Skip to main content

The relative importance of transport in determining an appropriate sustainability strategy for food sourcing

A case study of fresh produce supply chains

Abstract

Background, Aims and Scope

Over the last five decades, the nature of food retailing has undergone an enormous transformation. Macro level economic, structural and technological developments have led to a major increase in the level of world trade. These developments have helped retailers to meet modern consumer expectations, but benefits have not been achieved without some drawbacks. This paper seeks to explore the environmental impacts associated with fresh produce supply chains, in order to understand the relative significance of transport as compared to other supply chain activities.

Methods

Life Cycle Assessment was used to estimate the potential environmental impacts of three fresh produce items sourced from six countries and solid in Marks and Spencer stores: royal gala apples from Brazil, Chile, Italy and the UK; runner beans from Kenya (and extrapolated for Guatemala and the UK); and watercress from the UK and USA (and extrapolated for Portugal). Analysis was also conducted to evaluate the likely impacts of extending the storage period for UK apples thus negating the need to import, against the current strategy of importing fruit from the Southern hemisphere for six months of the year. In addition, the impacts of conventional as compared to organic cultivation were considered for watercress in both the UK and USA.

Results and Discussion

The results for all three products reveal similar dominating impacts. A clear distinction arises in terms of the activities which contribute most to environmental impact and the magnitude of this impact, depending on the country in which the product is cultivated; i.e. global, regional (European) or local (British) sources of supply.

Conclusion

Transport (or distance between production and consumption) is therefore an important factor in determining the environmental sustainability of food supply chains (though for long distance haulage, there is a significant distinction between air-freight and shipping). Electricity consumed for storage and packing operations is also significant, and the associated environmental impact is lower in countries where a large proportion of electricity is generated from renewable fuels. However, where this occurs in countries distant from the UK, transport impacts overshadow the environmental savings achieved from the more favourable electricity generation mix.

Recommendations and Perspectives

The results of this study suggest that when in season it is generally preferential, on environmental grounds, for UK consumers to buy British produce rather than produce imported from overseas. Cultivation overseas is necessary to ensure year-round availability and in these circumstances it is preferable that processing activities also occur overseas if environmental benefits can be derived from local factors (e.g. a favourable electricity generation mix). Overall, the findings should be evaluated in the context of managing wider sustainability interests (including social and economic issues), for which further research is required.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Cowell S, Parkinson S (2003): Localization of UK food production: An analysis using land area and energy as indicators. Ecosystems and Environment 94, 221–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Seaton L (2002): Fresh produce desk book 2002. Fresh Produce Journal, London

    Google Scholar 

  3. Jones A (1999): The environmental impacts of distributing consumer goods: A case study on dessert apples. PhD Thesis, Centre for Environmental Strategy, School of Engineering in the Environment, University of Surrey, Guilford

    Google Scholar 

  4. Jones A (2001): Eating Oil — Food in a changing climate. Sustain & Elm Farm Research Centre, London

    Google Scholar 

  5. Millstone E, Lang T (2003): The atlas of food: Who eats what, where and why. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  6. Garnett T (2003): Wise Moves: Exploring the relationship between food, transport and CO2. Transport 2000

  7. DEFRA (2000): Climate change, the UK programme

  8. DETR (1998): UK Air Freight Study Report. Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  9. Watkiss P, Smith A, Tweddle G, McKinnon A, Browne M, Hunt A, Treleven C, Nash C, Cross S (2005): The Validity of food miles as an indicator of sustainable development. Final Report for DEFRA 2005

  10. Jungbluth N, Demmeler M (2004): Letters to the Editor: ‘The Ecology of Scale: Assessment of Regional Energy Turnover and Comparison with Global Food’ by Elmar Schlich and Ulla Fleissner. Int J LCA 10(3) 168–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Andersson K, Ohlsson T, Olsson P (1998): Screening life cycle assessment (LCA) of tomato ketchup: A case study. J Cleaner Prod 6, 277–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Berlin J, Tillman AM, Nybrandt T, Sonesson U (2001): Life Cycle Assessment of Cheese. Proceedings of the International Conference on LCA in Foods, Gothenburg, Sweden, 26–27 April

  13. de Boer IJM (2003): Environmental impact assessment of conventional and organic milk production. Livestock Production Science 80, 67–77

