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

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1477-7835.htm

MEQ
33,6 Life cycle assessment and relations
with triple bottom line in meat
production: a systematic approach
1528 about cleaner production
Received 6 September 2021 Queli Regina Fritsch Denes
Revised 19 October 2021
29 December 2021 Programa de P
os-Graduaç~ao em Sistemas e Processos Industriais,
1 February 2022 Universidade de Santa Cruz do Sul, Santa Cruz, Brazil, and
21 March 2022
13 April 2022 Rosana de Cassia de Souza Schneider and Liane Mahlmann Kipper
Accepted 20 April 2022
Programa de P
os-Graduaç~ao em Sistemas e Processos Industriais,
Universidade de Santa Cruz do Sul, Santa Cruz, Brazil and
Programa de P
os-Graduaç~ao em Tecnologia Ambiental,
Universidade de Santa Cruz do Sul, Santa Cruz, Brazil
Abstract
Purpose – The objective of the present research was to carry out a scientific map about life cycle assessment
(LCA) and triple bottom line (TBL) at slaughterhouse areas, looking for Cleaner Production practices aiming at
recognizing strategic themes for maintaining the sustainability of productive systems, according to the
development of sustainable practices and production evolution in slaughterhouse areas.
Design/methodology/approach – The literature analysis was based on general approach, with steps
adapted of study phases and activities of preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses
(PRISMA) recommendation guide to do systematic literature review. Activities were subdivided to discuss the
results in two kinds of analysis: quantitative and qualitative.
Findings – The main findings of our study reinforce the LCA importance in slaughterhouses to promote
Cleaner Production, so that the main measures suggested and/or adopted by different authors include the
substitution of raw materials by feeding, with the adoption of grains, protein supplements with less
environmental impact in the composition of the feed and changes in the processes seeking for better energy
efficiency and optimization of water consumption in meat processing.
Research limitations/implications – There is another action of sustainability considering LCA and
Cleaner Production practices in the industrial meat area that should also be considered. These actions are
restricted to documents of business circulation, with limited access since they involve issues regarding
innovations in economic and technological aspects of slaughterhouses, as well as industrial confidentiality.
Furthermore, in patent bases it is possible to advance the studies looking for how the digital transformation has
been carried out in this industrial branch, since the 4.0 transformation industry tends to use clean technologies.
Originality/value – There are LCA models with a systemic approach to measure the level of sustainability of
a process, comprising analysis of impacts related to different areas: environmental, social and economic
although in terms of the meat production chain, the impact analysis focuses mainly on the environmental area.
So, future works should be developed in meat production chain to assess social and economic impacts, i.e. a
sustainable LCA addressing the three areas to consolidate models and standardize metrics with a
scientific basis.
Keywords Life cycle assessment, Triple bottom line, Cleaner production, Slaughterhouse
Paper type Research paper

Management of Environmental
Quality: An International Journal
Vol. 33 No. 6, 2022
pp. 1528-1552
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1477-7835
DOI 10.1108/MEQ-09-2021-0206
1. Introduction
The sustainability of production systems has become a concern, in order to improve
technological practices and digital transformation such as improving energy consumption,
This work was supported in part by the dual degree agreement between the Master’s Program in
Industrial Systems and Processes of the University of Santa Cruz do Sul, Brazil. This study was financed
in part by the C National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), Brazil (protocol
303934/2019-0 and protocol 310228/2019-0).
waste management, system circularity, development of innovative processes for the Life cycle
production of nonrenewable goods, as well as economic and social aspects (Assiri et al., 2021; assessment
Ferronato et al., 2021; Ghobakhloo et al., 2021). These practices aim to improve business
existence balance with nature and society, the main foundation of sustainability (Horton and
and relations
Horton, 2019). Gradually, organizations have approached the environmental and social
dimensions, besides the economic which is traditionally integrated into the organizational
system. This action maximizes resource efficiency, taking responsibility for the social and
environmental impacts of productive activity. The adopted approach, based on the triple 1529
bottom line (TBL) concept, aims to measure the level of sustainability of the organization
(Isaksson, 2018), integrating the environmental, social and economic areas and making the
organizational agenda consistent and balanced.
The economic line connects organization development to economic system development
and its contributions. The social line of TBL refers to fair work and benefits to human capital
to add value to society while environmental area is defined by the biosphere capability to
absorb anthropogenic effects without harming future generations (Khan et al., 2021).
Sustainable development has been discussed for the past 30 years, and over the years the
focus has shifted only from profit to social and sustainability responsibility (Buckley and
Casson, 2021). In this way, quality management focus has also changed from meeting
customer needs to meeting stakeholder needs. Alsawafi et al. (2021) added that one of the
ways to improve operational performance is to adopt quality management practices, but to
support competitive performance it is important to identify the relations that influence
environmental, social and economic areas.shshshssiguy
Likewise, decision-making in organizations needs to consider the use of resources,
environmental preservation and recycling programs. Several initiatives characterize
TBL-related practices as an examination of various factors related to business practices
and assess the importance and priority of each economic, social and environmental factor
related to sustainable business performance (Høgevold et al., 2019). Moreover, the theme can
be deeply explored through of unfolding areas to improve monitoring efforts of organizations
and offering a valid model with insights capable of guiding the organization in terms of
Business Sustainability (Laurell et al., 2019).
Besides, TBL can be broken down into Critical Success Factors (CSF) and sustainability
indicators for each CSF (p. ex. Economics Development, Community Development,
Employees and Stakeholders, Use of Resources and Natural Environment). Both are tools
that may be used to obtain excellent results regarding Sustainable Development. According
to Tseng et al. (2020) engineering, technology and operations aspects should be also weighted
well, since traditional TBL is not enough to cover the whole sustainability concept. Life cycle
assessment (LCA) can be a leading tool to guide sustainable development strategies.
Regarding to LCA, the standard ISO 14040 sets a technique to evaluate the environmental
impacts of products, process or services, considering all phases of the life cycle (ISO, 2006;
Petit et al., 2018). LCA allows for an effective weighting of environmental impacts, as it
associates inventory data with specific environmental impacts, thus also supporting
decision-making regarding environmental performance (Yang et al., 2020). Generally, LCA
studies approach engineering models or assessment tools systems with an interpretation
concerning sustainable systems (Fan et al., 2020). Among some popular issues approached by
LCA applications are: waste (Yao et al., 2020), biodiesel (Faleh et al., 2018), fertilizers (Kytt€a
et al., 2021), water treatment (Sandoval and Salazar, 2021) and foods (Faverdin et al., 2022;
Lamnatou et al., 2022). Therefore, TBL areas can be combined in the Life Cycle Sustainable
Assessment (LCSA) model. There are applications that merge LCA with sustainable
indicators, like in the pork meat production (Valente et al., 2020) and in the environmental
footprint of farming (Sch€ upbach et al., 2020) and dairy cattle farm (Chen and Holden, 2018).
MEQ Of interest to this research, is the application of LCA in beef meat (Harwatt et al., 2017),
33,6 chicken meat (Gonz
alez-Garc
ıa et al., 2014; L
opez-Andr
es et al., 2018), and pork meat or swine
production (McAuliffe et al., 2017; Valente et al., 2020). One of the biggest challenges is to
promote the improvement of sustainability of meat production supply chain, looking for
“zero” waste and emissions in manufacturing plants (Djekic and Tomasevic, 2016). So, the
objective of the present research was to carry out a scientific mapping on LCA and TBL in
slaughterhouses segment, seeking for practices related to Cleaner Production, according to
1530 the gap identified in study by Djekic and Tomasevic (2016). Therefore, we aimed at
recognizing for maintaining the sustainability of production systems, considering the
evolution of sustainable practices as well as production evolution in slaughterhouses.

