The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1751-1062.htm

Craft beer
A framework for a sustainable supply chain
craft beer supply chain
Harish C. Bahl
College of Business, California State University Chico, Chico, California, USA
Jatinder N.D. Gupta
College of Business, The University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, Received 4 August 2020
Revised 9 October 2020
Alabama, USA, and 11 November 2020
Accepted 12 November 2020
Kenneth G. Elzinga
Department of Economics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to propose a framework for developing strategies for the supply chain of craft
beer that can make the business efficient and profitable, and at the same time, generate sustainability benefits
from reducing waste, conserving natural resources and reducing pollution.
Design/methodology/approach – Based on an extensive review of the literature of academic and
industry publications, source material from craft brewers primarily situated in the USA and industry
experience in craft brewing, the proposed framework describes strategies to establish sustainable craft beer
supply chains.
Findings – The framework for craft beer supply chain consists of four categories that contribute to craft
beer sustainability: ingredient procurement, recycling efforts, energy usage and distribution systems – some
of these mimicking those used by macrobrewers. Each of the categories is further subdivided. Successful
practices and examples are highlighted for each of the subcategories.
Research limitations/implications – This proposed framework was built upon current practices and
available literature in the USA and focused on the environmental pillar of sustainability. Further, the
proposed framework arises from the fact that current best practices in sustainability were available primarily
from larger craft brewers, like Sierra Nevada and New Belgium.
Practical implications – By paying attention to operational changes in their supply chains, craft brewers
can manage costs and improve their sustainability track record by reducing waste, conserving natural
resources and improving upon their pollution footprint. Craft brewers can economize in the use of water,
grains, hops and yeast by using practices discussed in this paper.
Originality/value – This is the first time that all aspects of supply chain and sustainability considerations
in craft beer production are discussed in a comprehensive manner to propose a framework for analysis and
enhancement of productivity and sustainability at the same time. The fact that the proposed framework can
be used in future studies to empirically evaluate the utility of various sustainability strategies adds to the
originality and value of this research.

Keywords Conceptual/ theoretical, Alcoholic drinks, Not applicable, Alcoholic drinks industry,
Suppliers, Brewing, Craft brewing, Sustainability, Supply chain, Strategies for building supply chain,
The beer industry
Paper type Research paper

International Journal of Wine

Business Research
The authors thank the associate editor, three reviewers for their helpful comments on the earlier © Emerald Publishing Limited
1751-1062
version of the paper and L. Jackson Howell Jr. for his research assistance. DOI 10.1108/IJWBR-08-2020-0038
IJWBR 1. Introduction
The craft beer revolution started in San Francisco, CA, in 1965 when Fritz Maytag
resurrected the Anchor Brewing Company. Shortly thereafter, several enterprising brewers
experimented with creating specialty beers that differed in alcohol content and organoleptic
properties from the conventional lagers of the major brewers. After several turbulent years
in the 1960s and 1970s, the craft revolution resulted in the rapid growth of the number of
breweries and steady growth in the market share held by brewers of craft beer (Elzinga
et al., 2015).
Craft beer is produced primarily by small breweries operated by first-generation
entrepreneurs (Acitelli and Magee, 2017). The trade association for the craft segment
categorizes craft brewers as small, independent and traditional (Arthur, 2018; Calagione,
2011; Littman, 2015). However, several craft brewers, small when they opened, are now
sizable firms. For example, the Boston Beer Company, brewer of Samuel Adams beer, had
sales in 2019 of US$1.25bn, and the founder, James Koch, now is a member of the Bloomberg
billionaires’ group.
From the above discussion, it is clear that the definition of a craft brewer has been fluid
(pun intended). During the 1980s, as craft breweries were gaining momentum, they were
generally defined as local brewers that used “the manual arts and skills of a brewer” (Hindy,
2014). Early definitions sought to differentiate “micro” and “small” breweries from “large” or
“mega” ones. This early definition, tendered in a 1987 edition of New Brewer, characterized a
“microbrewery” as producing a maximum of 15,000 barrels per year, and a “mega brewery”
as one producing more than one million barrels per year (Hindy, 2014). However, times have
changed, and so has the definition of craft brewers as discussed in Section 2 of this paper.
The craft beer segment has caught the public’s attention in a manner that belies its actual
size. There is a large and growing literature on craft beer. Indeed, publications about craft
beer are disproportionate to the segment’s sales of all malt beverages. The best general
treatments are Acitelli and Magee (2017) and Lewis (2014). Book-length treatments of
individual craft brewers include Sierra Nevada (Grossman, 2013), Dogfish Head (Calagione,
2011) and Pete’s Wicked Ale (Slosberg, 1998). Steve Hindy, a founder of The Brooklyn
Brewery, also has written a history of craft brewing (2014). Tremblay and Tremblay (2011)
who wrote the standard economic analysis of the US beer industry (2005), more recently
have written about the craft and import segments. In their recently published Beeronomics,
Swinnen and Briski (2017) have a chapter on strategies of the American Craft Beer
Movement.
By contrast, the operational and sustainability aspects of craft beer have received scant
attention in the literature. Consumer demand has received almost all the attention; supply-
side considerations have been practically neglected. This lacuna is peculiar because success
in craft brewing requires much more than a new brand and a marketing campaign depicting
someone wearing bib overalls and shoveling grain and hops. Opening a brewery of any size
is a complicated experience that requires much more than creating a new or different taste
signature or an edgy brand or label. While there are now thousands of craft brewers, many
new entrants have failed – indicating that the growing demand for craft beer does not
ensure economic survival (Elzinga et al., 2015). A successful operational side of a craft beer
firm is a necessary condition for commercial success. Indeed, once a craft brewery is up and
running, how it manages supply chain variables will significantly determine its long-run
sustainability and profitability.
Building a sustainable supply chain affects a craft brewer’s bottom line by reducing
costs. It also holds the potential for minimizing waste, conserving natural resources and
reducing environmental pollution. Supply-side properties of water and hops have
incentivized craft brewers to alter their production function, thereby changing the Craft beer
consumption of these resources. Some enterprising brewers in the craft segment are notable supply chain
for adopting sustainability and resource-conserving measures across their brewing
operations. Through practices like reducing water usage, greenhouse gas emissions and
transitioning to alternative energy sources, large brewers such as AB InBev actively pursue
sustainability efforts (Bumblauskas, 2017). Thus, sustainability is by no means exclusive to
new entrants in the beer industry.
Outside the purview of industry publications, particularly The New Brewer, the literature
on supply chain topics in craft brewing is constrained – and dwarfed by the literature
devoted to craft beer consumption. The extant literature has four articles (Bumblauskas,
2015, 2017; Kerby and Vriesekoop, 2017; Thompson and Bahl, 2018) that discuss aspects of
supply chain and sustainability considerations in craft beer production. None of these
articles offers a comprehensive framework for analyzing the supply side of the craft brewing
industry.
Our article helps fill this gap and is a call for action in future industrial practice and
academic research. Drawing upon industry literature, source materials from craft brewers
and industry experience in craft brewing in the USA, we describe strategies to establish a
sustainable supply chain for the craft beer segment. The research reported in this paper
contributes to the extant literature by constructing a framework of options and
opportunities available to build sustainable supply chains. We draw upon illustrations
related to ingredient procurement, energy usage, recycling efforts and distribution systems
that contribute to craft beer sustainability – some of these mimicking that used by the
macrobrewers whose customers the craft brewers court in the battle for what the alcoholic
beverage industry sometimes calls “share of throat.”
The rest of this article is organized as follows. Section 2 briefly discusses the evolution of
the craft brewer definition and reviews the related literature. Section 3 details our main
contribution to the extant literature on craft beer by proposing a framework for building a
sustainable supply chain. Finally, Section 4 concludes the article with a discussion of its
managerial implications, limitations and some fruitful directions for future research.

