See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/319309412

Economic, social and environmental impacts and overall sustainability of the

tea sector in Sri Lanka

Article  in  Sustainable Production and Consumption · August 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.spc.2017.07.003

CITATIONS READS

39 11,529

4 authors, including:

Mohan Munasinghe Yvani Deraniyagala

Munasinghe Institute for Development Munasinghe Institute for Development
495 PUBLICATIONS   6,213 CITATIONS    7 PUBLICATIONS   79 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Finding Balanced Inclusive Green Growth(BIGG)Path to Sustainable Development View project

Sustainability Analysis using Value-Supply Chain Life Cycle Analysis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohan Munasinghe on 11 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 5 5 – 1 6 9

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Production and Consumption

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

Economic, social and environmental impacts and

overall sustainability of the tea sector in Sri Lanka

Mohan Munasinghe a, *, Yvani Deraniyagala a , Nisitha Dassanayake b ,

Harshani Karunarathna b
a Munasinghe Institute for Development (MIND), Colombo, Sri Lanka
b Carbon Consulting Company (CCC), Colombo, Sri Lanka

A B S T R A C T

This evidence based study uses combined lifecycle and value/supply chain analysis to examine the sustainability
(environmental, social and economic impacts) of tea manufacturing in Sri Lanka, a major export earner and
employment creating product. Environmental indicators assessed include carbon emissions and energy use, social
indicators include labour use and gender, and the economic indicator is cost. These indicators are assessed at all
stages of production, processing, export, use and disposal. A cross-section of Low, Medium and High grown tea
factories producing Crush, Tear, Curl (CTC) and Orthodox and Green tea (where available) were investigated. The
study uncovered many issues including energy efficiency of the industry, Green House Gas (GHG) emissions, and
occupational health hazards. One key result is that at the cultivation and processing stage, low grown orthodox
tea is the most efficient in terms of labour use, energy use and carbon emissions. Energy use is highest in the use
phase due to the high amounts of energy needed to heat water for a 2.5g tea bag. CO2 emissions are highest in the
packaging stage due to the large amount of materials such as cardboard needed to package tea bags. Labour use
is highest in the labour intensive cultivation stage. Costs are also highest in the cultivation stage/purchase of tea
leaves, due to the high labour use.

Keywords: Sustainability; Sustainomics; LCA; Value chain; Tea

c 2017 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
⃝

1. Introduction agrico-industries and contribute greatly to making develop-

Tea is the most commonly drunk beverage in the world.
Approximately 5.1 million tonnes of tea are produced every
year and over 1.8 million tonnes are exported a year (FAO,
2015). Because of its importance, research on the sustainabil-
ity of tea production and consumption will not only provide
important information on how to improve the tea industry
worldwide, but also yield key lessons for a wide range of other
ment more sustainable. The tea industry in Sri Lanka is the
second largest foreign exchange earner and employs millions
of workers. The key policy implications that are derived from
this study can benefit the entire Sri Lankan economy and is
relevant for the tea industry globally.
Accordingly, this paper examines the sustainability of tea
manufacturing in Sri Lanka, by using a combination of LCA
and supply/value chain analysis to look at the sustainability