2. Methodology
For the initial data collection, bibliographic research was used to create a theoretical basis
through a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) (Pejic Bach and Cerpa, 2019). For this, the
scope was defined (1), the theme was conceptualized (2), and bibliographic research was
carried out (3), followed by literature analysis synthesis (4). The research focus was on TBL
evolution and LCA application in slaughterhouse area, considering the question “What are
relations the between LCA and TBL that can be used in slaughterhouses to promote Cleaner
Production practices?” SLR synthesized the cumulative scientific knowledge and identified
evolution nuances of fields, making sense of large volumes of unstructured information. We
focus on significant advances on the theme, obtaining a general view, identifying knowledge
gaps, proposing new ideas and making contributions to research according describe by
Donthu et al. (2021). The steps followed to carry out the SLR are presented in the flowchart of
Figure 1. These were adapted from the study phases and activities of preferred reporting
items for systematic review and meta-analyses (PRISMA) recommendation guide to carrying
out the SLR (Beller et al., 2013).
The initial step of the RSL was the definition of data sources to fit the scientific coverage
(Moral-Munoz et al., 2020). Three scientific databases (Scopus, Science Direct and Web of
Science) recognized by the number of indexed journals were used.
“Original Article” and “Review” documents were selected. Only articles published in
period from 1997–2021 were included because of creation of the TBL concept in 1997
(Alhaddi, 2015).
“Life Cycle Assessment”, “Triple Bottom Line” or “Sustainable*” and “Slaughterhouse” or
“Abattoir” were defined as keywords considering the presence in the title of the article,
abstract and keywords of the documents. Each term was searched separately for the terms
“Life Cycle Assessment”, “Triple Bottom Line” or “Sustainable*” and in association with the
terms “Slaughterhouse” or “Abattoir” as well as with all three terms.
For the analysis and synthesis of the literature, the VOSviewer and SciMAT tools were
used in order to analyze the relationships between the documents found and their evolution
during the selected period. The software VOSviewer was used in bibliometric analysis in
order to facilitate the scientific maps visualization (Moral-Munoz et al., 2020), identifying links
the of themes. Furthermore, words found in the documents were analyzed to join the
similarities. Consequently, maps were obtained in which the proximity and thickness of the
lines and labels or circles represented the strength of connection between the terms and their
importance.
The SciMAT software allowed for the creation of strategic diagrams, clusters net,
evolution maps and overlap maps (Moral-Munoz et al., 2020). The documents were
subdivided in five periods aiming to study the evolution and inter-relations of clusters over
time. The analysis stages included: (1) bibliometric analysis to each period in order to identify
substructures existent in the science field; (2) themes selection in bidimensional diagrams
 Identify Select Elegibility Inclusion

Step 1:
Define data base to research:
Scopus, Science Direct, Web of Science

Step 2:
Define general criteria of search:
Period (1997 - 2021),
Type of Documents ("article" and "review")

Step 3: Define keywords of search

Quantitative
Step 4 (A): Step 4 (B)
Conduct research with keyword: Conduct research with
"Triple Bottom Line" or keyword:"Life Cycle
"Sustainab*" Assessment"
n = 1.882.260 n = 65.097

Step 5 (A): Step 5 (B):

Conduct research with
keyword: "Triple Bottom Line"
or "Sustainab*" and
"Slaughterhouse" or "Abattoir"
n = 5.644
Conduct research with
keyword: "Life Cycle
Assessment" and
"Slaughterhouse" or "Abattoir"
n = 422

Step 9: Step 11:

Step 8: Evaluate documents Analyze documents
Exclude duplicated adhering to the adhering to research
documents
research scope(title) issues
n = 320 n = 143 n = 38
Step 6:
Conduct research with keyword: "Triple Bottom
Line" or "Sustainab*" and "Slaughterhouse" or
"Abattoir" and "Life Cycle Assessment"
n = 330
Step 10:

Qualitative
Evaluate documents
adhering to the
research scope
(keywords SciMAT)
Step 7: n = 75
Documents identified others sources
assessment
and relations

1531
Life cycle

procedure based on the

Flowchart of the
Figure 1.

PRISMA protocol
methodologic
MEQ with four quadrants; (3) cluster evolution analysis over different periods; and, (4) performance
33,6 analysis of different periods, cluster and evolution areas, through bibliometrics measures
(Kipper et al., 2021).
Then, the main themes identified in bibliometric analysis were categorized in four groups:
(a) engines, significant in constructing scientific knowledge; (b) basic and transverse themes,
with opportunities of development; (c) emergent or declined themes, well-developed, but
marginal; and, d) highly developed and isolated, very specific and surrounding. So, the
1532 resulting documents were listed in Table 1, approaching the kind of animal or product,
classification based on Environmental Performance Index (EPI) and Ranking cluster
considering the following classes: Better (1st–10th position), Good (11th–40th position),
Medium (41st–100th position), Worse (<100th position) relating each document with Cleaner
Production practices (SEDAC, 2020).

3. Results and discussion

3.1 General approach
Figure 2 depicts the number of documents by using the research terms “Life Cycle
Assessment” and “Triple Bottom Line” (“Sustainab*” or “Sustainable”). The growing
documents curves represent the emergency and contemporaneity of the theme as well as
importance of sustainability studies. For both expressions there are more contributions from
research groups of the United State of America (USA) and China. When filtrating the search
to the terms “Life Cycle Assessment” and “slaughterhouse” or “abattoir” a growing tendency
can be visualized on Figure 2A-dotted line). The same behavior occurs by filtrating the terms
“Triple Bottom Line” and “slaughterhouse” or “abattoir” (Figure 2B-dotted line). In order to
feed the worldwide population, without expending the planet natural resources, it is crucial to
motivate the sustainable development of the food production process. In this sense, LCA may
assist because it assesses the impact of resources use, ecosystem and human health and
allows the identification of opportunities for improvements of products and process
(Hauschild and Huijbregts, 2015).
Using the VOSViewer software we recognized the co-occurrence of keywords associated
with “LCA” and “slaughterhouse” or “abattoir” (Figure 3). The main terms were observed and
the level of intensity of the relationship between them. So, with term “slaughterhouse”
relations with environmental impact, carbon footprint, global warming, acidification,
eutrophication, and more recently with the term sustainability could be identified. Likewise,
the main connections with “slaughterhouse” and “sustainability” occurred by the terms beef,
pig, food, meat, welfare, stunning, and are also related to environmental aspects like waste,
wastewater, biogas, anaerobic, and environmental impact. Subsequently, we used the same
database in the SciMAT software with documents segregation in five periods. Figure 4 shows
the strategic diagrams of 2013–14(A) and 2019–21(B) periods. Based on it, one can visualize
an evolution of the term’s “meat” and “red-meat”, which were indirectly linked with meat
production area. Comparing Figures 4A and 4B, is possible to note that parameters went from
a centrality range of 0.25 and 0.75 of density in the period 2013–14 to 0.88 of centrality range
and 1 of density in the period 2019–21.
Among the documents considered in Figure 4A is the research carried out by Puillet et al.
(2014), which developed a model that simulates compensation between milk and beef cattle
induced by a change scenario of cattle population or production objectives, evaluating the
environmental aspects. Figure 4B present the studies of Li et al. (2019a) that evaluated
hazards concerning meat consumption, occupational hazards and impacts on human health,
bringing new perspectives for the meat production regulation; and, Li et al. (2019b) in which
the authors compared several methods of intervention to reduce microbial load in beef
slaughterhouse in USA under three different perspectives (economic, environmental and
 P þ L tools
Reduction
Reduction Reduction Reduction – Reduction – Process
– – Process Process – Process change –
Document EPI Animal/ House change– change– change– Raw Recylcing Recylcing Product
approach ranking Country Product keeping control modification technology material off site on site modification References

Beef Chain Better United Beef x x Singh et al.

