Journal of Cleaner Production 93 (2015) 75e83

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

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, Greece
b
International Hellenic University, School of Economics, Business Administration and Legal Studies, 14th km Thessaloniki-N. Moudania,
57001 Thermi, Greece
c
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

a b s t r a c t

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

Agricultural production is a sector with high socio-economic signicance and key implications on
employment and nutritional security. However, the impacts of agrifood production and consumption
patterns 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 especially
for countries in the Mediterranean basin. Life Cycle Assessment has been used to quantify the environmental performance of olive oil production. Fourteen sub-systems of the overall olive oil production are
investigated. All key parameters that are associated with the life cycle of olive oil production are studied
and environmental hotspots are diagnosed. Cultivation of olive trees and production of olive oil are the
sub-systems that are responsible for the majority of the environmental impacts and thus any effort to
minimize the overall life cycle impact from olive oil production should include them.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
LCA
Olive oil production
Environmental impact
Case study
Greece

1. Introduction
Agrifood is considered as one of the industrial sectors with a
major political and economic signicance and as such it is highly
regulated and protected within Europe (Iakovou et al., 2014).
Moreover, it is one of the sectors with key implications on human
capital employment, nutritional security, but also on environmental sustainability due to the demand of large inputs of resources (Tukker et al., 2006; Koroneos et al., 2005). Solely, the food
and drink sector is responsible for nearly one third of the overall
environmental impacts in Europe (Bakas, 2012).
In the last decade, the increased alertness of consumers on the
impacts of agrifood production and consumption patterns on the
environment urged the industry within the sector to give emphasis
on the environmental issues related to their products (Matos and
Hall, 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 are
major obstacles in conducting studies that deal with impacts of
food products from farm to fork. This is mainly attributed to the
lack of public databases with suitable data for such a large and

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 30 2351047862; fax: 30 2351047860.

E-mail address: ptsarouhas@teicm.gr (P. Tsarouhas).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.042
0959-6526/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

complex system as the one of the agrifood industrial sector

(Koroneos et al., 2005). Moreover, the required data involves a large
number of stakeholders (production, manufacturing, storage, distribution, packaging, consumption and disposal) and scientic
disciplines who often do not share data. In this light, scientic work
usually focuses either on primary agri-production or on industrial
processing of agrifood and does not cover agrifood production from
cradle 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 the
Mediterranean basin both due to its considerable share in the local
economy, but also due to its role in the Mediterranean diet. Olive oil
production involves the consumption of signicant quantities of
resources (e.g. energy, fuel, water, chemical products) and the
generation of emissions that are emitted to the natural environment. The tool that is chosen for the calculation of the environmental burden is Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), one of the most
commonly used environmental tools for environmental management and decision-making (Iakovou et al., 2009). Following to the
ISO 14040 and 14044 standards (ISO, 2006a, 2006b), LCA targets to
quantify the effects from the use of energy and material processing
throughout all phases in a product's life cycle (e.g. Winkler and
Bilitewski, 2007; Finnveden, 1999; Craighill and Powell, 1996).
In the literature there are a number of studies that have used
LCA for various stages of the olive oil production. Indicatively,

