Wine Economics and Policy 12(1): 51-62, 2023 Firenze University Press www.fupress.com/wep ISSN 2212-9774 (online) | ISSN 2213-3968 (print) | DOI: 10.36253/wep-13016 Wine Economics and Policy Citation: Stefano Massaglia, Tibor Verduna, Vincenzo Varchetta, Filippo Brun, Simone Blanc (2023). The impact of alternative packaging on the life cycle of wine on tap. Wine Economics and Policy 12(1): 51-62. doi: 10.36253/wep- 13016 Copyright: © 2023 Stefano Massaglia, Tibor Verduna, Vincenzo Varchetta, Filippo Brun, Simone Blanc. This is an open access, peer-reviewed article published by Firenze University Press (http://www.fupress.com/wep) and dis- tributed under the terms of the Crea- tive Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distri- bution, and reproduction in any medi- um, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability Statement: All rel- evant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information fi les. Competing Interests: The Author(s) declare(s) no confl ict of interest. Th e impact of alternative packaging on the life cycle of wine on tap Stefano Massaglia1, Tibor Verduna1, Vincenzo Varchetta2, Filippo Brun1, Simone Blanc1,* 1 Department of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences, University of Turin, Largo Paolo Braccini 2, 10095 Grugliasco, Italy 2 Quality Assurance Department, Vinicola Agrifl egrea, via Nelson Mandela 95, 80126, Napoli, Italy E-mail: stefano.massaglia@unito.it; tibor.verduna@unito.it; vincevarchetta@gmail.com; fi lippo.brun@unito.it; simone.blanc@unito.it *Corresponding author. Abstract. Sustainability is a key objective of development policies within international organizations, and it is also progressively gaining importance in the wine industry as a whole and, more specifi cally, in the draught wine market. Th e competitive conditions of the wine sector and the evolution of consumption styles have led to an increasing need for more accurate management strategies and analysis activities to determine the performance of wineries. Th is study aims to analyse both the environmental and the economic concerns of a commercial development strategy implemented by an Italian winery that uses three packaging formats (glass bottle, one-way PET keg, and reus- able steel keg) in the sale of Falanghina PGI wine on three diff erent markets (domes- tic, Italy; regional, Germany; and international, USA). By assessing the environmen- tal and economic impact of the diff erent formats on the three scenarios through LCA and LCC analysis, it is revealed that the economic and environmental sustainability of packaging types can vary signifi cantly depending on the market destinations. In any case, the results show that PET, and especially reusable materials such as steel, can lead to a marked reduction in impacts on the market for tapped wine. Keywords: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Life Cycle Costing (LCC), wine, packaging. 1. INTRODUCTION Sustainability is undoubtedly a key objective of development policies within international organizations. The European Union (EU), through its Europe 2020 Strategy, aims to promote smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth. Sustainability has also gained importance in the wine sector and has led to companies and consumers being more aware of this issue within the wine supply chain [1,2]. Consumer awareness in particular plays a central role in encouraging wine producers to pay close attention not only to economic aspects but also to the environmental impact of wine at diff erent stages of its life cycle [3]. 52 Stefano Massaglia et al. About 258 million hl of wine were produced dur- ing the 2019 campaign, according to the International Organisation of Vine and Wine (http://www.oiv.int). Moreover, competitive landscapes in the wine sector and high fragmentation of consumer behaviour have led to the need for management planning and tighter moni- toring of costs. The precise estimation of the production cost of a litre of wine is an essential basis for setting up the different processing steps and for developing appro- priate marketing strategies [4–6]. The consumption of wine at entertainment venues such as restaurants and bars highlights the need to find a compromise between environmental and economic costs, in order to ensure the consumer has a pleasant, reasonably-priced and sustainably-valued consump- tion experience. To this end, the choice of wine pack- aging can impact significantly on limiting environmen- tal impacts and reducing costs. In recent years, several alternative packaging options have been adopted in the beverage sector. In addition to traditional glass bottles, wine is marketed to on-premise markets in large bag-in- box containers, PET (polyethylene terephthalate) kegs, and steel kegs [7]. Two distinct and contrasting aspects arise in the choice of packaging: on the one hand, retailers prefer large-volume packaging due to its convenience; on the other, consumers prefer glass-bottled wine due to envi- ronmental concerns about plastic pollution [8]. Another important aspect, as indicated by several authors [9,10] is that consumers’ purchasing decisions are influenced by the end-of-life of the product rather than the environ- mental impacts in the production and transport phases. With regard to on-premises markets, PET and steel kegs appear to be the most promising competitors to glass. Both contain more volume for the same weight, and steel can be used multiple times, theoretically with endless use. In addition, the distribution phase is more critical for glass, due to the fragility of the material, which also has a major impact on secondary and tertiary packaging and on the type of materials used (pallets, films, and carton boxes) [11]. In recent years, the use of steel kegs for serving wine on tap has increased dramatically, especially in the Unit- ed States, Australia, and New Zealand [12]. In Europe, the use of bottles is widespread, but innovative alterna- tive packaging seems to be appreciated both by retail- ers, who want to reduce the costs generated by waste by enhancing the efficiency of resource management and distribution, and by consumers who are