* Correspondence to: Munasinghe Institute for Development (MIND), 10/1 De Fonseka Place, Colombo 5, Sri Lanka.
E-mail address: mohan@mindlanka.org (M. Munasinghe).
Abbreviations: CTC, Crush, Tear, Curl; GHG, Greenhouse Gas; CSR, Corporate Social Responsibility; LCA, Life Cycle Analysis; VCA,
Value Chain Analysis; SDG, Sustainable Development Goals; GWP, Global Warming Potential
Received 22 November 2016; Received in revised form 8 July 2017; Accepted 29 July 2017.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2017.07.003
2352-5509/⃝c 2017 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
156 S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 5 5 – 1 6 9
of the tea industry to assess the economic, environmental
and social impacts of tea production and consumption and
to identify opportunities for improving the sustainability of
the product. The framework used is designed to assist in
generating evidence based results required for policy and
decision making in the agro-industrial sector. This will also
help in the transition towards climate-friendly best practices,
by developing improved measures. The use of a value chain
analysis highlights the fact that the production of tea not
only has monetary values, but also social and environmental
values, both negative and positive. Overall, this research will
enable positive changes in the sector by informing decision
makers, generally raising public awareness, and facilitating
multi-stakeholder dialogues with national and international
networks of civil society and business organizations in both
the production and consumption spheres.
The specific aims of the study are to identify critical issues
at various stages in the life cycle and value/supply chain of
the tea industry (production, processing, export, trade and
production regulations) from the perspective of sustainable
development (energy use, carbon emissions, environmental
degradation and social issues). Unlike many other value chain
analyses (VCA), this study extends over the entire product
life cycle. We analyse the life cycle of the tea industry
from the plantation stage to the disposal of the tea waste
after consumption, and identify key economic, social and
environmental impacts at each of the different stages. The
study helps to identify opportunities and bottlenecks in the
tea industry (production, processing, retail and packing) and
draw out policy implications and make suggestions to various
stakeholders and the industry on how to improve the sus-
tainability of the (global) tea supply chain. The study brings
together academics and experts from the tea industry to en-
sure that appropriate measures are identified and effectively
implemented.
Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) is a cradle-to-grave approach
that is an effective tool for assessing sustainability. It can
be used to gain a broad and comprehensive perspective
of product footprint—the raw material, purchasing of input
materials, manufacturing, transport, packing, consumption
and disposal (Munasinghe et al., 2015). LCA enables industries
to benchmark their product against alternatives with respect
to climate change, energy use, water consumption, land use,
and other environmental indicators as well as social indica-
tors such as labour use.
Conventional supply/value chain analysis tends to place
more emphasis on the cost/economic impacts of the product.
Many firms use this type of analysis to reduce their costs of
production (Riley, 1987; Han, 2012). Our study goes further,
by identifying and analysing, social, environmental (espe-
cially carbon) and energy hotspots along the supply/value
chain, improving sustainability and energy efficiency, reduc-
ing emissions and providing overall improvements. It focuses
on the “cradle to grave” lifecycle (as opposed to a “cradle
to gate” analysis, where the boundary ends at the process-
ing factory). Value chain analysis creates many benefits for
the firm/industry such as the ability to diagnose and create
competitive advantage, creating cooperation, increasing prof-
itability, and the enhancing the ability to analyse of strengths
and weaknesses of the industry (Antoniou et al., 2011).
Fig. 1.1 – Environment-Economy trade-off along the
development path, and Balanced Inclusive Green Growth
(BIGG) Tunnel to sustainable development.
Source: Adapted from Munasinghe (1995) “Making
Growth More Sustainable”, Ecological Economics, 15:121-4.
1.1. Addressing unsustainable production and
consumption in the food sector
Humanity currently faces multiple global challenges—
like poverty, hunger, inequality, natural resource scarcities,
disease, and finally climate change, which exacerbates all
the preceding issues (Munasinghe, 2009). Two major global
agreements in 2015 (Sustainable Development Goals and
COP21 Paris Climate Change agreement), highlighted differ-
ent aspects of over-consumption—SDG 12 covered sustain-
able consumption and production, while COP21 addressed
atmospheric carbon concentrations.
Due to unsustainable consumption and production, the
global economy already uses natural resources equivalent
to over 1.6 times what the planet earth can sustainably
produce—also called the global ecological footprint of hu-
manity (Global Footprint Network)1 . The 1.4 billion people in
the richest 20th percentile of the world’s population consume
about 85% of global output—65 times more than those in the
poorest 20th percentile (Munasinghe, 2009). Clearly, the con-
sumption of the rich is not only ecologically unsustainable,
but also overburdening the very resources needed to help the
poor (Munasinghe, 2012).
There is great current interest in defining a practical
“balanced inclusive green growth” (BIGG) path that will provide
everyone a decent quality of life, without overusing planetary
resources— Munasinghe (1992, 2002) proposed a framework
called “Sustainomics” for this. Our tea study would facili-
tate the search for such a path. Using carbon emissions
to illustrate this approach, Fig. 1.1 shows the typical curve
of environmental risk against economic development. Rich
nations are at point C (high GHG emissions and high GNP
per capita), poor nations are at point A (low GHG emissions
and low GNP per capita), and intermediate countries are at
point B.
Sustainable development paths vary by country type:
• industrial countries (already exceeding safe limits)
should mitigate and follow the future green growth
path CE, by restructuring their development pat-
terns to delink carbon emissions and economic
growth;
• Middle income, emerging and poor economies could
adopt innovative policies to seek the green growth
 S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 5 5 – 1 6 9
“tunnel” through BDE (below safe limits), by learning
from past experiences of the industrialized world. Poor
developing countries need technical and financial as-
sistance.
Generalizing this approach, similar green growth paths
could be found that apply to all forms of natural resource
use—especially food, energy, and water. Such green growth
paths should become balanced inclusive green growth paths
by including pro-poor, participative measures (Munasinghe,
2010).
Since the rich account for over 80% of consumption and
pollution, even modest shifts in their consumption can effec-
tively reduce the environmental burden and free up resources
to raise poorer peoples’ living standards. Research indicates
that there is a great deal of overconsumption and waste—
especially in the food sector. Initial cuts can be made with
little pain and even an increase in wellbeing—for example,
reducing food waste, eating less meat, saving energy and
water, planting trees or using fuel efficient transport (Visions
for Change, 2011). While doing so, the affluent could also
maintain or improve their quality of life (e.g., through health-
ier lifestyles and diets). Food waste is a particularly pressing
issue, since about one third of the roughly 4 billion tonnes of
food currently produced in the world is wasted, while almost
1 billion poor are starving (UNEP, 2013; Think-Eat-Save, 2013).
In particular, there is significant scope for savings, given that
food waste within homes is around 30% in Western Europe
and closer to 50% in North America (UNHRC, 2011; Juul, 2013).
2. Overview of Sri Lanka tea industry and life
cycle
The tea industry is one of the major agro-industrial sectors
in Sri Lanka. Economically, the tea industry generates 65%
of export agriculture revenue and contributes approximately
4.2% of island’s GDP (Central Bank, 2015). Sri Lanka is one of
the biggest producers and exporters of tea in the world and
accounts for 17% of global exports (Bolton, 2016). In 2015 tea
exports were 323 million kg and the total turnover of the tea
industry was around US $ 1.5 billion in 2015 (Sri Lanka Tea
Board, website), contributing to 15% of the national foreign
revenue.
However, the cost of tea production (CoP) in Sri Lanka is
increasing. It is now around U$ 1.75 per kg, well above that of
Bangladesh (U$ 1.35) and India (U$ 1.25). Costs of production
in Kenya (U$ 1.00) and Viet Nam (U$ 0.75) are the lowest (FAO,
2015). This increasing CoP along with falling international
prices has led to serious economic, social and environmental
consequences. For example due to lower profit margins , tea
suppliers are being forced to cut back on wages, investments
into new and efficient technology, soil quality management,
etc. This would impact on the quality of tea produced and,
in the long run, would affect all the actors in the supply
chain. Our analysis seeks to improve social, environmental
and economic practices of stakeholders across the whole
supply chain, which could lead to rewarding prices for tea
producers and fair wages to the workers, in addition to better
access to markets, reputational benefits, increased worker
satisfaction and loyalty—eventually resulting in increased