76

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

Notarnicola et al. (2004) compared the production systems of the

conventional and organic extra-virgin olive oil in order to measure
cost and environmental proles. The work resulted into the fact
that the organic system has a better environmental prole. However, its cost prole is signicantly worse when the external costs
are not taken into account. Similarly, De Gennaro et al. (2012) integrated LCA and LCC methods in order to assess whether high
trees density olive-growing, which allows a higher level of mechanization, can reduce production costs without jeopardizing the
environmental sustainability. The LCA has proved that such innovative olive-growing models show better environmental performance for all impact categories that were investigated. Moreover,
they were proven also to be more cost efcient compared to
traditional practices. Avraamides and Fatta (2008) investigated the
processes that result to the most signicant environmental burdens
in olive oil production in Cyprus. The study provided evidence that
the production of the inorganic fertilizers, along with the disposal
of liquid efuent from olive mills to evaporation ponds were major
contributors to the olive oil life cycle environmental impact. Intini
et al. (2011) used LCA in order to assess the environmental performance of a power plant that is fed with olive oil industries'
waste. Michalopoulos and Christodoulopoulou (2011) conducted a
comprehensive LCA study on extra virgin olive oil produced by 68
olive growers in 487 olive groves in southern Greece. The authors
resulted that the cultivation of olive trees is responsible for the vast
majority of the life cycle environmental impacts. Moreover,
Salomone and Ioppolo (2012) used LCA in order to determine the
environmental impacts of activities related to the production of
olive oil in the province of Messina, Italy and design an ecofriendlier and more efcient local supply chain. Results show that
the phase of agri-production is the main contributor to the overall
environmental impact, even in the scenarios that pest treatments
are limited. Cossu et al. (2013) used LCA in order to study the wet
husk and improve the recovery and upgrade the solid wastes of the
olive oil extraction process. From the study, it becomes evident that
wastewater management produced from husk during the oil
extraction should be optimized in order to minimize the overall
environmental burden. Iraldo et al. (2014) used LCA in order to
dene the environmental requirements for compliance with a
product qualication scheme. According to the authors, the LCA
study can provide critical insights towards process and product
redesign.
Although a number of relevant papers have been already published in conference proceedings and technical reports, up to the
authors' knowledge this is the rst attempt to demonstrate the
environmental impact of olive oil production in Greece and validate
it through its publication in a well acknowledged peer reviewed
journal. Moreover, the olive oil production system that is herein
studied is analyzed into fourteen (14) sub-systems in an effort both
to increase the detail of the analysis and at the same time provide
useful insights concerning the processes that are most responsible
for the overall burden. The main objective of this paper is to
recognize all key parameters that are associated with the life cycle
of olive oil production in Greece. More specically, through the
presented case study focus is given on the identication of the
phases within the product's life cycle which is responsible for the
majority of the environmental inputs and outputs with the aim to
diagnose environmental hotspots. Furthermore, the present work
aims to propose improvements towards overall optimization of the
system. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: In Section 2
the product and the system under study are determined, while
also the assumptions of the work and the Life Cycle Inventory are
presented. Results of the LCA study are illustrated in Section 3 and
the paper wraps up with the conclusions in Section 4.

2. Product and system denition

The manufacturer under study is based in Gerakini, Chalkidiki,
Greece. The company uses olives locally produced and produces
bottled olive oil that is mainly exported to Europe. The product
studied in this work is extra virgin olive oil and is marketed in 1 lt
plastic bottles. The system investigated takes into consideration the
following 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 eld to the manufacturer, (vi)
production of olive oil, (vii) bottles' production and transportation,
(viii) lids' production, (ix) bottling of olive oil, (x) packaging production and transportation, (xi) adhesive tape, (xii) palettes, (xiii)
stretch lm, (xiv) palletizing of olive oil bottles. The system is
analytically illustrated in Fig. 1.
The functional unit is one bottle of extra virgin olive oil with a
volume of 1 lt. The association of the functional unit, which is
comprised of the product itself and the packaging materials, with
the system's parameters is analytically described in Table 1. The
system boundaries include the processes that have been identied
and related to production and transportation of chemicals, cultivation of olives, transfer of olives to the mill and all the processes
taking place there for the extraction of oil and packaging. Although
the system boundaries include all phases of the olive oil production,
the following are not included in the present study; (i) consumption of olive oil, (ii) planting of olive trees, (iii) construction of
infrastructure and facilities of the mill, (iv) maintenance of plant
and agricultural machinery, (v) manufacture and installation of
industrial equipment, (vi) packing of raw materials, (vii) the production of diesel, (viii) ink and printing, (ix) storage of waste, (x)
raw materials, emissions and waste for the production of pesticides.
The assumptions that are taken into consideration are the
following:
a. The production of 1 lt of extra virgin olive oil requires 4 kg of
olives.
b. Olives are transported from the farm to the manufacturer with
the use of a 2.4 diesel pickup truck. The vehicle's payload weight
is 1100 kg consumption of the truck is assumed at 7.5 lt of diesel
per 100 km. Such a vehicle is representative of the majority of
agricultural machinery used in the wider area under study.
c. Transportations towards and from the farm are materialized
with the use of the aforementioned pickup truck, while the
tractor remains at the farm.
d. Transportations are calculated based on the place of residence of
people involved in the farming process (either owners or seasonal workers). Primarily the place of residence is a village close
to the farm. The distance from the farmers' residence to the
farms is 4 km on average, while farms are located 5 km on
average from the manufacturer. Transportations are calculated
on the condition that all the work that is carried out outside of
the farm involves only one farmer. For the harvesting of olives in
a 25-acres farm, we assume that there are 6 people involved
who work 8 h per day. Those six farmers need eight days for
harvesting.
e. Farmers use tractors with an average engine of 80 HP, which is
typical for farmers in Greece. The consumption of the tractor is
assumed 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 our
study concerning fuel consumption; (a) low consumption of 5 lt
per hour for low-consuming activities such as spraying,

