sustainable beer - scholarworks
TRANSCRIPT
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.
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 [email protected]. 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)