productivity, increased savings through better environmental
management and reduced production costs.
While tea production by smallholders is growing, their
situation is problematic because they must sell their green
157
Table 3.1 – Types of factories used for the study.
Type of teas High grown Medium grown Low grown
>1200 m 600 m–1200 m Sea
level—600 m
Orthodox X X X
CTC X X X
Green tea X
leaf to factory owners (where the tea is processed and pro-
duced), and the prices the smallholders are paid for the
green leaf have not been sufficient to sustain their livelihood
(Department of Census and Statistics, 2005). These prices
often tend to be below the cost of production, especially if
the smallholder labour cost is factored in. The tea industry
creates employment for about 2 million (10% of the total
population) people that are employed directly and indirectly
by the industry (Sri Lanka Tea Board, 2014). For smallholder
dominated tea producing countries like Sri Lanka the value of
tea production as a percentage of total agriculture production
in 2014 was 28.9% (Central Bank of Sri Lanka, 2015). This illus-
trates the importance of tea, not only to the agriculture sector,
but also to the national economy, and also the significant
weight of the role of smallholders (who account for 70% of
production) in contributing to the national economies. The
sustainability of their livelihoods determines the future of the
tea subsector and its contribution to the agriculture sector.
Most of the Hill slopes in Sri Lanka above 900 m have been
deforested to plant tea. Tea cultivation severely effects the
soil, soil moisture and water-table, causes erosion leading to
silting of water ways, streams, rivers and reservoirs. Tea yield
is greatly influenced by weather, and especially by droughts as
most estates depend on rain fed irrigation. Heavy rains erode
top soil and wash away fertilizers and other chemicals. Stud-
ies (Dharmasena and Bhat, 2011; Sivapalam, 1985) have also
shown that about 30 cm of soil has already been eroded from
upland tea plantations. Under these circumstances, the tea
industry in Sri Lanka is clearly vulnerable to predicted climate
changes, which will exacerbate the existing economic, social,
and environmental problems.
3. Data and boundaries
This study investigated the sustainability of the tea indus-
try, using the boundaries, stages and processes. The detailed
process map given in Fig. 3.1, helps clarify the life cycle of
tea—starting with smallholder or estate plantation, factory
processing, packaging, marketing, export, transportation, re-
tailing (supermarket), consumption in homes and the final
disposal.
Calculations in this study is done per kilogramme of tea
produced unless otherwise stated.1 Data was collected by
visiting a selection of 10 tea producing factories and also tea
plantations (Table 3.1). A sample questionnaire is given in
Annex 1, while details of factories and plantations visited are
given in Annex 2.
The data collected for the factories is only for the cultiva-
tion and processing stages. Data for the blending, packaging,
1 Dry matter content of tea is approximately 3%–15% (BIS,
1994).
158 S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 5 5 – 1 6 9
Fig. 3.1 – Process map for the tea industry.
transport, consumption and disposal stages were taken as an
average. Data on the energy and carbon footprints at the use
and disposal stage were obtained from other studies.
The main economic indicator is the cost of production.
Environmental data from the factories included, energy use,
carbon emissions, chemical inputs/outputs (e.g. fertilizers
etc.). Social data collected included number of employees and
male/female ratio.
3.1. Calculations
The study attempts to calculate the energy and carbon
footprints as well as the labour use for the entire lifecy-
cle of tea from the cultivation stage to the factory outlet,
blending and packaging, usage and to the final disposal of
the tea. Embodied energy for all fertilizers and packaging
materials were considered, but where data was not unavail-
able or lacking, assumptions were made. Final values are
presented on the basis of kg of fresh crop and kg of processed
tea.
Energy consumption is calculated in MJ and carbon emis-
sions as kg CO2 e. Biogenic CO2 emissions from burning of
biomass have not been considered in the calculations.
Energy was separated into 2 categories—fossil fuels and
renewables. The cost at each stage was calculated as an
average for all factories as factories were not willing to
divulge accurate data for this. The amount of labour used
at each stage of the production process was obtained by a
questionnaire given to each factory.
i. Cultivation
This stage looks at the inputs into planting and growing of
the tea leaves including fertilizer and pesticide inputs, diesel
for transport, and the amount of labour used.
Data collected from the factory included the amount of fer-
tilizer, dolomite, pesticides used by the factory, and distance
the fertilizer is transported from supplier to the factory, as
well as distances that green tea leaves need to be transported.
General equations used for energy and GHG emissions are
given below. A more detailed description of each item is given
in Table 3.2.
• Energy Consumption (MJ/kg of tea) = Embodied en-
ergy × amount of material used
• GHG Emissions (kg CO2 e/kg of tea = Emissions fac-
tor × amount of material used.
ii. Processing and Manufacturing—Calculations were made for
Energy and GHG emissions at all stages of production—
withering, rolling, fermenting, drying, sorting, and packaging.
The sequence of processing for black tea includes wither-
ing, rolling (Orthodox)/ Cut, Tear and Curl (CTC), fermenting,
drying/firing, grading and packaging (see Fig. 3.1). The Ortho-
dox method uses slow rollers to twist the withered leaves
slowly. The CTC method uses mechanical cutters to shred
the leaves. The Orthodox tea is like twisted flakes, rich in
aroma whereas CTC tea is in the form of a powder, and rich in
colour.
In addition to the above processes, other auxiliary energy
use such as lighting was also included.
 S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 5 5 – 1 6 9
Table 3.2 – Inventory of data and calculations for cultivation stage.
Activity Energy
Production of fertilizer Embodied energy (A) × amount of fertilizer used
(B)
(A) Environmental Impact (2015)
(B) Factory data.
Packaging of fertilizer Embodied energy in a 200 g polysac (A) × amount
of fertilizer used/50 (B)
(A) University of Victoria (2015)
(B) Factory data.
Assumed that 50 kg of fertilizer packed in a 200 g
polysac
Transport of fertilizer Embodied energy from diesel (A) × distance
travelled (B)
(A) DEFRA (2015)
(B) Factory data.
Use/application of fertilizer Embodied energy per kg of fertilizer (A) × amount
of fertilizer per kg of fresh tea (B)
(A) University of Bath (2008)
(B) Factory data.
Use of pesticide Embodied energy in pesticide (A) × amount of
pesticides (B).
(A) DEFRA (2015)
(B) Factory data.
Transport of leaves to factory Embodied energy for diesel (A) × amount of fuel
used (B)
(A) DEFRA (2015)
(B) Factory data
General equations used for energy and GHG emissions are
given below. A more detailed description of each item is given
in Table 3.3.
• Energy Consumption (MJ/kg of tea) = Power rate for the
machine × Conversion unit for HP to kWh × Quantity of crop
processed per hour
• GHG Emissions (kg CO2 e/kg of tea = Emissions fac-
tor × energy used to process 1 kg of tea.
iii. Packaging—Data on embodied energy and carbon for pack-
ing materials, energy use, waste disposal, cost and labour
used was collected. Data was only collected from one factory
(Eswaran Brothers) as most teas are packed in a similar
manner. This value was taken as a proxy for all factories. It
159
GHG emissions
Emission factor for urea (A) × amount of fertilizer
used (B)
(A) Wood and Cowie (2004)
(B) Factory data.
GHG emissions from a 200 g polysac (A) × amount
of fertilizer used/50 (B)
(A) Korean LCI database
(B) Factory data.
Assumed that 50 kg of fertilizer packed in a 200 g
polysac
Upstream and combustion emissions of rigid truck
fuel use (A) × distance travelled (B)
(A) DEFRA (2015)
(B) Factory data.
Direct emissions—Nitrogen content of fertilizer
(A) × amount of fertilizer per kg of fresh tea (B).
(A) U 300—Cool farm tool ;
U 709—Factory data;
T 750—TRI Sri Lanka fertilizer recommendations
–Emission factor for direct N2 O emissions from
managed soils
– IPCC (2006) – Guidelines for national
greenhouse gas inventories.
–Global warming potential of N2 O was taken as
298 (IPCC, 2014).
(B) Factory data.
Emissions from volatilisation and redepositing–
Emission factor for N2 O emissions (A) × fertilizer
applied per kg of tea (B)
(A) PICK, 2006 data.
(B) Factory data.
Emissions from leaching & runoff –
Emission factor for leaching and runoff from
fertilizer application (A) × fertilizer applied per kg
of tea (B)
(A) IPCC (2006).
(B) Factory data.
GHG emissions from pesticide (A) × amount of
pesticides (B).
(A) DEFRA (2015)
(B) Factory data.
GHG emissions from diesel (A) × amount of fuel
used (B)
(A) DEFRA (2015)
(B) Factory data.
is important to note that not all teas are packed at the factory
(see Table 3.4).
iv. Consumption and disposal—The calculations for export
were based on tea exported by sea freight to the UK. The
emissions, labour and energy use for distribution, usage and
disposal were calculated. At the Consumer Use stage emis-
sions related to consumer using the product, such as boiling
water to brew the tea was calculated. It was assumed that at
the use stage, the water is boiled in an electric kettle using
grid electricity, the energy consumption for boiling a cup of
water is 0.02 kWh per cup, the cup is used once and washed
up after every cup of tea.
160 S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 5 5 – 1 6 9