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

Fig. 1. Illustration of the system investigated.

77

78

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

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

Product
Primary packaging

Secondary
packaging
Palletizing of
olive oil

Description

Material

Weight (g)

Percentage of
weight (%)

Olive oil
Bottle
Cap
Tag
Carton
Adhesive tape
Pallet
Stretch lm

Olive oil
PET
PP
Paper
Paper
PVC
Wood
LLDPE
Total

875.00
43.00
8.00
1.30
91.67
0.33
1.53
0.35
1021.18

85.75
4.214
0.784
0.127
8.984
0.032
0.150
0.034
100

Table 2
Fuel consumption and emissions from olive cultivation.
Fuel
Energy
Water
Air emissions
VOC
CO
NOx
PM10
SOx
CH4
N2O
CO2
Hydrocarbons
Waste water
BOD
COD
Organic compounds

(in lt)
(in MJ)
(in lt)
(in
(in
(in
(in
(in
(in
(in
(in
(in

g/diesel
g/diesel
g/diesel
g/diesel
g/diesel
g/diesel
g/diesel
g/diesel
g/diesel

63.2
2787
2000
lt)
lt)
lt)
lt)
lt)
lt)
lt)
lt)
lt)

3.54
26.55
33.90
2.56
10.11
0.19
0.04
3036
10.9

(in g/diesel lt)

(in g/diesel lt)
(in g/diesel lt)

0.04
0.04
0.42

fertilizing and harvesting, and (b) high consumption of 6.5 lt per

for 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 based
on the simplication that their materials are limited to iron and
 i Canals, 2003). The energy
rubber (Audsley et al., 1997; Mila
consumed by the agricultural machinery for the cultivation of
one acre of olive grove is assumed to be 64,807 MJ.
i. The percentage of defective bottles and defective packaging is
not taken into account. Also, we do not take into account leaking
oil in pumps or engine blocks.
Data collection for the study included telephone and personal
contacts with farmers and small oil producing units, mainly in the
area of Chalkidiki, Greece. Although unstructured, discussions with

Table 4
Raw materials, air emissions, solid waste and wastewater from the manufacturing of
1 lt of olive oil.
Unit
Energy
Electricity
Olive pits
Materials
Olives
Water
Air emissions
VOC
CO
NOx
PM10
TSP
SOx
CH4
N2O
CO2
NMVOC
Waste water
COD
BOD5
N
P
Solid wastes
Fats
Solid wastes
Leaves
Pomace

Manufacturing

MJ
MJ

Electricity

Pomace

Total

2.93

0.93
2.93

0.93

g
lt

4000
8.00

g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g

0.1395
0.5892

0.0025
0.0454
0.4990
0.0172

0.1809
2.8502
0.3618
0.0078
220.4
0.0155

0.3630
0.0091
0.0010
0.2315

224.4
171.36
2.6112
0.816
281.52
28.56

0.0025
0.1849
1.0882
0.0172
0.1809
3.2132
0.3709
0.0088
220.6
0.0155
224.4
171.36
2.6112
0.816
281.52
28.56

g
g

160
1600

growers and mills were imperative, since there was no available

organized and recorded production data nationally. Another
important source of data collection is the literature reports of public
agencies and the previous studies on olive oil.
Based on the above mentioned assumptions, the fuel, energy
and water consumption for the cultivation of olives and the relevant emissions are illustrated in Table 2 (EPA, 1995; GREET, 2013;
White et al., 1995). For the fuel consumption the data presented
in Table 3 is used. More specically, a tractor, a truck and a pickup
are used for farming and transportation by the studied manufacturer, while other smaller equipment are used for irrigation and
pruning purposes. Table 4 analytically presents the quantities of
raw materials, air emissions, solid waste and wastewater from the
manufacturing phase of olive oil.
As already mentioned, the production of olive oil is analyzed in
eleven (11) sub-systems. Indicatively, the inputs and outputs in the
olive oil production subsystem is illustrated in Fig. 2. Similarly, the
basic inputs and outputs for all remaining subsystems are
calculated.

