewing practices. Studies that focus on water use or

packaging materials, for example, could identify the local industry’s exact needs pertaining to those

particular categories. The wide scope of this study does not provide specific enough data to

accurately suggest exactly which steps individual breweries should focus on.

For instance, the results of Questions 5 and 6 regarding water reuse and water conservation,

respectively, were compared to test the assumption that brewers that reportedly use water

94

efficiently also use less water than other brewers in the area. According to a cross-tabulation of

these results, this assumption was incorrect. The fact that these results were self-reported must be

taken into consideration; further research on water use in a brewery would be necessary in order to

properly evaluate whether these results are truly unaligned or not.

More information on local regulations would be necessary to fully evaluate why 38% of

breweries do not treat their wastewater. This study did not include an analysis of municipal

wastewater regulations because too many individual cities were included in the study area.

Lastly, similar research could be conducted in other brewing regions throughout the

country, such as the Pacific Northwest or the Great Lakes region. Environmental sustainability

measures should really be tailored to a region’s particular climate and available resources. This

study focused on finding common solutions for breweries specifically experiencing Southern

California’s particular climate and regionality. Future studies could explore the environmental

issues of other regions and their applicable regenerative solutions.

95

Bibliography

Adler, E. S. (2015). An invitation to social research: how it’s done (Fifth edition.). Stamford,

CT : Cengage Learning ; Australia ; United States : Wadsworth.

Amienyo, D., & Azapagic, A. (2016). Life cycle environmental impacts and costs of beer

production and consumprion in the UK. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,

21, 492–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1028-6

Andrew, J. (2015). Adapting California’s Water Sector to a Changing Climate. In A. Lassiter,

Sustainable Water. Oakland: UC Press.

Anheuser-Busch Companies. (2016). Better World. Retrieved March 6, 2018, from

http://www.anheuser-busch.com/betterworld.html

Ashoori, N., Dzombak, D. A., & Small, M. J. (2015). Sustainability Review of Water-Supply

Options in the Los Angeles Region. Journal of Water Resources Planning and

Management, 141(12), 1–10.

Bamfoth, C., & Stewart, G. (2010). Brewing - the transformation of a craft into a technology. The

Biologist, 57(3), 139–147.

Bladow, K. (2015). Milking It. The Pastoral Imaginary of California’s (Non)Dairy Farming.

Gastronomica: The Journal of Food and Culture, 15(3), 9–17.

https://doi.org/10.1525/gfc.2015.15.3.9

Brewers Association. (2017). Sustainable Design and Build Strategies for Craft Brewers.

Retrieved from https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/brewersassoc/wp-

content/uploads/2017/06/Sustainable_Design_and_Build_Strategies_for_Craft_Brewers.

pdf

Brewers Association. (2018a). Craft Beer Industry Market Segments. Retrieved March 3, 2018,

from https://www.brewersassociation.org/statistics/market-segments/

Brewers Association. (2018b). Craft Brewer. Retrieved March 2, 2018, from

https://www.brewersassociation.org/statistics/craft-brewer-defined/

96

California Craft Brewers Association. (2018). Home [Text]. Retrieved April 30, 2018, from

http://www.californiacraftbeer.com/

Caum, A., Hall, N., Haney, A., Lepre, J., & Zimmerma, Z. (2010). Sustainability Report:

Comparison Between New Belgium and Budweiser Beer (Report for Course:

Sustainability Science) (pp. 1–21). University of Vermont.

Chappell, B. (2017, March 24). Beer Brewers Test A Taboo, Recycling Water After It Was Used

In Homes. NPR.

City of Pomona. (2018). City of Pomona - Water and Wastewater Home. Retrieved April 18,

2018, from http://www.ci.pomona.ca.us/index.php/wwhome

Coronilla, S., & Little, J. (2017, March 20). Is wastewater beer the new craft beer? KGTV.

Cronon, W. (1991). Nature’s Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West. W. W. Norton &

Company.

