Environment

Sustainability of Food from a Life Cycle Perspective

2022.7.22

In recent years, the social value of sustainability in the food sector has gained increasing recognition. Alongside this trend, research and debate on how sustainability should be interpreted and measured have continued to accumulate. At the same time, sustainability initiatives are increasingly being leveraged as part of brand strategy.
This article presents examples of environmental impacts across each stage of the food life cycle and explores the potential for sustainability-driven branding.

Table of Contents

1 Criteria and Labeling Rules for Sustainable Food
2 The Food Life Cycle and Environmental Impact
3 Food Sustainability Initiatives on LCA
4 The Future of Consumer Branding Through Sustainability

Criteria and Labeling Rules for Sustainable Food

Many consumers aim to make environmentally responsible food choices. According to an article published by the World Economic Forum in 2023, 65% of consumers seek products that support sustainable and socially responsible lifestyles (*1).

In addition, Kearney’s 2023 Earth Day Survey, conducted among 1,000 consumers in the United States, found that 42% of respondents stated they “always” or “almost always” consider environmental impact when purchasing food. This figure increased compared with the previous year (*2).

Certification labels have become widely used as tools to communicate sustainability efforts in the food sector. However, the wide variation in evaluation criteria and standards makes it difficult to compare labels across products. As a result, it can be challenging to assess the effectiveness of sustainability-driven branding initiatives.

(For more details on certification labels, please refer to our previous article.)

In addition, terms such as “eco,” “SDGs,” “green,” “ethical,” and “organic” have become widely used to describe foods produced with environmental considerations or products that evoke such impressions (*3)(*4).

While these terms are often used as reference points for sustainable purchasing decisions, it has also been pointed out that they may not contribute to a substantial reduction in environmental impact.

(For further discussion of greenwashing, please refer to our previous article.)

This article introduces approaches to sustainability-driven branding based on environmental impacts across the production, distribution, consumption, and disposal stages of food. We examine how differences in environmental impact among food products can be visualized through environmental impact assessment and explore the potential of sustainability initiatives grounded in such data.

The Food Life Cycle and Environmental Impact

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is one method of environmental impact assessment that evaluates a product across its entire life cycle, from raw material sourcing and manufacturing to processing, distribution, retail, and disposal.

In LCA, each step in a product’s life cycle is modeled to estimate the resources used and the quantities of waste and emissions generated. Environmental impacts are then calculated using LCA-specific impact category indicators.

These data are commonly used in marketing strategies, including environmental product declarations and certification programs. The following sections explain key trends and interpretations at each stage of LCA as applied to food.

2.1 Production Stage

Cultivation methods are one of the key factors that determine the environmental impact of agricultural products.

For example, studies have shown that greenhouse cultivation of fruiting vegetables and citrus during winter can emit between two and twenty times more greenhouse gases (GHGs) than open-field cultivation of the same crops. This is due to the fuel required to maintain greenhouse temperatures (*5).

Researchers in Spain evaluated the environmental impacts of cherry tomato production under Mediterranean coastal conditions using three cultivation methods: greenhouses, open fields, and screenhouses. In this study, screenhouses were structures covered with high-density polyethylene screens, using black-and-white screens on the roof and black screens on the sides.

The results showed that greenhouse cultivation had the highest environmental impact across five categories: global warming, acidification, marine eutrophication, metal depletion, and fossil fuel depletion. However, from the perspective of pesticide-related toxicity, greenhouse cultivation showed the lowest impact (*6).

2.2 Distribution Stage

Transportation Distance

Many food products reach end consumers through global supply chains. Processed foods in particular involve long-distance transportation as they pass through multiple locations such as farms, factories, distribution centers, and stores.

Food miles is an indicator calculated by multiplying the quantity of food transported by the distance traveled. Because longer distances generally require more fuel, food miles are commonly used to illustrate the environmental impact associated with long-distance food transportation (*7).

Local production for local consumption is often highlighted to reduce transportation distances. However, shorter transport distances do not always result in lower overall environmental impact. For example, studies have shown that importing strawberries from Spain to the United Kingdom can result in lower life cycle environmental impact than producing them domestically, even when transportation-related GHG emissions are considered (*8).

In some cases, sourcing from highly productive regions may be more beneficial than increasing yields through energy-intensive practices such as greenhouse cultivation or heavy nitrogen fertilizer use. The sustainability assessment of a product can vary depending on the evaluation perspective, making it essential to assess environmental impacts from multiple angles.

How to transport

While food miles focus on distance, they do not account for differences in transportation mode. A study comparing global food transport based on ton-kilometers, which combine transported mass and distance, found that 0.16% of food transport was by air, 58.97% by sea, 30.97% by road, and 9.9% by rail (*9).

Air transport emits approximately 50 times more GHGs per ton-kilometer than maritime transport (*9). However, foods transported by air tend to be high-value, perishable items shipped in small quantities. Heavier products are typically transported in bulk via lower-emission maritime or land transport.

As a result, transportation accounts for only about 6% of total life cycle GHG emissions on average. This figure reflects the contribution of transportation within the overall food system rather than the impact of distance alone (*10).

Transportation Format

With respect to domestic food distribution, one study examined CO₂ emissions per unit mass of squid transported from Hachinohe Port in Aomori Prefecture to the Tsukiji market in Tokyo using different transportation formats. The study found that live-fish transport had a particularly high environmental impact. In contrast, frozen transport resulted in lower environmental impact than chilled transport due to packaging requirements and transport efficiency (*11).