Kingdom (2015)
Beef Chain Better United Beef x x x Singh et al.
Kingdom (2018)
Meat Value Better France Pork x Petit et al.
Chain (2018)
Energy Better Sweden Meat x x Fritzson
efficiency and
Berntsson
(2006)
Meat Meal Better Sweden Meat (by- x Spangberg
Fertilizer products) et al. (2011)
Pork Better Norway Pork x x x Valente
Production et al. (2020)
Pig Better Germany Pork x x Reckmann
Production et al. (2012)
Black Good Netherland Chicken x Bosch et al.
Soldier Fly and Pork (2019)
Larvae as a
source of
protein
Chicken Good Australia Chicken x x x x Bengtsson
Production and Seddon
(2013)
Australian Good Australia Pork x Winkler
Pork et al. (2016)
Production
Acoustic Good Spain Chicken x Casades
us
insulation et al. (2019)
with
feathers

(continued )
assessment
and relations

1533
Life cycle

Production tools in
slaughterhouses
Table 1.
Studies and Cleaner
 33,6
MEQ

1534

Table 1.
P þ L tools
Reduction
Reduction Reduction Reduction – Reduction – Process
– – Process Process – Process change –
Document EPI Animal/ House change– change– change– Raw Recylcing Recylcing Product
approach ranking Country Product keeping control modification technology material off site on site modification References

Pork Chain Good Spain Pork x x Noya et al.

in Catalonia (2016)
Pork Chain Good Spain Pork x x x Noya et al.
in Catalonia (2017)
Pork Chain Good Belgium Pork x x Six et al.
(2017)
Swine Good Ireland Pork x McAuliffe
Production et al. (2017)
System
Meat and Good Italy Meat x x Zucali et al.
Milk (2017)
Production
in Italy
Material Good Italy Meat x x x Amicarelli
Flow in the et al. (2021)
Italian Meat
Industry
Recovery of Good Italy Meat x Mosna et al.
food waste (2021)
Material Good Italy Meat x x x Ferronato
Flow in the et al. (2021)
Italian Meat
Industry
Food Safety Good United Beef x x Li et al.
Meat States of (2018)
Industry America
United
States
Microbial Good United Beef x x Li et al.
Reduction States of (2019b)
America

(continued )
 P þ L tools
Reduction
Reduction Reduction Reduction – Reduction – Process
– – Process Process – Process change –
Document EPI Animal/ House change– change– change– Raw Recylcing Recylcing Product
approach ranking Country Product keeping control modification technology material off site on site modification References

Consumer Good United Beef x x x Li et al.

and worker States of (2019a)
health America
Beef Good United Beef x x x x Li et al.
Production States of (2020)
America
Meat Good Portugal Beef x Presumido
production et al. (2018)
chain in
Northwest
Portugal
Aqua food Good Portugal Chicken x Silva et al.
ingredients (by- (2018)
products)
Chicken and Good Portugal Chicken x x x Gonz
alez-
Pork Garc
ıa et al.
Production (2014, 2015)
Chicken Medium Serbia Chicken x x x Skunca
Meat Chain et al. (2015,
2018)
Chicken Medium Serbia Chicken x x x x Skunca
Meat Chain et al. (2018)
Meat Medium Serbia Meat x x x x x x Djekic
industry (2015)
Serbian Medium Serbia Meat x x x x Djekic et al.
Meat (2016)
Industry
Beef Medium Mexico Beef x x x Huerta et al.
Production (2016)
in Mexico

(continued )
assessment
and relations

1535
Life cycle

Table 1.
 33,6
MEQ

1536

Table 1.
P þ L tools
Reduction
Reduction Reduction Reduction – Reduction – Process
– – Process Process – Process change –
Document EPI Animal/ House change– change– change– Raw Recylcing Recylcing Product
approach ranking Country Product keeping control modification technology material off site on site modification References

Chicken Medium Mexico Chicken x x x L
opez-

Meat Andr
es
Production et al. (2018)
Pig Medium Brasil Pork x x x Cherubini
Production et al. (2015)
African Medium South Beef x x Russo and
Meat Chain Africa von
Blottnitz
(2016)
Pork Worse China Pork x x x Liu et al.
Production (2021)
China
Animal * Europe Chicken x Tallentire
welfare in et al. (2019)
chicken
production
Rabbit Meat * Europe Rabbit x Cesari et al.
Production (2018)
Pork Medium Ecuador Pork x x x x x Pazmi~ no
Prodution in and
Ecuador Ramirez
(2021)
Literature * Global Chicken x x Andretta
Review of and pork et al. (2021)
Pork and
Chicken
Production
Toxicity- Better Denmark Pork x x Dorca-
related Preda et al.
impacts for (2021)
livestock
products
Note(s): * We did not find a classification in the (EPI for the European continent and Global)
 40 60
Life cycle
Slaughterhouse
assessment

LCA and Slaughterhouse Docs

30 Scopus and relations
Science Direct
LCA Docs (x102)

40
Web of Science
20
1537
20
10

0 0
19 7
98

20 9
20 0
20 1
02

20 3
20 4
05

20 6
20 7
08

20 9
20 0
20 1
20 2
20 3
14

20 5
20 6
17

20 8
19

20 0
21
9

9
0
0

0
0

0
0

0
1
1
1
1

1
1

2
19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20
Years
(a)
1500

Slaughterhouse 600

TBL and Slaughterhouse Docs

Scopus
Science Direct
TBL Docs (x102)