    Google Scholar 

  14. Mila i Canals L (2003): Contributions to LCA methodology for agricultural systems. Site dependency and soil degradation impact assessment. Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Spain

    Google Scholar 

  15. Sundkvist A, Jansson A, Larsson P (2001): Strengths and limitations of localizing food production as a sustainability-building strategy — An analysis of bread production on the island of Gotland, Sweden. Ecological Economics 37, 217–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Stadig M (1997): Life cycle assessment of apple production: Case studies for Sweden, New Zealand and France. SIK Report No. 630, p 117, Gothenburg, Sweden (in Swedish, summary in English)

  17. Schilch EH, Fleissner U (2004): The Ecology of Scale: Assessment of Regional Energy Turnover and Comparison with Global Food. Int J LCA 10(3) 219–223

    Google Scholar 

  18. Blanke M, Burdick B (2005): Food (miles) for thought. Environ Sci Pollut Res 12(3) 125–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dolan C, Humphrey J, Harris-Pascal C (1999): Horticulture commodity chains: the impact of the UK market on the African fresh vegetable industry. IDS Working Paper 96

  20. Andersson K, Ohlsson T, Olsson P (1994): Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of food products and product systems. Trends in Food Science and Technology 5, 134–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cowell SJ, Clift R (2000): A Methodology for Assessing Soil Quantity and Quality in LCA. Journal of Cleaner Production 8, 321–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cowell S (1998): Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of agricultural systems: Integration into decision making. PhD Thesis, Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey, Guildford. Chapter VI — An LCA Study of bread making wheat production

    Google Scholar 

  23. Audsley E, Brentrup F, Cederberg C, Cowell S, Gaillard G, Goldhan G, McKeown P, Jolliet O, Lindeijer E, Satter I (1997): Theme report methodology working Group LCAnet Food

  24. Nemecek T, Hei A, Huguenin O, Meier S, Erzinger S, Blaser S, Dux D, Zimmermann A (2003): Life Cycle Inventories of Agricultural Production Systems. Final Report ecoinvent 2000, Vol 15, Swiss Centre for LCI, FAL & FAT, Dubendorf, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  25. Baumann H, Tillman AM (2004): The hitch hiker’s guide to LCA — An orientation in the life cycle assessment methodology and application. Studenttilleratur, Sweden

    Google Scholar 

  26. Weidema B (2001): Avoiding Co-Product Allocation in Life cycle Assessment. Journal of Industrial Ecology 4(3) 11–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. BUWAL 250 (1996): Ökoinventare für Verpackungen. Schriftenreihe Umwelt 250, Bern

  28. Energy Information Administration — Official Energy Statistics from the US government. Available at 〈www.eia.doe.gov

  29. WWF conference (2003): 〈www.panda.org/downloads/europe/presentationmcoggiatti.pdf

  30. Mbogho, Zhu & Sharma (date unknown): Meeting energy needs: The Kenyan scenario. Available at 〈 http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/:_aupec/aupec03/papers/039%20Mbogho%20full%20paper.pdf

  31. Green (1987): In: Audsley E, Brentrup F, Cederberg C, Cowell S, Gaillard G, Goldhan G, McKeown P, Jolliet O, Lindeijer E, Satter I (1997): Theme report methodology working Group LCAnet Food

  32. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (2005): Pesticides and Bystander Exposure, Special Report

  33. Davis J, Haglund C (1999): Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) of fertiliser production. Fertiliser products used in Sweden and Western Europe. SIK Report No 654, Chalmers University of Technology

  34. Brady NC, Weil RR (1996): The Nature and Properties of Soils. Prentice-Hall Inc., New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  35. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (2002): The environmental effects of civil aircraft in flight — Special report. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

  36. IEIA (2000): 〈www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/world/country/cntry GT.html

  37. IEIA (1999): In: Bosi M (2000): International Energy Agency (IEA) Information Paper: An initial view on methodologies for emission baselines: electricity

  38. Eco-indicator email discussion forum (2003)

  39. PRE Consultants, Eco-indicator email discussion forum (2003)

  40. Personal Communication with M&S apple technologist (2004)

  41. Wright E, Cowell S (2002): Energy analysis of importing cut flowers into the UK: A report for Marks and Spencer

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Sim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sim, S., Barry, M., Clift, R. et al. The relative importance of transport in determining an appropriate sustainability strategy for food sourcing. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12, 422–431 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.07.259

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.07.259

Keywords