Donadini, G., & Porretta, S. (2017). Uncovering patterns of consumers’ interest for beer: A case

study with craft beers. Food Reseach International, (91), 183–198.

Drucker, P. F. (Peter F. (1954). The practice of management (1st Collins ed.). New York, NY:

New York, NY : Collins.

Fillaudeau, L., Blanpain-Avet, P., & Daufin, G. (2006). Water, wastewater and waste

management in brewing industries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14, 463–471.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.01.002

Fink, A. (2013). How to Conduct Surveys: A step-by-step guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

Fitzmaurice, J., Cordano, M., Martinson, T. E., & Wise, A. V. (2014). Role of consumers’

environmental views on purchases at wineries. The Journal of Wine Research, 25(3),

175–188.

Flack, W. (1997). American Microbreweries and neolocalism: “Ale-ing” for a Sense of Place.

Journal of Cultural Geograpy, 16(2), 37–53.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08873639709478336

97

Gatrell, J. D., Nemeth, D. J., & Yeager, C. D. (2014). Sweetwater, Mountain Springs, and Great

Lakes: A Hydro-Geography of Beer Brands. The Geography of Beer : Regions,

Environment, and Societies, 89–98.

Gatrell, J. D., Reid, N., & Steiger, T. L. (2017). Branding Spaces: Place, region, sustainability and

the American craft beer industry. Applied Geography, 1(11), 1–11.

Gomez-Corona, C., Escalona-Buendia, H. B., Garcia, M., Chollet, S., & Valentin, D. (2016).

Craft vs. industrial: Habits, attitudes and motivations towards beer consumption in

Mexico. Appetite, 96, 358–367.

Gribbins, K. (2017, August 10). Ballast Point sells for $1 billion, Anchor Brewing sells for a

reported $85 million. Why? Retrieved May 11, 2018, from

https://www.craftbrewingbusiness.com/news/analyzing-ballast-point-anchor-brewing-

craft-beer-sales/

Grossman, K. (2013). Beyond the Pale: The Story of Sierra Nevada Brewing Co.

Hoalst-Pullen, N., Patterson, M., Mattord, R. A., & Vest, M. D. (2014). Sustainability Trends in

the Regional Craft Beer Industry. The Geography of Beer : Regions, Environment, and

Societies, 109–116.

Hockerts, K., & Wustenhagen, R. (2010). Greening Goliaths versus emerging Davids -

Theorizing about the role of incumbents and new entrants in sustainable

entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 481–492.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.07.005

Hospido, A., Moreira, M., & Feijoo, G. (2005). Environmental analysis of beer production.

International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, 4, 152–162.

https://doi.org/10.1504/IJARGE.2005.007197

Ives, M. (2011). How Beer Saved The World [Television Broadcast]. Discovery Channel.

Kerby, C., & Vriesekoop, F. (2017). An overiew of the Utilisation of Brewery By-Products as

Generated by British Craft Breweries. Mdpi: Beverages, 3(24), 1–12.

98

Koch, J. (2017). Samuel Adams | Fill Your Glass. Retrieved February 15, 2018, from

http://www.samueladams.com/

Lazicki, P., Geisseler, D., & Horwath. (2016). Barley Production in California. Assessment of

Plant Fertility and Fertilizer Requirements for Agricultural Crops in California,

University of California Davis. Retrieved from

https://apps1.cdfa.ca.gov/FertilizerResearch/docs/Barley_Production_CA.pdf

Lyle, A. (1994). Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development.

Mark, J. J. (2011, May 2). Beer in the Ancient World (Article) - Ancient History Encyclopedia.

Retrieved December 2, 2017, from https://www.ancient.eu/article/223/beer-in-the-

ancient-world/

Marks, J. (2005). Taking the Public Seriously: the case of potable and non potable reuse.

Desalination, 187, 137–147.

Marks, S. (2017, March 4). Craft Beer Statistics [Text]. Retrieved December 3, 2017, from

http://www.californiacraftbeer.com/ca-craft-beer/craft-beer-statistics/

McCracken, G. D. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park, Calif.: Newbury Park, Calif. : Sage

Publications.

