COMPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

Climate impact of alcohol consumption in Sweden

Hallström,E.a*, Håkansson, N.b, Åkesson, A.b, Wolk, A.b, Sonesson, U.a

a Research Institute of Sweden (RISE), Dept. of Agrifood and Bioscience, P.O. Box 5401

SE40229 Göteborg, Sweden, www.ri.se

b Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute, P.O. Box 210, SE171 77

Stockholm, Sweden

*Corresponding author (Elinor.hallstrom@ri.se; +46 105166641)

1

METHODOLOGY

CM 1. Consumption of alcoholic beverages in Sweden

In Sweden 62%, 85% and 45% of the consumption of class III beer (>3.5%), wine and liquor,

respectively, is bought from the Swedish Alcohol Monopoly (Ramstedt et al., 2013). Class III

beer that is not bought from Swedish Alcohol Monopoly is either bought in restaurants (50%),

brought to Sweden via personal traveling or smuggling (44%) or made at home (6%)

(Trolledal, 2016). Class III beer bought on the internet represents 0.5% of the total quantity of

beer not bought from the Swedish Alcohol Monopoly and is not included in this analysis.

Class I and II beer (˂3.5%) is to 99% purchased in retail and a minor share is bought in

restaurants (Swedish Brewery Association, 2013). Wine not bought from the Swedish Alcohol

Monopoly is bought either in restaurants (49%), brought to Sweden via personal traveling or

smuggling (33%), made at home (9%) or bought on the internet (9%) (Trolledal, 2016).

Liquor not bought from the Swedish Alcohol Monopoly is bought either in restaurants (15%),

brought to Sweden via personal traveling or smuggling (81%), made at home (2%) or bought

on the internet (2%) (Trolledal, 2016).

2

CM 2. Climate impact of agricultural production

Greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural phase of alcoholic beverages are based on

data from the literature review.

CM 2.1 Beer

For beer (class I, II and III), the average climate impact used in our calculations is based on

11 individual estimates (Table CM 1) from five original studies. The origin of agricultural

production varies, five data are based on production in Europe and six data are based on

production in North America.

Table CM 1. Emissions of GHGs in the agriculture phase for 1 litre of beer

Kg CO2e/litre Region Source

0.17 Italy (Cimini and Moresi, 2016)

0.20 UK (Amienyo and Azapagic, 2016)

0.11 UK (Williams and Mekonen, 2014)

0.37 US (Lalonde et al., 2013)

0.51 US (Lalonde et al., 2013)

0.31 US (Lalonde et al., 2013)

0.20 US (Lalonde et al., 2013)

0.23 US (Lalonde et al., 2013)

0.30 North America (BIER, 2012)

0.16 Europe (BIER, 2012)

AVERAGE (n=10) 0.26

MEDIAN (n=10) 0.23

RANGE (n=10) 0.11-0.51

3

CM 2.2 Wine

For wine and strong wine the average climate impact used in our calculations is based on 15

individual estimates (Table CM 2) from 8 original studies. The origin of agricultural

production is mainly south Europe, except for one study in which the production is based in

Canada.

Table CM 2. Emissions of GHGs in the agriculture phase for 1 litre of wine

Kg CO2e/litre Region Source

0.23 Italy (Sardinia) (Fusi et al., 2014)

0.26 Italy (Sardinia) (Fusi et al., 2014)

2.67 Portugal (Neto et al., 2013)

0.94 Italy (Sardinia) (Benedetto, 2013)

0.06 Italy (Pattara et al., 2012)

2.41 Spain (Galicia) (Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2012)

2.78 Spain (Galicia) (Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2012)

2.76 Spain (Galicia) (Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2012)

2.34 Spain (Galicia) (Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2012)

0.44 Italy (Tuscany) (Boscro et al., 2011)

0.29 Italy (Tuscany) (Boscro et al., 2011)

0.25 Italy (Tuscany) (Boscro et al., 2011)

0.16 Italy (Tuscany) (Boscro et al., 2011)

0.67 Spain (Gazulla et al., 2010)

1.09 Canada (Toronto) (Point et al., 2012)

AVERAGE (n=15) 1.16

4

MEDIAN (n=15) 0.70

RANGE (n=15) 0.06-2.78

5

CM 2.3 Liquor

For liquor the average climate impact used in our calculations is based on 5 individual

estimates () from 4 original studies. The origin of agricultural production is Scotland, Sweden

and Peru.