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

Plowing
Irrigation
Transportation of fertilizers
Fertilizing
Transportation of pesticides/herbicides
Pesticiding/Herbiciding
Pruning
Harvesting
Transportation of olives to manufacturer
Total

Tractor (70 HP)

Truck

Pickup truck (2.4D)

Duration
(in hrs)

Consumption
(in lt)

Consumption
(in lt)

Visits
(#)

Routes
(#)

Mileage
(in km)

Consumption
(in lt)

Maschinery (pumb, chainsaw)

Consumption
(in lt)

0.5

3.25

2
2

4
4

16
16

1.2
1.2

0.28

1
5

2
10

8
40

0.6
3

12
10

24
20

96
80

7.2
6

2.4

19.20

2.68

2.12
0.17

0.85

0.33
2
4
0.5
7.50

1.7
13
20.4
2.9
42.10

2.12

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

79

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

Table 5
Characterization methodology.

Global Warming Potential

CO2
CH4
N2O
CO
Acidication
SOx
NOx
HCl
NH3
HF
H2S
NH4
Eutrocation
NOx
NH3
NH4
N
NO3 
P2O5
P
PO4 3
COD
BOD
TOC
PM
Photo-oxidant formation
CH4
Aromatic hydrocarbons
PAH
C2H4
VOCs
NMVOCs
Aldehydes
CO

Unit

Characterization factor

Source

g
g
g
g

CO2-eq/g
CO2-eq/g
CO2-eq/g
CO2-eq/g

1
23
296
1,57

IPCC
IPCC
IPCC
VHK

g
g
g
g
g
g
g

SO2eeq/g
SO2eeq/g
SO2eeq/g
SO2eeq/g
SO2eeq/g
SO2eeq/g
SO2eeq/g

1
0.7
0.88
1.88
1.6
1.88
1.88

Rydh et all (2002), Goedkoop (1995).

Hauschild and Wenzel (1998), Goedkoop
Hauschild and Wenzel (1998), Goedkoop
Hauschild and Wenzel (1998), Goedkoop
Hauschild and Wenzel (1998), Goedkoop
Hauschild and Wenzel (1998).
Rydh et all (2002), lca-center (2004).

g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g

PO4 3 -eq/g
PO4 3 -eq/g
PO4 3 -eq/g
PO4 3 -eq/g
PO4 3 -eq/g
PO4 3 -eq/g
PO4 3 -eq/g
PO4 3 -eq/g
PO4 3 -eq/g
PO4 3 -eq/g
PO4 3 -eq/g
PO4 3 -eq/g

0.13
0.35
0.349
0.42
0.13
1.34
3.06
1
0.022
0.022
0.066
0.08

Lindfors et all (1995),

Lindfors et all (1995),
Rydh et al (2002).
Lindfors et al (1995).
Rydh et al (2002).
VHK (2005).
Lindfors et all (1995),
Lindfors et al (1995).
Lindfors et all (1995),
Rydh et al (2002).
VHK (2005).
VHK (2005).

g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g

C2H6-eq/g
C2H6-eq/g
C2H6-eq/g
C2H6-eq/g
C2H6-eq/g
C2H6-eq/g
C2H6-eq/g
C2H6-eq/g

0.007
0.761
0.761
1
0.398
0.416
0.443
0.032

Goedkoop
Goedkoop
Goedkoop
Rydh et al
Goedkoop
Goedkoop
Goedkoop
Rydh et al

(2001).
(2001).
(2001).
(2005).

(1995).
(1995), LCA-Center (2004).
(1995), LCA-Center
(1995), LCA-Center (2004).

Rydh et all (2002).

Rydh et all (2002).

VHK (2005).
Rydh et all (2002).