2. Craft brewer definition and related literature review

The Brewers Association, an American trade group with over 5,000 members associated
with the craft beer segment, currently provides the standard definition of craft beer. The
Brewers Association has three criteria for defining a craft brewer. First, a craft brewer must
be “small,” producing no more than six million barrels per year. Full stop: six million barrels!
A brewery producing regular lager beer exploits economies of scale at around four million
barrels (Elzinga, 2016). A barrel of beer is 31 gallons. Six million barrels per year, even
spread across a handful of breweries, is a size attained historically by only a handful of US
brewers. In short, what would have been defined as a “mega” brewery in 1987 could produce
an additional five million more barrels per year and still be considered a craft brewer by this
metric.
Second, a craft brewer must be independently owned, or less than 25% of the brewer is
owned or controlled by an alcoholic industry member that is not itself a craft brewer. This
stipulation prevents brewers like Goose Island and Blue Moon, who are owned by AB InBev
and MillerCoors, respectively, from associating with the “craft” industry, thus maintaining
an important distinction from large, corporate brewers. Finally, a craft brewer must brew
beer and have a Tax and Trade Bureau Brewer’s Notice (Anonymous, 2020a). Essentially,
this means a craft brewer, like any commercial producer of alcoholic beverages, must hold a
proper federal license, and yes, the firm must brew beer.
IJWBR Defining the craft beer industry in other parts of the world, namely, Europe, is not as
straightforward. For one, the craft beer industry in Europe is significantly smaller than in
the USA, and there is no central trade authority (Adams, 2011). Additionally, the European
beer market is centuries older and many countries have their own respective definitions. For
example, the Belgian Family Brewers Association, a trade group analogous to the Brewers
Association, requires three qualifications for entry: 50 years of continuous operation in the
same site, family run and independently owned and the brewing of traditional Belgian beers
(Swinnen and Briski, 2017). By this taxonomy, the number of craft brewers in the USA
would be zero.
In 2018, craft beer’s overall beer market share (by volume) was 13.6%. Because craft beer
generally is more expensive than that of the macrobrewers (like AB InBev and MillerCoors),
in 2019, the US market share of craft beer (by dollars) was 25.2%. In 2019, craft beer sales in
the USA were US$29,272m across over 8,000 craft breweries (The New Brewer, 2020). The
revolution that began in the USA has spread to other parts of the world. New entrants (or
reconstituted brewing firms) now supply a modern-day version of craft beer in Europe
(Alfeo et al., 2019; Fastigi et al., 2018), Asia (Li et al., 2018), Australia (Argent, 2018) and
Latin America (Toro-Gonzalez, 2017).
Craft beer publication topics include history (Godard, 2016; Reid and Gatrell, 2017),
demand (Toro-Gonzalez et al., 2014), marketing (Deola, 2014; Ricardo, 2017; Calvo-Porral,
2020; Williams, 2020) and cultural consequences (Arroyo et al., 2019; Nesse et al., 2019; Zang
et al., 2020). Kleban and Nickerson (2012) analyze the state of competition in the craft
brewing industry. A resource-based approach to craft beer is examined by Alonso et al.
(2016). Alonso, Alexander and O’Brien (2018a) discuss collaboration and networking aspects
of craft brewing. For those new to the beer industry, the best history is the witty and
winsome The Brewer’s Tale: A History of the World According to Beer (Bostwick, 2014). As
Alfeo et al. (2019), Alonso et al. (2018b) and Alonso et al. (2017) provide extensive review of
literature on the development of the craft breweries, we do not repeat such an extensive
review of literature in our article.
The histories of craft beer have focused to a large extent on the kinds of people attracted
to starting craft breweries, the risks they have shouldered and the obstacles they have
overcome against the incumbent macrobrewers and hostile government regulations. The
craft beer literature has focused on the entrepreneurs who started craft breweries,
emphasizing the distinctions of their products and the obstacles faced in competing against
the nation’s macrobrewers. Much of the literature has a David versus Goliath theme (Noel,
2018), but there is much more to the story.
The legend of craft beer in the USA has stories of new entrants cobbling together capital
equipment from other industries to produce small batches of beer. Today, there is an active
market for all inputs necessary for production and marketing. One window into the input
market is the trade publication of the craft segment, The New Brewer. Begun 35 years ago,
the periodical has evolved into a semi-monthly publication of 150þ pages per issue. The
New Brewer is not a magazine of fuzzy stories or industry gossip. The January/February
issue usually is devoted to sustainability. The July/August issue centers on technical
brewing operations. The November/December issue focuses on raw materials and crop
reports.
The advertisements in The New Brewer (particularly the July/August issue) illustrate the
maturity of the input market for craft brewers and provide a useful backdrop for
understanding supply chain topics. The ads range from tap handles to turnkey operations.
In between are vendors for chillers, keg washers, packaging equipment and grain handling
machinery. In the supply chain are companies that specialize in delivery truck maintenance
for the craft segment. Numerous suppliers of hops and malt are represented. The growing Craft beer
scope of the input market is apparent by even a cursory review of The New Brewer over supply chain
time.
The above literature review indicates that while the extant literature discusses craft beer
consumption at length, sustainability – defined by the World Commission on Environment
and Development (WCED, 1987) as “using resources to meet the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” – has
not received comparable attention. Bumblauskas (2017) and Hines (2020) have observed that
two of the most successful craft breweries, Sierra Nevada and New Belgium, are also two of
the most sustainable breweries. They have implemented innovative sustainable practices in
three spheres: economic, environmental and social. New Belgium Brewing Company is a
Certified B Corporation.
Global B Corps is a standard for the highest verified social and environmental
performance, transparency and accountability. New Belgium received the best (top 10%)
award in 2019 for environmental sustainability based upon its practices conserving
resources in manufacturing processes, inputs, outputs, transport, distribution and suppliers.
It received the best award for workers because of its practices in compensation and wages,
benefits, training and education, worker ownership, management and worker
communication, job flexibility, corporate culture and occupational health and safety. It also
received high scores in the community relations category because of its job creation,
diversity, civic engagement and giving and local involvement (Anonymous, 2020b).
Sierra Nevada Brewery started in Chico, CA. After its success there, it recently opened
another brewery in Mills River, NC. Sierra Nevada implemented the successful
sustainability practices of the Chico plant in the Mills River brewery also. The firm enacted
sustainable strategies in the construction and design of this new brewery. These practices
include forest management, daylighting in buildings to conserve energy, bioswales around
the property, permeable pavers to recharge groundwater and cisterns to collect rainwater
from the rooftop (Anonymous, 2020c). The Mills River brewery received the prestigious
LEED Platinum award for its “Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design.”
New Belgium Brewery has taken initiatives in developing quantitative sustainability
measures by setting up targets for the future and publishing the results achieved.
Bumblauskas (2015, 2017) has discussed those efforts. New Belgium developed a model that
affords equal weight to social and environmental responsibility. Social responsibility
includes accounting for donations to environmental and social causes, transparency and
communication, employee sustainability culture, greenhouse gas reduction and mitigation
plans and distribution efficiency. Environmental responsibility includes water management,
recycling of waste, production waste reduction, energy efficiency and energy procurement.
Most of these factors are quantitatively measured with set targets. For example, water
management measures the ratio of water used to beer produced. Such measurements of
targets and accomplishments can guide breweries in achieving higher levels of
sustainability.
Innovative entrepreneurs started Sierra Nevada and New Belgium breweries. Through
their personal interest and motivation, they are also seen as industry pioneers in
establishing successful businesses based upon the highest standards of sustainability
(Anonymous, 2019, 2020b). These practices in brewing lead to conservation of resources,
minimizing waste and higher profitability (Hines, 2020). Craft beer primarily caters to local
and surrounding populations. Most craft brewers are community-based and are involved in
community events of engagement by using local suppliers and charitable events.
Sustainability practices help promote communal relationships and foster an image of a good
IJWBR and caring business. Therefore, developing a framework for a sustainable craft beer supply
chain would assist the management of craft brewers by increasing their productivity and
growth in their market share.