1000
Web of Science 400

500
200

Figure 2.
0 0
Evolution of
documents published
19 7
19 8
20 9
20 0
01

20 2
03

20 4
05

20 6
07

20 8
20 9
10

20 1
20 2
20 3
20 4
15

20 6
20 7
20 8
20 9
20
21
9
9
9
0

0
0

1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

on LCA (A) and

Years
TBL (B)
(b)

sanitary) regarding microbial load reduction, bringing results that can guide sustainable
advances in the process of protecting human health. The documents using as keywords
“Triple Bottom Line” and “slaughterhouse” or “abattoir” were analyzed in five periods in
SciMAT software. Slaughterhouse terms appear with centrality range of 0.91 and density of
0.64 in the last period and in the upper right quadrant. This demonstrates that
slaughterhouse might be considered a “motor theme” for TBL. Also, LCA appears in the
lower right quadrant on strategic map, being considered a basic theme to be developed in
researches related to TBL (Huertas-Valdivia et al., 2020). Strategic maps found from 2019–21
period (Figures 4B and 5A) present the importance of LCA to industrial slaughterhouse
branch since “red meat”, “life cycle assessment”, “slaughterhouse” themes were identified as
motor themes (Figure 5B).
The main authors contributions found in the documents presented in Figure 5A
performed researches with: animal welfare inclusion in social life cycle assessment (S-LCA)
(Tallentire et al., 2019) and occupational impacts (Li et al., 2019a), LCSA in pork
slaughterhouse (Valente et al., 2020) and, microbiological interventions (Li et al., 2019b).
MEQ
33,6

1538

Figure 3.
Co-occurrence of terms
searches found (A)
with “life cycle
assessment” and
“slaughterhouse” or
“abattoir” and (B) with
“triple bottom line” and
“slaughterhouse” or
“abattoir”
 Life cycle
assessment
and relations

1539

Figure 4.
Strategic diagrams of
LCA and
slaughterhouse of
2013–14 (A) versus
2019–21 (B) periods
(a) (b)

Figure 5.
(A) TBL strategic maps
in 2019–21 and (B)
main terms related to
slaughterhouse
(a) (b)

3.2 Qualitative bibliometric analysis

Based on temporal analysis of the strategic maps’ evolution created from the documents
obtained in the eighth step of the flowchart (Figure 1), it was noted that “Life Cycle
Assessment” changed of quadrant in Figure 6. The term shifted to lower right quadrant in
recent periods (C and D), that is, it passed from a motor to a basic condition. This corroborates
with potential application of LCA as a tool for development and support of TBL in
slaughterhouses.
According to Hovhannisyan and Grigoryan (2016), pork and poultry production grew
around 16.8 and 40%, respectively, whilst at the same time beef and ovine production had
rising rates of about 7.9 and 9.4%, respectively. The significant scientific progress in
livestock system, and the domain of centralized and concentrated production in poultry and
swine sectors contributed for this. In addition, the consumption of animal products is
MEQ
33,6

1540

(a) (b)

Figure 6.
Sequence of TBL
strategic maps, LCA
and slaughterhouse on
periods of 1997–2012.
(A), 2013–14 (B), 2015–
16 (C), and
2019–2021(D)
(c) (d)

expected to increase by 2050, principally in developing countries. This trend promotes

changes in herd size and price alterations, productivity and natural resources restrictions.
Analyzing these global trends, it is possible to observe that herd size tends to flow
demographic dynamics in each nation, since most animal products are produced domestically
(FAO, 2018). In counterpoint, developing countries (Brazil, China, Argentina) showed a poor
performance in swine production in terms of environmental impact categories like as
greenhouse effect and gas emissions in comparison to developed countries (Denmark,
Germany, Belgium, Australia, Spain and the Netherlands) (Liu et al., 2021; Luna-Nemecio
et al., 2020). By the analysis of 52 studies, Nijdam et al. (2012) found that animal production
and aquiculture presented the highest environmental impacts when it comes to land use and
carbon footprint, limiting the flow reference to the farm to table. Poultry and swine
production systems demonstrated more homogeneity than beef and fish production while
feed conversion is most impactful activity regarding the use natural resources. In addition, Life cycle
Roy et al. (2012) suggested that swine production can be more environmentally efficient assessment
compared to chicken and beef production when considering energy consumption.
Afterward, the use of LCA as a tool for the development and support of TBL in
and relations
slaughterhouse was evidenced. Practices used in slaughterhouses to promote Cleaner
Production were analyzed (Table 1). Because of this, improvements at the system beginning
are important to reduce impacts and promote sustainability through: (1) Source Reduction,
subdivided into Good Management and Process Change, following different ways: Raw 1541
materials Changes, Better Process Control, Equipment and Technology Modifications;
(2) Recycling, subdivided into Reuse or on-site recovery and Creation of by-products; and
(3) Product modification (da Silva and Gouveia, 2020).
Based on the obtained results, it was found that the countries which presented the better
Cleaner Production practices were Servia, USA and Italy, which performance in the EPI were
55.2%, 69.3 and 71% respectively. Among the countries with greater representation, 46% are
classified as Good (from 11th–40th according to the EPI ranking), that is, a better
performance in the application of Cleaner production practices than countries with higher
performance classified as Better (1st-10th) which present around 16% of representativeness
(SEDAC, 2020). To demonstrate the Cleaner Production practices found in slaughterhouse
area, the main measures for improving processes related to TBL and application of the LCA
were listed.

3.3 Meat in general

Besides understanding the deepening of cleaner production actions, the approach given by
Djekic and Tomasevic (2016) is important. They considered Product(a), Process(b) and
System(c), showing two main streams of improvement in meat production. The first
considered manure management, improving waste management, while the second approached
strategic feeding with balancing and supplementation feed, such as seaweed utilization, and
animal health improvements; water use and reuse optimization; energy efficiency; valorization
of by-products (skin, bones, feet, fat, blood, viscera), where the entire amount of waste is used
as raw material for new products; and, applying impact management policies in resource
management and climate change attenuation, comprising a life cycle approach and effectual
communication with stakeholders. In another study, Djekic et al. (2016) assessed practices of
energy and water use, waste handling and wastewater disposal in slaughterhouses and meat
processing plants in Serbia. Only 20% of the establishments reuse condensate steam and only
half of them have timers deployed to automatically turn off the water flow when water is not
needed; less than half of used detergents can be easily removed with a little water; less than
20% of companies presented systems to capture and reuse rainwater for landscaping, or for
other uses (e.g. make-up cooling tower, process water or dust suppression) and part of the
evaluated companies showed a good structure to avoid resources waste. Besides that, they
presented that two-thirds of the companies had a sewage collection, with physical treatment
(53.3%), and almost half of the companies did not check the quality of wastewater.

3.4 Pork
A cradle to gate LCA study of a slaughterhouse demonstrated that, among the swine
production stages, the most impactful activity in global warming, terrestrial acidification and
water eutrophication was swine feed production, accounting for 59–95% of the total impact
values. For this reason, several authors (Cherubini et al., 2015; Gonz
alez-Garc
ıa et al., 2015;
Liu et al., 2021; Reckmann et al., 2012; Six et al., 2017; Winkler et al., 2016; Zucali et al., 2017)
suggested the optimization of animal feed formulas and the adoption of new technologies to
let swine production more sustainable.
MEQ In order to reduce the impact associated with animal feed production, promising results
33,6 were found by the use of Black Soldier Fly larvae as animal feed generating less
environmental impact and contributing to a sustainable circular economy (Bosch et al., 2019;
DiGiacomo and Leury, 2019). Soybeans were also replaced in the feed formulation by other
legumes such as peas or beans, which do not require the use of mineral fertilizers (Gonz
alez-
Garc
ıa et al., 2015). Improvement in the forage production, optimization of food processing,
especially to forage ingredients use, contributed to impacts minimization in the
1542 slaughterhouse, as well as to the valorization of organic waste, or specific products in the
feed composition (Noya et al., 2016, 2017). This approach involves interesting environmental
results with credits in all categories (Gonz
alez-Garc
ıa et al., 2015; Mosna et al., 2021).
So, as in several areas, the application of LCA is an important strategy for impacts
mitigation, facilitating the different systems and stages comparison (Reckmann et al., 2012).
The practices of improving process, productivity and product efficiency with the resources
optimization, such as energy, water, materials and product reuse, is a benefit found in the
literature, highlighted by 94.44% of the Cleaner Production articles (Matos et al., 2018).