(1995), Heijungs et all (1992), Rydh et all (2002).

(1995), Heijungs et all (1992).
(1995).
(2002).
(1995).
(1995).
(1995).
(2002).

80

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

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

3. Results and discussion

In the framework of the present work, energy and water consumption, the potential contributions to global warming, acidication, eutrophication and photo-oxidant formation were studied
for the case of the olive oil production. The analysis herein presented is based on the Eco-indicator 99 methodology (Goedkoop
and Spriensma, 2001). The results are presented at subsystem
level in the material to follow. The emissions of the system have
been grouped into impacts (characterization step), based on the
data presented in Table 5. The distributions of energy and water
consumption into the subsystems are depicted in Fig. 3. Production
of olive oil and cultivation of olive trees are the main contributors in
respect to water consumption. Water consumption for all other
subsystems is negligible. As regards energy consumption, the
cultivation of olive trees, manufacturing of olive oil and bottles'

production and transportation are the most responsible contributors, followed by packaging and fertilizers' production and
transportation.
The potential contributions to global warming per subsystem
are presented in Fig. 4. It is clear that the cultivation of olives is the
greatest contributor to global warming in olive oil production
(40.37%). Bottles' production and transportation and production of
olive oil follow, as they account for the 22.41% and 21.35%,
respectively. It should be highlighted that the three aforementioned subsystems are responsible for nearly 85% of the overall
global warming potential.
Figs. 5e7 graphically present the characterized results as
regards acidication, eutrophication and photochemical oxidation,
respectively. Cultivation of olives is the biggest contributor of all
subsystems in terms of acidication (followed by olive oil production and fertilizers' production, transportation and use) and

Fig. 4. Carbon intensity expressed as gCO2-eq per subsystem.

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

81

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

photochemical oxidation (seconded by bottles' production and

transportation), while it represents the third biggest contributor to
eutrophication, following olive oil production and fertilizers' production, transportation and use.
Cultivation of olives is responsible for the vast majority of
acidication and photochemical oxidation impacts, being responsible for 43.76% and 67.93%, respectively. Production of olive oil is
the subsystem with the second largest impact as regards acidication, since it represents 22.48% of the total relevant impact.
However, production of olive oil is the subsystem which is primarily
responsible for eutrophication, since it represents 82.03% of the

relevant impact, seconded by fertilizer production, transport and

use which is responsible for only a fraction of that gure (10.47%).
The latter also signicantly contributes to acidication, as it represents 18.77% of the overall relevant impact. Last but not least,
bottles' production and transportation is also considered a critical
subsystem mainly due to its signicance in photochemical oxidation (18.90%) and acidication (7.57%), although it does not pose
any noteworthy burden in terms of eutrophication (0.54%).
The results herein presented clearly illustrate that the cultivation of olive trees is the subsystem most responsible for the vast
majority of the impact categories examined and contribute to a

Fig. 6. Eutrophication impact in the olive oil production system expressed as g PO4 3 -eq per subsystem.

82

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

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

maximum extend to the adverse environmental impacts of the

olive oil production. This subsystem is followed by manufacturing
of olive oil in the hierarchy of the most harmful contributors to the
natural environment. Undeniably, the ultimate aim of any LCA
study is to provide the grounds for the further improvement of the
examined system (Avraamides and Fatta, 2008). Based on the
ndings of the present study, any effort to minimize the overall life
cycle impact caused by olive oil production should put emphasis on
the minimization of the emissions produced within the two specic
subsystems; cultivation of olive trees and production of olive oil.
Towards environmentally friendly production of olive oil,
emphasis should be given to the efcient use of water and energy,
as well as the diminishment of air emissions and solid waste in
order to minimize the overall environmental impact. With respect
to water consumption and relevant wastewater production,
considerable opportunities exist. Two-stage centrifugation is
considered as the most efcient technology. However, high humidity needs to be considered. Moreover, water consumption
needs to be carefully controlled during the washing of the olives. To
that end, a closed cleaning system which recycles used water is
highly promoted, which has also a positive impact in energy savings. As regards energy consumption, its efcient and rational
management through a number of alternative improvements could
signicantly reduce the requirements in energy and the corresponding air emissions. For instance, such interventions could be
improvements in combustion, better insulation, use of automations, exploitation of thermal content of exhaust gases and utilization of energy saving equipment. It should be highlighted that
although most of the available energy saving solutions require a
relatively small investment, their benets are signicant both in
respect to the environmental and economic performance. Relating
to air emissions, measures that can be applied relate to the operating conditions of the equipment and its regular maintenance.
Moreover, signicant improvements may be achieved with the
penetration of eco-friendly fuels (e.g. natural gas) in order to
minimize the wide use of diesel engines.