3. Proposed framework for a sustainable craft beer supply chain

Sustainability encompasses economic aspects of the business, conservation of natural
resources and the communities served by the business (Winter and Knemeyer, 2013). As a
result, the literature on sustainability identifies economic, environmental and social (also
known as profits, planet and people) as the three pillars of sustainability. While each of these
pillars is important, in this paper, we focus on environmental sustainability in the craft beer
industry. Based on a comprehensive literature survey and current industry practices, we
propose a framework for building sustainable supply chain systems for craft beer.
As shown in Figure 1, our proposed framework follows the natural progression of a
supply chain, starting with the efforts in sustaining the acquisition and use of ingredients,
recycling of byproducts, conserving energy and optimizing distribution systems. Depending
on specific scenarios and technological and industrial developments, this can be extended
and amended with additional options and strategies in the future. We discuss the details of
each of the four categories comprising the proposed framework.

3.1 Ingredients for sustainability

To understand a brewers’ supply chain, it is instructive to know the four main ingredients
involved in making beer and how those ingredients are sourced and purchased. While the
science of brewing is complex, the basic ingredients are simple and have been known for
centuries. The four main inputs are water, grain, hops and yeast.
3.1.1 Water. While each of the four inputs is necessary, in some sense, water is the most
basic. The water used to brew beer not only affects the taste of the product, but it also makes

Figure 1.
Proposed framework
for a sustainable
supply chain for craft
beer
up approximately 95% of a beer’s content (Littman, 2015). Beer is expensive to ship relative Craft beer
to its value because, in part, of the amount of water in the final product. To make beer with a supply chain
congenial taste signature, the water usually requires specialized filtering. It is no surprise
that, for years, brewers sought to locate their breweries near freshwater sources when
filtering technology was nascent.
Economizing water usage is central to craft beer sustainability, particularly in the
western part of the USA, where the craft beer segment was birthed. In the west, the cost of
water has increased and is expected to be higher in the future (Thompson and Bahl, 2018). In
response, two of the largest craft brewers in the USA, Sierra Nevada and Lagunitas, have
added brewing capacity in locations with more favorable water supplies [1]. Lagunitas
opened a brewery in Chicago, and Sierra Nevada opened a brewery in Mills River, North
Carolina.
To be sure, water supply was not the only variable in these capacity expansion decisions.
Both companies also pointed to lowering transportation costs as an economic rationale for
making the move to the Eastern USA. But in the western USA, prospective drought
conditions are provoking some West Coast brewers to find ways to restrict their water
consumption (Thompson and Bahl, 2018). Because water is a necessary input for beer,
reducing water usage in the production function is no easy task.
There are essentially three methods used by craft brewers for water sustainability:
water conservation, recycling and the treatment of wastewater. They are summarized
in Table 1.
Sierra Nevada (Anonymous, 2019) is a leader among craft brewers in economizing water.
The company has reduced its water usage by 25%, a notable achievement in brewing
because beer is such a water-intensive product. Notwithstanding, officials from the city of
Chico recently told Sierra Nevada that the company must decrease its water use by 32%
(Watson, 2015). This presents a major problem because any additional cuts would limit
Sierra Nevada’s output or raise its unit costs relative to its more water-abundant
competitors.
Many craft brewers are now proactive in water-economizing endeavors and have
invested funds to make their wastewater reusable. About five gallons of water are required
to produce one gallon of beer. It is in the nature of the product that the amount of water that
ends up in the can or bottle cannot be reduced. This means water-economizing efforts must
focus on the water that does not end up in the container. In short, it is important, especially
for water-constrained craft brewers, to reuse as much water as possible – and this is a major
shift in craft beer production.
With their growth in number and size, craft brewers are no longer a drop in the bucket
when it comes to water usage in beer production. Their “David” status does not buy them all
a pass when it comes to issues of sustainability and water consumption. As an aside, the
macrobrewers also face pressure to use water more efficiently. In this area, some craft