In our calculations a distinction is made between types of liquor. For whiskey the average of

0.69 kg CO2e/L is used, for liquor with origin from Latin America the average of 0.90 kg

CO2e/L is used, and for all other types of liquor the average of 0.60 kg CO2e/L is used.

Table CM 3. Emissions of GHGs in the agriculture phase for 1 litre of liquor

Kg CO2e/litre Region

Alcoholic

beverage

Source

Liquor

3.0 Peru Pisco (Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2017)

1.0 Sweden Whiskey (Eriksson et al., 2016)

0.42 Scotland Whiskey (Garnett, 2007)

0.34 Scotland Vodka (Garnett, 2007)

0.62 Scotland Whiskey (Saxe, 2010)

AVERAGE (n=5) 0.90

MEDIAN (n=5) 0.62

RANGE (n=5) 0.34-3.0

AVERAGE (n=4) excl. pisco 0.60

Whiskey

1.0 Sweden (Eriksson et al., 2016)

0.42 Scotland (Garnett, 2007)

6

0.62 Scotland (Saxe, 2010)

AVERAGE (n=3) 0.69

7

CM 3. Climate impact of the beverage industry

Greenhouse gas emissions from the beverage industry are based on data from the literature

review.

CM 3.1 Beer

For beer (class I, II and III) the average climate impact used in our calculations is based on 11

individual estimates (Table CM 4) from 5 original studies. The origin of the brewery is in

Europe (5 data) and in North America (6 data).

Table CM 4. Emissions of GHGs in the beermaking phase for 1 litre of beer

Kg CO2e/litre Region Source

0.06 Italy (Cimini and Moresi, 2016)

0.08 UK (Amienyo and Azapagic, 2016)

0.07 UK (Amienyo and Azapagic, 2016)

0.11 UK (Williams and Mekonen, 2014)

1.63 US (Lalonde, 2013)

0.37 US (Lalonde, 2013)

0.03 US (Lalonde, 2013)

0.39 US (Lalonde, 2013)

0.08 US (Lalonde, 2013)

0.11 North America (BIER, 2012)

0.11 Europe (BIER, 2012)

AVERAGE (n=11) 0.32

MEDIAN (n=11) 0.11

RANGE (n=11) 0.03-1.63

8

CM 3.2 Wine

For wine and strong wine the average climate impact used in our calculations is based on 14

individual estimates (Table CM 5) from 8 original studies. The origin of agricultural

production is mainly south Europe, except for one study in which the production is based in

Canada.

Table CM 5. Emissions of GHGs in the winemaking phase for 1 litre of wine

Kg CO2e/litre Region Source

0.38 Italy (Sardina) (Fusi et al., 2014)

0.42 Italy (Sardina) (Fusi et al. 2014)

0.32 Portugal (Neto et al., 2013)

0.004 Italy (Sardinia) (Benedetto, 2013)

0.03 Italy (Pattara et al., 2012)

0.66 Spain (Galicia) (Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2012)

0.60 Spain (Galicia) (Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2012)

0.42 Spain (Galicia) (Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2012)

0.29 Italy (Tuscany) (Bosco et al., 2011)

0.05 Italy (Tuscany) (Bosco et al., 2011)

0.07 Italy (Tuscany) (Bosco et al., 2011)

0.12 Italy (Tuscany) (Bosco et al., 2011)

0.05 Spain (Gazulla et al., 2010)

0.45 Canada (Toronto) (Point et al., 2012)

AVERAGE (n=14) 0.28

MEDIAN (n=14) 0.31

RANGE (n=14) 0.004-0.66

9

CM 3.3 Liquor

For liquor the average climate impact used in our calculations is based on 6 individual

estimates (Table CM 6) from 5 original studies. The origin of agricultural production is

Scotland, Sweden and Peru.

Table CM 6. Emissions of GHGs in the distillery phase of 1 litre of liquor

Kg CO2e/litre Region

Alcoholic

beverage

Source

0.83 Peru Pisco (Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2017)

0.10 Sweden Whiskey (Eriksson et al., 2016)

0.40 - Vodka (Saxe, 2010)

0.41 UK

UK

Whiskey

Whiskey

(Garnett, 2007; Saxe, 2010)

0.18 (Garnett, 2007; Saxe, 2010)

0.91 Scotland Whiskey (Saxe, 2010)

AVERAGE (n=6) 0.47

MEDIAN (n=6) 0.40

RANGE (n=6) 0.10-0.91

10

CM 4. Climate impact of packaging

CM 4.1 Beer

Class III beer (>3.5%) consumed in Sweden is assumed to be packaged according to the data

in Table CM 7. Information on type of packaging for beer sold by the Swedish Alcohol

Monopoly is based on data provided by the Swedish Alcohol Monopoly (SAM, 2017).

