lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production 93 (2015) 75e83

Contents lists avai

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jc lepro

Life Cycle Assessment of olive oil production in Greece

P. Tsarouhas a, *, Ch. Achillas b, D. Aidonis a, D. Folinas a, V. Maslis c

a Technological Educational Institute of Central Macedonia, Department of Supply Chain Management & Logistics, Kanellopoulou 2,60100 Katerini, Greeceb International Hellenic University, School of Economics, Business Administration and Legal Studies, 14th km Thessaloniki-N. Moudania,57001 Thermi, Greecec Hellenic Open University, Department of Quality and Safety, Parodos Aristotelous 18 str., 26335 Patra, Greece

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 1 June 2014Received in revised form17 January 2015Accepted 17 January 2015Available online 28 January 2015

Keywords:LCAOlive oil productionEnvironmental impactCase studyGreece

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ30 2351047862; faxE-mail address: ptsarouhas@teicm.gr (P. Tsarouhas

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.0420959-6526/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

Agricultural production is a sector with high socio-economic significance and key implications onemployment and nutritional security. However, the impacts of agrifood production and consumptionpatterns on the environment are considerable, mainly due to the demand of large inputs of resources.This paper presents a case study of olive oil production in Greece, an important agri-product especiallyfor countries in the Mediterranean basin. Life Cycle Assessment has been used to quantify the environ-mental performance of olive oil production. Fourteen sub-systems of the overall olive oil production areinvestigated. All key parameters that are associated with the life cycle of olive oil production are studiedand environmental “hotspots” are diagnosed. Cultivation of olive trees and production of olive oil are thesub-systems that are responsible for the majority of the environmental impacts and thus any effort tominimize the overall life cycle impact from olive oil production should include them.

© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Agrifood is considered as one of the industrial sectors with amajor political and economic significance and as such it is highlyregulated and protected within Europe (Iakovou et al., 2014).Moreover, it is one of the sectors with key implications on humancapital employment, nutritional security, but also on environ-mental sustainability due to the demand of large inputs of re-sources (Tukker et al., 2006; Koroneos et al., 2005). Solely, the foodand drink sector is responsible for nearly one third of the overallenvironmental impacts in Europe (Bakas, 2012).

In the last decade, the increased alertness of consumers on theimpacts of agrifood production and consumption patterns on theenvironment urged the industry within the sector to give emphasison the environmental issues related to their products (Matos andHall, 2007; Maloni and Brown, 2006; Vachon and Klassen, 2006;Welford and Frost, 2006; Ilbery and Maye, 2005; Courville, 2003;Weatherell and Allinson, 2003). However, in practice there aremajor obstacles in conducting studies that deal with impacts offood products from “farm to fork”. This is mainly attributed to thelack of public databases with suitable data for such a large and

: þ30 2351047860.).

complex system as the one of the agrifood industrial sector(Koroneos et al., 2005). Moreover, the required data involves a largenumber of stakeholders (production, manufacturing, storage, dis-tribution, packaging, consumption and disposal) and scientificdisciplines who often do not share data. In this light, scientific workusually focuses either on primary agri-production or on industrialprocessing of agrifood and does not cover agrifood production fromcradle to grave.

In this work, the emphasis is given in the life cycle of olive oil,which is considered as a key agrifood product for countries in theMediterranean basin both due to its considerable share in the localeconomy, but also due to its role in theMediterranean diet. Olive oilproduction involves the consumption of significant quantities ofresources (e.g. energy, fuel, water, chemical products) and thegeneration of emissions that are emitted to the natural environ-ment. The tool that is chosen for the calculation of the environ-mental burden is Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), one of the mostcommonly used environmental tools for environmental manage-ment and decision-making (Iakovou et al., 2009). Following to theISO 14040 and 14044 standards (ISO, 2006a, 2006b), LCA targets toquantify the effects from the use of energy and material processingthroughout all phases in a product's life cycle (e.g. Winkler andBilitewski, 2007; Finnveden, 1999; Craighill and Powell, 1996).