more and more interested in sustainable wine consumption [13]. Two methodologies deemed by academics as most suitable for assessing the environmental impacts and the economic aspects of agri-food products during their life cycle are the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and the Life Cycle Costing (LCC). Recent studies have investigated the environmental impacts of wine grape production [14], grape cultivation and wine making [15,16]. Other works have considered the life cycle of a wine bottle [17] and the environmen- tal impacts of consumption [18]. Cultivation [19–21] and the wine-making process [22,23] have also been studied from an economic point of view. In recent literature, studies can be found that relate PET and steel kegs for beer consumption [24,25], but only one paper assesses the environmental impact of PET keg adoption in the wine industry [26]. In light of the above, the research question is related to the environmental and economic competitiveness of different materials commonly used for packaging wine sold on local and international markets. The objective of this study is to evaluate the envi- ronmental impacts and life cycle cost of three packaging systems (glass vs. PET vs. steel) of Campania’s Falanghi- na PGI wine on tap, in three market scenarios, i.e. local, Italy vs. regional, Germany vs. international, USA. Alter- native scenarios are defined considering the variation of the three packaging systems and the distance of dis- tribution on the market in order to identify the aspects that most influence the environmental and economic performances of wine on tap. The case study is an Italian winery (located in the Campania region), which processes 7,300 hl of wine, most- ly marketed in 20 l stainless steel keg containers, in 0.75 l glass bottles and in 20 l disposable PET keg recipients. The wine portfolio consists of 22 references, two of which are light sparkling wines that account for more than 30% of all wines in terms of volume. Among still wines, Campania Falanghina PGI (obtained by an autochthonous/local cultivar) represents the largest in terms of volume share and annual growth rate. The hypothesis is that large packaging that can be reused several times is less impactful from an environ- mental and economic viewpoint than packaging used only once. 2. METHODOLOGY 2.1. Functional Unit and system boundaries The volume of the beverage is typically chosen as the functional unit (FU) for LCA and LCC analyses and, in particular, other studies that have focused on wine have defined their FU as 0.75 l or 1 l of wine [27,28]. When analysing the consumption of wine on the premises, we 53The impact of alternative packaging on the life cycle of wine on tap chose a 125 ml glass as FU, because that allowed us to compare Falanghina PGI wine marketed in different vol- ume packages. We considered the on-trade markets to carry out a cradle-to-grave environmental analysis, while the econom- ic analysis was conducted from cradle to wholesale. Cul- tivation of grapevine, winemaking, packaging, transport, refrigeration and waste management were considered and the allocation method by mass was used, considering that the wine yield of a unit mass of grapes is about 70%. The decision to adopt two systems lies in the fact that there are limitations when estimating both the transport costs from the wholesaler to the retailer and the product handling phase at the point of sale: the wine storage and service phase by the retailer could not be calculated because of the high variability due to the intrinsic characteristics of the shops, which results in very different costs (Figure 1). 2.2. LCA methodology 2.2.1. Inventory analysis and impact assessment The software tool SimaPro 8.5 (PRE Consultants, Amersfoort, The Netherlands) was used to perform the LCA. For vine growing, winemaking, packaging and transport, we obtained primary data from the winery; for refrigeration and disposal, we used background data from the Ecoinvent v.3.7 database. The environmental impacts of the three packaging techniques and the three markets were calculated by adopting the IMPACT 2002+ method. 2.2.2. Grape cultivation Grape cultivation was analysed from cradle to farm gate. We assumed that Falanghina PGI grapes are grown with a conventional farming model. All input was pro- vided by the farmers, and we processed it considering the production cycle in the following phases: fertilisa- tion, fungicide treatments, pesticide treatments, prun- ing, inter-row management, irrigation, and harvesting. It was assumed that the vineyard is in full produc- tion, and vineyard establishment and end-of-life were excluded from the assessment as these stages represent minor impacts due to the long (and uncertain) lifespan of the vineyard. Table 1 shows data for agricultural operations. 2.2.3. Winemaking The vinification phase considers two steps: Step 1 − Winemaking with all related operations (Table 2) Step 2 − Filtration and finishing with addition of pre- packaging products (Table 3) Figure 1. System boundaries. Table 1. Inventory data for vineyard (amount per 125 ml of wine). Unit Amount Input from nature Water m3 1.49E-02 Input from the technosphere Diesel kg 4.06E-03 Lubricating oil kg 8.78E-05 Urea, as N kg 5.00E-04 Ammonia kg 3.33E-04 Phosphate fertiliser kg 4.17E-04 Potassium fertiliser kg 4.17E-04 Sulphur trioxide kg 6.25E-04 Dithiocarbamate-compound kg 9.52E-05 Copper oxide kg 1.49E-04 Sulphur kg 2.34E-04 Poles, softwood, PCP treated m3 1.98E-04 Aluminium around bimetallic steel wire m 8.93E-03 54 Stefano Massaglia et al. 2.2.4. Packaging Three different wine packaging systems were consid- ered: 0.75 l glass bottle, 20 l PET keg and 20 l steel keg. Both the glass bottle and the PET keg are one way, while the steel keg is recyclable; therefore, the amount of steel per FU depends on the reference market scenario (Italy, Germany, or USA) and on the lifetime of the kegs. The winery declared that the life cycle of steel kegs lasts about 10 years and the number of roundtrips depends on the destination: 9 roundtrips/year for the Italian sce- nario, 5 roundtrips/year for the German scenario, and 2 roundtrips/year for the US scenario. Considering the weight of the 20 l steel keg (6.4 kg, or 40 g FU-1), its lifespan and the number of roundtrips, the right amount of steel FU-1 for each scenario is the following: - 0.4 g steel FU-1 in the Italian scenario - 0.8 g steel FU-1 in the German scenario - 2.0 g steel FU-1 in the US scenario. Tables 4, 5 and 6 show the input used for each type of packaging. To calculate the amount of packaging film used to wrap pallets, the European standard pallet size (0.8 m x 1.2 m) with an average height of 1.8 m [29] were assumed. 