Another study focused on the use of cushioning packaging to reduce damage to strawberries during transport. By preventing damage and reducing the need for additional production to replace spoiled products, cushioning packaging resulted in lower overall life cycle environmental impact compared with strawberries transported without such packaging. This study demonstrated that eliminating packaging does not necessarily reduce environmental impact and highlighted the importance of a life cycle perspective (*12).

Packaging is used not only to protect food during processing and distribution but also extensively in the food service industry, where single-use packaging is common. Reviews of several LCA studies suggest that reusable containers, such as glass bottles or plastic crates, can reduce GHG emissions by up to 85% compared with equivalent single-use containers (*13).

However, for reusable plastic containers, it is essential to conduct life cycle comparisons that account for lifespan, raw materials, disposal methods, environmental impact, and cost. Comprehensive evaluation across these factors is considered effective (*14). In addition, food service companies may intentionally select distributors that adopt lower-impact packaging methods to reflect consumer preferences (*15).

2.3 Consumption and Disposal Stage

Form of Provision

In 2022, while 1.05 billion metric tons of food were wasted globally, 783 million people faced hunger. According to UNEP, 19% of food available to consumers was wasted at the retail, food service, and household levels. Food loss and waste account for 8–10% of annual global GHG emissions, nearly five times the emissions of the aviation sector. They also consume almost one-third of global agricultural land and contribute significantly to biodiversity loss (*16).

Food loss and waste

Large-scale food waste not only results in missed opportunities to supply food to those in need but also wastes all resources—fertilizers, feed, land, water, and human labor—used across the food production process. When setting food waste reduction targets, it is important to consider environmental impact in addition to the weight of wasted food.

From a life cycle perspective, fruits and vegetables account for a large share of food waste by weight. However, waste weight does not necessarily correlate with associated GHG emissions. Animal-based foods, such as meat, are often wasted in smaller quantities but are associated with the highest GHG emissions (*17).

Therefore, if the goal is to maximize GHG emission reductions rather than simply reduce waste weight or disposal costs, priority should be given to reducing waste in high-impact food categories, including meat and air-freighted imported products (*18).

Food Sustainability Initiatives on LCA

LCA research continues to advance efforts to quantify food-related environmental impacts and compare production conditions. LCA provides companies with critical decision-making inputs for sustainability management and helps evaluate trade-offs across a wide range of factors (*19).

At the same time, assessing environmental impact across an entire value chain—from development and sourcing to manufacturing, distribution, marketing, consumption, and disposal—requires extensive data collection and analysis. In the agriculture and food sectors, large product portfolios, low unit prices, and complex supply chains present significant barriers to LCA implementation.

Moreover, sustainability-driven branding requires consideration of factors beyond the environmental impacts addressed by LCA. For example, the squid distribution study discussed earlier noted a trade-off between CO₂ emissions determined by transport format and the quality of the transported product. Improving distribution sustainability therefore benefits from quantitative evaluation of product quality in addition to environmental impact (*20).

A major French retailer piloted the use of an Eco-score that integrates multiple criteria, including production location, bulk sales options, recyclable packaging, transportation mode, and certification status, to evaluate and communicate product environmental impact (*21).

This initiative reflects the reality that consumers prioritize different sustainability criteria, such as origin, packaging, or transportation, when making purchasing decisions (*22).

This case suggests that, alongside product-specific information such as quality and nutrition, presenting environmental impact across the entire food value chain as an integrated indicator can provide meaningful value to consumers.

The Future of Consumer Branding Through Sustainability

Globally, sustainability assessments for food are increasingly focused on environmental impacts across the entire life cycle, not only the production stage. Quantifying and communicating product environmental impact from multiple perspectives in a flexible manner can support branding strategies that align with diverse consumer interests.

At the same time, challenges remain, including the high cost and time required for LCA implementation and the effective communication of insights derived from complex datasets.

Our service, “My-Eco-Ruler ” evaluates initiatives across each stage of a product’s supply chain based on LCA and converts them into scores. By visualizing corporate sustainability efforts, the service helps deliver clear and accessible information to consumers.

Obtaining LCA-based evaluations for proprietary products allows companies to objectively understand their environmental positioning within the broader food market, including competing products, and communicate this position with credibility.

At “cuoncrop”, we offer services such as the “ESG/SDGs Management 360° Assessment and Improvement Support” and “My-Eco-Ruler.” These services are delivered by a team of ESG management data analysis experts, primarily with backgrounds in global strategy consulting, supported by proprietary analytical systems and methodologies.

Our services are designed not only to improve analytical efficiency for companies that already have in-house ESG teams, but also to support smaller organizations that do not yet have dedicated ESG analysis functions but recognize the need to shift toward ESG-driven management.

Companies interested in accelerating ESG management through scientific and efficient analytical approaches are encouraged to contact “cuoncrop” for further discussion.

cuoncrop ESG Global Trend Research Division

References

*1 https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/01/consumer-power-net-zero-food-producer-retailer-davos23/

*2 https://www.kearney.com/industry/consumer-retail/article/-/insights/dawn-of-the-climavores

*3 https://www.weforum.org/press/2019/09/global-survey-shows-74-are-aware-of-the-sustainable-development-goals/

*4 https://www.imarcgroup.com/eco-friendly-labels-market

*5 https://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/se/rv/amano/pdf/2009KKS-yoshikawanaoki.pdf

*6 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11367-016-1225-3

*7 https://www.maff.go.jp/j/council/seisaku/kikaku/goudou/06/pdf/data2.pdf

*8 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaq0216

*9 https://ourworldindata.org/food-transport-by-mode

*10 https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food