4. Conclusions
Agriculture and agrifood production occupies an important
position in the society and the economy. Although critical for the
global food security, it represents one of the main contributors for
the impacts to the natural environment. This paper examines the
environmental impact of olive oil production in Greece, which is
considered a critical product nationally mainly due to its signicance to the local economy. The overall impact is detailed into the
level of fourteen (14) indicative sub-systems in order to provide a
clear picture of those processes that are most important environmental wise.
Since the study mainly involves the olive oil manufacturer, the
authors place emphasis on the improvement of the production of
olive oil subsystem. In this light, and according to modern trends in
olive oil production, there are basically two suggestions that can be
proposed to the manufacturer under study in order the latter to
reduce waste and therefore decrease the required energy, water
and steam consumption. More specically, the use of special
equipment for malaxation operating in 2-fases that are not using
water is highly suggested. Such equipment may achieve less production time and requires low temperature (22e23  C) to operate.
Moreover, the adoption of a full Just-In-Time strategy for receiving
olives from farms may also signicantly improve the manufacturer's efciency. The main objective of such a strategy is to minimize storage and processing time, so as the latter not to exceed
12 h.
It is worth mentioning that the present study does not primarily
target to quantify the environmental emissions of the presented
olive oil production system. Such an effort could be misleading
when all the limitations, lack of data and assumptions made are
taken into consideration. Nonetheless, this study provides useful
managerial insights and diagnoses the relevant environmental
hotspots in the effort to provide the stakeholders with scientic
evidence and assist towards producing eco-friendlier products. As a
future challenge, the authors are planning to also include

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

Environmental Value Stream Mapping and Energy Value Stream

Mapping (EPA, 2007) for supporting the greening efforts in the
olive oil production industry.
Acknowledgements
This research has received funding from the European Union's
Seventh Framework Programme (FP7-REGPOT-2012-2013-1) under
Grant Agreement No. 316167 (Project Acronym: GREENAgriChains) and from the European Social Fund and Greek national funds through the Research Funding Program THALES under
Grant Agreement No. OPS 379411. Moreover, the research is
partially conducted in the context of the project entitled International Hellenic University (Operation e Development), which is
part of the Operational Programme Education and Lifelong
Learning of the Hellenic Ministry of Education, Lifelong Learning
and 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 for
Agriculture. Final report, Concerted Action AIR3-CT94-2028. European Commission DG VI, Brussels, Belgium.
Avraamides, M., Fatta, D., 2008. Resource consumption and emissions from olive oil
production: 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/les/KU_Food_GHG_emissions.
last accessed: 12-03-2014.
Cossu, A., DeglInnocenti, S., Agnolucci, M., Cristani, C., Bedini, S., Nuti, M., 2013.
Assessment of the life cycle environmental impact of the olive oil extraction
solid wastes in the European Union. Open Waste Manag. J. 6, 12e20.
Courville, S., 2003. Use of indicators to compare supply chains in the coffee industry. Greener Manag. Int. 43, 94e105.
Craighill, A.L., Powell, J.C., 1996. Lifecycle assessment and economic evaluation of
recycling: a case study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 17, 75e96.
De Gennaro, B., Notarnicola, B., Roselli, L., Tassielli, G., 2012. Innovative olivegrowing models: an environmental and economic assessment. J. Clean. Prod.
28, 70e80.
EPA, 2007. The Lean and Energy Toolkit. Achieving Process Excellence Using Less
Energy. Available. nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?DockeyP1001XIJ.TXT. last
access: 2 September 2014.
EPA, 1995. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. AP-42 In: Stationary Point
and Area Sources, fth ed., vol. 1. Ofce of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Ofce of Air and Radiation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. January.
Finnveden, G., 1999. Methodological aspects of Life Cycle Assessment of integrated
solid waste management systems. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 26, 173e187.
Goedkoop, M., 1995. De Eco-lndicator 95. Final report, NOH report 9523. PRe
Consultants, Amersfoort, ISBN 90-72130-77-4.
Goedkoop, M., Spriensma, R., 2001. The Eco-indicator 99. A Damage Oriented
Method for Life Cycle Assessment. Methodology report, third ed. Amersfoort,
June.
GREET, 2013. GREET Software. U.S. Department of Energy. Argonne National
Laboratory.
Hauschild, M.Z., Wenzel, H., 1998. Environmental Assessment of Products. In: Scientic Background, vol. 2. Chapman & Hall, United Kingdom, p. 565. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Hingham, MA. USA.
Heijungs, R., Guinee, J.B., Huppes, G., Lankreijer, R.M., Udo de Haes, H.A., Wegener
Sleeswijk, A., Ansems, A.M.M., Eggels, P.G., van Duin, R., de Goede, H.P., October
1992. 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 sustainable
supply chains for the agrifood sector: a holistic research framework. Agric. Eng.
Int. CIGR J. 1e10.