McWilliams, J. (2014, March). The Ecological Creed of Craft Beer. Conservation Magazine.

Retrieved from conservationmagazine.org /2014/03/sustainable-practices-in-craft-

brewing/

Murray, D. W. (2011). Craft beer: penetrating a niche market. British Food Journal, 114(7), 899–

909.

Muster-Slawitsch, B., Weiss, W., Schnitzer, H., & Brunner, C. (2011). The green brewery

concept - Energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy resources in breweries.

Applied Thermal Engineering, 31, 2123–2134.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2011.03.033

99

O’Briean, C., M. (2006). Fermenting Revolution: How to Drink Beer and Save the World.

Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society Publishing.

OEHHA. (2014, November 27). CalEnviroScreen [Text]. Retrieved December 4, 2017, from

https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen

Olaljire, A. A. (2012). The brewing industry and environmental challenges. Journal of Cleaner

Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.03.003

Patterson, M., Hoalst-Pullen, N., & Pierson, W. B. (2016). Sustinability Attitudes and Actions:

An Examination of Craft Breweries in the United States. In Urban Sustainability: Policy

and Praxis (pp. 153–168). Springer International Publishing.

Pure Water San Diego | City of San Diego Official Website. (2017). Retrieved December 4, 2017,

from https://www.sandiego.gov/water/purewater/purewatersd

Raman. (2007). Community-Coca-Cola interface: Political-Anthropological Concerns on

Corporate Social Responsibility.

Rhodes, A. (2014, September 17). The Stigma of Craft Beer in Cans. Retrieved May 11, 2018,

from https://www.craftbeer.com/editors-picks/stigma-craft-beer-cans

Ross, E. A. (1896). The Location of Industries. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 10(3), 247–

268. https://doi.org/10.2307/1882585

San Diego Public Utilities. (2016). City of San Diego: Urban Water Management Plan

(Government) (pp. 1–292). Retrieved from

https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/2015_uwmp_report.pdf

Solar Resource Guide. (2016). Cheers to Sun Powered Beer: Top 10 Solar Powered Breweries.

Retrieved March 7, 2018, from http://www.solarresourceguide.org/cheers-to-sun-

powered-beer-top-10-solar-powered-breweries/

Swersey, C. (2018). Barley Resources. Retrieved April 25, 2018, from

https://www.brewersassociation.org/best-practices/malt/barley-resources/

100

The Brundtland Commission. (1987). Report of the World Comiison on Environment and

Development: Our Common Future. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from

http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf

Turner, S. F., Benedict, C. A., Darby, H., Hoagland, L. A., Simonson, P., Sirrine, J. R., &

Murphy, K. M. (2011). Challenges and Opportunities for Organic Hop Production in the

United States. Agronomy Journal, 103(6), 1645–1654.

https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2011.0131

Tyler, T., & Johnson, R. (2017, May). CPP HRT 312 Lecture: American Craft Beer. Class

Lecture presented at the HRT 312, Cal Poly Pomona.

Walsh, B. (2015). Preventing Eutrophication: Scientific Support for Dual Nutrient Criteria. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency: Office of Water. Retrieved from

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/nandpfactsheet.pdf

Watson, B. (2016). Economic Impact. Retrieved February 15, 2018, from

https://www.brewersassociation.org/statistics/economic-impact-data/

Watson, B. (2017). Stats & FAQs. Retrieved December 3, 2017, from

https://www.brewersassociation.org/press-room/stats-faqs/

White, C., & Zainasheff, J. (2010). The Practical Guide to Beer Fermentation: Yeast. Boulder,

Colorado: Brewers Publications, A Division of the Brewers Association. Retrieved from

https://books.google.com/books?id=Q82QAwAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&ots=kKZNt84W0C&

dq=Where%20do%20brewers%20get%20their%20yeast%20from&lr&pg=PT1#v=onepa

ge&q=Where%20do%20brewers%20get%20their%20yeast%20from&f=false

Wyeast Laboratories. (2017). Home | Wyeast Laboratories. Retrieved December 4, 2017, from

https://wyeastlab.com/

Yelp. (2017, December). Retrieved December 3, 2017, from

https://www.yelp.com/search?find_desc=Breweries&find_near=cal-poly-pomona-

pomona-2

101

Appendix A

Interview Questions

1. What is your brewery’s mission and general philosophy?

2. If applicable, what story does your beer tell?

3. How active is your brewery in your local community?

4. Can you tell me about your brewery’s brewing process?

How much do you produce?