2.2.5. Transport The wine wholesalers are located in Verona (for the Italian scenario), Frankfurt (for the German scenario) Table 2. Amount of all input in the first wine-making step (per 125 ml of wine). Input Unit Destemming and crushing Fermentation Racking Clarification Cleaning Cooling Energy kWh 3.50E-04 2.50E-05 1.33E-02 Yeasts G 2.50E-02 Potassium metabisulphite g 6.25E-03 Fermentation activator g 5.00E-02 Enzymes g 1.25E-03 Bentonite g 6.25E-02 Detergents g 7.00E-02 Table 3. Amount of all input in the second wine-making step (per 125 ml of wine). Inputs Unit Amount Water g l-1 2.70E-03 Electricity kWh l-1 3.75E-04 Potassium metabisulphite g l-1 6.25E-03 Colloids g l-1 1.88E-02 Tanning g l-1 1.25E-03 Lightener kWh l-1 1.75E-03 Table 4. Input in glass bottle packaging (per 125 ml of wine). Input Unit Amount Glass bottle g 75 Cork closure g 6.88E-01 Capsules g 1.33E-01 Label g 1.40E-01 Electricity kWh 4.00E-03 Water g 2.00E-02 Nitrogen g 1.00E-01 Cardboard g 6.34 Table 5. Input in PET keg packaging (per 125 ml of wine). Inputs Unit Amount PET g 6.25E-01 Capsules g 7.25E-02 Electricity kWh 3.88E-04 Fuel g 2.38E-03 Table 6. Input in steel keg packaging (per 125 ml of wine). Inputs Unit Amount ITA GER USA Stainless steel g 4.45E-01 8.00E-01 2.00 Capsules g 7.25E-02 7.25E-02 7.25E-02 Electricity kWh 3.13E-03 3.13E-03 3.13E-03 Water g 1.25E-01 1.25E-01 1.25E-01 Nitrogen g 1.25 1.25 1.25 55The impact of alternative packaging on the life cycle of wine on tap and New York (for the US scenario) respectively, thus causing a different environmental impact due to both the distance and the vehicles used during transport. The estimation of vehicle emissions was carried out consider- ing the average values of emissions from the use of Euro 4, Euro 5 and Euro 6 lorries [29], light commercial vehi- cles and, for the US scenario only, transoceanic ships. - Italian and German scenarios: The distance between the winery and the wholesaler is 700 km for the Ital- ian scenario and 1,450 km for the German scenario; a lorry (32 tonnes) was considered for the transport. The average distance from the wholesaler to the retailers was assumed at 150 km for both scenarios, considering a light commercial vehicle. - US scenario: For overland transport from the win- ery’s headquarters to the port of Livorno (Italy), 550 km were assumed with a 32-tonne truck. For transport from Italy to the wholesaler located in the port of New York, a transoceanic ship with cooling was considered. From the wholesaler to the retailer, a light commercial vehicle was considered, for an average distance from wholesaler to retailer of 50 km. 2.2.6. Retailer refrigeration During the refrigeration phase, the electricity con- sumption for the glass bottle scenario was assumed to be 1.025E-03 kWh FU-1 in 12 hours of refrigeration (average time assumed before wine tapping). For the PET keg and steel keg scenarios, the use of electricity is limited to the tapping phase (Table 7) and the refrigeration is managed using inert gases, leading to a refrigerant loss, which was also considered. The leakage of R404A and its three components for FU are shown in Table 7; as also report- ed by Amienyo and Azapagic [24], the Global Warming Power of R404A was estimated in 3.860 kg CO2 eq. kg-1. 2.2.7. Packaging end of life (waste management) The end-of-life phase of packaging systems was modelled by considering disposal scenarios consist- ing of incineration, landfilling, and recycling processes. PET keg and glass bottle are one way, while the steel keg is used for 10 years, then replaced at the end of the life cycle. Regarding the percentages of these processes, official data from each scenario was assumed: ISPRA for Italy [30]; the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety for Germany [31], and United States Environmental Protection Agen- cy for the USA [32]. 2.2.8. Scenario modelling A key option for reducing the environmental impact of wine consumption is closely related to the weight of packaging. In defining the alternative scenario, the potential reduction in life cycle environmental impact was analysed by considering alternative packaging con- tainers with a weight reduction of 33% per glass bottle, PET keg and steel keg. 2.3 LCC methodology Life cycle costs were evaluated according to [24,33] the methodological approach given in Hunkeler [34] Table 7. Leakage of refrigerant R404A and its component (amount per 125 ml of wine). Refrigeration leakage GWP R404A losses 1,1,1 – Trifluoroethane Pentafluoroethane 1,1,1,2 – Tetrafluoroethane PET keg 2.90 7.50E-04 3.90E-04 3.30E-04 3.00E-05 Steel keg 2.90 7.50E-04 3.90E-04 3.30E-04 3.00E-05 Table 8. Waste management scenarios. Disposal scenario Glass PET Steel Italy Germany USA Italy Germany USA Italy Germany USA Recycling 74% 85% 31% 44% 93% 14% 78% 91% 74% Landfilling 26% 9% 55% 13% 69% 22% 9% 21% Incineration   6% 13% 43% 7% 17%     5% 56 Stefano Massaglia et al. and Swarr [35] concerning the Conventional LCC cal- culation. The following equation (Eq. 1) includes the phases and material useful to calculate the LCC of 125 ml of wine from field to wholesaler. LCCw = Cc + Cp + Cwpb + Ct (1) Where: LCCw wine life cycle costs of 125 ml of wine Cc costs of vine cultivation Cp costs of packaging (glass bottle or PET keg or steel keg) Cwpb costs of wine production and bottling Ct costs of transport to wholesaler (Italy, Germany or United States) All cost items are given per functional unit and reported in the unit of measure € 125ml-1. All costs for cultivation, packaging, wine production and bottling were collected directly from the case study company. The LCC was conducted