In the literature there are a number of studies that have usedLCA for various stages of the olive oil production. Indicatively,

P. Tsarouhas et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 93 (2015) 75e8376

Notarnicola et al. (2004) compared the production systems of theconventional and organic extra-virgin olive oil in order to measurecost and environmental profiles. The work resulted into the factthat the organic system has a better environmental profile. How-ever, its cost profile is significantly worse when the external costsare not taken into account. Similarly, De Gennaro et al. (2012) in-tegrated LCA and LCC methods in order to assess whether hightrees density olive-growing, which allows a higher level of mech-anization, can reduce production costs without jeopardizing theenvironmental sustainability. The LCA has proved that such inno-vative olive-growing models show better environmental perfor-mance for all impact categories that were investigated. Moreover,they were proven also to be more cost efficient compared totraditional practices. Avraamides and Fatta (2008) investigated theprocesses that result to themost significant environmental burdensin olive oil production in Cyprus. The study provided evidence thatthe production of the inorganic fertilizers, along with the disposalof liquid effluent from olive mills to evaporation ponds were majorcontributors to the olive oil life cycle environmental impact. Intiniet al. (2011) used LCA in order to assess the environmental per-formance of a power plant that is fed with olive oil industries'waste. Michalopoulos and Christodoulopoulou (2011) conducted acomprehensive LCA study on extra virgin olive oil produced by 68olive growers in 487 olive groves in southern Greece. The authorsresulted that the cultivation of olive trees is responsible for the vastmajority of the life cycle environmental impacts. Moreover,Salomone and Ioppolo (2012) used LCA in order to determine theenvironmental impacts of activities related to the production ofolive oil in the province of Messina, Italy and design an eco-friendlier and more efficient local supply chain. Results show thatthe phase of agri-production is the main contributor to the overallenvironmental impact, even in the scenarios that pest treatmentsare limited. Cossu et al. (2013) used LCA in order to study the wethusk and improve the recovery and upgrade the solid wastes of theolive oil extraction process. From the study, it becomes evident thatwastewater management produced from husk during the oilextraction should be optimized in order to minimize the overallenvironmental burden. Iraldo et al. (2014) used LCA in order todefine the environmental requirements for compliance with aproduct qualification scheme. According to the authors, the LCAstudy can provide critical insights towards process and productredesign.

Although a number of relevant papers have been already pub-lished in conference proceedings and technical reports, up to theauthors' knowledge this is the first attempt to demonstrate theenvironmental impact of olive oil production in Greece and validateit through its publication in a well acknowledged peer reviewedjournal. Moreover, the olive oil production system that is hereinstudied is analyzed into fourteen (14) sub-systems in an effort bothto increase the detail of the analysis and at the same time provideuseful insights concerning the processes that are most responsiblefor the overall burden. The main objective of this paper is torecognize all key parameters that are associated with the life cycleof olive oil production in Greece. More specifically, through thepresented case study focus is given on the identification of thephases within the product's life cycle which is responsible for themajority of the environmental inputs and outputs with the aim todiagnose environmental “hotspots”. Furthermore, the present workaims to propose improvements towards overall optimization of thesystem. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: In Section 2the product and the system under study are determined, whilealso the assumptions of the work and the Life Cycle Inventory arepresented. Results of the LCA study are illustrated in Section 3 andthe paper wraps up with the conclusions in Section 4.

2. Product and system definition

The manufacturer under study is based in Gerakini, Chalkidiki,Greece. The company uses olives locally produced and producesbottled olive oil that is mainly exported to Europe. The productstudied in this work is extra virgin olive oil and is marketed in 1 ltplastic bottles. The system investigated takes into consideration thefollowing fourteen (14) sub-systems; (i) fertilizer production,transport and use, (ii) pesticides production, transport and use, (iii)manufacture of agricultural equipment, (iv) cultivation of olives, (v)transportation of olives from the field to the manufacturer, (vi)production of olive oil, (vii) bottles' production and transportation,(viii) lids' production, (ix) bottling of olive oil, (x) packaging pro-duction and transportation, (xi) adhesive tape, (xii) palettes, (xiii)stretch film, (xiv) palletizing of olive oil bottles. The system isanalytically illustrated in Fig. 1.