How many brewers do you have?

How long does a batch take to brew and ferment?

What beers do you specialize in?

5. Specifically regarding sustainability, what brewing techniques have you implemented

that reduce your brewery’s environmental footprint?

6. Do you plan on implementing any environmental brewing techniques in the future? Why

or why not?

7. What general sense do you have about sustainability in the brewing industry?

Specific to Southern California?

Is sustainability a good or bad thing for the industry?

How do you feel it may affect the quality of beer?

8. Would you be willing to take part in my survey in the next few weeks and possibly help

me connect with other brewers in the area who would also be able to participate? This

would help me increase my response rate and the accuracy of my results, which I would

greatly appreciate.

102

Appendix B

Text of online survey:

Welcome to the Southern California breweries and sustainability survey

You are being invited to participate in a research study meant to gather information on the state of

environmental behavior within the craft beer industry in Southern California.

The survey will take approximately 15-20 minutes to complete. If you elect to participate, please

note the information will be strictly used for research purposes and whatever you disclose will

remain confidential between you and the Primary Investigator, Stephanie Gebhardt. All

identifiers will be removed from the data collected.

The Cal Poly Pomona Institutional Review Board (IRB) has reviewed and approved the survey

for conduct by Stephanie Gebhardt. This form is designed to provide you - as a human

subject/participant - with information about this study. The investigator will describe this study to

you and answer any of your questions. You are entitled to an Experimental Research Subject’s

Bill of Rights and a copy of this form, which can be provided upon request. If you have any

questions about your rights as a subject or participant, complaints about the informed consent

process of this research study, or experience an adverse event (something goes wrong), please

contact the Research Compliance Office within Cal Poly Pomona’s Office of Research at

909.869.4215. More information is available at the IRB website,

http://www.cpp.edu/~research/irb/index.shtml.

If there are any questions asked you feel uncomfortable answering, please do not hesitate to skip

the question or omit the information you do not wish to disclose. Just to be clear, you will not be

compensated, the benefits would be strictly educational. You can be assured, however, that there

is minimal risk to you or your business in participating in this survey.

103

The primary investigator will be sure to eliminate the risk of possibly having customers or other

breweries identify which breweries are involved in this study by keeping the collected data safe

and removing identifying information from the published study.

Please direct questions to Stephanie Gebhardt at slgebhardt@cpp.edu. Stephanie Gebhardt is a

masters candidate through the Lyle Center for Regenerative Studies at Cal Ploy Pomona. More

information on the regenerative studies program can be found at the following link:

http://env.cpp.edu/rs/rs.

Thank you for your participation in this study.

* 1. Required Question: Do you consent to participating in this survey? You may not proceed

without consenting to participate.

a) Yes,

b) No, end the survey

2. How many barrels of beer does your brewery produce each year?

a) 0-2,500

b) 2,501-7,500

c) 7,501-15,000

d) 15,001-3,00,000

e) 3,000,001-6,000,000

f) Over 6,000,001

3. What percentage of your sales are sold in house (i.e. in your tap room or brew pub)?

a) 0-25%

b) 26-50%

c) 51-75%

104

d) Over 76%

4. Please rank the following inputs according to cost per average brew (1 most expensive, 6

cheapest).