Draught beer sold from the Swedish Alcohol Monopoly accounts for 0.1% of the total volume

beer sold (SAM, 2017) and is not included in our analysis. For packaging of beer that is not

bought from the Swedish Alcohol Monopoly, the following assumptions have been made.

Packaging of beer consumed in restaurants is estimated to be 65% draught beer and 35% beer

in glass bottle (Swedish Brewery Association, 2014). Beer brought to Sweden by traveling

and smuggling is assumed to be packaged in the same way as beer bought from the Swedish

Alcohol Monopoly. No packaging was assumed for beer produced in the home. Class I beer

(˂2.25 %) is assumed to be packaged in the same way as beer bought from the Swedish

Alcohol Monopoly. Class II beer (2.8-3.5%) alcohol is assumed to be packaged in aluminum

can. Refillable bottles are assumed to account for 10% of the total beer consumed in Sweden

(Swedish Brewery Association, 2014) and for 10% of the total amount of beer sold by the

Swedish Alcohol Monopoly (Weidema et al., 2016). Bottled beer brought to Sweden by

travelling or smuggling is assumed to be packaged in one time use glass bottles.

11

Table CM 7. Packaging of class III beer ( >3.5%)

Packaging material

Total consumption of class III beer in Sweden

Aluminum can 58%

Refillable glass bottle 8%

One time use glass bottle 18%

PET 0.6%

Draught beer 12%

Home made beer 3%

Class III beer sold by the Swedish Alcohol Monopoly

Aluminum can 74%

Refillable glass bottle 10%

One time use glass bottle 15%

PET 1.6%

Data based on (SAM, 2017; Swedish Brewery Association, 2014)

12

CM 4.2 Wine

Wine consumed in Sweden is assumed to be packaged according to the data in (Table CM 8).

Information on type of packaging for wine sold by the Swedish Alcohol Monopoly is based

on data from the Swedish Alcohol Monopoly (SAM, 2017). Wine packaged in PET bottles

and in bags account for less than 1% of the total sales in volume and has therefore been

excluded from the analysis. Wine consumed in restaurants is assumed to be served in glass

bottles. Wine brought to Sweden by traveling and smuggling is assumed to be packaged in the

same way as wine bought from the Swedish Alcohol Monopoly. Wine ordered on the internet

is assumed to be packaged in glass bottles. No packaging has been assumed for wine

produced in the home. Strong wine is assumed to be packaged in glass bottles. Liquor

consumed in Sweden is assumed to be packaged in glass bottles. According to the Swedish

Alcohol Monopoly, 99% of all liquor sold by volume is packaged in glass bottles (SAM,

2011).

Table CM 8. Packaging of wine

Packaging material

Total consumption of wine in Swedena

Bag in Box 50%

Glass bottle 40%

Carton 9%

Home production 1%

Wine sold from Swedish Alcohol Monopolyb

Bag in Box 56%

Glass bottle 35%

Carton 9%

aOwn estimates based on data specified in text above. bBased on (SAM, 2011)

13

CM 4.3 Liquor

Liquor consumed in Sweden is assumed to be packaged in glass bottles. According to the

Swedish Alcohol Monopoly, 99% of all liquor sold by volume is packaged in glass bottles

(SAM, 2011).

14

CM 4.4 Emissions from packaging

Data from an LCA of Nordic packaging systems (SERI, 2013) (Table CM 9) is used to

calculate the emissions of GHGs embodied in packaging of beer. The emissions refer to

distribution of 1 litre of beverage including the packaging to retail or restaurant, and thus

include all emissions generated by the fabrication of the package (e.g. primary, secondary and

tertiary packages), filling, distribution and waste management. System expansion is used to

account for that less new material is required in new packages due to recycling of packaging

materials. For draught beer, emissions are based on data from the literature (Cimini and

Moresi, 2016)