The functional unit is one bottle of extra virgin olive oil with avolume of 1 lt. The association of the functional unit, which iscomprised of the product itself and the packaging materials, withthe system's parameters is analytically described in Table 1. Thesystem boundaries include the processes that have been identifiedand related to production and transportation of chemicals, culti-vation of olives, transfer of olives to the mill and all the processestaking place there for the extraction of oil and packaging. Althoughthe system boundaries include all phases of the olive oil production,the following are not included in the present study; (i) consump-tion of olive oil, (ii) planting of olive trees, (iii) construction ofinfrastructure and facilities of the mill, (iv) maintenance of plantand agricultural machinery, (v) manufacture and installation ofindustrial equipment, (vi) packing of raw materials, (vii) the pro-duction of diesel, (viii) ink and printing, (ix) storage of waste, (x)rawmaterials, emissions andwaste for the production of pesticides.

The assumptions that are taken into consideration are thefollowing:

a. The production of 1 lt of extra virgin olive oil requires 4 kg ofolives.

b. Olives are transported from the farm to the manufacturer withthe use of a 2.4 diesel pickup truck. The vehicle's payload weightis 1100 kg consumption of the truck is assumed at 7.5 lt of dieselper 100 km. Such a vehicle is representative of the majority ofagricultural machinery used in the wider area under study.

c. Transportations towards and from the farm are materializedwith the use of the aforementioned pickup truck, while thetractor remains at the farm.

d. Transportations are calculated based on the place of residence ofpeople involved in the farming process (either owners or sea-sonal workers). Primarily the place of residence is a village closeto the farm. The distance from the farmers' residence to thefarms is 4 km on average, while farms are located 5 km onaverage from the manufacturer. Transportations are calculatedon the condition that all the work that is carried out outside ofthe farm involves only one farmer. For the harvesting of olives ina 25-acres farm, we assume that there are 6 people involvedwho work 8 h per day. Those six farmers need eight days forharvesting.

e. Farmers use tractors with an average engine of 80 HP, which istypical for farmers in Greece. The consumption of the tractor isassumed at 5 lt of diesel per 100 km for light tasks (spraying,fertilizing, etc.) and 6.5 lt of diesel per 100 km for heavy tasks(plowing, transportation, etc.).

f. Two different hypotheses have been taken into account in ourstudy concerning fuel consumption; (a) low consumption of 5 ltper hour for low-consuming activities such as spraying,

Fig. 1. Illustration of the system investigated.

P. Tsarouhas et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 93 (2015) 75e83 77

Table 1Association of the functional unit with the system's parameters.

Description Material Weight (g) Percentage ofweight (%)

Product Olive oil Olive oil 875.00 85.75Primary packaging Bottle PET 43.00 4.214

Cap PP 8.00 0.784Tag Paper 1.30 0.127

Secondarypackaging

Carton Paper 91.67 8.984Adhesive tape PVC 0.33 0.032

Palletizing ofolive oil

Pallet Wood 1.53 0.150Stretch film LLDPE 0.35 0.034

Total 1021.18 100

Table 2Fuel consumption and emissions from olive cultivation.

Fuel (in lt) 63.2Energy (in MJ) 2787Water (in lt) 2000Air emissionsVOC (in g/diesel lt) 3.54CO (in g/diesel lt) 26.55NOx (in g/diesel lt) 33.90PM10 (in g/diesel lt) 2.56SOx (in g/diesel lt) 10.11CH4 (in g/diesel lt) 0.19N2O (in g/diesel lt) 0.04CO2 (in g/diesel lt) 3036Hydrocarbons (in g/diesel lt) 10.9Waste waterBOD (in g/diesel lt) 0.04COD (in g/diesel lt) 0.04Organic compounds (in g/diesel lt) 0.42

Table 4Rawmaterials, air emissions, solid waste and wastewater from the manufacturing of1 lt of olive oil.

Unit Manufacturing Electricity Pomace Total

EnergyElectricity MJ 0.93 0.93Olive pits MJ 2.93 2.93MaterialsOlives g 4000Water lt 8.00Air emissionsVOC g 0.0025 0.0025CO g 0.1395 0.0454 0.1849NOx g 0.5892 0.4990 1.0882PM10 g 0.0172 0.0172TSP g 0.1809 0.1809SOx g 2.8502 0.3630 3.2132CH4 g 0.3618 0.0091 0.3709N2O g 0.0078 0.0010 0.0088CO2 g 220.4 0.2315 220.6NMVOC g 0.0155 0.0155Waste waterCOD g 224.4 224.4BOD5 g 171.36 171.36N g 2.6112 2.6112P g 0.816 0.816Solid wastes g 281.52 281.52Fats g 28.56 28.56Solid wastesLeaves g 160Pomace g 1600