following an activity- based costing approach. In addition, different cost sepa- ration criteria and cost centres were taken into account in order to elaborate the balance sheet data set. In analytical cost accounting, the most commonly used categories are direct and indirect costs [36]. There- fore, the primary criterion for separating costs is based on the distinction between: - Direct Costs, which are allocated directly to cost objects, based on an objective measurement of the input consumed by the cost object; - Indirect Costs, which are allocated or charged indi- rectly to the cost object because the amount of the input consumed by the cost object in question has not been objectively measured. The above categories have been broadly divided (as shown in Table 9) into direct and indirect costs. Category A includes direct costs for raw materials; category B (B1, B2, …, Bn) includes direct costs of dif- ferent types; while category C is the direct cost for pack- aging. Category D indicates indirect costs and considers labour costs for packaging (D1) and depreciable assets (D2); finally, category E includes general indirect cost centres (E1, … Em). The transport phase for the three scenarios is exter- nal to the company and was calculated through the analysis of contracts with transport companies. 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION As shown in Figure 2 and 3, the resource (expressed in MJ of primary energy) and climate change (kg CO2 eq.) indicators in the three scenarios were compared to assess the environmental impact of glass bottle, PET keg and steel keg packaging for the selected FU. For both indicators, the total environmental impact of each type of packaging is given by the sum of the fol- lowing phases: - Cultivation - Winemaking - Packaging - Transport to the wholesaler - Transport to the retailer - Refrigeration - Waste management As the cultivation and winemaking techniques are the same regardless of the type of packaging, their envi- ronmental impact is equal for each scenario. In terms of resources used, the sum of their values is the highest of all the phases considered (2.3 MJ primary energy FU-1), while in terms of GWP they barely reach 0.06 kg CO2 eq. FU-1. In terms of resource consumption, the vineyard cul- tivation and winemaking phases remain among the most Table 9. Categories of direct and indirect costs. Category Type of cost Description A 1 Direct Raw materials (Wine) B 1 Direct Oenological products B 2 Direct Water B 3 Direct Detergents B 4 Direct Plant electricity consumption B 5 Direct Cooling system electricity consumption B 6 Direct Inert gas B 7 Direct Eno-registers consulting fee B 8 Direct Estimates for losses of product B 9 Direct Depreciation B 10 Direct Lab analysis B 11 Direct Microfiltration membranes B 12 Direct Rectified grape must concentrate C 1 Direct Packaging materials D 1 Indirect Production labour D 2 Indirect Production equipment depreciation E 1 Indirect Leased assets E 2 Indirect Consumables E 3 Indirect Logistical E 4 Indirect General E 5 Indirect Bank charges E 6 Indirect Personnel E 7 Indirect Depreciation 57The impact of alternative packaging on the life cycle of wine on tap impactful; however, in the case of scenarios involving the use of glass bottle packaging, the latter becomes rel- evant in defining the overall impact. The production steps that lead to a greater difference between the three scenarios considered are packaging and transport for two reasons: 1) the amount and type of raw material used in packaging and 2) the distance between cellar and retailer. The glass bottle is the most impactful packaging, followed by the PET keg and the steel keg; the higher quantity of raw material used for the glass bottles and the total weight of each batch led to a greater environmental impact. Regarding the impact of transport, it is obviously linked to distance: the greater the distance, the higher the environmental impact. Therefore, the “US scenario” has the highest values, followed by the “German scenar- io” and the “Italian scenario”. Also considering waste management, glass bottles can become competitive again in Italy and Germany, thanks to the high level of recycling of this material and the low percentage of landfill disposal. Table 10 shows the results of the scenario analysis, highlighting the different impact of packaging weight reduction in the market scenarios investigated. A signifi- cant change emerges with the use of the glass bottle as the primary packaging container. In this case, the Cli- mate Change indicator shows a reduction in impact of as much as 1/3 for the commercial scenario on a domestic scale, clearly evidencing the impact of this type of con- tainer on the product life cycle. Less sharp results were obtained on a regional and international scale, but again there is evidence that a significant share of the over- all impact is attributable to the container. For the PET keg container, the reduction results, although appreci- able, are more limited, also considering the large vol- ume transported per single unit. The use of the steel keg shows no significant difference, considering the re-use of the container for several trips. These results also express the relationship between packaging weight and distance travelled to market, highlighting the strong environmen- tal impact of packaging for short-marketed products. The cost analysis shows the high competitiveness of the steel keg format compared to the PET keg and the glass bottle, due to the possibility to reuse the packag- ing and thus spread the purchase costs over many trips. The least competitive scenario is where the glass bottle is used, mainly because of the cost of buying glass. Consid- ering the costs incurred by the winery to deliver the wine in the three scenarios (Table 11), it can be seen that, on the domestic market, the most competitive format is the steel keg; for the European destination, the choice of one of the two keg formats analysed does not influence the total cost. For the US scenario, the most competitive for- mat is the steel keg (-3.4% compared to PET). Looking at individual cost items, raw material (wine), category A