Ingredient Type of sustainability Examples

Water Recycling of water  Hot water recovery system in brew house

Treatment of wastewater
Water conservation
Table 1.
 Recover water used to rinse bottles
 Water treatment plant to remove waste Supply chain
 Donate weak wort sustainability
 Eliminate water-based lubricants examples for beer
 Water treatment plant to use wastewater ingredient – water
IJWBR brewers are following the macrobrewers in developing and adopting innovative approaches
to reduce water consumption and the environmental impact of their waste streams.
A brewery in the past used to transport the spent grains to a landfill and ship the liquid
by-product to a municipal water treatment plant. Full Sail Brewing, an Oregon-based craft
brewer, decided to recycle its spent grain and yeast solids and give them to local dairy
farmers as feed for cattle. Its water recovery system reuses leftover hot water in the
brewhouse, resulting in savings of more than three million gallons of water a year. Full
Sail’s water treatment plant pre-treats its organic matter, and therefore improves the quality
of the water it sends to the municipal treatment plant (Glennon, 2018). The ratio of water-to-
beer at Full Sail is now less than three-to-one, perhaps one of the lowest in the industry.
Other craft brewers have adopted cutting-edge technologies to reduce their water
consumption and extract useful byproducts from their waste stream (Glennon, 2018). For
example, Sierra Nevada eliminated water-based lubricants on the bottling and kegging lines
to reduce water consumption. This (relatively large) craft brewer also recovers water used to
rinse bottles before the filling process and reuses that water in the vacuum pumps that
dispense beer into the bottles. This change in the production process alone saves 2.5 million
gallons of water annually (Maya, 2019). Further, Sierra Nevada installed its own wastewater
treatment plant in 2002. The facility includes solids removal, anaerobic digestion and
aerobic treatment processes. Sierra Nevada now removes over 95% of the organic load in its
water, relieving the city of this burden (Maya, 2019).
Bear Republic Brewing, a Sonoma County-based craft brewer, had to withhold plans for
a major expansion because the city could not provide it with required amount of water. The
brewery then had to install a US$4m water treatment system that purifies wastewater,
which the company then uses to clean its equipment (Glennon, 2018).
Avery Brewing, a Colorado-based craft brewer, transports weak wort, which is a sugary
wastewater derivative of the brewing process, to the city, which then uses the wort to break
down the nitrogen in its wastewater treatment plant. Lagunitas Brewing uses an EcoVolt
Membrane Bioreactor (MBR), an electrical process that promotes anaerobic digestion, to
remove up to 90% of pollutants from the company’s wastewater stream. Lagunitas has been
able reduce its water consumption by 40% (Glennon, 2018).
These examples illustrate operational changes made by craft brewers in response to
sustainability and environmental challenges to beer’s water-intensive production function.
The transition to more recycled water offers brewers a more consistent supply of water and
helps insure against further government restrictions on water supply (Glennon, 2018). Note
that these changes are far afield, in image and reality, from the conventional portrayal of the
craft brewer as the entrepreneur with the edgy label or that of a small company brewing
beer the way it was done for centuries – which remains the common image of the craft beer
segment in the USA.
3.1.2 Grain. Grain, also known as malt, is a second ingredient involved in the brewing of
beer. Grain, as the term is used in the beer industry, can mean either malted or unmalted
grains. Malt is partially germinated grain. Whole grain, such as wheat, often is a textbook
example of a homogeneous product. However, as used in brewing beer, grain comes in many
different varieties. The heterogeneity of grain partially explains why there are so many
kinds of products offered by craft brewers in the USA and around the world. For example,
lighter grains are used for brewing pale ales and pilsners; darker grains are used to produce
stouts and porters. Craft brewers can purchase multiple types of grains from farmers at
different locations throughout the USA and Canada.
One cost disadvantage for craft brewers, relative to macrobrewers, is that they
disproportionately use specialty grains for their beers. Because of the economies of scale and
their emphasis on producing only lager beer, macrobrewers pay a lower price for grain from Craft beer
their agricultural sources. For some of their output, macrobrewers also mix corn and rice supply chain
into their beers, which is cheaper than brewing an all-grain product. Medium-sized craft
brewers usually pay 40–50 cents per pound for malt, while macrobrewers pay in the range
of 20–25 cents per pound (Whales, 2015).
For purposes of brewing, grain is typically purchased in large bags called totes, or it is
shipped in grain trailers and stored in silos. The latter method is more cost-efficient because
none of the parties pays for packaging or unpacking, thus resulting in lower grain costs.
Grain farmers sell their product to a variety of customers, not just brewers, making grain a
competitive market in which craft brewers participate. While most craft brewers receive
grain shipments by truck, some have the size and locational ability to take delivery by rail.
Some craft brewers (and most macrobrewers) are located adjacent to railroad tracks,
allowing them to have their grain shipped in railcars, which is cheaper than by truck.
Some craft brewers have matched the ability of macrobrewers to integrate the
transportation of inputs with the production of output. Sierra Nevada owns and operates
a rail transfer facility two miles from its brewery, where it receives rail cars of grain. In
this way, the company uses less fuel, eliminates hundreds of trucks from the road each
year and reduces packaging waste. Each railcar holds 3–4 truckloads of grain that is
delivered as needed. The railcars are offloaded into onsite grain storage silos. The
brewery also sends its spent grain and yeast (which is rich in protein) to dairies and
farms nearby for recycling as animal feed. Supply chain sustainability examples for
grain and malt are shown in Table 2.
3.1.3 Hops. Hops, the third ingredient in beer’s quartet of essential inputs, gives the
beverage its taste signature and, especially in craft beer, becomes an important source of
product differentiation from the traditional lagers of the macrobrewers. The rise of West
Coast beer styles, such as India pale ales, led to a rise in the importance of hops. This, in
turn, has resulted in craft brewers (and now the macrobrewers as well) becoming more
creative in both hop selection and hop usage. This is accomplished either by increasing the
amount of a particular hop in a beer or by combining a variety of hops to create a different
organoleptic property.
Hops are essential to beer production, but are also expensive, making them notable in
discussing the supply side of craft beer production. The average cost for a pound of hops is
US$4–US$6, while specialty hops can cost upward of US$20 a pound. Because craft beer is
more hop-intensive and hop-sensitive than the lager beer produced by the macrobrewers, the
rise of the craft beer segment has been a game-changer for growers of hops throughout the
USA (Whales, 2015).
Most commercial hops production is confined to three states: Washington, OR and Idaho.
Approximately 70% of the North American commercial hops production takes place in
Washington, 15% in Oregon and 10% in Idaho, leaving a remnant of only 5% in all other
states (Turner et al., 2011). The Willamette Valley in Oregon and Yakima Valley in