Table 3.3 – Inventory of data and calculations for processing stage.

Processing Energy GHG emissions

Withering {Power rate of withering machine (A) × Conversion of HP to Emission factor for diesel (A) × Energy used to
KWh (B)} × Quantity of crop rolled per hour (C) wither 1 kg of tea (B)
(A) Horse power—factory data (A) DEFRA (2015); assumed that factory uses diesel
powered generators
(B) Value—0.745699872 (B) Factory data
(C) Factory data

Rolling {Power rate of rolling machine (A) × Conversion of HP to KWh Emission factor for diesel (A) × Energy used to roll
(B)} × Quantity of crop rolled per hour (C) 1 kg of tea (B)
(A) Horse power—factory data (A) DEFRA (2015); assumed that factory uses diesel
powered generators
(B) Value—0.745699872 (B) Factory data
(C) Factory data

Fermenting {Power rate of fermenting equipment (A) × Conversion of HP to Emission factor for diesel (A) × Energy used to
KWh (B)} × Quantity of crop fermented per hour (C) ferment 1 kg of tea (B)
(A) Horse power—factory data (A) DEFRA (2015); assumed that factory uses diesel
powered generators
(B) Value—0.745699872 (B) Factory data
(C) Factory data

Drying Calorific value of wood (A) × Quantity of wood used to dry 1 kg

of tea (B)
(A) DEFRA (2015);
(B) Factory data

Sorting {Power rate of sorting machine (A) × Conversion of HP to KWh Emission factor for diesel (A) × Energy used to
(B)} × Quantity of crop sorted per hour (C) ferment 1 kg of tea (B)
(A) Horse power—factory data (A) DEFRA (2015); assumed that factory uses diesel
powered generators
(B) Value—0.745699872 (B) Factory data
(C) Factory data

Auxiliary KWh electricity units per day for lighting (A)/processed crop for {Electricity units per day for lighting (A) /
the day (B) processed crop for the day (B)} × Emission factor
for electricity generation in Sri Lanka (C)
(A) Factory data (A) KWh—factory data
(B) Factory data (B) Factory data
(C) Sri Lanka Energy budget, 2006

Table 3.4 – Inventory of data and calculations for packaging stage.

Material Quantity Unit

Packaging Tea bag material—Poly lactic acid: 0.21 g/teabag

Tea bag envelope (cellulose bio degradable bag): 0.6 g/teabag
Corrugated box: 62 g/corrugated box
Divider (kraft paper): 5 g/corrugated box
Sticker: 0.24 g/corrugated box
Master carton—corrugated cardboard: 550 g/box
Ink for printing master carton: 75 Ml/box
Strapping for wrapping pallets: 80 g/pallet
Packaging for incoming delivery of materials: 111 g/core
Polythene bag: 65 g/bag
Corrugated cardboard box: 2.63 kg/box
Wrapping wire: 13 g/box
Cardboard box 700 g/box
Polythene bag 0.379 g/200 cellulose bags
Cardboard for dividers 900 g/box
Kraft paper for sticker 50 g/5000 stickers
Strapping material for carton 25 g/10 master cartons
Freight Weight of tea bag material: 0.21 g/tea bag
Weight of tea bag material packaging: 0.09 g/tea bag
Distance for delivery of tea bag material: 6487 km
Weight of polybag material: 0.6 g/tea bag
Weight of cardboard box: 0.022 g/tea bag
Weight of polybag material packaging: 0.002 g/tea bag
Distance for delivery of polybag material: 12 379 km
Uplift factor to account for tertiary packaging materials: 6% Uplift factor
 S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 5 5 – 1 6 9 161

Table 3.5 – Inventory of data and calculations for use and disposal stage.

Use Energy GHG emissions

Energy consumption (boiling of water, use of dishwasher) Energy consumption (boiling of water, use of dishwasher)
(A) × embodied energy (B) (A) × Emission factor (B)
(A) Data source: http: (A) Data source: http:
//www.energy.gov.lk/sub_pgs/save_energy_how_cupoftea.html //www.energy.gov.lk/sub_pgs/save_energy_how_cupoftea.html
(B) DEFRA (2015) (B) DEFRA (2015)

At the Final disposal stage the emissions arising from the

Table 4.1 – Average energy use breakdown for the pro-
final disposal of the tea by the consumer of the product and
cessing stage.
product packaging was calculated (see Table 3.5).
Process Energy use (%)
4. Results and discussion
Renewable Non- Total
In this section, we discuss the energy use, carbon emis- renewable
sions, labour use and costs at the different stages of the tea
Withering 9.39 0.78 10.17 19.7
production. We further break down the analysis and look at Rolling 0.38 0.47 0.86 1.7
each of these indicators for the different types of tea factories. CTC 0.90 1.10 1.99 8.8
This is done to determine the most efficient and sustainable Fermenting 0.12 0.14 0.26 0.5
type of tea production by type of plantation and method of Drying 35.79 1.21 37.00 71.7
manufacture. Sifting 0.12 0.15 0.27 0.5
Sorting 0.37 0.45 0.81 1.5
Section 4.1 compares the energy use at the cultivation,
Packaging 0.20 0.20 0.4
processing, packaging, transport and use stages. We have
further broken down the processing stage to look at energy
use for withering, rolling, CTC, fermenting, drying, sifting,
sorting, and packaging. A comparison of energy use by factory found that it is the use stage that consumes the most amount
type is also discussed. In Section 4.2, we compare CO2 emis- of energy. Doublet and Jungbluth (2010) found that 70% of the
sions for the cultivation, processing, packaging, transport, use total impacts are caused by the electricity consumption for
and disposal stages. Section 4.3 looks at the labour use. For boiling the water.
this indicator we have only compared data for the cultivation The average energy use breakdown for the main 5 stages
and processing stages as data for the other stages was not of tea processing (withering, rolling, fermenting, drying, and
available. Section 4.4 compares costs for the cultivation, pro- sifting/sorting) in a factory are given in Table 4.1. According
cessing and packaging stages. In Section 4.5, we bring all the to the electrical energy balance of the factory, withering,
data together and compare the energy use, carbon emissions, rolling, drying are the major electricity consumers in the
labour use, and cost at each stage of the lifecycle. Finally, factory.
Section 4.6 discusses the overall environmental, social and The drying stage consumes the most amount of energy
economic implications of the tea industry. (Table 4.1). However, it is important to note that most of
this energy is in the renewable form (i.e. firewood). Energy
4.1. Energy use consumption, especially in the withering process can vary
according to climatic conditions, the quantity and the quality
The total average energy use is 108 MJ per kg of high of plucked tea leaves and the spreading conditions of green
grown tea, 162 MJ per kg medium grown tea and 118 MJ tea in the trough etc.
per kg of low grown tea. Processing and product use are the The different energy intensive operations in tea pro-
largest contributors to energy use within the product life cycle duction include withering, processing, rolling, fermentation,
(Fig. 4.1) as it is very energy intensive due to the fact that a drying, sifting and packing. These stages use both thermal
lot of machinery is used at this stage. On average, about 7.1 and electrical energy. Electrical energy is used to run the
kWh of energy is required to produce one kilogramme of black machineries and the thermal energy is used to reduce the
tea in Sri Lanka (Sri Lanka Sector Report, quoting Haskoning, moisture content of the leaves from 70% to 80% down to 3%.
1989) which is equivalent to the energy requirement for steel Thermal energy is obtained from firewood, coal, briquetted
production, 6.3 kWh/kg product (Mohanty, 1997). The tea in- fuel and furnace oil.
dustry in Sri Lanka accounts for 33% of the industrial firewood The total specific thermal energy consumption for tea
consumption and is also the second largest consumer of oil. production varies between 4.45 and 6.84 kWh/kg made tea. In
Use of the product (42.45 MJ per kg of tea) involves high Orthodox tea production, the withering and rolling processes
energy usage because energy intensive activities such as consume more energy. The CTC process consumes more
boiling water are associated with each teabag used. Thus, as electrical energy. Energy needed for withering is 5.6 MJ per kg
each teabag contains approximately 2.5 g the energy usage of tea (Koneswaramoorthy et al., 2004). Drying needs higher
per kilogramme of tea is high. It was found that the follow- temperatures than for withering. Average thermal energy
ing quantities of energy used in preparation of an ‘energy needed for drying is about 11.0 MJ per kg of tea.
efficient’ cup of tea: Electricity—0.021 units (kWh) per cup; CTC factories for high and low grown tea seem to have
LP gas—1.95 grams per cup; Fuel wood—0.33 grams per cup the highest embodied energy in cultivation (Fig. 4.2) mainly
(SLSEA, 2013). A study for Kenya by Azapagic et al. (2016) also due to fertilizer use and the application of soil conditioners
162 S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 5 5 – 1 6 9