• Electricity

• Natural Gas Water Grain

• Hops

• Yeast

5. Do you reuse water during any part of your brewing process? If "Yes", please specify.

a) No

b) Yes (please specify)

6. What would you estimate is your ratio of water in to beer produced (ex. 5:1 or 5 gallons of

water in:1 gallon of beer produced)

a) 1:1 to 3:1

b) 4:1 to 5:1

c) 6:1 to 8:1

d) 9:1 to 12:1

e) More than 12:1

7. Do you treat your wastewater?

a) Yes, always

b) When necessary

c) No

8. What is the most energy intense step in your brewing process? (open ended)

9. Do you consolidate any of your energy inputs? If yes, please specify how.

a) No

b) Not sure

c) Yes (please specify)

105

10. Does any of your electricity come from renewable sources? If yes, please specify.

a) No

b) Not Sure

c) Yes (please specify)

11. Do you meter your water and/or energy use?

a) Yes, both

b) Yes, we meter our water use

c) Yes, we meter our energy use

d) No

12. How do you filter your beer?

a) Diatomaceous earth filter

b) Depth filtration

c) Surface filtration

d) We let particles naturally settle out or do not filter

e) Other (please specify)

13. How do you dispose of your spent grain? Mark all that apply.

a) Some or all gets thrown out

b) Some or all is composted

c) Some or all is given to a farmer or other entity for second use (animal feed, dog biscuits,

bread)

d) I'm not sure

106

14. Do you recycle glass, cardboard, cans, and/or paper? Mark all that apply

a) Glass

b) Cardboard

c) Cans

d) Paper

e) None of these items

The following questions are intended to learn about your packaging and distribution practices.

15. Do you pasteurize your beer?

a) Yes

b) No

16. In what ways is your finished beer packaged? (Mark all that apply)

a) Kegged (including growlers)

b) Bottled

c) Canned

17. How is a majority of your beer distributed?

a) We self distribute

b) We use a third party distributor

c) Most or all of our beer is sold in house

d) Other (please specify)

18. From your brewery, what is the farthest away your beer distributed to?

a) Most or all of our beer is sold in house

b) Up to 5 miles away

c) Up to 15 miles away

d) Up to 30 miles away

e) Over 30 miles away

107

The following questions are regarding your brewery's philosophy and branding.

19. What is the story you hope to tell through your branding? (open ended)

20. Does your brewery embody the community in which it is made?

a) Yes

b) No

21. What quality is most important for you to have in your beer?

a) Taste

b) Tradition

c) Uniqueness

d) Quality ingredients

e) Variety

f) Other (please specify)

The following questions are regarding environmental sustainability and your brewery's

operations.

22. To what extent is your brewery sustainable?

a) In everything we do

b) As much as we can

c) When it saves us money

d) It is not currently a factor

23. Why do you choose sustainable practices? Mark all that apply.

a) I/the owners want to

b) It helps us save money

c) It is the right thing to do

d) Our customers prefer sustainably made products

e) We do not have any sustainable practices

108

f) Other (please specify)

24. Are there any sustainable practices not covered in previous sections in this survey thus far that

you actively practice? If yes, please elaborate (open ended).

25. What obstacles do you have to being more sustainable? Mark all that apply.

a) There are no obstacles, we find it very easy to be sustainable

b) It is too expensive to install the proper equipment

c) We don't know which steps would impact our footprint the most

d) It would degrade the quality of the beer

e) Other (please specify)

26. How interested are you in making your brewery more sustainable in the future?

a) Very interested

b) Somewhat interested

c) Not at all interested

27. Recent studies show that breweries can reduce their water and electricity consumption by 20-

50% by retraining employees and adjusting the brewing process to optimize resource allocation,

all without purchasing new equipment. If given further details on next steps, would you consider

this option in the future?

a) Absolutely yes

b) Probably

c) Probably not

d) No

The remaining questions are intended to categorize what stage your brewery is in currently.

28. When was your brewery founded? (open ended)

109

29. How many locations do you brew at?

a) 1

b) 2

c) 3

d) 4 or more

30. Are you a member of any of the following? Mark all that apply.

a) Los Angeles County Brewers Guild

b) Orange County Brewers Guild

c) San Diego County Brewers Guild

d) Inland Empire Brewers

e) None of the above