Ingredient Type of sustainability Examples

Table 2.
Grain Eliminate packing and  Use of grain trailers Supply chain
Unpacking sustainability
Efficient transportation  Rail transport instead of trucks examples for beer
Recycle grains  Use spent grain to feed animals ingredient – grain
IJWBR Washington are the two iconic hops-growing regions in the USA. Before the craft beer
revolution, only a small variety of hops were produced by growers in this part of the USA.
Variety on the supply side was restrained. Today, growers supply a wide array and
experiment with new varieties, often in collaboration with their brewer-customers.
Very few craft brewers have the scale of operations to integrate upstream into hops.
Sierra Nevada is an exception. This craft brewer maintains a 10-acre plot to experiment with
growing new hops. However, instead of vertical integration, most craft brewers (and
macrobrewers as well) maintain strong relationships with the farmers they generally favor
for their regular supply requirements. One way this can be accomplished is by forming
supply agreements with farmers.
Brooklyn Brewery’s Eric Ottaway offered this perspective on the relative risk of securing
the agricultural inputs for beer:
Malt and hops are subject to global forces that have nothing to do with a craft beer or even the
general beer industry. The last five years with all the erratic weather we’ve had around the world
have been rough (Godard, 2016).
Because farming is a risky endeavor, heavily dependent on weather conditions each year,
craft brewers shoulder some of that risk. Ottaway explained the malt-hops-brewer
interaction this way: “If you don’t have contracts for your malt and hops, chances are you
won’t be able to get them nearly as easily” (Godard, 2016). A further benefit of maintaining
strong contractual relationships with farmers through supply agreements is that these
agreements establish a factor of trust that allows buyers and sellers to experiment with crop
varieties that may prove value-adding to both sides of the transaction – if and when this
collaboration provokes new beer products that are attractive to consumers. Table 3
summarizes the supply chain sustainability for hops as implemented by brewers.
3.1.4 Yeast. The final input in the beer production quartet is yeast. Yeast is the living
ingredient that metabolizes, reproduces and lives off other ingredients in the beer. Yeast
converts the sugar from the grain into alcohol and carbon dioxide. The existence of yeast in
the production function is what requires successful breweries to be more sanitary than, say,
hospitals. Sanitation is essential for brewing beer on a sustainable basis because yeast is
very sensitive to its environment. Brewers want their beer products to involve only
cultivated strains. Other yeast may contaminate the beer, resulting in over-carbonation,
uncongenial flavor or mold.
Yeasts used for brewing are either top- or bottom-fermenting; the difference leads to
different types of beer. When top-fermenting yeasts are used to produce ales and stouts, the
brewing process is relatively short (one week to one month). When bottom-fermenting
yeasts are used for lager and pilsner beers, the aging process can last for months.
Of the four key beer inputs, yeast is the easiest to contaminate, but is also the easiest to
buy. Yeast is available in many locations from multiple supply sources. Craft brewers
usually purchase yeast in large bags that arrive on pallets. However, some craft brewers
cultivate their yeast to avoid the risks of purchasing this input from another company.
Supply chain sustainability examples for yeast are shown in Table 4.

Table 3.
Supply chain
Ingredient Type of sustainability Examples
sustainability
examples for beer Hops Quality and variety of hops  Collaboration and long-term relationships with growers
ingredient – hops  Grow own hops for experimentation
3.2 Byproducts recycling Craft beer
When it comes to reducing an environmental footprint by recycling measures, it is again supply chain
instructive to consider measures taken by Sierra Nevada as a leader in the craft beer segment.
The company has implemented several innovations to recycle byproducts of the brewing
process back into production. The company’s Chico brewery was certified as a Platinum TRUE
Zero waste facility in 2013. To gain this recognition, protein-rich spent grain and yeast are sent
to nearby cattle and dairy farms. Also, CO2 produced from fermentation is recovered and
recycled to pressurized tanks in the brewery. This reduces operating expenses and eliminates
buying and taking delivery of CO2 in the open market. Recovered CO2 also contains less
oxygen than most CO2 purchased in the open market, which improves the quality of beer. Fryer
oil left over from the brewery’s restaurant is used to make biodiesel fuel in an onsite processor.
This fuel is then used by trucks that deliver Sierra Nevada products to retail outlets in
California. Finally, the brewery installed a unique HotRot composter in 2010, which turns
discarded food and spent brewing ingredients into compost. This compost is then used by the
brewery in its agriculture operations (Anonymous, 2019).
These efforts directed to recycling illustrate how some craft brewers are adopting new
practices to improve the long-run sustainability of their operations. These efforts are a far
cry from the conventional portrayal of the craft beer segment as having a singular focus on
new and edgy product varieties. Table 5 summarizes the connection between sustainability
and recycling.
Looking outside of the USA, Kerby and Vriesekoop (2017) studied the operational
practices of 90 craft brewers in England. The survey focused on the recycling practices of
spent grain, hops and yeast. They found that the primary method of recycling spent grain
was its use as animal feed by local farmers. This was true for both urban and rural
breweries. A few craft brewers delivered the spent materials to farmers for use in making
compost or to be used as fertilizer. Spent yeast was disposed of mainly in sewage both by
rural and urban craft brewers. A small number of urban brewers directed their spent yeast
for use as fertilizer. Due to its bitter taste, spent hops were not used as animal feed and
instead were deployed for use as compost by farmers.