Fig. 4.1 – Overall Energy use (MJ kg of tea) contribution for high, medium and low grown factories.

Fig. 4.2 – Energy use for different factories.

to maintain the pH values. Most factories still use renewable
energy (i.e. fuel wood) for their processing. Hence the energy
use in the processing stage, although high, can be considered
as sustainable, provided that the fuelwood is harvested in a
sustainable manner. Medium grown, CTC tea factories use
the highest amount of energy for tea processing. This is
because medium grown tea factories consume considerably
more energy for withering and drying than low grown and
high grown factories.
4.2. Carbon emissions
Total carbon emissions for the tea industry is approxi-
mately 32 kg CO2 e per kg or tea. The results suggest that
packaging is the main source of carbon emissions in the
tea product life cycle (Fig. 4.3), as manufacture of packaging
material is carbon intensive and also because tea packed in
tea bags uses a lot more packaging than loose tea. Use of the
tea bag also has high carbon emissions due to the fact that
water needs to be boiled per tea cup containing 2–2.5 g of
tea. If this is extrapolated per kg of tea, the value becomes
high. The main source of carbon emissions in the cultivation
stage is use of fertilizer. Processing has a low percentage of
emissions even though it has a high percentage of energy
usage as most of the energy used at this stage is renewable.
A study by Melican (2009) shows that tea’s carbon footprint
(measured by the number of grams of carbon dioxide per cup)
can vary greatly from over 200 g CO2 per cup to −6 g CO2 per
cup, depending on how the tea is grown, processed, shipped,
packaged, brewed, and discarded. Melican (2009) found that
the carbon footprint of tea bags is 10 times higher than that
of loose tea, as tea bags require carbon-intensive packaging
materials (e.g. nylon or paper teabag, string, box and plastic
wrap around the box etc.). Loose tea often comes in mini-
mal, recyclable or re-useable containers. Another significant
contribution to the carbon footprint for tea is from using
mineral water for the preparation of tea (instead of tap water),
and burning coal for drying tea (Melican, 2009). Hence it is
clear that loose tea is a better choice environmentally than
any of the other options. At the disposal stage, composting
tea rather than throwing it away or re-using tea leaves as
fertilizer for houseplants, to clean one’s home or for skincare,
to cook, to clean, and to reduce odours in the home, will help
reduce the carbon footprint of tea.
On average, a cup of loose tea is associated with about 20 g
of CO2 per cup (Melican, 2009). Our study shows that a cup
of tea using tea bags is associated with about 64 g of CO2 . In
comparison, the carbon footprint of a glass of beer is 374 g,
a can of Coca Cola is 129 g and a cup of cow’s milk is about
225 g.
 S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 5 5 – 1 6 9 163

Fig. 4.3 – Overall carbon emissions (kgCO2e/kg tea) contribution for high, medium and low grown factories.

Fig. 4.4 – Carbon emissions at cultivation and processing stages.

Azapagic et al. (2016) look at the Global Warming Potential
(GWP) of small and large scale tea production in Kenya.
The results indicate that the scale of production does not
influence the impact—thus, the total impact of tea is equal to
12.45 and 12.08 kg CO2 eq./kg of dry tea, for large and small-
scale production respectively. The biggest contributor to GWP
of tea is consumption (85%), due to the electricity used for
boiling water. The GWP of tea cultivation and processing (10%)
and transport (4%) is relatively small. Consumer behaviour
affects GWP significantly depending on the amount of water
boiled per cup of tea. Drinking tea with milk increases the
total impact threefold.
CO2 emissions from 9 factories was estimated based on
data collected on electrical energy use and fuel consumption.
Emissions of each factory were calculated for the cultivation
and processing stages. The fuel mix varies depending on the
region and factory type (CTC or Orthodox).
Fuel wood and furnace oil are the major thermal energy
sources for tea production in Sri Lanka, resulting in GHG
emissions. A great potential for energy conservation exists in
the tea industry as energy efficiency in factories is generally
low, due to the use of outdated equipment and old technology.
As energy cost in Sri Lanka are very high, energy savings
achieved through improvements in operation and mainte-
nance practices could lead to win–win scenarios of reduction
in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and a reduction in the
cost of production. The total fuel consumption by the tea sec-
tor in, Sri Lanka contribute to CO2 emission annually by 0.708
million tons. Sulphur dioxide is another pollutant emitted
from fuel combustion in Sri Lanka due to the extensive use of
rubber wood for thermal energy, totalling approximately 26.24
thousand tonnes a year. Other GHG emissions were found to
be marginal (AIT, 2002).
Low grown tea has the highest carbon emissions at the
cultivation stage (Fig. 4.4). Medium and high grown CTC have
the highest carbon emissions at the processing stage. With-
ering and drying were identified as the main contributors to
emissions.
The Medium grown CTC factory is the only factory whose
processing emissions are higher than its cultivation emis-
sions. This was due to its significantly high emissions from
the drying of tea and could be result of factors such as
inefficient machinery.
4.3. Labour
The total average labour use 0.0038 per kg of high grown
tea, and 0.0061 per kg medium grown tea. There is no labour
data available for low grown tea and these factories depend
on tea small holders for their green leaf.
164 S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 5 5 – 1 6 9
Fig. 4.5 – Overall labour use (#/kg) comparison for high and medium grown factories.
Fig. 4.6 – Labour use for different factories.
Labour use is the highest at the cultivation stage due to the
high number of people employed for plucking of the tea leaves
as this is not mechanized yet (Fig. 4.5). It is primarily women
that are employed at this stage. In this respect, contribution
of the tea industry to women’s welfare is significant.
Although this study only looks at the number of workers
involved at each stage of the production process, other value
chain studies look into the social upgrading of workers, which
involves improving the entitlements and rights of workers
as social actors, and enhancing the quality of their employ-
ment (Bernhardt and Milberg, 2011; Sen, 1999, 2000). Social
upgrading involves the advancement of employment based
on decent work and respect for labour standards which might
result from economic upgrading (Barrientos et al., 2010). In
addition, a study by Chen (Chen, 2009) focuses on tea growers
in China, where each tea growing household runs a 1500–
2000 sq m tea farm. Their average income is only half the
average income of farmers, which has caused tea growing to
become unattractive. In addition, the working conditions of
tea workers are also very poor. The study revealed that some
tea brand owners require tea processing companies to meet
human rights, labour and environmental standards, because
conditions in China do not meet these standards. Some
suggestions that came out of this study include responsible
procurement by the government, forward integration for tea
farmers, improving the management structure of coopera-
tives, encouraging cooperation among all stakeholders, and
the development and implementation of Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) standards.
In general, substantially more labour is employed for cul-
tivation than in the processing stages for all factory types
(Fig. 4.6). Higher use of labour is considered more socially
sustainable in a labour surplus economy. In addition, the cost
of labour is lower than mechanizing these processes, which
makes it economically sustainable.
Factories employ more female labour for the cultivation
stage as the plucking is done primarily by females. For the
processing stage, there is no clear trend in the type of labour
used.
There is no clear trend in labour use depending on the type
of factory (Table 4.2).
4.4. Costs
The total cost of production is on average 190 Sri Lankan
Rupees (LKR) per kg of high grown tea, LKR 159 per kg medium
grown tea, and LKR 154 per kg medium grown tea.
The cost for all types of factories is highest at the culti-
vation stage (Fig. 4.7). This is because of the large amount
of labour used to pluck the tea leaves as well as the cost of
fertilizer which is quite significant.
 S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 5 5 – 1 6 9 165