is the item that alone accounts for most of the costs in the PET and steel keg scenarios, while for the glass bottle, category B represents the high- est costs. The packaging (category C) in steel keg accounts for 0.3% of production costs; this value rises to 3.5% for PET keg and 4.1% for the glass bottle. Going into greater detail, the wine production and bottling phase (categories B and D) differ in the use of the three types of packaging, due to manual labour in the bottling phase and in all the phases prior to bot- tling, such as the cleaning of each container, the man- agement of the bottling line, and the subsequent activi- ties of warehouse logistics. In particular, category B is -2,00 -1,00 0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 Bottle Pet keg Steel keg Bottle Pet keg Steel keg Bottle Pet keg Steel keg ITALY GERMANY USA M j P ri m ar y en er gy CULTIVATION WINEMAKING PACKAGING TRANSPORT TO THE WHOLESALER TRANSPORT TO THE RETAILER REFRIGERATION WASTE MANAGEMENT Figure 2. Resources: environmental impact of glass bottle, PET keg and steel keg in the three scenarios considered (Italy, Germany and USA). -0,10 -0,05 0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 Bottle Pet keg Steel keg Bottle Pet keg Steel keg Bottle Pet keg Steel keg ITALY GERMANY USA K g C O 2 eq . CULTIVATION WINEMAKING PACKAGING TRANSPORT TO THE WHOLESALER TRANSPORT TO THE RETAILER REFRIGERATION WASTE MANAGEMENT Figure 3. Climate change: environmental impact of glass bottle, PET keg and steel keg in the three scenarios considered (Italy, Ger- many and USA). 58 Stefano Massaglia et al. higher for the glass bottle because of the higher energy consumption of the various machines that constitute the line, compared to the keg plant and the high incidence of the fixed costs of the plant. Conversely, category D is higher for kegs because the incidence of the cost of per- sonnel employed in the various operations is higher than for other production lines. Turning to transport costs, carriers define unit costs that depend on the kilometres travelled and the type of material. PET packaging is the cheapest on all routes because it is the lightest in terms of volume transported. Glass remains competitive on the domestic market, but not on the European and US markets. For steel packag- ing, the return of the empty container is also considered in the costs shown. Packaging in the food industry has to consider vari- ous environmental and economic requirements in addi- tion to marketing, logistics, and production. As another study [37] points out, there are two central elements to focus on when choosing the right packaging: the pack- aging material and the packaging end-of-life. The pack- aging sector evolved initially because of the need to pro- duce new materials for technological reasons related to wine transport and preservation. Currently, the need to find effective ways to reduce costs and environmental impact have led to new design paradigms [38]. This study shows that wine steel and PET have com- parable and significantly better economic performance than glass packaging, with steel achieving the best envi- ronmental results. Similar considerations were expressed by Brock and Williams [39] who found that glass and the recycled glass bottle are still the most impactful packaging. Another study confirms the findings of this work for beer [40], with glass containers appearing to be the most expensive compared to steel. Reusable packag- ing systems therefore appear to be more competitive in the supply chain than single-use packaging, as also dem- onstrated by Mahmoudi and Parviziomran [41]. In these terms, it is difficult to find alternative solu- tions considering on the one hand the tradition of using the glass bottle container and, on the other hand, the perception of the consumer. Not all studies agree on the importance of wine packaging, but it seems that bottle design may play an important role in some old-world markets that are more tied to tradition [42], but also in relation to more inno- vative products, as for fruit wines that highlight the fun- damental role of packaging in defining the attractiveness of the product [43]. A recent study [44], indicates that Portuguese consumers associate the heavier glass bottle with better quality and a higher price, while at the same time expressing concerns about the presence of plastic in the packaging that may reduce recyclability and reuse. This condition is less evident for tap wine, but the cultural link with tradition can potentially influence the choice. Nevertheless, the role of the consumer has been changing in recent years, and more and more attention is being paid to environmental claims and to the com- munication of the role of limiting impacts by wineries [45], which now consider their carbon neutrality and containment process as development objectives in the medium and long term. Moreover, in the last few years, experiments are being conducted to evaluate alternative packaging such as bio- Table 10. Scenario modelling results (33% of weight reduction for packaging). Glass PET Steel Italy Germany USA Italy Germany USA Italy Germany USA Resources -13% -12% -10% -7% -7% -6% -2% -1% -1% Climate change -30% -26% -15% -8% -7% -6% 0% 0% 0% Table 11. Cost analysis results (€ FU-1). Format Production cost categories Transport scenario Total costs scenario Cultivation Wine production and bottling IT GE US IT GE US A B C D E Glass bottle 0.1150 0.1221 0.0116 0.0100 0.0263 0.0163 0.0350 0.0383 0.3013 0.3200 0.3233 PET 0.1150 0.0394 0.0069 0.0113 0.0263 0.0113 0.0250 0.0276 0.2100 0.2238 0.2264 Steel keg 0.1150 0.0132 0.0005 0.0163 0.0263 0.0225 0.0525 0.0475 0.1938 0.2238 0.2188 59The impact of alternative packaging on the life cycle of wine on tap plastic bottles, which would guarantee a reduced envi- ronmental footprint but would be more expensive [46,47]. Compared to our case study, the use of PET kegs seems to be interesting from an economic point of view; however, from a circular economy perspective and considering the increasing awareness of consumers on the use of recycla- ble and reusable products compared to the classical dis- posable ones, it seems inevitable