3.3 Energy sustainability

In addition to water, grain, hops and yeast, the production function for craft beer requires
energy. Another word for brewing is “boiling,” which requires heat. At a time of great social
concern about energy conservation, industries that use a large amount of energy cannot

Table 4.
Supply chain
Ingredient Type of sustainability Examples
sustainability
Yeast Quality  Sanitation examples for beer
 Cultivate own yeast ingredient – yeast

Byproduct Type of sustainability Examples

Table 5.
CO2 Recycle  Recycling of CO2 produced from fermentation
Spent grains Make use  Send spent grains to regional farms and dairies Supply chain
Spent yeast Make use  Send spent yeast to regional farms and dairies sustainability
Fryer oil Reuse  Convert to biodiesel with a processor examples for
Waste from the brewery Reuse  HotRot composter to make compost for agriculture use recycling byproducts
IJWBR avoid examining their energy use. The craft beer industry is no exception. Among craft
brewers, Sierra Nevada is the gold standard. It is instructive to consider this brewery as an
example of energy-use sustainability.
At its Chico brewery, Sierra Nevada installed solar panels that can generate 652 kW, or
almost 91% of the brewery’s power demand. Even the parking lot has solar panels that
track the sun throughout the day for additional electric power. The rooftop is fitted with
stationary panels. Sierra Nevada later installed 2 MW of Capstone micro-turbines. Working
in tandem with the firm’s array of solar panels, these turbines provide almost all the
electricity required to operate the brewery. The micro-turbines are automatically powered
on or off depending on energy needs. Waste heat from the micro-turbines is collected and
used to make steam and hot water for the brewing process. In addition, the brewery has a 1
Mwh Tesla battery system to absorb energy load fluctuations.
To conserve thermal energy at its brewery, Sierra Nevada recovers heat as much as
possible. On the front end, a condensate recovery system retains energy in a closed-loop
system. On the back end, heat energy is recovered from kettle stacks and hot wort; this heat
is then used to generate hot water for subsequent batches. Also, Sierra Nevada installed
state-of-the-art energy-efficient boilers and refrigeration systems in its Chico facility. Sierra
Nevada designed and built a second brewery in Mills River in North Carolina in 2012. The
company installed similar energy-efficient systems at the Mills River facility.
Sierra Nevada and New Belgium are leaders in the craft segment for sustainability
accomplishments (Bumblauskas, 2015). However, despite relatively less capital, resources
and experience, many other craft brewers also are implementing a diverse range of
sustainable practices that involve the main beer-making ingredients and their energy
consumption. Sustainability is not exclusive to the largest craft brewers.
For example, breweries like Maui Brewing Company (Kihei, HI) and Flathead Lake Brewing
(Bigford, MT) reduce water usage by using ionized air rinsers on their canning lines and
reusing municipal wastewater, respectively. Five and 20 Spirits and Brewing (Westfield, NY),
Holidaily Brewing Company (Golden, CO) and Zero Gravity Craft Brewery (Burlington, VT) all
recycle their used grain and barley by converting these inputs into seafood, dog biscuits and
making widely distributed crackers, respectively (The New Brewer, 2020).
Other craft brewers similarly seek to foster sustainability through improving energy
efficiency, resulting in both financial savings and reduced greenhouse gas consumption.
Deschutes Brewery (Bend, OR) implemented energy-efficient gas boilers and vapor
condensers on its gas stacks that reuse heat lost from boiling wort. Victory Brewing
Company (Downingtown, PA), Lucky Labrador Brewing Company (Portland, OR) and
Standing Stone Brewing Company (Ashland, OR) all have established their own sources of
renewable energy, such as solar photovoltaic panels, that significantly improve their
environmental sustainability (Anonymous, 2010). Table 6 summarizes sustainability
examples for energy efficiency.

Type of energy Type of sustainability Examples

Electric energy Clean energy  Tracking and stationary solar panels

Table 6.
 Micro-turbines
Supply chain  Tesla battery system
sustainability Thermal energy Conserve energy  Condensate recovery system
examples for clean  Recover from kettle stacks and hot wort
energy  Use of energy efficient boilers and refrigeration systems
3.4 Distribution systems sustainability Craft beer
To understand developments in the relationship between sustainability and distribution in supply chain
craft beer, it is instructive to understand how beer is distributed to final customers. Most beer in
the USA is distributed through a three-tier system: brewers, distributors and retailers. While
the three-tier system has its strengths and weaknesses, it is not the product of Adam Smith’s
invisible hand at work. The three tiers are in large part an artifact of federal and state
regulations imposed upon the distribution of alcoholic products, including malt beverages.
In the early 20th century, brewers were able to sell their product directly to brewpubs
throughout the USA. For many beer sales, there was no intervening middleman or distributor.
That changed after the American experiment with prohibition. The 18th Amendment was
enacted on January 17, 1920, and it declared the production and sale of alcohol to be illegal.
Prohibition ended on December 5, 1933, when the 21st Amendment was enacted, which
repealed the 18th Amendment (Elliott, 2015). The end of prohibition was the start of individual
states gaining most of the authority to regulate the production, importation, distribution, sale
and consumption of alcoholic beverages within their borders. The state regulatory authority
was believed to be more effective than federal regulation. Individual states could, if they chose,
be restrictive, depending upon the political sentiments of their electorate.
In short, individual states could enact regulations they believed were appropriate based
on the temperance concerns within their borders (providing the state’s regulations were
constitutional). The federal government encouraged a three-tier distribution system from the
belief that separating the production of beer from its consumption with an intervening
economic agent would cause less corruption between suppliers and retailers and encourage
greater sobriety among citizens.
While the three-tier system is still in place today, it is not without its critics. Many brewers
consider it to be inefficient by inhibiting vertical economies and adding an unnecessary step to
the process of delivering beer to consumers. For some craft brewers, the three-tier system
seemed to be an intractable regulatory problem. A brewpub, for example, is by its very nature
vertically integrated. In a brewpub, there is no room for a third-party distributor between the
brewing facility on one side of the operation and the serving facility on the other.
According to the Brewers Association, 33 states now allow brewers to self-distribute
their beer, and three states allow it in a limited capacity (Littman, 2015). In the remaining
states, all brewers (including craft brewers) must have some form of agreement with a
distributor before their beer can be sold in the marketplace. In those states where it is legal to
self-distribute, many macrobrewers still use an independent distributor. In some states, the
macrobrewers use a mixture of self-supply and third-party distributors.
Many craft brewers do not have the resources to vertically integrate into distribution. At
the same time, some craft brewers have questioned the fairness from distributors whose
main allegiances historically and financially have been to the macrobrewers whose products
make up the bulk of their sales. Self-distribution by craft brewers affords them the
advantage of communicating directly with retailers and final consumers. Self-distribution
may help ensure that a craft brewer’s products are presented correctly in terms of shelf
space and cooler locations. It may also lead to stronger long-term relationships with
downstream vendors that might benefit both parties involved.
Another ancillary but contemporary distribution issue for craft brews – with major
sustainability implications – is the switch from using glass bottles to aluminum cans. At one
time, an important part of the cachet of craft beer was that it was served only in bottles or on
draft. “Joe Six-Pack” did not drink craft beer. He drank his beer from cans. Cans were the
containers of mainstream lager products.
IJWBR Over time, the economics of beer distribution made clear that cans offered cost-saving
benefits over bottles. The can-versus-bottle question also had environmental consequences.
The major impediment to the use of cans that craft brewers seemed to face was the
perceived quality distinctive of glass – and the fact that glass bottles make for a better
product presentation relative to the more sterile appearance of aluminum cans.
The present equilibrium is that craft brewers continue to offer their product primarily in
bottles (and on draft) for the customers who prefer this kind of packaging, while now
producing canned beer as well. Cans are lighter and can reduce transportation costs. A craft
brewer has to weigh costs of cans and bottles, savings in transportation costs, consumer
preferences and the environment impact of cans and bottles. Table 7 illustrates the
connection between craft beer sustainability and distribution.