Table 4.2 – Female to male ratio for cultivation and processing stages.

High grown Middle grown High grown

Orthodox CTC Orthodox Orthodox Orthodox CTC Orthodox CTC

Cultivation 0.998 1.667 0.555 2.833 2.283 1.235

Processing 0.555 1.333 0.731 1.333 0.778 2.923 1 2.333

Fig. 4.7 – Cost (LKR/kg) for high, medium and low grown factories.

Fig. 4.8 – National average Cost (LKR/kg) for all stages of production.
Source: Department of Census and Statistics (2016).

Over the years, the cost of production of tea in Sri Lanka
has risen significantly. The highest costs in the production
process are the purchase of green leaf and labour (Fig. 4.8).
These values confirm the findings of our study that it is the
cultivation stage that contributes the most to the cost of
tea.
4.5. Overall energy use, carbon emissions, labour use,
and cost
Fig. 4.9 compares the energy use, carbon emissions, labour
use, and cost at each stage of the lifecycle. Energy use is
found to be highest in the processing and use stage. The
166 S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 5 5 – 1 6 9
Fig. 4.9 – Overall labour use (#/kg), energy use (MJ/kg), carbon emissions (CO2e/kg) and costs ($/kg).
processing stage involves the most amount of high energy
using machinery especially for drying the fresh tea leaves.
Energy consumed at the use stage varies depending on the
type of equipment used to boil water for a cup of tea. Our
results confirm the findings of Azapagic et al. (2016) and
Doublet and Jungbluth (2010) that the use phase is one of the
largest sources of emissions and energy use. Therefore the
assumptions used for calculating the emissions and energy
use in the use phase are very important, and it is important
that the consumer reduces the excess amount of boiled water
and invests in an energy-efficient kettle. A study conducted by
the Sustainable Energy Authority of Sri Lanka (SLSEA, 2013)
showed that to make an ‘energy efficient’ cup of tea the water
should be heated in a closed vessel like a kettle to prevent
energy losses.
The most amount of CO2 per kg of tea is emitted at the
packaging stage, as each tea bag which is packed separately
contains only 2.5 g of tea and requires a considerable amount
of paper, printed cardboard etc. for packaging. A study by
Azapagic et al. (2016) indicates that biggest contributor to
Global Warming Potential (GWP) of tea is consumption (85%),
due to the electricity used for boiling water.
Labour use is the highest at the cultivation stage due
to the high number of people employed for plucking of
the tea leaves as this is not mechanized yet. A study by
Agrifood Consulting International (ACI, 2004) states that tea
in Viet Nam has a strong potential for poverty reduction
as it is mainly planted on small farms in poor areas, is
grown mainly by ethnic minorities, requires few inputs, and
is labour intensive. Some other environmental and social
impacts of tea production which have not been analysed in
this study have been looked at by Wal (2008). From a social
perspective, working conditions on tea farms and planta-
tions are usually poor. Most workers are hired as temporary
labour and have very poor safety net to protect them—
e.g., if they fall sick and are unable to work. The paper also
stresses that tea has a strong impact on biodiversity due to
the high levels of deforestation, especially of the forested
mountain slopes in tea plantations. In addition, pesticides
contaminate local water and soil, and can cause potential
health risks for local ecosystems. Lastly, most factories use
outdated, inefficient technologies and hence energy use is
high.
4.6. Environmental, economic and social implications
Environmental implications
Some of the major environmental implications of tea pro-
duction include deforestation and land degradation. In areas
where tea is propagated, annual soil losses total up to 15–
20 tons per hectare (Wijeratne, 1996). Sustainable extraction
of firewood needs to be ensured to prevent deforestation of
surrounding areas.
The contribution of GHG emissions by the tea industry
to the national balance is not very significant. However,
it is always more sustainable to investigate measures that
could potentially reduce any emissions. The annual reduc-
tion/substitution potential of energy per year for industrial
heat (in the tea, rubber and coconut industry) is 0.162 ktoe for
biomass, 20 ktoe for electricity and 36 ktoe for petroleum (Cli-
mate Change Secretariat, 2013). Most factories use outdated,
inefficient technologies and hence energy use is high.
A study by Agrifood Consulting International (ACI, 2004)
also stresses that tea has a strong impact on biodiversity due
to the high levels of deforestation, especially of the forested
mountain slopes in tea plantations. In addition, pesticides
contaminate local water and soil, and can cause potential
health risks for local ecosystems. X
Social implications
Women’s participation in the economy is important for
empowerment, liberating women from their traditional care-
giving role and the restrictions of patriarchal gender relations,
while giving them equal opportunities with men. A large
proportion of the workforce is in the tea industry are young
women and the minimum working age is twelve. The tea
plantation is structured in a social hierarchy and the women,
who often consist of 75%–85% of the work force in the in-
dustry, are at the lowest social strata and powerless (Kotikula
and Solotarof, 2006). Like other industries, their job security
is threatened. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the tea
sector continues to provide employment for women.
Despite taking the biggest risk in the value chain (pro-
duction and market uncertainties, adverse weather, climate
change, weeds and disease infestations, etc.), income for
tea smallholders are not sustainable. In many cases, tea
smallholders actually earn incomes that are below national
and international poverty line indicators. Therefore, if their
concerns are not properly addressed, rural poverty, unem-
ployment and food insecurity will increase and urban drift
 S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 5 5 – 1 6 9
will accelerate. There is a clear lack of enabling policies to
ensure that tea smallholders have sustainable livelihoods.
Land tenure and land use policies are not designed to ensure
that economies of scale in production and cropping and that
farming systems are sustainable in the long run. Credit is not
easily available to farmers.
Economic Implications
High costs of production have reduced the competitive-
ness of Sri Lanka in global tea markets. Falling tea prices, also,
have had adverse impacts on producer incomes and on the
national economy (Gunawardena, 2008).
5. Conclusions and recommendations
Making consumption and production more sustainable is
an important step on the balanced inclusive green growth
(BIGG) path towards global sustainability. The food sector
can significantly improve sustainability, if agriculture and
food supply chains protect soil fertility, conserve water re-
sources, and preserve biodiversity. Globally, since tea is a
major beverage, improving sustainability and resource use