P. Tsarouhas et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 93 (2015) 75e8378

fertilizing and harvesting, and (b) high consumption of 6.5 lt perfor high-consuming activities such as plowing.

g. The pollutants under consideration are VOC, CO, NOx, PM, SOx,CH4, N2O and CO2.

h. The data for the production of agricultural machinery is basedon the simplification that their materials are limited to iron andrubber (Audsley et al., 1997; Mil�a i Canals, 2003). The energyconsumed by the agricultural machinery for the cultivation ofone acre of olive grove is assumed to be 64,807 MJ.

i. The percentage of defective bottles and defective packaging isnot taken into account. Also, we do not take into account leakingoil in pumps or engine blocks.

Data collection for the study included telephone and personalcontacts with farmers and small oil producing units, mainly in thearea of Chalkidiki, Greece. Although unstructured, discussions with

Table 3Fuel consumption in the phases of olive cultivation (per acre).

Activity Tractor (70 HP) Truck

Duration(in hrs)

Consumption(in lt)

Consumption(in lt)

Plowing 0.5 3.25IrrigationTransportation of fertilizers 2.12Fertilizing 0.17 0.85Transportation of pesticides/herbicidesPesticiding/Herbiciding 0.33 1.7Pruning 2 13Harvesting 4 20.4Transportation of olives to manufacturer 0.5 2.9Total 7.50 42.10 2.12

growers and mills were imperative, since there was no availableorganized and recorded production data nationally. Anotherimportant source of data collection is the literature reports of publicagencies and the previous studies on olive oil.

Based on the above mentioned assumptions, the fuel, energyand water consumption for the cultivation of olives and the rele-vant emissions are illustrated in Table 2 (EPA, 1995; GREET, 2013;White et al., 1995). For the fuel consumption the data presentedin Table 3 is used. More specifically, a tractor, a truck and a pickupare used for farming and transportation by the studied manufac-turer, while other smaller equipment are used for irrigation andpruning purposes. Table 4 analytically presents the quantities ofraw materials, air emissions, solid waste and wastewater from themanufacturing phase of olive oil.

As already mentioned, the production of olive oil is analyzed ineleven (11) sub-systems. Indicatively, the inputs and outputs in theolive oil production subsystem is illustrated in Fig. 2. Similarly, thebasic inputs and outputs for all remaining subsystems arecalculated.

Pickup truck (2.4D) Maschinery (pumb, chainsaw)

Visits(#)

Routes(#)

Mileage(in km)

Consumption(in lt)

Consumption(in lt)

2 4 16 1.22 4 16 1.2 0.28

1 2 8 0.65 10 40 3

12 24 96 7.2 2.410 20 80 6

19.20 2.68

Fig. 2. Inputs and outputs in the olive oil production subsystem for 1 lt of extra virgin olive oil.

Table 5Characterization methodology.

Unit Characterization factor Source

Global Warming PotentialCO2 g CO2-eq/g 1 IPCC (2001).CH4 g CO2-eq/g 23 IPCC (2001).N2O g CO2-eq/g 296 IPCC (2001).CO g CO2-eq/g 1,57 VHK (2005).AcidificationSOx g SO2eeq/g 1 Rydh et all (2002), Goedkoop (1995).NOx g SO2eeq/g 0.7 Hauschild and Wenzel (1998), Goedkoop (1995).HCl g SO2eeq/g 0.88 Hauschild and Wenzel (1998), Goedkoop (1995), LCA-Center (2004).NH3 g SO2eeq/g 1.88 Hauschild and Wenzel (1998), Goedkoop (1995), LCA-CenterHF g SO2eeq/g 1.6 Hauschild and Wenzel (1998), Goedkoop (1995), LCA-Center (2004).H2S g SO2eeq/g 1.88 Hauschild and Wenzel (1998).NH4

þ g SO2eeq/g 1.88 Rydh et all (2002), lca-center (2004).EutroficationNOx g PO4

�3-eq/g 0.13 Lindfors et all (1995), Rydh et all (2002).NH3 g PO4

�3-eq/g 0.35 Lindfors et all (1995), Rydh et all (2002).NH4

þ g PO4�3-eq/g 0.349 Rydh et al (2002).

N g PO4�3-eq/g 0.42 Lindfors et al (1995).