3.5 Beef
In the same way, Presumido et al. (2018) identified that the most impacting phase in cattle
production is the finishing phase due to a worsening of the feed conversion ratio occasioned by
a feed efficiency decreasing. So, as greater efficiency of animal production system as smaller
the amounts of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emitted. The authors also presented suggestions for
changes in the energy use in the slaughterhouses, such as the adoption of renewable sources or
the reuse energy, organic agriculture, and land use decrease for meat production.
In their study, Huerta et al. (2016) proposed to increase the efficiency of the beef production
in Mexico. In the extensive system, cattle diet in dry season must be supplemented with
silage, grains and mineral salts. Cattle genetic improvements would also increase growth rate
and live weight, increasing meat production per animal. In an intensive system, they
suggested the reduction of the dependence on fossil fuels, the use of ecologically correct
packaging and the reduction of solid residues (carcass residues, manure and meat residues).

3.6 Chicken
Bengtsson and Seddon (2013) suggest the adoption of initiatives aimed at reducing energy
consumption and actions to improve the efficiency of the process, product and packaging
design, as well as logistic optimization. In the chicken feed conversion stage, they addressed
the importance of low-impact agricultural practices by feed ingredient suppliers, such as
reducing synthetic fertilizers and using clean energy.
A slaughterhouse LCA from cradle to gate was also carried out with objective of
identifying the main environmental impacts of a broiler system in Portugal. In this study, the
farm was the main responsible for the environmental impacts occasioned by animal nutrition.
Alternative sources of protein in feed ingredients were suggested, as well as improvements in
systems for reducing NH3 emissions and use of organic residues as fertilizers instead of using
mineral fertilizers. In the slaughterhouse, energy and packaging presented the highest
environmental impacts at this stage (Gonz
alez-Garc
ıa et al., 2014).
Skunca et al. (2018) recently pondered those agricultural activities that express the
greatest environmental impacts. The most relevant impacts of meat processing are
associated with energy use and packaging materials, whereas the impact of slaughterhouse-
to-home chain is mainly the energy. Some actions to reduce the environmental burdens, such
as: to use grain legumes as a source of protein in animal feed, to dispose chicken litter in a
biogas digester, to use efficient energy systems throughout chain, and encourage consumers
to a more sustainable consume in terms of waste recycling.
 L
opez-Andr
es et al. (2018) evaluated the environmental impacts of chicken meat Life cycle
production from the cradle to gate of a slaughterhouse in Mexico. In this research, LCA was assessment
associated with simulation techniques and artificial intelligence to quantify process inputs
and outputs according to real system conditions and to propose alternatives for impact
and relations
reduction. The changes in inputs were natural gas instead liquefied petroleum gas (LPG),
Chlorodifluoromethane refrigerant gas (CHClF2) instead of tetrafluoroethane (CH2FCF3), and
immersion in nitrogen instead of NH3 refrigerant.
1543

3.7 TBL approach

Looking for a more sustainable production from the perspective of TBL, authors (Li et al.,
2020; L
opez-Andr
es et al., 2018; Tallentire et al., 2019; Valente et al., 2020) have added
integrated tools to LCA. Li et al. (2020) hypothesize that a hybrid LCA of USA beef processing
can help identify which impacts are increased by including embedded economic activities.
Practices to increase energy and water efficiency and minimize nutrient emissions as well as
reduce the presence of heavy metals in waste should be adopted. The measures include
improving cooling system and reusing or recycling water without compromising food safety.
Furthermore, selection of industrial equipment suppliers and technical service providers
adhering to sustainable practices can result in a notable improvement in environmental
impact categories.
Another way to reduce waste impacts, as in the South African production chain, is by the
production of biogas plants and cogeneration of electrical and thermal energy. Compared to
the traditional waste management for cattle and pigs, this measure will avoid emissions
related to manure disposal and landfilling of slaughterhouses waste (Russo and von
Blottnitz, 2016).
Technological innovations, such as the use of Cloud Computing Technology integrated to
carbon footprint of beef chain, may also help to manage environmental impacts. Critical
points were identified for stakeholders, from the farm, logistics, slaughterhouse, processor
and retailer, determining the carbon footprint associated with the beef products flow (Singh
et al., 2015, 2018).
Besides LCA, the Material Flow Analysis (MFA) can also be considered as an efficient tool
for evaluating systems regarding sustainability and circularity, i.e. essential to support
managers when it comes to minimizing food waste. The beef and pork industries have
implemented the maximizing production and minimizing resource consumption based on the
MFA, re-use and valorization of Animal By-Products (Amicarelli et al., 2021; Ferronato et al.,
2021; Shirsath and Henchion, 2021). Therefore, the animal slaughter is developed to full use
the parts and waste. The adjuvant materials such as sanitizers and packaging require a
circular approach.
Changes in production portfolio were proposed, such as the removal of Kosher product
line, but knowing that company may lose potential Jewish customers, seeking a better
administration of production, and a better selection of raw materials and energy used (L
opez-
Andr
es et al., 2018). Skunca et al. (2015) suggested the use of biodegradable materials to
replace plastic trays and films, dry cleaning to reduce water use, improvement the collection
of bleeding residues, automation of water system and use of wastewater anaerobic treatment.
In all evaluations the energy issue is highlighted for its economic and environmental
impacts. It was found that investments in the heat exchangers network could result in
reductions between 5 and 35% of CO2 emissions. These reductions could also be achieved by
changing the use of fuel oil by natural gas (Fritzson and Berntsson, 2006). Another way to
promote Cleaner Production is to change processes considering LCA, facilitating
decision-making to implement improvements. Li et al. (2018) applied this methodology
in three scenarios of antimicrobial systems in the USA commercial beef packaging industry.
MEQ Chemical antimicrobial agent, wastewater treatment and energy are three main contributors
33,6 to environmental impacts.
Li et al. (2019b) comparing 40 microbial reduction processes, regarding their
environmental, economic and biological impact, found that there is an opportunity to
change microbial control processes. Three combinations of wash were suggested: Hot Water
(HW)þWarm Water (WW)þSteam Pasteurization (SP) - 4.8 logUFC cm2, Peracetic Acid
(PAA)þWW þ SP - 4.8 logUFC cm–2, WW þ SP - 4.44 logUFC cm–2. These options showed
1544 microbial reductions loads and costs of up to 51 and 44%, respectively as well as a better
environmental performance when compared to methods applied in industry.
Some strategies as using cleaner energy sources, optimizing the use of chemical products,
reducing direct emissions of CO2, SO2, and CH4, diminishing water consumption and
consequently reducing wastewater loads and adopting ecological packaging are highlighted.
This is a new perspective on sustainability in the food processing industry (Li et al., 2019a).
Petit et al. (2018) analyzed sustainability assessment models, carrying out a case study in
pork value chain, considering TBL areas. The life cycle metrics were indicators that make up
model and measured impacts, and limits of analysis of the evaluated models. Such metrics
reflected the sustainability of a food value chain, allowing for decision-making, assuring
continuous improvement and critical thinking on sustainable food chains.
Costa et al. (2019) demonstrated, by the combination of LCA, Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and
S-LCA tools, that there are conditions for products sustainability evaluation. The relationship
of TBL and LCA might be visualized by the incorporation of animal welfare in the S-LCA,
assessing a conventional broiler meat production in Europe (Tallentire et al., 2019).
As an example, the S-LCA performance of a Meat Factory Cell (MFC) was compared with
the conventional meat processing. From LCA the process change did not present substantial
impact differences; LCC of the MFC presented lower energy costs due to a 50% reduction in
cooling cost; and, S-LCA indicated that a more efficient slaughterhouse system creates
opportunities for more qualified personnel, has lower risk of injuries and incidents, less
physically demanding work and higher wages. Future research may study the social aspects
related to automation, but the MFC system seems to be a viable alternative (Valente
et al., 2020).
Silva et al. (2018) and Mosna et al. (2021) bring an interesting reflection related to
slaughterhouses when considering the poultry flour use and fat in aquaculture feed. These
were chosen as an option to residues exploitation or by-products from the slaughter of birds,
constituting an alternative to residue final disposal. Another examples of reuse of bird feather
waste is the development of a new acoustic insulation, avoiding the incineration (Casades
us
et al., 2019), or as fertilizers on arable land in Sweden (Sp
angberg et al., 2011).
Although the concept of sustainability has been founded more than two decades ago and
the first approaches to LCSA were cited more than a decade ago, its application in
slaughterhouse is small. On the other hand, several LCA application are found in the
literature. Several of these studies discuss input and output indicators and make comparisons
of the identified impacts (Figure 7).
The application LCA brings to light critical points impacted by the process to support
decision-making. Nevertheless, without the adoption of sustainable practices to change the
factors causing impacts in the process, there is no sustainable development, only theoretical
knowledge on the damage caused to the environment and society.
In Figure 8, the relationship of Cleaner Production practices, LCA slaughterhouses
approach, their position in TBL and temporal evolution of the related themes are shown.
Cleaner Production practices were originated from the environmental area and last until
nowadays. However, the incorporation of practices from the economic and social areas in the
scope of LCA allowed for a systemic view of sustainability, as an integrated element.
 Life cycle
assessment
and relations