Table CM 9. Emissions of GHGs for packaging of beer

Packaging material Kg CO2e/litre

33cl refillable glass bottle 0.09

50 cl refillable glass bottle 0.11

Used data for average refillable glass bottle 0.10

33 cl one time use glass bottle 0.35

50 cl one time use glass bottle 0.32

Used data for average one time use glass bottle 0.34

33 cl Aluminum can 0.16

50 cl Aluminum can 0.12

Used data for average aluminum can 0.14

33 cl PET 0.16

50 cl PET 0.13

Used data for average PET 0.14

Used data for draught beer 0.04

15

Data based on (SERI, 2013; Cimini and Moresi, 2016)

Data from an LCA of Nordic wine packaging systems (SAM, 2010) are used to calculate the

GHG emissions embodied in packaging of wine, strong wine and liquor (Table CM 10). The

original data from this study takes into account all GHG emissions generated by the

fabrication of the wine package (e.g. primary, secondary and tertiary packages), filling,

distribution and waste management. The data used in our calculations exclude emissions

generated from distribution after the filling in order to avoid double counting. Emissions from

transports of raw materials used in the fabrication and transports of waste are included.

Emissions related to distribution of filled wine packages are accounted for as transportation

(Section CM 5). Emissions of GHGs from packaging of liquor are calculated based on the

assumption that the emissions from a glass bottle of liquor is in the same magnitude as a glass

bottle of wine.

Table CM 10. Emissions of GHGs for packaging of wine

Packaging material Kg CO2e/litre

75cl PET bottle 0.24

75cl Glass bottle 0.77

3 l Bag in Box 0.14

1 l Carton 0.13

Data based on (SAM, 2010).

CM 5. Climate impact of transportation

Calculation of GHG emissions generated in the transportation of alcoholic beverages and their

packages to Sweden is based on data in Table CM 11-13. LCA data on GHG emissions

16

generated in transportation (Table CM 12) are given per kg of transported product. Emissions

vary depending on the origin of production, i.e. the distance of transportation, and mode of

transportation.

Origin of alcoholic beverages is based on data in Table CM 11. The origin of alcoholic

beverages is based on sales statistics from the Swedish Alcohol Monopoly (SAM, 2017).

Origin of alcohol brought to Sweden by traveling and smuggling and alcohol consumed in

restaurants is assumed to have the same origin as alcohol sold by the Swedish Alcohol

Monopoly.

Emissions of GHGs from transportation of alcoholic beverages to Sweden are shown in Table

CM 12. Alcohol from North Europe is assumed to be transported by semi-trailer. Alcohol

from south and central Europe, Africa, Latin America, Oceania and North America is

assumed to be transported by boat and semi-trailer. Emissions of transportation of alcohol

categorized being of “other origin”, often meaning a mix of origins, are calculated based on

average LCA data of the different origins and modes of transportation excluding air freight.

LCA data on emissions for transportation are combined with data on the weight of alcoholic

beverages and their packages. One litre of alcohol is assumed to correspond to 1 kg and

weight of different packages are based on data in Table CM 13 (Weidema et al., 2016). For

draught beer no transportation emissions are added for packaging. For beer produced in the

home no emissions for transportation are included. Wine ordered on the internet with origin of

South Africa, Latin America, Oceania and North America is assumed to be transported by air.

In total, air transported wine accounts for 0.5% of the total wine consumption. For wine

produced in the home no emissions for transportation are included. No GHG emissions are

added for transportation within Sweden.

17

Table CM 11. Origin of alcoholic beverages

Origin Share of origin

Class III beer (>3.5 %) Glass bottle

Sweden 40%

North Europe (excl. Sweden) 6%

South and central Europe 21%

UK 7%

North America 7%

Latin America 4%

Asia 1%

Others 15%

Class III beer (>3.5 %) Aluminum can

Sweden

North Europe (excl. Sweden)

South and central Europe

North America

Others

84%

3%

4%

1%

8%

Class III beer (>3.5 %) PET

Sweden

UK

South and central Europe

Oceania

Others

30%

12%

4%

1%

54%

Class II beer (2.8-3.5%)

Sweden 100%

18

Class I beer (˂ 2.25%)

Sweden 100%Wine

North Europe 4%

South Europe 57%

South Africa 12%

Latin America 11%

North America 6%

Oceania 10%

Strong wine

South Europe 100%

Liquor

Sweden 9%

UK 35%

North Europe (excl. Sweden and UK) 8%

South and central Europe 4%

North America 9%

Latin America 3%

Asia 0.4%

Others 30%

Data based on (SAM, 2017).

