IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i11p4191-d182702.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating the Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Craft Beer Industry: An Assessment of Challenges and Benefits of Greenhouse Gas Accounting

Author

Listed:
  • Rachel Shin

    (Environmental Applied Science and Management Program, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada)

  • Cory Searcy

    (Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada)

Abstract

A growing number of companies in the brewery industry have made commitments to measure and reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, many brewers, particularly craft brewers with relatively low rates of production, have not made such commitments. The purpose of this research was to investigate the challenges and benefits of measuring and reducing GHG emissions in the craft brewery industry. The research was conducted in Ontario, Canada, which has seen strong recent growth in the craft brewery industry. A case study and semi-structured interviews among Ontario Craft Brewers were conducted. The case study found that indirect (scope 3 GHGs under the WBCSD & WRI GHG Protocol) GHG sources accounted for 46.4% of total GHGs, with major sources from barley agriculture, malted barley transportation, and bottle production. Direct emissions (scope 1) accounted for only 14.9% of GHGs, while scope 2 emissions, comprised mainly of energy consumption, accounted for 38.7% of GHGs. The case study used case company primary data, and secondary data such as emission factors from external sources. The case study and interviews found that the main challenges in calculating brewery GHGs are secondary data availability, technical knowledge, and finances. The semi-structured interviews, which used prepared interview questions and probes to encourage follow-up answers, also found that the main benefits for Ontario breweries to measure their GHGs include sustainability marketing and preserving the environment. The interviews also found a poor understanding of carbon regulation among Ontario Craft Brewers, which is interesting considering that Ontario implemented a provincial cap and trade program in 2017.