1545

Figure 7.
Systemic structure of
practices of cleaner
production found in
slaughterhouses
documents

Therefore, it is possible developing systematically the evaluation of the organization

sustainability level.
The possible relationships between the cleaner production practices in the documents and
the production processes in slaughterhouses are represented in Figure 7. It is aligned to TBL
evolution described in Figure 8. From 1997 to 2021, it was possible to observe the evolution of
the TBL to a balance among its environmental, social and economic dimensions, considering
the relationships impacts in the slaughterhouse’s practices. At a global scale, further
advances in the adoption of appropriate digital transformation technologies going to
sustainable production processes in slaughterhouses are necessary.

4. Conclusions
The present study demonstrates that LCA and TBL are intrinsic to the sustainability of the
meat production chain. There are LCA models with a systemic approach to measure the level
of sustainability of a process, comprising analysis of impacts related to different areas:
environmental, social and economic.
According to the analyzed documents, the impact analysis has been focusing mainly on
the environmental area so that new investigations should also be developed considering
social and economic impacts assessments, i.e. S-LCA development addressing these three
areas is crucial to consolidate models and standardize metrics with a scientific basis.
Although the in-depth research has scientific robustness, it is expected that other actions of
sustainability considering LCA and Clean Production practices in the industrial meat area
should also be considered. These actions are restricted to documents of business circulation,
with limited access since they involve issues regarding innovations in economic and
technological aspects of slaughterhouses, as well as industrial confidentiality. Furthermore,
in patent bases it is possible to advance the studies looking for how the digital transformation
has being carried out in this industrial branch, since the 4.0 transformation industry tends to
use clean technologies.
There are LCA studies in slaughterhouses that present indicators and impacts and but
lack suggestions for improvement. Of the analyzed documents, 38 detailed process or
improvement suggestions that can be considered as practices to promote Cleaner Production.
MEQ
33,6

1546

Figure 8.
Relation of TBL, LCA
and Cleaner Production
practices
The most frequent Cleaner Production measures found were related to animal production, Life cycle
feed ingredients, process control, energy efficiency practices, water consumption assessment
optimization and internal recycling.
Finally, it was highlighted the relevance of Cleaner Production practices in all dimensions
and relations
of the TBL. As one of the main findings of this work, it was possible recognizing practices that
can be replicated in several steps of meat processing such as animal reception to packaged
meat, animal feed selection, animal health control, energy efficiency improvement, waste
management, system circularity, suppliers’ control, heat recovery, workers qualification, 1547
among others.
Furthermore, future works should incorporate services assessments (sanitation,
wastewater treatment, and other) offered in slaughterhouse, since no Cleaner Production
related practices were found. We also suggest carrying out new studies based on this review
focusing on circular economy and on the economic, social and environmental impacts
occasioned by the use of sanitizers in full scale in this food industry mainly when compared to
other factories from the same sector. So, there is a knowledge gap for the development of
research and future scientific contributions. In this sense, original research has been carried
out with swine meat looking for Clean Production practices and applying LCA tools.

References
Alhaddi, H. (2015), “Triple bottom line and sustainability: a literature review”, Business and
Management Studies, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 6-10.
Alsawafi, A., Lemke, F. and Yang, Y. (2021), “The impacts of internal quality management relations
on the triple bottom line: a dynamic capability perspective”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 232, 107927.
Amicarelli, V., Rana, R., Lombardi, M. and Bux, C. (2021), “Material flow analysis and sustainability of
the Italian meat industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 299, 126902.
Andretta, I., Hickmann, F.M.W., Remus, A., Franceschi, C.H., Mariani, A.B., Orso, C., Kipper, M.,
L
etourneau-Montminy, M.P. and Pomar, C. (2021), “Environmental impacts of pig and poultry
production: insights from a systematic review”, Frontiers in Veterinary Science, Vol. 8, p. 1232.
Assiri, M., Barone, V., Silvestri, F. and Tassinari, M. (2021), “Planning sustainable development of
local productive systems: a methodological approach for the analytical identification of
Ecoregions”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 287, 125006.
Beller, E.M., Glasziou, P.P., Altman, D.G., Hopewell, S., Bastian, H., Chalmers, I., Gøtzsche, P.C.,
Lasserson, T. and Tovey, D.G. (2013), “PRISMA for abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in
journal and conference abstracts”, PLOS Medicine, Vol. 10 No. 4, e1001419.
Bengtsson, J. and Seddon, J. (2013), “Cradle to retailer or quick service restaurant gate life cycle
assessment of chicken products in Australia”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 41,
pp. 291-300.
Bosch, G., van Zanten, H.H.E., Zamprogna, A., Veenenbos, M., Meijer, N.P., van der Fels-Klerx, H.J. and
van Loon, J.J.A. (2019), “Conversion of organic resources by black soldier fly larvae: legislation,
efficiency and environmental impact”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 222, pp. 355-363.
Buckley, P.J. and Casson, M. (2021), “Thirty years of international business review and international
business research”, International Business Review, Vol. 30 No. 2, 101795.
Casades