4. Conclusions, implications, limitations and future research

Millions of consumers value the extraordinary product differentiation now available in
beverages, whether coffee, tea, soft drinks, energy drinks or (as in this article) beer. Responding
to forces on both the demand and supply side of the market, the craft beer segment is now a
significant portion of the malt beverage industry. As a result, craft beer is a growing part of the
beverage industry in the USA – and in other countries that have mimicked the American
experience. To help the craft beer segment as well as the individual firms that comprise it, our
article has proposed a framework for a sustainable craft beer supply chains. As discussed in
this article, some craft brewers have taken the lead in implementing supply chain sustainability
and reducing their environmental footprint. Their success indicates that they have, as the
expression goes, “done well by doing good.” Therefore, our proposed framework has potential
to help craft brewers sustain the environment as well as to help researchers develop and
implement specific detailed plans to enhance sustainability of craft beer supply chains. As
such, this article is a call for action in future industrial practice and academic research including
the economic and social pillars of sustainability.
Research reported in our article has managerial implications for the craft brewers. By
paying attention to operational changes in their supply chains, craft brewers can manage
costs and improve their sustainability track record by reducing waste, conserving natural
resources and improving upon their pollution footprint. Craft brewers can economize in the
use of water, grains, hops and yeast by employing practices discussed in this paper. They
can use clean energy in electricity and reuse thermal energy at different stages of the brewing
process. Most of the waste generated in the process can be recycled instead of disposed to
landfills and polluting environments. Their distribution can be made more efficient by
reducing intermediate distributors when government regulation allows and also choosing
distribution of craft beer in cans and bottles by considering consumer preferences,
environmental impact and cost margins. With more awareness and motivation, we can
expect successful sustainability accomplishments in the craft beer industry for the future.
A framework for this sustainable supply chain in craft beer is primarily a conceptual
paper. As such, it is constrained for several reasons and has some limitations. This
framework was built upon current practices and available literature in the USA. Studying

Table 7.
Distribution component Type of sustainability Examples
Supply chain
sustainability Use of distributor in a Avoid storage and  Reducing or avoiding
examples for three-tier system transportation intermediate distribution
distribution systems Use of bottles and cans Reduce waste and transportation  Use cans when practical
and comparing practices outside of the USA would be instructive in developing quantitative Craft beer
measures for a sustainable craft beer supply chain. As the article focused on the supply chain
environmental pillar of sustainability, investigating the economic and social pillars of
sustainability would be beneficial for an expanded framework for a sustainable craft beer
supply chain.
Another limitation of our framework arises from the fact that current best practices in
sustainability were available primarily from larger craft brewers, like Sierra Nevada and New
Belgium. The majority of craft brewers are smaller companies. Further analyses of practices in
smaller breweries would be very useful for future study. Our proposed framework also can be
used for further empirical studies of the craft beer industry to examine current supply chain
practices and to suggest ways to improve upon business models for the future.

Note
1. Because of its acquisition by Heineken in 2015, Lagunitas is no longer considered a craft brewer
by industry standards. However, for our purposes, it is included in analyses of the craft industry
as a whole.