Table CM 12. Emissions of GHGs for transportation of alcoholic beverages to Sweden

19

Origin Mode of transportation Kg CO2e/kg product

North Europe Semi trailer (lorry ˃32 metric ton EURO4) 0.12

South and central Europe Boat (transoceanic ship)

Semi trailer (lorry ˃32 metric ton EURO4)0.10

Central Africa Boat (transoceanic ship)

Semi trailer (lorry ˃32 metric ton EURO4)0.15

Latin America Boat (transoceanic ship)

Semi trailer (lorry ˃32 metric ton EURO4)0.20

Oceania Boat (transoceanic ship)

Semi trailer (lorry ˃32 metric ton EURO4)0.30

Asia Boat (transoceanic ship)

Semi trailer (lorry ˃32 metric ton EURO4)0.27

North America

Boat (transoceanic ship)

Semi trailer (lorry ˃32 metric ton EURO4)0.14

Latin America Air freight 13.7

Asia Air freight 20

Own estimates based on data from Ecoinvent.

Table CM 13. Weight of packaging in grams per litre of different alcoholic beverages

Primary

packaging

Secondary

packaging

Tertiary

packaging

Closure and

labels

Total Weight

(g/L)

20

Aluminum can 39 6 4 49

Bag in Box 59 5 4 68

Wine glass

bottle 658 45 7 10.2 718

Beer glass

bottle 680 28 7 2 717

Glass bottle

liquor 746 45 7 6.5 805

PET, wine and

liquor 100 17 4 5 126

PET, beer 100 17 4 4.6 126

Carton 38 19 5 62

Data based on (Weidema et al., 2016)

21

DISCUSSION

CM.6 Uncertainty analysis

Emissions of GHGs generated in the agricultural production and beverage industry are based

on average data from the literature review. To analyze how sensitive the results are to changes

in these underlying data we performed a sensitivity analysis by analyzing the GHG emissions

per litre alcoholic beverage based on the median, minimum and maximum values reported for

agricultural production and beverage industry based on the results from the literature review

(Table CM 14).

Table CM 14. Climate impact of alcoholic beverages (kg CO2e/litre) based on median, min and

max values for GHG emissions from agricultural production and beverage industry

Average value

(used data)

Median value Min value Max value

Class III Beer 0.81 0.55 0.36 2.38

Wine 2.16 1.70 0.78 4.17

Liquor 2.07 1.98 1.40 4.89

22

References

Amienyo, D., Azapagic, A., 2016. Life cycle environmental impacts and costs of beer

production and consumption in the UK. Int. J. LCA 21, 492-509.

Benedetto, G., 2013. The environmental impact of a Sardinian wine by partial life cycle

assessment. Wine Econ. Policy 2, 33-41.

BIER, 2012. Research on the Carbon Footprint of Beer. Beverage Industry Environmental

Roundtable (BIER):

http://media.wix.com/ugd/49d7a0_70726e8dc94c456caf8a10771fc31625.pdf

Bosco, S., Di Bene, C., Galli, M., Remorini, D., Massai, R., Bonari, E., 2011. Greenhouse gas

emissions in the agricultural phase of wine production in the Maremma rural district in

Tuscany, Italy. Italian J. Agron. 6, 15.

Cimini, A., Moresi, M., 2016. Carbon footprint of a pale lager packed in different formats:

assessment and sensitivity analysis based on transparent data. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 4196-

4213.

Eriksson, O., Jonsson, D., Hillman, K., 2016. Life cycle assessment of Swedish single malt

whisky. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 229-237.

Fusi, A., Guidetti, R., Benedetto, G., 2014. Delving into the environmental aspect of a

Sardinian white wine: from partial to total life cycle assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 472,

989-1000.

Garnett, T., 2007. The alcohol we drink and its contribution to the UK’s Greenhouse Gas

Emissions: a discussion paper. Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey,

Surrey: http://www.fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/ALCOHOL%20final%20version%20TG

%20feb%202007.pdf

23

Gazulla, C., Raugei, M., Fullana-i-Palmer, P., 2010. Taking a life cycle look at crianza wine

production in Spain: where are the bottlenecks? Int. J. LCA 15, 330-337.

