Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Estimating the greenhouse gas footprint of Knorr

  • LCA FOR FOOD PRODUCTS
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have been identified as one of Unilever’s priority environmental impact themes: this assessment was therefore conducted to help the Knorr brand measure and understand the GHG emissions related to its product portfolio, identify opportunities to manage GHG emissions in the Unilever-owned operations (manufacture) and influence managed reductions elsewhere in the Knorr product lifecycles, and assess the impact of the brand’s innovation and portfolio strategies on its GHG footprint.

Methods

A bottom–up product-based life cycle assessment (LCA) approach was considered impractical to assess Knorr’s portfolio’s complexity. Thus, a meta-product-based accounting LCA approach was followed (Milà i Canals et al. 2009). Up to 16 product types or “meta-products” were assessed in each geographical region, with a total of 36 meta-products assessed globally. Then, the Knorr GHG footprint was derived by multiplying the impacts calculated per tonne of each product type with the sales volumes in 2007. Data for ingredients and processing technologies were gathered from the literature and suppliers; data from Knorr factories were used for the manufacturing stage. The variability in ingredients’ production and processing and in manufacture was factored in and propagated through the calculations to assess the robustness of the results.

Results

The profiles of different meta-products within a product group (e.g. dry soups) follow similar patterns in terms of absolute GHG per tonne and distribution of such emissions along the life cycle. Variations are observed due to recipe composition and electricity mixes in the different regions. The range of variability around absolute results is significant and varies between meta-products. Aggregating the results for individual meta-products with their production volumes, the global Knorr brand GHG footprint in 2007 was estimated to be in the region of 3–5 million tonnes CO2e/annum (95% confidence interval). In spite of the significant variability ranges found, the results are useful for target setting and identification of opportunities for improvement.

Conclusions

This is the world’s first life cycle GHG assessment at brand’s product portfolio level. The meta-product approach simultaneously allows for the assessment and comparison of individual product types as well as for the estimation of a brand’s total GHG. The variability assessment enhanced robustness of the results by identifying a confidence range; given the complexity of the studied supply chains and the current data quality translated in wide confidence ranges, single number on-pack carbon labels seem questionable and not robust enough to inform consumers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Carbon Footprint, “the total set of GHG emissions caused directly and indirectly by an individual, organisation, event or product” (The Carbon Trust 2007), is a more common denomination. However, in this study we prefer using GHGF as a synonym of carbon footprint, as we consider GHGF is a more adequate term

  2. Representative product types were selected as those with the highest sales volumes. Part of the total Knorr production volume has not been specifically studied, but extrapolated from these main product groups.

References

  • Bala A, Raugei M, Benveniste G, Gazulla C, Fullana-i-Palmer P (2010) Simplified tools for global warming potential evaluation: when ‘good enough’ is best. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(5):489–498

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Finkbeiner M (2009) Carbon footprinting—opportunities and threats. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:91–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster C, Green K, Bleda M, Dewick P, Evans B, Flynn A, Mylan J (2006) Environmental impacts of food production and consumption: a report to the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs. Manchester Business School, DEFRA, London

  • Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus H-J, Doka G, Heck T, Hellweg S, Hischier R, Nemecek T, Rebitzer G, Spielmann M, Wernet G (2008) Overview and methodology. Ecoinvent report, no. 1. 18–12–2007. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Duebendorf

  • Lillywhite R, Collier R (2009) Why carbon footprinting (and carbon labelling) only tells half the story. Measuring and marketing the environmental costs and benefits of agricultural practice. Asp Appl Biol 95:73–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd S, Ries R (2007) Characterizing, propagating, and analyzing uncertainty in life-cycle assessment. A survey of quantitative approaches. J Ind Ecol 11(1):161–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milà i Canals L, Burnip GM, Cowell SJ (2006) Evaluation of the environmental impacts of apple production using life cycle assessment (LCA): case study in New Zealand. Agr Ecosyst Environ 114:226–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milà i Canals L, Cowell SJ, Sim S, Basson L (2007) Comparing domestic versus imported apples: a focus on energy use. Environ Sci Pollut R 14(5):338–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milà i Canals L, Sim S, Neuer G, Vermeiden P, Markl-Moser V, Kerr C (2009) The global carbon footprint of Knorr; assessing one of the world’s largest food brands. 4th International Conference on Life Cycle Management LCM 2009 ‘The global challenge of managing life cycles’. Cape Town (South Africa) September 6th –9th 2009

  • Muñoz I, Milà i Canals L, Fernández-Alba A (2010) Life cycle assessment of the average Spanish diet including the human excretion stage. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(8):794–805

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigarlsford G, David H, Garcia-Suarez T, Milà i Canals L, Sim S, Unger N. (2010) Estimating the greenhouse gas footprint of Unilever’s food products. 7th International Conference on LCA in the Agri-Foods sector. Bari (Italy) September 22–24 2010

  • Sonesson,U, Janestad H, Raaholt B (2003) Energy for preparation and storing of food—models for calculation of energy use for cooking and cold storage in households. 709 2003, 1–56. 2003. Gothenburg, Sweden, SIK. SIK-Rapport

  • The Carbon Trust (2007) Carbon footprinting. An introduction for organisations. August 2007. http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/solutions/CarbonFootprinting/

  • Unilever (2010) Unilever sustainable development overview 2009: creating a better future every day. http://www.unilever.com/

  • Weidema BP, Wesnæs MS (1996) Data quality management for life cycle inventories—an example of using data quality indicators. J Cleaner Prod 4:167–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams AG, Audsley E, Sandars DL (2006) Determining the environmental burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities. Main report. Defra Research Project IS0205. Cranfield University and Defra, Williams AG, Audsley E, Sandars DL (2006) Determining the environmental burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities. Main report. Defra Research Project IS0205, Cranfield University and Defra, Bedford

  • Wiltshire J, Wynn S, Clarke J, Chambers B, Cottrill B, Drakes D, Gittins J, Nicholson C, Phillips K, Thorman R, Tiffin D, Walker O, Tucker G, Thorn R, Green A, Fendler A, Williams A, Bellamy P, Audsley E, Chatterton J, Chadwick D, Foster C (2010) Scenario building to test and inform the development of a BSI method for assessing greenhouse gas emissions from food. Technical annex to the final report. Report to Defra project reference number: FO0404, United Kingdom

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to many suppliers for providing environmental data, as well as to David Dearden and many other colleagues in Unilever who provided their time and knowledge on Knorr processes. Support from Nicole Unger, Helen David and Phil McKeown in data collection and modelling, as well as from Donna Jefferies and Peter Chapman on variability assessment is kindly appreciated.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Llorenç Milà i Canals.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(PDF 92 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Milà i Canals, L., Sim, S., García-Suárez, T. et al. Estimating the greenhouse gas footprint of Knorr. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16, 50–58 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0239-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0239-5

Keywords

Navigation