References
Acitelli, T. and Magee, T. (2017), The Audacity of Hops: The History of America’s Craft Beer Revolution,
Chicago Review Press, Chicago.
Adams, W.J. (2011), “Determinants of the concentration in beer markets in Germany and the United
States: 1950-2005”, in Swinnen, J. (Ed.), The Economics of Beer, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
pp. 227-247.
Alfeo, V., Todaro, A., Migliore, G., Borsellino, V. and Schimmenti, E. (2019), “Microbreweries,
brewpubs, and beer firms in the Sicilian craft beer industry”, International Journal of Wine
Business Research, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 22-138.
Alonso, A.D., Alexander, N. and O’Brien, S. (2018a), “Collaboration and the emerging craft brewing
industry: an exploratory study”, Journal of Asia-Pacific Business, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 203-224.
Alonso, A.D., Alexander, N. and O’Brien, S. (2018b), “Networking, collaboration, and home brewing: an
exploratory study”, Loisir et Société/Society and Leisure, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 130-153.
Alonso, A.D., Bressan, A. and Sakellarios, N. (2016), “A resource-based approach in the context of the
emerging craft brewing industry”, European Business Review, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 560-582.
Alonso, A.D., Bressan, A. and Sakellarios, N. (2017), “Exploring innovation perceptions and practices
among micro and small craft breweries: a three-country study”, International Journal of Wine
Business Research, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 140-158.
Anonymous (2010), Energy Usage, GHG Reduction, Efficiency and Load Management Manual, The
Brewers Association.
Anonymous (2019), “Bigger than beer sustainability at sierra Nevada”, available at: https://sierranevada.
com/about/sustainability/ (accessed 1 August 2020).
Anonymous (2020a), “Craft brewer definition, the brewers association”, available at: www.
brewersassociation.org/statistics-and-data/craft-brewer-definition/ (accessed 23 September 2020).
Anonymous (2020b), “New Belgium brewing Co”, Certified B Corporation, available at: https://
bcorporation.net/directory/new-belgium-brewing-co-inc (accessed 20 September 2020).
Anonymous (2020c), “Mills river sustainability map, sierra Nevada brewing Co”, available at: https://
sierranevada.com/map/mills-river-sustainability-map/# (accessed 20 September 2020).
Argent, N. (2018), “Heading down to the local? Australian rural development and the evolving
spatiality of the craft beer sector”, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 61, pp. 84-99.
IJWBR Arroyo, C.G. Knollenberg, W. Barbieri, C. and Boys, K.A. (2019), “The impact of social capital on craft
beverage tourism”, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association Annual Meeting, 21-23 July,
Atlanta, Georgia, available at: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ags:aaea19:291303
Arthur, R. (2018), “Brewers association changes craft brewer definition”, www.beveragedaily.com/
Article/2018/12/19/Brewers-Association-updates-craft-brewer-definition-to-boost-US-innovation/
(accessed 1 August 2020).
Bostwick, W. (2014), The Brewer’s Tale: A History of the World According to Beer, W. W. Norton, New
York.
Bumblauskas, D.P. (2015), “Sustainable operations management and benchmarking in brewing at new
Belgium”, Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 27 No. 1, p. 155.
Bumblauskas, D.P. (2017), “Sustainable operations management and benchmarking in brewing: a
factor weighting approach”, Journal of Operations and Supply Chain Management, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 55-67.
Calagione, S. (2011), Brewing up a Business: Adventures in Beer from the Founder of Dogfish Head
Craft Brewery, John Wiley and Sons.
Calvo-Porral, C., Rivaroli, S. and Orosa-Gonzalez, J. (2020), “How consumer involvement influences beer
flavor preferences”, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 537-554.
Deola, J. (2014), “The craft beer market: emerging strategies in a growing business”, B.S. thesis,
Università Ca’Foscari Venezia.
Elliott, J. (2015), Alcoholic Beverage Industry, Salem Press, Amenia.
Elzinga, K.G. (2016), “Beer”, in Brock, J. W. (ed.), The Structure of American Industry, 13th ed.,
Waveland Press, IL, pp. 119-140.
Elzinga, K.G., Tremblay, C.H. and Tremblay, V.J. (2015), “Craft beer in the United States: History,
numbers, and geography”, Journal of Wine Economics, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 242-274.
Fastigi, M., Vigano, E. and Esposti, R. (2018), “The Italian microbrewing experience: features and
perspectives”, Bio-Based and Applied Economics, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 59-86.
Glennon, R. (2018), “Could craft breweries help lead the way in water conservation?”, available at: https://
psmag.com/environment/crafting-solutions-to-water-shortages-in-brewing (accessed 1 August 2020).
Godard, T. (2016), “The economics of craft beer”, available at: https://smartasset.com/insights/the-
economics-of-craft-beer (accessed 1 August 2020).
Grossman, K. (2013), Beyond the Pale: The Story of Sierra NV Brewing Co, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
Hindy, S. (2014), The Craft Beer Revolution: How a Band of Microbreweries is Transforming the
World’s Favorite Drink, St. Martin’s Press, New York, NY.
Hines, N. (2020), “How beer brewers are embracing sustainability”, available at: https://daily.sevenfifty.
com/how-beer-brewers-are-embracing-sustainability/ (accessed 20 September 2020).
Kerby, C. and Vriesekoop, F. (2017), “An overview of the utilization of brewery by-products as
generated by British craft breweries”, Beverages, Vol. 3 No. 24, pp. 1-12.
Kleban, J. and Nickerson, I. (2012), “To brew, or not to brew-that is the question: an analysis of
competitive forces in the craft brew industry”, Journal of the International Academy for Case
Studies, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 59-81.
Lewis, S. (2014), We Make Beer: Inside the Spirit and Artistry of America’s Craft Brewers, St. Martin’s
Press, New York, NY.
Li, F., Shi, Y., Boswell, M. and Rozelle, S. (2018), “Craft beer in China”, in Economic Perspectives on Craft
Beer, Springer, pp. 457-484.
Littman, M. (2015), “A class action asks: ‘what is a craft beer?”, available at: www.abajournal.com/
magazine/article/aclassactionaskswhatisacraftbeer/ (accessed 1 August 2020).
Maya, A. (2019), “Now brewing: Sustainability”, Water Technology (An Online Magazine), www.
watertechonline.com/industry/food-beverage/article/14074133/now-brewing-sustainability
Nesse, K., Green, T. and Ferguson, B. (2019), “Quality of life in potential expansion locations is Craft beer
important to craft brewers”, Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 65-77.
supply chain
Noel, J. (2018), Barrel-Aged Stout and Selling out: Goose Island, Anheuser-Busch, and How Craft Beer
Became Big Business, Chicago Review Press, Chicago.
Reid, N. and Gatrell, J.D. (2017), “Craft breweries and economic development: local geographies of beer”,
Polymath: An Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences Journal, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 90-110.
Ricardo, S.R. (2017), “Advertising efficiency in the Spanish beer industry: spending too much?”,
International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 410-427.
Slosberg, P. (1998), Beer for Pete’s Sake: The Wicked Adventures of a Brewing Maverick, Brewers
Publications, Boulder.
Swinnen, J. and Briski, D. (2017), Beeronomics: How Beer Explains the World, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
The New Brewer (2020), (Journal of the Brewers Association), various issues.
Thompson, C. and Bahl, H.C. (2018), “Strategies for improving supply chain in the craft brewing
industry”, International Journal of Business Management and Commerce, Vol. 3 No. 5, pp. 13-16.
Toro-Gonzalez, D. (2017), “The craft brewing industry in Latin America”, Choices, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 1-5.
Toro-Gonzalez, D., McCluskey, J.J. and Mittelhammer, R.C. (2014), “Beer snobs do exist: Estimation of beer
demand by type”, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 174-187.
Tremblay, C.H. and Tremblay, V.J. (2011), “Recent economic developments in the import and craft
segments of the U.S. Brewing industry”, in Swinnen J.F.M. (Ed.), The Economics of Beer, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, pp. 141-160.
Turner, S.F., Benedict, C.A., Darby, H., Hoagland, L.A., Simonson, P., Sirrine, J.R. and Murphy, K.M.
(2011), “Challenges and opportunities for organic hop production in the United States”,
Agronomy Journal, Vol. 103 No. 6, pp. 1645-1654.
Watson, J. (2015), “Beer and water: California craft brewers are scrambling to balance drafts amid the
drought”, available at: www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2015/10/11/california-craft-
beer-brewers-balance-drafts-and-drought (accessed 7 October 2020).
WCED (1987), Our Common Future, World commission on environment and development. 17, 1-91.
Whales, A. (2015), “Making sustainable beer”, available at: www.scientificamerican.com/article/
making-sustainable-beer/ (accessed 1 August 2020).
Williams, A., Atwal, G. and Bryson, D. (2020), “Developing a storytelling experience: the case of craft spirits
distilleries in Chicago”, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 555-571.
Winter, M. and Knemeyer, A. (2013), “Exploring the integration of sustainability and supply chain
management: Current state and opportunities for future inquiry”, International Journal of
Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 18-38.
Zang, X., van Gorp, B. and Renes, H. (2020), “Beer as cultural lubricant: brewing Tsingtao, regenerating
Qingdao”, in Tourism, Cultural Heritage and Urban Regeneration, Springer, pp. 39-55.

Corresponding author
Jatinder N.D. Gupta can be contacted at: guptaj@uah.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com