in the tea industry will promote sustainable production and
consumption, thereby helping humanity achieve interna-
tional targets envisaged in agreements like the SDG and
COP21. In Sri Lanka, tea is an important contributor to the
GNP, export earnings and employment. Thus, making the tea
sector more sustainable will help macroeconomic and export
performance and enhance sustainable livelihoods.
In recent years, rising costs of tea production and falling
international tea prices have made the market highly com-
petitive. Furthermore, growing niche markets for organic and
sustainable teas command premium prices. The measures
discussed below will help tea producers.
New technologies (De Silva, 1993) need to be adopted,
to be more competitive in international tea markets. Our
study examined key indicators like energy use and waste
(CO2 emissions). Some energy efficient and environmentally
sound technology options include using more energy effi-
cient dryers, implementing waste heat recovery, observing
better housekeeping measures, and using renewable sources
of energy (hydro, biomass or solar energy). However, the tea
sector is very traditional. Barriers such as lack of awareness
and access to technical information, lack of coordination and
standards, lack of finances, infrastructure, and R&D, have
prevented the industry from adopting these technologies
effectively. Appropriate policy and regulatory measures are
needed to overcome these barriers.
Energy use is highest in a factory at the processing stage
(49% for medium and high grown; 25% for low grown)—due
to high energy requirement for drying and other machinery.
Low grown, orthodox tea is most efficient in terms of energy
use. CTC factories use more energy and are therefore less
environmentally sustainable than orthodox factories. CTC
factories for high and low grown tea seem to have the highest
energy usage in cultivation mainly due to use of fertilizers
and soil conditioners. Although energy use in the processing
stage is high, most of it is renewable energy, which can
be considered sustainable—provided that the fuelwood is
harvested sustainably. Medium grown, CTC tea factories use
the most energy for tea processing, because medium grown
tea factories use considerably more energy for withering and
drying than low grown and high grown factories.
For factories to improve their sustainability, renewable
energy use (such as dendro) should be optimized whilst
167
reducing of non-renewable energy use (like diesel). Fuelwood
(such as eucalyptus and gliracideae) could be planted and
used for drying. Small dendro-electric schemes could provide
electricity. Solar energy may be used especially for leaf drying
and withering, which use the most thermal energy. Excess tea
dust and other tea waste could be used as mulch. Factories
should be encouraged to adopt lean manufacturing processes
throughout the factory, minimizing the number of production
processes and forklift movements—e.g. remove additional
leaf tea machinery, install racking at point of use, etc.
CO2 emissions are highest due to fertilizer use in cultiva-
tion. Low grown tea has the highest emissions. Awareness of
sustainable agricultural practises must be increased among
tea smallholders. Crops with high yields and nutritional
quality need to be introduced, whilst improving resource ef-
ficiency. Adverse effects on soil fertility, water and air quality
and biodiversity should be minimized. Organic fertilizer use
can be reduced, by using mulch and intercropping, while
bunds, micro catchments and drainage systems enhance soil
and water conservation. Tea bushes are natural and good
carbon sinks.
The greatest labour input also occurs in the cultivation
stage, where tea plucking is done primarily by females. In
a labour surplus situation, this is both economically and
socially sustainable (Folbre, 2006). To reduce smallholder risk,
government should improve policies addressing land tenure,
and micro credit schemes from mainstream financing in-
stitutions. Support institutions (e.g. producer organizations/
cooperatives/self-help groups) can also increase smallhold-
ers’ bargaining position, while achieving economies of scale
in the acquisition of agricultural inputs and sale and process-
ing of green leaf. Research and development, harmonization
of quality standards, and collective certification should be
improved.
Within the overall product life cycle, processing (drying
and withering stages) and product use require the most
energy. Further detailed research could be carried out to
investigate how these processes could be made more efficient
or sustainable.
Packaging is the main source of carbon emissions (44%–
47% of total life cycle emissions). This could be reduced
by using oxygen-bleached filter paper for tea bags, making
package cartons from recycled materials, recycling waste
cardboard and pallet wrap plastic, minimizing the use of
plastic strapping and non-reusable tea pallets. Sealing tea
bags with heat instead of glue will help minimize waste and
water usage.
At the Transport Stage emissions and energy use may be
reduced with more sustainable warehousing and transport
systems. If all picking and packing is done on-site, it will help
minimize freight turnarounds. Engine oil could be reused but
needs to be stored in sealed enclosures for environmental
safety.
At the end-use stage consumers should be encouraged
to recycle waste cardboard, pallet wrap plastic, used plastic
strapping and non-reusable tea pallets. Use of loose tea is
desirable since it has a lower amount of embodied energy
and carbon than tea bags. Heating water for tea is also an
important component of the carbon and energy footprint
(Cichorowski et al., 2015). Gas is the best option as there is
only one conversion loss from burning the fossil fuel to pro-
duce heat energy. Efficient kettles should be used for boiling
water and kettles only filled with the required quantity of
water. With electric heating, there are four separate losses:
168 S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 5 5 – 1 6 9
1. converting fossil fuel into electricity, 2. grid losses along
the wires, 3. transformer losses as voltage is stepped up and
down, and 4. while heating the water in the kettle.
At the disposal stage, tea leaves could be composted and
re-used as fertilizer in homes, and used for home cleaning or
skincare, cooking, and reducing home odours.
Acknowledgements
Funding support for this study is gratefully acknowledged,
from the Sustainable Consumption Institute (SCI), University
of Manchester and the UNITAR’s Climate Change Capacity
Development Project (C3D). The authors also thank the editor-
in chief and two anonymous referees for their very helpful
comments.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be
found online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2017.07.003.
References
ACI 2004 Linking Poor with Tea Value Chains. Policy Brief Series
on The Participation of the Poor in Agricultural Value Chains,
Policy Brief Series, 2004.
AIT 2002 Small and Medium scale Industries in Asia: Energy and
Environment - Tea Sector. School of Environment, Resources
and Development, Asian Institute of Technology.