NO3� g PO4

�3-eq/g 0.13 Rydh et al (2002).P2O5 g PO4

�3-eq/g 1.34 VHK (2005).P g PO4

�3-eq/g 3.06 Lindfors et all (1995), VHK (2005).PO4

�3 g PO4�3-eq/g 1 Lindfors et al (1995).

COD g PO4�3-eq/g 0.022 Lindfors et all (1995), Rydh et all (2002).

BOD g PO4�3-eq/g 0.022 Rydh et al (2002).

TOC g PO4�3-eq/g 0.066 VHK (2005).

PM g PO4�3-eq/g 0.08 VHK (2005).

Photo-oxidant formationCH4 g C2H6-eq/g 0.007 Goedkoop (1995), Heijungs et all (1992), Rydh et all (2002).Aromatic hydrocarbons g C2H6-eq/g 0.761 Goedkoop (1995), Heijungs et all (1992).PAH g C2H6-eq/g 0.761 Goedkoop (1995).C2H4 g C2H6-eq/g 1 Rydh et al (2002).VOCs g C2H6-eq/g 0.398 Goedkoop (1995).NMVOCs g C2H6-eq/g 0.416 Goedkoop (1995).Aldehydes g C2H6-eq/g 0.443 Goedkoop (1995).CO g C2H6-eq/g 0.032 Rydh et al (2002).

P. Tsarouhas et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 93 (2015) 75e83 79

Fig. 3. Distribution of energy and water consumption in the olive oil production system.

P. Tsarouhas et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 93 (2015) 75e8380

3. Results and discussion

In the framework of the present work, energy and water con-sumption, the potential contributions to global warming, acidifi-cation, eutrophication and photo-oxidant formation were studiedfor the case of the olive oil production. The analysis herein pre-sented is based on the Eco-indicator 99 methodology (Goedkoopand Spriensma, 2001). The results are presented at subsystemlevel in the material to follow. The emissions of the system havebeen grouped into impacts (characterization step), based on thedata presented in Table 5. The distributions of energy and waterconsumption into the subsystems are depicted in Fig. 3. Productionof olive oil and cultivation of olive trees are themain contributors inrespect to water consumption. Water consumption for all othersubsystems is negligible. As regards energy consumption, thecultivation of olive trees, manufacturing of olive oil and bottles'

Fig. 4. Carbon intensity expresse

production and transportation are the most responsible contribu-tors, followed by packaging and fertilizers' production andtransportation.

The potential contributions to global warming per subsystemare presented in Fig. 4. It is clear that the cultivation of olives is thegreatest contributor to global warming in olive oil production(40.37%). Bottles' production and transportation and production ofolive oil follow, as they account for the 22.41% and 21.35%,respectively. It should be highlighted that the three aforemen-tioned subsystems are responsible for nearly 85% of the overallglobal warming potential.

Figs. 5e7 graphically present the characterized results asregards acidification, eutrophication and photochemical oxidation,respectively. Cultivation of olives is the biggest contributor of allsubsystems in terms of acidification (followed by olive oil produc-tion and fertilizers' production, transportation and use) and

d as gCO2-eq per subsystem.

Fig. 5. Acidification impact in the olive oil production system expressed as g SO2-eq per subsystem.

P. Tsarouhas et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 93 (2015) 75e83 81

photochemical oxidation (seconded by bottles' production andtransportation), while it represents the third biggest contributor toeutrophication, following olive oil production and fertilizers' pro-duction, transportation and use.

Cultivation of olives is responsible for the vast majority ofacidification and photochemical oxidation impacts, being respon-sible for 43.76% and 67.93%, respectively. Production of olive oil isthe subsystem with the second largest impact as regards acidifi-cation, since it represents 22.48% of the total relevant impact.However, production of olive oil is the subsystemwhich is primarilyresponsible for eutrophication, since it represents 82.03% of the

Fig. 6. Eutrophication impact in the olive oil productio

relevant impact, seconded by fertilizer production, transport anduse which is responsible for only a fraction of that figure (10.47%).The latter also significantly contributes to acidification, as it rep-resents 18.77% of the overall relevant impact. Last but not least,bottles' production and transportation is also considered a criticalsubsystem mainly due to its significance in photochemical oxida-tion (18.90%) and acidification (7.57%), although it does not poseany noteworthy burden in terms of eutrophication (0.54%).