Suggested Citation

  • Rachel Shin & Cory Searcy, 2018. "Evaluating the Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Craft Beer Industry: An Assessment of Challenges and Benefits of Greenhouse Gas Accounting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-30, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:11:p:4191-:d:182702
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/11/4191/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/11/4191/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kathryn Harrison, 2012. "A Tale of Two Taxes: The Fate of Environmental Tax Reform in Canada," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 29(3), pages 383-407, May.
    2. Alessio Cimini & Mauro Moresi, 2018. "Effect of Brewery Size on the Main Process Parameters and Cradle‐to‐Grave Carbon Footprint of Lager Beer," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 22(5), pages 1139-1155, October.
    3. Breeda Comyns, 2018. "Climate change reporting and multinational companies: Insights from institutional theory and international business," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(1), pages 65-77, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Peter Kurzweil & Alfred Müller & Steffen Wahler, 2021. "The Ecological Footprint of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Germany," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(14), pages 1-12, July.
    2. Veronika Belousova & Oxana Bondarenko & Nikolay Chichkanov & Denis Lebedev & Ian Miles, 2022. "Coping with Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Insights from Digital Business Services," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-26, April.
    3. Vaclovas Miskinis & Arvydas Galinis & Inga Konstantinaviciute & Vidas Lekavicius & Eimantas Neniskis, 2019. "Comparative Analysis of the Energy Sector Development Trends and Forecast of Final Energy Demand in the Baltic States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-27, January.
    4. Alicia Rosburg & Carola Grebitus, 2021. "Sustainable development in the craft brewing industry: A case study of Iowa brewers," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(7), pages 2966-2979, November.
    5. Michael Martin & Sjoerd Herlaar & Aiden Jönsson & David Lazarevic, 2022. "From Circular to Linear? Assessing the Life Cycle Environmental and Economic Sustainability of Steel and Plastic Beer Kegs," Circular Economy and Sustainability,, Springer.
    6. Juan García-Álvarez de Perea & Carolina Ramírez-García & Aida Del Cubo-Molina, 2019. "Internationalization Business Models and Patterns of SMEs and MNEs: A Qualitative Multi-Case Study in the Agrifood Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-26, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Martin Rabbia, 2023. "Why did Argentina and Uruguay decide to pursue a carbon tax? Fiscal reforms and explicit carbon prices," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(2), pages 230-259, March.
    2. Temirlan T. Moldogaziev & Rachel M. Krause & Gwen Arnold & Le Ahn Nguyen Long & Tatyana Ruseva & Chris Silvia & Christopher Witko, 2023. "Support for the environment post‐transition? Material concerns and policy tradeoffs," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(2), pages 186-206, March.
    3. Garrett Ward Richards, 2019. "The Science–Policy Relationship Hierarchy (SPRHi) model of co-production: how climate science organizations have influenced the policy process in Canadian case studies," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(1), pages 67-95, March.
    4. Farhidi, Faraz & Khiabani, Vahid, 2021. "The impact of social norms on cross-state energy regime changes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    5. Adrien Vogt‐Schilb & Stephane Hallegatte, 2017. "Climate policies and nationally determined contributions: reconciling the needed ambition with the political economy," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(6), November.
    6. Yamazaki, Akio, 2022. "Environmental taxes and productivity: Lessons from Canadian manufacturing," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    7. Fergus Green & Richard Denniss, 2018. "Cutting with both arms of the scissors: the economic and political case for restrictive supply-side climate policies," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 150(1), pages 73-87, September.
    8. Heather W. Cann, 2021. "Policy or scientific messaging? Strategic framing in a case of subnational climate change conflict," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(5), pages 570-595, September.
    9. Jesús Morcillo-Bellido & Alfonso Duran-Heras, 2020. "Sustainability Governance Mechanisms in Supply Chains: An Application in the Retail Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-16, August.
    10. Edward Olale & Emmanuel K. Yiridoe & Thomas O. Ochuodho & Van Lantz, 2019. "The Effect of Carbon Tax on Farm Income: Evidence from a Canadian Province," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(2), pages 605-623, October.
    11. Bauckloh, Michael Tobias & Klein, Christian & Pioch, Thomas & Schiemann, Frank, 2022. "Under pressure: The link between mandatory climate reporting and firms' carbon performance," CFR Working Papers 22-01, University of Cologne, Centre for Financial Research (CFR).
    12. Rhodes, Ekaterina & Axsen, Jonn & Jaccard, Mark, 2015. "Gauging citizen support for a low carbon fuel standard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 104-114.
    13. Rong He & Le Luo & Abul Shamsuddin & Qingliang Tang, 2022. "Corporate carbon accounting: a literature review of carbon accounting research from the Kyoto Protocol to the Paris Agreement," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(1), pages 261-298, March.
    14. Matto Mildenberger & Peter Howe & Erick Lachapelle & Leah Stokes & Jennifer Marlon & Timothy Gravelle, 2016. "The Distribution of Climate Change Public Opinion in Canada," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-14, August.
    15. Beck, Marisa & Rivers, Nicholas & Wigle, Randall & Yonezawa, Hidemichi, 2015. "Carbon tax and revenue recycling: Impacts on households in British Columbia," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 40-69.
    16. Yu‐Bong Lai, 2018. "The Feasibility of the Double‐Dividend Hypothesis in a Democratic Economy," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 120(1), pages 211-241, January.
    17. Lian-Biao Cui & Ma-Lin Song, 2017. "Designing and Forecasting the Differentiated Carbon Tax Scheme Based on the Principle of Ability to Pay," Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research (APJOR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 34(01), pages 1-25, February.
    18. Ayman Hassan Bazhair & Saleh F. A. Khatib & Hamzeh Al Amosh, 2022. "Taking Stock of Carbon Disclosure Research While Looking to the Future: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-24, October.
    19. Kumbhakar, Subal C. & Badunenko, Oleg & Willox, Michael, 2022. "Do carbon taxes affect economic and environmental efficiency? The case of British Columbia’s manufacturing plants," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    20. Janel Jett & Leigh Raymond, 2021. "Issue Framing and U.S. State Energy and Climate Policy Choice," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(3), pages 278-299, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:11:p:4191-:d:182702. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.