us, M., Alvarez, M.D., Garrido, N., Molins, G., Macan
as, J., Colom, X., Ca~
navate, J. and Carrillo,
F. (2019), “Environmental impact assessment of sound absorbing nonwovens based on chicken
feathers waste”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 149, pp. 489-499.
Cesari, V., Zucali, M., Bava, L., Gislon, G., Tamburini, A. and Toschi, I. (2018), “Environmental impact
of rabbit meat: the effect of production efficiency”, Meat Science, Vol. 145, pp. 447-454.
MEQ Chen, W. and Holden, N.M. (2018), “Tiered life cycle sustainability assessment applied to a grazing
dairy farm”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 172, pp. 1169-1179.
33,6
Cherubini, E., Zanghelini, G.M., Alvarenga, R.A.F., Franco, D. and Soares, S.R. (2015), “Life cycle
assessment of swine production in Brazil: a comparison of four manure management systems”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 87, pp. 68-77.
Costa, D., Quinteiro, P. and Dias, A.C. (2019), “A systematic review of life cycle sustainability
assessment: current state, methodological challenges, and implementation issues”, Science of
1548 The Total Environment, Vol. 686, pp. 774-787.
da Silva, F.J.G. and Gouveia, R.M. (2020), Cleaner Production, Springer, Springer Nature Switzerland
AG 2020, pp. 1-420, available at: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-23165-1?
noAccess5true#bibliographic-information (accessed 29/04/2022).
DiGiacomo, K. and Leury, B.J. (2019), “Review: insect meal: a future source of protein feed for pigs?”,
Animal, Vol. 13 No. 12, pp. 3022-3030.
Djekic, I. (2015), “Environmental impact of meat industry – current status and future perspectives”,
Procedia Food Science, Vol. 5, pp. 61-64.
Djekic, I. and Tomasevic, I. (2016), “Environmental impacts of the meat chain – current status and
future perspectives”, Trends in Food Science and Technology, Vol. 54, pp. 94-102.
Djekic, I., Blagojevic, B., Antic, D., Cegar, S., Tomasevic, I. and Smigic, N. (2016), “Assessment of
environmental practices in Serbian meat companies”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 112,
pp. 2495-2504.
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N. and Lim, W.M. (2021), “How to conduct a
bibliometric analysis: an overview and guidelines”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 133,
pp. 285-296.
Dorca-Preda, T., Mogensen, L., Kristensen, T. and Knudsen, M.T. (2021), “Environmental impact of
Danish pork at slaughterhouse gate – a life cycle assessment following biological and
technological changes over a 10-year period”, Livestock Science, Vol. 251, p. 104622.
Faleh, N., Khila, Z., Wahada, Z., Pons, M.-N., Houas, A. and Hajjaji, N. (2018), “Exergo-environmental
life cycle assessment of biodiesel production from mutton tallow transesterification”, Renewable
Energy, Vol. 127, pp. 74-83.
Fan, Y.V., Chin, H.H., Klemes, J.J., Varbanov, P.S. and Liu, X. (2020), “Optimisation and process design
tools for cleaner production”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 247, 119181.
FAO (2018), The Future of Food and Agriculture – Alternative Pathways to 2050, Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, p. 224.
Faverdin, P., Guyomard, H., Puillet, L. and Forslund, A. (2022), “Animal board invited review:
specialising and intensifying cattle production for better efficiency and less global warming:
contrasting results for milk and meat co-production at different scales”, Animal, Vol. 16 No. 1,
100431.
Ferronato, G., Corrado, S., De Laurentiis, V. and Sala, S. (2021), “The Italian meat production and
consumption system assessed combining material flow analysis and life cycle assessment”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 321, 128705.
Fritzson, A. and Berntsson, T. (2006), “Energy efficiency in the slaughter and meat processing
industry—opportunities for improvements in future energy markets”, Journal of Food
Engineering, Vol. 77 No. 4, pp. 792-802.
Ghobakhloo, M., Fathi, M., Iranmanesh, M., Maroufkhani, P. and Morales, M.E. (2021), “Industry 4.0
ten years on: a bibliometric and systematic review of concepts, sustainability value drivers, and
success determinants”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 302, 127052.
Gonz
alez-Garc
ıa, S., Gomez-Fern
andez, Z., Dias, A.C., Feijoo, G., Moreira, M.T. and Arroja, L. (2014),
“Life Cycle Assessment of broiler chicken production: a Portuguese case study”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 74, pp. 125-134.
Gonz
alez-Garc
ıa, S., Belo, S., Dias, A.C., Rodrigues, J.V., Costa, R.R.D., Ferreira, A., Andrade, L.P.D. and Life cycle
Arroja, L. (2015), “Life cycle assessment of pigmeat production: Portuguese case study and
proposal of improvement options”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 100, pp. 126-139. assessment
Harwatt, H., Sabat
e, J., Eshel, G., Soret, S. and Ripple, W. (2017), “Substituting beans for beef as a
and relations
contribution toward US climate change targets”, Climatic Change, Vol. 143 No. 1, pp. 261-270.
Hauschild, M.Z. and Huijbregts, M.A. (2015), “Introducing life cycle impact assessment”, in Life cycle
Impact Assessment, Springer, pp. 1-16.
1549
Høgevold, N.M., Svensson, G., Rodriguez, R. and Eriksson, D. (2019), “Relative importance and priority
of TBL elements on the corporate performance”, Management of Environmental Quality: An
International Journal, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 609-623.
Horton, P. and Horton, B.P. (2019), “Re-defining sustainability: living in harmony with life on Earth”,
One Earth, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 86-94.
Hovhannisyan, S.V. and Grigoryan, K.A. (2016), “The main problems and features of the global and
local meat production”, Annals of Agrarian Science, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 315-318.
uereca, L.P. and Lozano, M.S.R. (2016), “Environmental impact of beef production in
Huerta, A.R., G€
Mexico through life cycle assessment”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 109,
pp. 44-53.
Huertas-Valdivia, I., Ferrari, A.M., Settembre-Blundo, D. and Garc
ıa-Mui~na, F.E. (2020), “Social life-
cycle assessment: a review by bibliometric analysis”, Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 15, p. 6211.
Isaksson, R. (2018), “Revisiting the triple bottom line”, in Passerini, G. and Marchettini, N. (Eds),
Sustainable Development and Planning 2018, WITpress, Boston, Vol. 217, pp. 425-436.
ISO (2006), “ISO 14040:2006 environmental management-life cycle assessment-principles and
framework”, Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/37456.html.
Khan, I.S., Ahmad, M.O. and Majava, J. (2021), “Industry 4.0 and sustainable development:
a systematic mapping of triple bottom line, Circular Economy and Sustainable Business Models
perspectives”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 297, 126655.
Kipper, L.M., Iepsen, S., Dal Forno, A.J., Frozza, R., Furstenau, L., Agnes, J. and Cossul, D. (2021),
“Scientific mapping to identify competencies required by industry 4.0”, Technology in Society,
Vol. 64, 101454.