The results herein presented clearly illustrate that the cultiva-tion of olive trees is the subsystem most responsible for the vastmajority of the impact categories examined and contribute to a

n system expressed as g PO4�3-eq per subsystem.

Fig. 7. Photochemical oxidation impact in the olive oil production system expressed as g C2H6-eq per subsystem.

P. Tsarouhas et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 93 (2015) 75e8382

maximum extend to the adverse environmental impacts of theolive oil production. This subsystem is followed by manufacturingof olive oil in the hierarchy of the most harmful contributors to thenatural environment. Undeniably, the ultimate aim of any LCAstudy is to provide the grounds for the further improvement of theexamined system (Avraamides and Fatta, 2008). Based on thefindings of the present study, any effort to minimize the overall lifecycle impact caused by olive oil production should put emphasis ontheminimization of the emissions producedwithin the two specificsubsystems; cultivation of olive trees and production of olive oil.

Towards environmentally friendly production of olive oil,emphasis should be given to the efficient use of water and energy,as well as the diminishment of air emissions and solid waste inorder to minimize the overall environmental impact. With respectto water consumption and relevant wastewater production,considerable opportunities exist. Two-stage centrifugation isconsidered as the most efficient technology. However, high hu-midity needs to be considered. Moreover, water consumptionneeds to be carefully controlled during the washing of the olives. Tothat end, a closed cleaning system which recycles used water ishighly promoted, which has also a positive impact in energy sav-ings. As regards energy consumption, its efficient and rationalmanagement through a number of alternative improvements couldsignificantly reduce the requirements in energy and the corre-sponding air emissions. For instance, such interventions could beimprovements in combustion, better insulation, use of automa-tions, exploitation of thermal content of exhaust gases and utili-zation of energy saving equipment. It should be highlighted thatalthough most of the available energy saving solutions require arelatively small investment, their benefits are significant both inrespect to the environmental and economic performance. Relatingto air emissions, measures that can be applied relate to the oper-ating conditions of the equipment and its regular maintenance.Moreover, significant improvements may be achieved with thepenetration of eco-friendly fuels (e.g. natural gas) in order tominimize the wide use of diesel engines.

4. Conclusions

Agriculture and agrifood production occupies an importantposition in the society and the economy. Although critical for theglobal food security, it represents one of the main contributors forthe impacts to the natural environment. This paper examines theenvironmental impact of olive oil production in Greece, which isconsidered a critical product nationally mainly due to its signifi-cance to the local economy. The overall impact is detailed into thelevel of fourteen (14) indicative sub-systems in order to provide aclear picture of those processes that are most important environ-mental wise.

Since the study mainly involves the olive oil manufacturer, theauthors place emphasis on the improvement of the production ofolive oil subsystem. In this light, and according to modern trends inolive oil production, there are basically two suggestions that can beproposed to the manufacturer under study in order the latter toreduce waste and therefore decrease the required energy, waterand steam consumption. More specifically, the use of specialequipment for malaxation operating in 2-fases that are not usingwater is highly suggested. Such equipment may achieve less pro-duction time and requires low temperature (22e23 �C) to operate.Moreover, the adoption of a full Just-In-Time strategy for receivingolives from farms may also significantly improve the manufac-turer's efficiency. The main objective of such a strategy is to mini-mize storage and processing time, so as the latter not to exceed12 h.

It is worthmentioning that the present study does not primarilytarget to quantify the environmental emissions of the presentedolive oil production system. Such an effort could be misleadingwhen all the limitations, lack of data and assumptions made aretaken into consideration. Nonetheless, this study provides usefulmanagerial insights and diagnoses the relevant environmental“hotspots” in the effort to provide the stakeholders with scientificevidence and assist towards producing eco-friendlier products. As afuture challenge, the authors are planning to also include

P. Tsarouhas et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 93 (2015) 75e83 83

Environmental Value Stream Mapping and Energy Value StreamMapping (EPA, 2007) for supporting the greening efforts in theolive oil production industry.

Acknowledgements

This research has received funding from the European Union'sSeventh Framework Programme (FP7-REGPOT-2012-2013-1) underGrant Agreement No. 316167 (Project Acronym: GREEN-AgriChains) and from the European Social Fund and Greek na-tional funds through the Research Funding Program THALES underGrant Agreement No. OPS 379411. Moreover, the research ispartially conducted in the context of the project entitled “Interna-tional Hellenic University (Operation e Development)”, which ispart of the Operational Programme “Education and LifelongLearning” of the Hellenic Ministry of Education, Lifelong Learningand Religious affairs and is funded by the European Commission(European Social Fund e ESF) and from national resources.