Lalonde, A., Nicholson, A., Schenck, R., 2013. Life Cycle Assessment of Beer in Support of

an Environmental Product Declaration. Institute for Environmental Research and

Education (IERE): Washington:

http://iere.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/IERE_Beer_LCA_Final.pdf

Neto, B., Dias, A.C., Machado, M., 2013. Life cycle assessment of the supply chain of a

Portuguese wine: from viticulture to distribution. Int. J. LCA 18, 590-602.

Pattara, C., Raggi, A., Cichelli, A., 2012. Life cycle assessment and carbon footprint in the

wine supply-chain. J. Environ. Manage. 49, 1247-1258.

Point, E., Tyedmers, P., Naugler, C., 2012. Life cycle environmental impacts of wine

production and consumption in Nova Scotia, Canada. J. Clean. Prod. 27, 11-20.

Ramstedt, M., Lindell, A., Raninen, J., 2013. Tal om alkohol 2012 - En statistisk årsrapport

från Monitorprojektet. Report no 67. Centre for Social Research on Alcohol and Drugs

(SoRAD), Stockholm Universisty, Stockholm: http://www.sorad.su.se/forskning/statistik

SAM, 2017. Swedish Alcohol Monopoly Sales statistcs 2016. Arikellistan 2016. Swedish

Alcohol Monopoly (SAM), Stockholm:

https://www.systembolaget.se/om-systembolaget/om-foretaget/forsaljningsstatistik/

SAM, 2011. Environmental report Swedish Alcohol Monopoly. Swedish Alcohol Monopoly

(SAM), Stockholm: http://ansvarsredovisning2015.systembolaget.se/wp-content/uploads/

2016/01/miljoutredning_systembolaget.pdf

SAM., Vinmonopolet., 2010. Nordic Life Cycle Assessment Wine Package Study. Swedish

Alcohol Monopoly (SAM) and Wine Monopoly:

https://endpoint895270.azureedge.net/static/se/documents/sustainability-downloads/lca

%20nordic%20wine%20comparative_august_10_with%20final%20statement.pdf

24

Saxe, H., 2010. LCA-based comparison of the climate footprint of beer vs. wine & spirits.

Report no 207. Fødevareøkonomisk Institut, Copenhagen University, Copenhagen:

http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/44663043/FOI_report_207.pdf

SERI., 2013. Livscykelanallys av glasflaskor, PET flaskor och aluminiumburkar i det svenska

distributionssystemet för drycker. En uppföljning av studierna från år 2008. Report no U

4588. Swedish Environmental Research Institute (SERI).

Swedish Brewery Association, 2014. Fördelning på förpackningstyper. Swedish Brewery

Association, Stockholm: http://sverigesbryggerier.se/statistik/fordelning-av-ol-lask-och-

vatten-pa-forpackningstyper/

Swedish Brewery Association, 2013. Dryckesförsäljning 2013 efter huvudsaklig

säljkanalsandel. Swedish Brewery Association, Stockholm:

http://sverigesbryggerier.se/statistik/fordelning-av-ol-lask-och-vatten-pa-saljkanaler/

Trolledal, B., 2016. Alkoholkonsumtionen i Sverige 2015. Report no 160. Swedish Council

for Information on Alcohol and Other Drugs (CAN). Stockholm:

http://can.se/contentassets/8a116b56043e49eab7f4128010a7f6b2/alkoholkonsumtionen-i-

sverige-2015.pdf

Vázquez-Rowe, I., Cáceres, A.L., Torres-García, J.R., Quispe, I., Kahhat, R., 2017. Life

Cycle Assessment of the production of pisco in Peru. J. Clean. Prod. 142, 4369-4383.

Vázquez-Rowe, I., Villanueva-Rey, P., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2012. Environmental

analysis of Ribeiro wine from a timeline perspective: harvest year matters when reporting

environmental impacts. J. Environ. Manage. 98, 73-83.

Weidema, B., de Saxcé, M, Muñoz, I., 2016. Environmental impacts of alcoholic beverages as

distributed by the Nordic Alcohol Monoplies 2014. 2.0 LCA consultants, Aalborg.

Williams, A. G.; Mekonen, S. Environmental performance of traditional beer production in a

micro-brewery. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle

25

Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector (LCA Food 2014), San Francisco, USA, Oct 8-10,

2014; American Center for Life Cycle Assessment: 2014; pp 1535-1540.

26