Antoniou, P.H., Levitt, C.E., Schreihans, C., 2011. Managing value
chain strategy. Internat. J. Manag. Value Supply Chains 6 (4)
December 2015.
Azapagic, A., Bore, J., Cheserek, B., Kamunya, S., Elbehri, A., 2016.
The global warming potential of production and consumption
of Kenyan tea. J. Cleaner Prod. 112, 4031–4040.
Barrientos, S., Gereffi, G., Rossi, A., 2010. Economic and social
upgrading in global production networks: Developing a frame-
work for analysis. Int. Labour Rev..
Bernhardt, T., Milberg, W., 2011. Economic and social upgrad-
ing in global valuechains: Analysis of horticulture, apparel,
tourism and mobile telephones. In: Capturing the Gains 2011.
University of Manchester, UK.
BIS 1994. IS 13852: Tea - Preparation of ground sample of known
dry matter content, Bureau of Indian Standards, India.
Bolton, D., 2016. Global Tea Production 2015. http://worldteanews.
com/news/global-tea-production-2015.
Central Bank 2015. Annual Report 2011. Central Bank of Sri Lanka.
Chen, W., 2009. From Tea Garden to Cup: China’s Tea Sustainabil-
ity Report. Social Resources Institute, China.
Cichorowski, G., Joa, B., Hottenroth, H., Schmidt, M., 2015.
Scenario analysis of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of
Darjeeling tea. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20, 426–439.
Climate Change Secretariat 2013 Sri Lanka’s Second National
Communication on Climate Change. Ministry of Environment.
DEFRA 2015 GHG Conversion Factors. Produced by AEA for the
Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).
Department of Census and Statistics, 2005 Census of Tea Small
Holdings. Sri Lanka.
Department of Census and Statistics, 2016 Data on Cost of Pro-
duction of Tea in Sri Lanka.
De Silva, W.C.A., 1993. Some energy achievements of the tea
industry in Sri Lanka. Proceedings of the First International
workshop, Conoor, India. February 10-12, 1993.
Dharmasena, P., Bhat, M.S., 2011. Assessment of replacement cost
of soil erosion in uva high lands tea plantations of Sri Lanka.
Curr World Environ. 6, 241–246.
Doublet, G., Jungbluth, N., 2010. Life cycle assessment of drinking
Darjeeling tea: Conventional and organic Darjeeling tea. ESU-
services Ltd.
Environmental Impact 2015 website-www.envimpact.org/node/
122.
FAO 2015. World tea production and trade Current and future
development by Kaison Chang, Trade and Markets Division.
Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, 2015.
Folbre, N., 2006. Measuring Care: Gender, Empowerment, and the
Care Economy. J. Hum. Dev. 7 (2), 183–199.
Gunawardena, A., 2008. Trade and Environment Dimensions in
the Food and FoodProcessing Industries in Asia and the Pacific
A Country Case Study of Sri Lanka. Institute of Policy Studies,
IPS. Colombo.
Han, R., 2012. The Analysis of IKEA’s Value Chain Management
Strategy Second InternationalConference on Business Com-
puting and Global Information, p. 211.
Haskoning 1989 Energy consumption in the tea industry of Sri
Lanka. Royal Dutch Consulting Engineering and Architects.
IPCC, 2006. In: Eggleston, H.S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T.,
Tanabe, K. (Eds.), IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories Programme. IGES, Japan.
IPCC, 2014. Summary for policymakers. In: Field, C.B., Barros,
V.R., Dokken, D.J., Mach, K.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Bilir, T.E.,
Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C., Girma,
B., Kissel, E.S., Levy, A.N., MacCracken, S., Mastrandrea, P.R.,
White, L.L. (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation,
and Vulnerability. Part a: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contri-
bution of Working Group II To the Fifth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,
NY, USA, pp. 1–32.
Juul, S., 2013. Let’s be united against food waste ,http://www.thi
nkeatsave.org/index.php/component/content/article/78-blogs
/255-let-s-be-united-against-food-waste.
Koneswaramoorthy, S., Ziyad Mohamed, M.T., Galahitiyawa, G.,
2004. Developing and evaluating solar energy techniques for
tea drying. J. Nat Sci. Found. Sri Lanka 32 (1&2), 49–60.
Kotikula, A., Solotarof, J., 2006. Gender Analysis of Labor in Sri
Lanka’S Estate Sector. World Bank.
Melican, N., 2009. Carbon Footprint on Tea. Retrieved from
http://www.passeportsante.net/fr/Actualites/Nouvelles/Fiche.
aspx?doc=bilan-carbone-ecolo-votre-tasse-de-the-2009092590.
Mohanty, B., 1997. Technology, Energy efficiency and environmen-
tal externalities in the cement industry, Asian institute of
technology, Thailand.
Munasinghe, M., 1992. Environmental Economics and Sustainable
Development. Paper presented at the UN Earth Summit, Rio de
Janeiro, Environment Paper No. 3, World Bank, Washington DC.
Munasinghe, M., 1995. Making growth more sustainable. Ecol.
Econom. 15, 121–124.
Munasinghe, M., 2002. ‘The sustainomics trans-disciplinary meta-
framework for making development more sustainable’, Paper
presented at the UN World Summit on Sustainable Devel-
opment (WSSD), Johannesburg. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 5 (1–2),
125–182.
Munasinghe, M., 2009. Sustainable Development in Practice: Sus-
tainomics Framework and Applications. Cambridge University
Press, London.
Munasinghe, M., 2010. Making Development more Sustainable.
MIND Press, Sri Lanka.
Munasinghe, M., 2012. Millennium consumption goals (MCGs) for
Rio+20 and beyond. Nat. Resour. Forum 36, 202–212.
Munasinghe, M., Jayasinghe, P., Ralapanawe, V., 2015. Supply/value
chain analysis of carbon and energy footprint of garment
manufacturing in Sri Lanka. Sustainable Prod. Consumption
J. 5, 51–64.
 S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 5 5 – 1 6 9
Riley, Daniel, 1987. Competitive cost-based investment strategies
for industrial companies. In Manufacturing Issues. New York:
Booz, Allen, and Hamilton.
Sen, A., 1999. Development As Freedom. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Sen, A., 2000. Work and rights. Int. Labour Rev. 139 (2),
119–128.
Sivapalam, P., 1985. Tea cultivation and its ecological impact
on the environment. Tea Research Institute of Sri Lanka.
Talawakella.
SLSEA (Sri Lankan Sustainable Energy Authority), 2013 http://
www.energy.gov.lk/sub_pgs/save_energy_how_cupoftea.html.
Think-Eat-Save 2013. http://www.thinkeatsave.org/index.php/ab
out/about-the-campaign.
UNEP 2013. http://www.unep.org/wed/quickfacts/.
View publication stats
169
University of Bath 2008, Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE).
Prof. Geoff Hammonds and Craig Jones. Sustainable Energy Re-
search Team (SERT), Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Bath.
University of Victoria 2015 - www.victoria.ac.nz/cbpr/documents/
pdfs/ee-coefficients.pdf.
Wal, vander S., 2008. Sustainability Issues in the Tea Sector A
Comparative Analysis of Six Leading Producing Countries.
Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Oxfam Novib.
Wijeratne, M.A., 1996. Vulnerability of Sri Lankan tea production
to global climate-change. Water Air Soil Pollut. 92, 87–94.
Wood, S., Cowie, A., 2004. A review of greenhouse gas emission
factors for fertilizer production’, Cooperative Research Centre
for Greenhouse Accounting, Research and Development Divi-
sion, State Forests of New South Wales.