References

Audsley, A., Albe, S., Clift, R., Cowel, S., Crettaz, R., Gaillard, G., Hausheer, J.,Jolliett, O., Kleijn, R., Mortensen, B., Pearce, D., Roger, E., Teulon, H., Weidema, B.,van Zeijts, H., 1997. Harmonisation of Environmental Life Cycle Assessment forAgriculture. Final report, Concerted Action AIR3-CT94-2028. European Com-mission DG VI, Brussels, Belgium.

Avraamides, M., Fatta, D., 2008. Resource consumption and emissions from olive oilproduction: a life cycle inventory case study in Cyprus. J. Clean. Prod. 16,809e821.

Bakas, I., 2012. Food and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions [Online]. Available.http://www.scp-knowledge.eu/sites/default/files/KU_Food_GHG_emissions.last accessed: 12-03-2014.

Cossu, A., Degl’Innocenti, S., Agnolucci, M., Cristani, C., Bedini, S., Nuti, M., 2013.Assessment of the life cycle environmental impact of the olive oil extractionsolid wastes in the European Union. Open Waste Manag. J. 6, 12e20.

Courville, S., 2003. Use of indicators to compare supply chains in the coffee in-dustry. Greener Manag. Int. 43, 94e105.

Craighill, A.L., Powell, J.C., 1996. Lifecycle assessment and economic evaluation ofrecycling: a case study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 17, 75e96.

De Gennaro, B., Notarnicola, B., Roselli, L., Tassielli, G., 2012. Innovative olive-growing models: an environmental and economic assessment. J. Clean. Prod.28, 70e80.

EPA, 2007. The Lean and Energy Toolkit. Achieving Process Excellence Using LessEnergy. Available. nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey¼P1001XIJ.TXT. lastaccess: 2 September 2014.

EPA, 1995. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. AP-42 In: Stationary Pointand Area Sources, fifth ed., vol. 1. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.Office of Air and Radiation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. January.

Finnveden, G., 1999. Methodological aspects of Life Cycle Assessment of integratedsolid waste management systems. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 26, 173e187.

Goedkoop, M., 1995. De Eco-lndicator 95. Final report, NOH report 9523. PReConsultants, Amersfoort, ISBN 90-72130-77-4.

Goedkoop, M., Spriensma, R., 2001. The Eco-indicator 99. A Damage OrientedMethod for Life Cycle Assessment. Methodology report, third ed. Amersfoort,June.

GREET, 2013. GREET Software. U.S. Department of Energy. Argonne NationalLaboratory.

Hauschild, M.Z., Wenzel, H., 1998. Environmental Assessment of Products. In: Sci-entific Background, vol. 2. Chapman & Hall, United Kingdom, p. 565. KluwerAcademic Publishers, Hingham, MA. USA.

Heijungs, R., Guinee, J.B., Huppes, G., Lankreijer, R.M., Udo de Haes, H.A., WegenerSleeswijk, A., Ansems, A.M.M., Eggels, P.G., van Duin, R., de Goede, H.P., October1992. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Products. I. Guide, October 1992.Il. Backgrounds. CML, Leiden, p. 226.

Iakovou, E., Vlachos, D., Achillas, Ch, Anastasiadis, F., 2014. Design of sustainablesupply chains for the agrifood sector: a holistic research framework. Agric. Eng.Int. CIGR J. 1e10.

Iakovou, E., Moussiopoulos, N., Xanthopoulos, A., Achillas, Ch, Michailidis, N.,Chatzipanagioti, M., Koroneos, C., Bouzakis, K.-D., Kikis, V., 2009.A methodological framework for end-of-life management of electronic prod-ucts. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 53, 329e339.

Ilbery, B., Maye, D., 2005. Food supply chains and sustainability: evidence fromspecialist food producers in the Scottish/English borders. Land Use Policy 22 (4),331e344.

Intini, F., Kühtz, S., Rospi, G., 2011. Energy recovery of the solid waste of the olive oilindustries e LCA analysis and carbon footprint assessment. J. Sustain. EnergyEnviron. 2, 157e166.