for companies operating in the beverage sector to adopt green strategies [48]. In addition, when considering wine packaging, one must actually refer to three levels of packaging: primary packaging, which includes the container intended for the end consumer and with the function of protecting and advertising the product; secondary packaging, used to group bottles, for example in cardboard boxes; tertiary packaging, such as containers used to combine groups of packages into larger loads for transport [49]. The dis- course, therefore, becomes broader and refers to many materials, paper, cardboard, plastic, and wood in primis. These materials are also chosen by the industry accord- ing to the form of distribution. The transport of wine has emerged as one of the main causes of environmental impact both because of direct emissions, mainly due to fuel consumption dur- ing logistics and product handling, but also indirectly because it determines the choice of packaging materi- als, especially secondary and tertiary packaging, and therefore requires more effective solutions. Other studies also confirm the results of this research and emphasise the need to analyse the role of packaging in the agro- food system from a holistic point of view considering its interaction with the logistics phase [50]. Finally, focusing on the end-of-life results obtained by the different packaging systems, the glass bottle gen- erated the greatest environmental benefits, due to its effi- cient waste management system, mainly based on recy- cling. However, its impact is greater than the other two systems, as reuse, in the case of steel keg, seems to be a strong point for sustainability, as confirmed by other authors [51]. In order to limit environmental impacts and costs, new packaging, such as bag-in-box and Tetra Pak with integrated use of cardboard or paperboard lay- ers, has entered the wine market in recent years, with the dual aim of maximising the volume transported and containing costs, while at the same time reducing envi- ronmental impact at the end of life. However, even these products are only partially recyclable [52]. 3. CONCLUSIONS This study lays the basis to support wineries, mer- chants, and retailers in their choice of wine packaging, taking into account the different target markets. This is the first study in the wine sector to con- sider the entire product life cycle, by assessing both the dynamics and environmental impacts and costs with reference to all phases of the life cycle (production, transformation, distribution, consumption, and end of life). In this way, it has been possible to respond to a need of the industrial and logistics worlds that until now were not in a position to highlight the cost and environ- mental impact hot spots of the various phases that char- acterise wine consumption. We have been able to con- firm that the glass bottle is still the most popular and appreciated packaging among consumers, probably for sentimental reasons and links with tradition. However, this container has obvious limits from the point of view of the circular economy, considering the limited volume transported for the same weight of the container, com- pared to other alternatives available on the market today. Considering the above, companies are studying the possibility of using alternative packaging on the on-premise market, given that the use of glass bottles requires skilled employees, high cost technology, large space for storage and bottling equipment such as addi- tional pack accessories: cork, screwcap, or cardboard. In addition, as the scenario analysis also showed, the tradi- tional packaging consisting of the glass bottle makes a strong environmental contribution to the entire life cycle of the wine. In this respect, PET kegs prove to be particularly competitive, especially because of their limited weight and considering that each keg carries the equivalent of more than 26 glass bottles; moreover, wineries do not have to consider backhaul and handling charges and there is no need to store empty containers. In addition to the obvious advantages for logistics and limited costs, the one-way use of this container, coupled with not always guaranteed recyclability, introduces doubts about its use from an environmental point of view. The steel keg has interesting technological features, theoretically no end-of-life (unlimited use), and clean- ing, filling, and packaging technologies that are much easier to handle than the bottle crate, and which are much less expensive. Furthermore, this container has a high material performance in terms of wine shelf life and is also suitable for sparkling wines. On the other hand, this packaging has return trans- port costs, administration (book-keeping) and handling costs for the management of a keg, initial investment costs for the keg, and repair costs (higher for long routes or constant circulation rate). Therefore, companies need a surplus of containers throughout the year to man- age seasonal fluctuations. Moving empty kegs over long 60 Stefano Massaglia et al. routes increases the environmental impact and transport costs, and the process of washing and sanitising kegs before each use wastes water, energy, and chemicals. Reusable packaging systems appear to be a viable alternative to replace single-use packaging in supply chain systems. The decision-making processes of com- panies should therefore include an analysis of the feasi- bility of using reusable packaging systems considering environmental and economic factors. The future of research could lie in new forms of packaging eco-design, using materials with low envi- ronmental impact throughout the life cycle, aimed at improving container management in the logistics sys- tem. Therefore, with a view to optimising the whole chain, both environmental and economic factors should be considered organically through optimisation models applicable at cellar level. Furthermore, for future studies, it will be useful to consider case studies related to larger volume production, as the case examined refers to a pro- duction example of a medium-high range, low-volume wine. Likewise, the research should also investigate oth- er markets, including emerging ones. Another aspect concerns the consumer’s approach to wine from different containers, which often favours glass. Consumer behaviour could be directed towards less impactful packaging with appropriate information campaigns both on the quality aspects of wine − which does not vary in containers made of different materials − and on the social commitment to reduce the impact of wine on the climate. Finally, a central role could be played by institutions at various levels, both central and local, which could pro- mote market-based schemes to reduce emissions based on taxes on environmental externalities, to internalise society’s costs for the use of impactful packaging, and to translate environmental impacts into economic form. REFERENCES [1] Maicas, S.; Mateo, J.J. Sustainability of wine pro- duction. Sustain. 