83

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 products. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 53, 329e339.
Ilbery, B., Maye, D., 2005. Food supply chains and sustainability: evidence from
specialist food producers in the Scottish/English borders. Land Use Policy 22 (4),
331e344.
Intini, F., Khtz, S., Rospi, G., 2011. Energy recovery of the solid waste of the olive oil
industries e LCA analysis and carbon footprint assessment. J. Sustain. Energy
Environ. 2, 157e166.
IPCC, 2001. Climate change 2001: the scientic 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 the
Intergovernmental 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-virgin
olive oil in Val di Cornia, Italy. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 57 (1), 78e103.
ISO, 2006a. Environmental Management e Life Cycle Assessment e Principles and
Framework. ISO 14040. International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO),
Geneve.
ISO, 2006b. Environmental Management e Life Cycle Assessment e Requirements
and 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. Ofcial website. Available: http://www.lca-center.dk, (accessed
26.08.14.).
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-cycle
Assessment, 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 Extra
Virgin Olive Oil Produced by Three Groups of Farmers in South Greece published on Rodaxagro.gr.
 i Canals, L., 2003. Contributions to LCA Methodology for Agricultural Systems:
Mila
Site-dependency and Soil Degradation Impact Assessment. PhD thesis. Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. Available. http://www.tdx.cat/
handle/10803/3155;jsessionid5FCB6706910D7660C969E793355B6DB6.tdx2
(accessed 02.09.14.).
Notarnicola, B., Tassielu, G., Nicoletti, G.M., 2004. Environmental and economic
analysis of the organic and conventional extra-virgin olive oil. New Medit. A
Mediterr. J. Econ. Agric. Environ. 2, 28e34.
Rydh, C.J., Lindahl, M., Tingstrom, J., 2002. Livscykelanalys e en metod for iljobedomning av produkter och tjanster. Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden.
Salomone, R., Ioppolo, G., 2012. Environmental impacts of olive oil production: a
Life Cycle Assessment case study in the province of Messina (Sicily). J. Clean.
Prod. 28, 88e100.
e, J., Heijungs, R., de Koning, A., van Oers, L., Suh, S.,
Tukker, A., Huppes, G., Guine
Geerken, Th, Van Holderbeke, M., Jansen, B., Nielsen, P., 2006. Environmental
Impact of Products (EIPRO) e Analysis of the Life Cycle Environmental Impacts
Related to the Final Consumption of the EU-25. IPTS/ESTO Project. Technical
Report 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 Energyusing Products (MEEUP). Available. http://www.vhknet.com/download/
MEEUPMethodology_n.pdf (accessed 26.08.14.).
White, P., Franke, M., Hindle, P., 1995. Integrated Solid Waste Management: a Life
Cycle Inventory. Blackie Academic and Professional, London, UK.
Winkler, J., Bilitewski, B., 2007. Comparative evaluation of life-cycle assessment
models for solid waste management. Waste Manag. 27, 1021e1031.
Weatherell, A., Allinson, J., 2003. In search of the concerned consumer UK public
perceptions 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.