IPCC, 2001. Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. In: Houghton, J.T., Ding, Y.,Griggs, D.J., Noguer, M., Van der Linden, P.J., Dai, X., Maskell, K., Johnson, C.A.(Eds.), Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge and New York.

Iraldo, F., Testa, F., Bartolozzi, I., 2014. An application of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)as a green marketing tool for agricultural products: the case of extra-virginolive oil in Val di Cornia, Italy. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 57 (1), 78e103.

ISO, 2006a. Environmental Management e Life Cycle Assessment e Principles andFramework. ISO 14040. International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO),Geneve.

ISO, 2006b. Environmental Management e Life Cycle Assessment e Requirementsand Guidelines. ISO 14044. International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO),Geneve.

Koroneos, C., Roumbas, G., Gabari, Z., Papagiannidou, E., Moussiopoulos, N., 2005.Life Cycle Assessment of beer production in Greece. J. Clean. Prod. 13, 433e439.

LCA-Center, 2004. Official website. Available: http://www.lca-center.dk, (accessed26.08.14.).

Lindfors, L.-G., Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Junttila, V., Hanssen, O.-J.,Ronning, A., Ekvall, T., Finnveden, G., 1995. Nordic Guidelines on Life-cycleAssessment, vol. 20. Nordic Council of Ministers, Nord, Copenhagen.

Maloni, M.J., Brown, M.E., 2006. Corporate social responsibility in the supply chain:an application in the food industry. J. Bus. Ethics 68 (1), 35e52.

Matos, S., Hall, J., 2007. Integrating sustainable development in the supply chain:the case of Life Cycle Assessment in oil and gas and agricultural biotechnology.J. Oper. Manag. 25, 1083e1102.

Michalopoulos, G., Christodoulopoulou, L., 2011. Life Cycle Assessment of ExtraVirgin Olive Oil Produced by Three Groups of Farmers in South Greece pub-lished on Rodaxagro.gr.

Mil�a i Canals, L., 2003. Contributions to LCA Methodology for Agricultural Systems:Site-dependency and Soil Degradation Impact Assessment. PhD thesis. Auton-omous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. Available. http://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/3155;jsessionid¼5FCB6706910D7660C969E793355B6DB6.tdx2(accessed 02.09.14.).

Notarnicola, B., Tassielu, G., Nicoletti, G.M., 2004. Environmental and economicanalysis of the organic and conventional extra-virgin olive oil. New Medit. AMediterr. J. Econ. Agric. Environ. 2, 28e34.

Rydh, C.J., Lindahl, M., Tingstrom, J., 2002. Livscykelanalys e en metod for iljobe-domning av produkter och tjanster. Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden.

Salomone, R., Ioppolo, G., 2012. Environmental impacts of olive oil production: aLife Cycle Assessment case study in the province of Messina (Sicily). J. Clean.Prod. 28, 88e100.

Tukker, A., Huppes, G., Guin�ee, J., Heijungs, R., de Koning, A., van Oers, L., Suh, S.,Geerken, Th, Van Holderbeke, M., Jansen, B., Nielsen, P., 2006. EnvironmentalImpact of Products (EIPRO) e Analysis of the Life Cycle Environmental ImpactsRelated to the Final Consumption of the EU-25. IPTS/ESTO Project. TechnicalReport EUR 22284 EN, May.

Vachon, S., Klassen, R.D., 2006. Extending green practices across the supply chain:the impact of upstream and downstream integration. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag.26 (7), 795e821.

Van Holsteijn en Kemna (VHK), 2005. Methodology Study Eco-design of Energy-using Products (MEEUP). Available. http://www.vhknet.com/download/MEEUPMethodology_fin.pdf (accessed 26.08.14.).

White, P., Franke, M., Hindle, P., 1995. Integrated Solid Waste Management: a LifeCycle Inventory. Blackie Academic and Professional, London, UK.

Winkler, J., Bilitewski, B., 2007. Comparative evaluation of life-cycle assessmentmodels for solid waste management. Waste Manag. 27, 1021e1031.

Weatherell, A., Allinson, J., 2003. In search of the concerned consumer UK publicperceptions of food, farming and buying local. J. Rural Stud. 19, 233e244.

Welford, R., Frost, S., 2006. Corporate social responsibility in Asian supply chains.Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 13 (3), 166e176.