2020, 12. [2] Flores, S.S. What is sustainability in the wine world? A cross-country analysis of wine sustaina- bility frameworks. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 2301– 2312. [3] Deroover, K.; Siegrist, M.; Brain, K.; McIntyre, J.; Bucher, T. A scoping review on consumer behav- iour related to wine and health. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 112, 559–580. [4] Strub, L.; Kurth, A.; Loose, S.M. Effects of viticul- tural mechanization on working time requirements and production costs. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2021, 72, 46–55. [5] Sellers-Rubio, R. Evaluating the economic perfor- mance of Spanish wineries. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2010, 22, 73–84. [6] Migliaccio, G.; Tucci, L. Economic assets and financial performance of Italian wine companies. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2020, 32, 325–352. [7] Nesselhauf, L.; Deker, J.S.; Fleuchaus, R. Informa- tion and involvement: the influence on the accept- ance of innovative wine packaging. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2017, 29, 285–298. [8] Schwarz, A.E.; Ligthart, T.N.; Boukris, E.; van Harmelen, T. Sources, transport, and accumulation of different types of plastic litter in aquatic envi- ronments: A review study. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 143, 92–100. [9] Boesen, S.; Bey, N.; Niero, M. Environmental sus- tainability of liquid food packaging: Is there a gap between Danish consumers’ perception and learn- ings from life cycle assessment? J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 210, 1193–1206. [10] Brennan, L.; Langley, S.; Verghese, K.; Lockrey, S.; Ryder, M.; Francis, C.; Phan-Le, N.T.; Hill, A. The role of packaging in fighting food waste: A system- atised review of consumer perceptions of packag- ing. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 281. [11] Molina-Besch, K.; Wikström, F.; Williams, H. The environmental impact of packaging in food supply chains—does life cycle assessment of food provide the full picture? Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019, 24, 37–50. [12] Nuebling, M.; Behnke, C. Wine on tap: Wine con- sumers’, restaurants’, and wineries’ perspectives of wine on tap. Wine Vitic. J. 2017, 32, 68–71. [13] Pougnet, S.; Martin-Rios, C. Keg wine as a sus- tainability-oriented innovation. Proc. XXX ISPIM Innov. Conf. 2019, 12 p. [14] Russo, V.; Strever, A.E.; Ponstein, H.J. Exploring sustainability potentials in vineyards through LCA? Evidence from farming practices in South Africa. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2021. [15] Harb, W.; Zaydan, R.; Vieira, M. Improving envi- ronmental performance in wine production by life cycle assessment: case of Lebanese wine. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2021. [16] Laca, A.; Gancedo, S.; Laca, A.; Díaz, M. Assessment of the environmental impacts associated with vine- yards and winemaking. A case study in mountain areas. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 1204–1223. [17] Bonamente, E.; Scrucca, F.; Rinaldi, S.; Merico, M.C.; Asdrubali, F.; Lamastra, L. Environmental 61The impact of alternative packaging on the life cycle of wine on tap impact of an Italian wine bottle: Carbon and water footprint assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 560– 561, 274–283. [18] Amienyo, D.; Camilleri, C.; Azapagic, A. Environ- mental impacts of consumption of Australian red wine in the UK. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 72, 110–119. [19] Taylor, A.S.; Cook, D.C. An economic assessment of the impact on the Western Australian viticulture industry from the incursion of grapevine downy mildew. J. Plant Dis. Prot. 2018, 125, 397–403. [20] Aparicio, J.; Tenza-Abril, A.J.; Borg, M.; Galea, J.; Candela, L. Agricultural irrigation of vine crops from desalinated and brackish groundwater under an economic perspective. A case study in Siġġiewi, Malta. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 650, 734–740. [21] Falcone, G.; Strano, A.; Stillitano, T.; De Luca, A.I.; Iofrida, N.; Gulisano, G. Integrated sustainabil- ity appraisal of wine-growing management systems through LCA and LCC Methodologies. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2015, 44, 223–228. [22] Zhang, C.; Rosentrater, K.A. Estimating economic and environmental impacts of red-wine-making processes in the USA. Fermentation 2019, 5. [23] García-Alcaraz, J.L.; Flor Montalvo, F.J.; Martínez Cámara, E.; Pérez de la Parte, M.M.; Jiménez- Macías, E.; Blanco-Fernández, J. Economic-envi- ronmental impact analysis of alternative systems for red wine ageing in re-used barrels. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 244. [24] Amienyo, D.; Azapagic, A. Life cycle environmen- tal impacts and costs of beer production and con- sumption in the UK. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 21, 492–509. [25] Cimini, A.; Moresi, M. Carbon footprint of a pale lager packed in different formats: Assessment and sensitivity analysis based on transparent data. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 4196–4213. [26] Ferrara, C.; Zigarelli, V.; De Feo, G. Attitudes of a sample of consumers towards more sustainable wine packaging alternatives. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 271. [27] Cleary, J. Life cycle assessments of wine and spirit packaging at the product and the municipal scale: A Toronto, Canada case study. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 44, 143–151. [28] Ponstein, H.J.; Ghinoi, S.; Steiner, B. How to increase sustainability in the Finnish wine sup- ply chain? Insights from a country of origin based greenhouse gas emissions analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 226, 768–780. [29] Ferrara, C.; De Feo, G. Comparative life cycle assessment of alternative systems for wine packag- ing in Italy. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 259. [30] ISPRA Municipal waste report, 331/2020. [31] Federal Ministry for the Environment Nature Con- servation and Nuclear Safety Waste Management in Germany 2018 – Facts, data, diagrams. BMUV 2018, 44. [32] United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Containers and Packaging: Product-Specific Data. [33] Verduna, T.; Blanc, S.; Merlino, V.M.; Cornale, P.; Battaglini, L.M. Sustainability of Four Dairy Farming Scenarios in an Alpine Environment: The Case Study of Toma di Lanzo Cheese. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7. [34] Hunkeler, D.; Lichtenvort, K.; Rebitzer, G. Envi- ronmental life cycle costing; Crc press, 2008; ISBN 1420054732. [35] Swarr, T.E.; Hunkeler, D.; Klöpffer, W.; Pesonen, H.-L.; Ciroth, A.; Brent, A.C.; Pagan, R. Environ- mental life-cycle costing: A code of practice. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2011, 16, 389–391. [36] Blanc, S.; Massaglia, S.; Brun, F.; Peano, C.; Mosso, A.; Giuggioli, R.N. Use of Bio-Based Plastics in the Fruit Supply Chain: An Integrated Approach to Assess Environmental, Economic, and Social Sus- tainability. Sustain. 2019, 11. [37] Molina-Besch, K.; Pålsson, H. A simplified envi- ronmental evaluation tool for food packaging to support decision-making in packaging develop- ment. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2020, 33, 141–157. [38] Escursell, S., Llorach-Massana, P., Roncero, M.B., Sustainability in e-commerce packaging: A review. J Clean Prod 2021, 280 [39] Brock, A.; Williams, I. Life cycle assessment of bev- erage packaging. Detritus 2020, 13, 47–61. [40] Wohner, B.; Gabriel, V.H.; Krenn, B.; Krauter, V.; Tacker, M. Environmental and economic assess- ment of food-packaging systems with a focus on food waste. Case study on tomato ketchup. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 738. [41] Mahmoudi, M.; Parviziomran, I. Reusable packag- ing in supply chains: A review of environmental and economic impacts, logistics system designs, and operations management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 228. [42] Chamorro, A., Garcia-Gallego, J.M., Trindade-Car- los, H.D., Study on the importance of wine bottle design on consumer choices. British Food Journal 2021.123, 577–593. [43] Merlino, V.M.; Fracassetti, D.; Di Canito, A.; Pizzi, S.; Borra, D.; Giuggioli, N.R.; Vigentini, I. Is the consumer ready for innovative fruit wines? Percep- tion and acceptability of young consumers. Foods 2021, 10. 62 Stefano Massaglia et al. [44. Soares, J., Ramos, P., Pocas, F., Is lightweighting glass bottles for wine an option? Linking techni- cal requirements and consumer attitude. Packaging Technology And Science, 2022.35, 833–843. [45] Capitello, R.; Agnoli, L.; Charters, S.; Begalli, D. Labelling environmental and terroir attributes: Young Italian consumers’ wine preferences. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 304. [46] Aversa, C.; Barletta, M.; Gisario, A.; Pizzi, E.; Prati, R.; Vesco, S. Design, manufacturing and prelimi- nary assessment of the suitability of bioplastic bot- tles for wine packaging. Polym. Test. 2021, 100. [47] Merlino, V.M.; Brun, F.; Versino, A.; Blanc, S. Milk packaging innovation: Consumer perception and willingness to pay. AIMS Agric. Food 2020, 5, 307– 326. [48] Foschi, E.; Zanni, S.; Bonoli, A. Combining eco- design and LCA as decision-making process to prevent plastics in packaging application. Sustain. 2020, 12, 1–13. [49] Palsson, H., Pettersson, F., Hiselius, L.W., Energy consumption in e-commerce versus conventional trade channels – Insights into packaging, the last mile, unsold products and product returns. J Clean Prod 2017.164, 765–778. [50] Garcia-Arca, J., Garrido, A., Prado-Prado, J.C., “Sustainable Packaging Logistics”. The link between Sustainability and Competitiveness in Supply Chains. Sustainability 2017,9. [51] Simon, B.; Amor, M. Ben; Földényi, R. Life cycle impact assessment of beverage packaging systems: focus on the collection of post-consumer bottles. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 238–248. [52] Thompson-Witrick, K.A.; Pitts, E.R.; Nemenyi, J.L.; Budner, D. The impact packaging type has on the flavor of wine. Beverages 2021, 7. Wine Economics and Policy Volume 12, Issue 1 – 2023 Firenze University Press State of the International Wine Market in 2022: New market trends for wines require new strategies Rafael Del Rey1, Simone Loose2,* Does anyone read my papers? The gap between academic consumer research and the real (wine) world Riccardo Vecchio A certification for natural wine? A comparative analysis of consumer drivers in Italy and Spain Eva Parga Dans1,*, Riccardo Vecchio2, Azzurra Annunziata3, Pablo Alonso González4, Raimundo Otero Enríquez5 Structure and development of the Czech wine market and foreign wine trade Kamila Vesela, David Křížek*, Lucie Severova The impact of alternative packaging on the life cycle of wine on tap Stefano Massaglia1, Tibor Verduna1, Vincenzo Varchetta2, Filippo Brun1, Simone Blanc1,* The new CAP and the challenge of sustainability: a synthetic indicator for the Italian wine sector Roberta Sardone1,*, Simonetta De Leo1, Davide Longhitano2, Roberto Henke1 Analysis of the 2007-2008 Hérault premiumized grubbing-up campaign: a tool to better understand Fischer-Boel’s 2008-2011 grubbing-up campaigns and the desire in 2022 to reintroduce locally premiumized grub-ups Étienne Montaigne1, Samson Zadmehran2,*, Alfredo Coelho3, Yacine Messaoudène4 The impact of fees on customer purchasing behavior and beliefs in winery tasting rooms: A scoping review John C. Spence