Kytt€a, V., Helenius, J. and Tuomisto, H.L. (2021), “Carbon footprint and energy use of recycled
fertilizers in arable farming”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 287, 125063.
Lamnatou, C., Ezcurra-Ciaurriz, X., Chemisana, D. and Pla-Aragon
es, L.M. (2022), “Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) of a food-production system in Spain: Iberian ham based on an extensive
system”, Science of The Total Environment, Vol. 808, 151900.
Laurell, H., Karlsson, N.P.E., Lindgren, J., Andersson, S. and Svensson, G. (2019), “Re-testing and
validating a triple bottom line dominant logic for business sustainability”, Management of
Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 518-537.
Li, S., Kinser, C., Ziara, R.M.M., Dvorak, B. and Subbiah, J. (2018), “Environmental and economic
implications of food safety interventions: life cycle and operating cost assessment of
antimicrobial systems in U.S. beef packing industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 198,
pp. 541-550.
Li, S., Subbiah, J. and Dvorak, B. (2019a), “Environmental and occupational impacts from U.S. beef
slaughtering are of same magnitude of beef foodborne illnesses on human health”, Environment
International, Vol. 129, pp. 507-516.
Li, S., Zhilyaev, S., Gallagher, D., Subbiah, J. and Dvorak, B. (2019b), “Sustainability of safe foods: joint
environmental, economic and microbial load reduction assessment of antimicrobial systems in
U.S. beef processing”, Science of The Total Environment, Vol. 691, pp. 252-262.
Li, S., Qin, Y., Subbiah, J. and Dvorak, B. (2020), “Life cycle assessment of the U.S. beef processing
through integrated hybrid approach”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 265, 121813.
MEQ Liu, X., Cai, Z. and Yuan, Z. (2021), “Environmental burdens of small-scale intensive pig production in
China”, Science of The Total Environment, Vol. 770, 144720.
33,6
L
opez-Andr
es, J.J., Aguilar-Lasserre, A.A., Morales-Mendoza, L.F., Azzaro-Pantel, C., P
erez-Gallardo,
J.R. and Rico-Contreras, J.O. (2018), “Environmental impact assessment of chicken meat
production via an integrated methodology based on LCA, simulation and genetic algorithms”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 174, pp. 477-491.
Luna-Nemecio, J., Tob
on, S. and Ju
arez-Hern
andez, L.G. (2020), “Sustainability-based on
1550 socioformation and complex thought or sustainable social development”, Resources,
Environment and Sustainability, Vol. 2, 100007.
Matos, L.M., Anholon, R., da Silva, D., Cooper Ordo~nez, R.E., Gonçalves Quelhas, O.L., Filho, W.L. and
de Santa-Eulalia, L.A. (2018), “Implementation of cleaner production: a ten-year retrospective on
benefits and difficulties found”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 187, pp. 409-420.
McAuliffe, G.A., Takahashi, T., Mogensen, L., Hermansen, J.E., Sage, C.L., Chapman, D.V. and Lee,
M.R.F. (2017), “Environmental trade-offs of pig production systems under varied operational
efficiencies”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 165, pp. 1163-1173.
Moral-Munoz, J., Herrera-Viedma, E., Espejo, A. and Cobo, M. (2020), “Software tools for conducting
bibliometric analysis in science: an up-to-date review”, El Profesional de la Informaci
on,
Vol. 29 No. 1.
Mosna, D., Bottani, E., Vignali, G. and Montanari, R. (2021), “Environmental benefits of pet food
obtained as a result of the valorisation of meat fraction derived from packaged food waste”,
Waste Management, Vol. 125, pp. 132-144.
Nijdam, D., Rood, T. and Westhoek, H. (2012), “The price of protein: review of land use and carbon
footprints from life cycle assessments of animal food products and their substitutes”, Food
Policy, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 760-770.
Noya, I., Aldea, X., Gasol, C.M., Gonz
alez-Garc
ıa, S., Amores, M.J., Col
on, J., Pons
a, S., Roman, I., Rubio,
M.A., Casas, E., Moreira, M.T. and Boschmonart-Rives, J. (2016), “Carbon and water footprint of
pork supply chain in Catalonia: from feed to final products”, Journal of Environmental
Management, Vol. 171, pp. 133-143.
Noya, I., Aldea, X., Gonz
alez-Garc
ıa, S., Gasol, M.C., Moreira, M.T., Amores, M.J., Mar
ın, D. and
Boschmonart-Rives, J. (2017), “Environmental assessment of the entire pork value chain in
Catalonia – a strategy to work towards Circular Economy”, Science of The Total Environment,
Vol. 589, pp. 122-129.
no, M.L. and Ramirez, A.D. (2021), “Life cycle assessment as a methodological framework for
Pazmi~
the evaluation of the environmental sustainability of pig and pork production in Ecuador”,
Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 13, p. 21.
Pejic Bach, M. and Cerpa, N. (2019), “Editorial: planning, conducting and communicating systematic
literature reviews”, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 14,
pp. 190-192.
Petit, G., Sablayrolles, C. and Yannou-Le Bris, G. (2018), “Combining eco-social and environmental
indicators to assess the sustainability performance of a food value chain: a case study”, Journal
of Cleaner Production, Vol. 191, pp. 135-143.
Presumido, P.H., Sousa, F., Gonçalves, A., Dal Bosco, T.C. and Feliciano, M. (2018), “Environmental
impacts of the beef production chain in the Northeast of Portugal using life cycle assessment”,
Agriculture, Vol. 8 No. 10, p. 165.
Puillet, L., Agabriel, J., Peyraud, J.L. and Faverdin, P. (2014), “Modelling cattle population as lifetime
trajectories driven by management options: a way to better integrate beef and milk production
in emissions assessment”, Livestock Science, Vol. 165, pp. 167-180.
Reckmann, K., Traulsen, I. and Krieter, J. (2012), “Environmental Impact Assessment - methodology
with special emphasis on European pork production”, Journal of Environmental Management,
Vol. 107, pp. 102-109.
Roy, P., Orikasa, T., Thammawong, M., Nakamura, N., Xu, Q. and Shiina, T. (2012), “Life cycle of Life cycle
meats: an opportunity to abate the greenhouse gas emission from meat industry in Japan”,
Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 93 No. 1, pp. 218-224. assessment
Russo, V. and von Blottnitz, H. (2016), “Potentialities of biogas installation in South African meat
and relations
value chain for environmental impacts reduction”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 153,
pp. 465-473.
Sandoval, M.A. and Salazar, R. (2021), “Electrochemical treatment of slaughterhouse and dairy
wastewater: toward making a sustainable process”, Current Opinion in Electrochemistry, 1551
Vol. 26, 100662.
upbach, B., Roesch, A., Herzog, F., Szerencsits, E. and Walter, T. (2020), “Development and
Sch€
application of indicators for visual landscape quality to include in life cycle sustainability
assessment of Swiss agricultural farms”, Ecological Indicators, Vol. 110, 105788.
SEDAC (2020), “2020 environmental performance Index (EPI)”. doi: 10.7927/f54c-0r44.
Shirsath, A.P. and Henchion, M.M. (2021), “Bovine and ovine meat co-products valorisation
opportunities: a systematic literature review”, Trends in Food Science and Technology, Vol. 118,
pp. 57-70.
Silva, C.B., Valente, L.M.P., Matos, E., Brand~ao, M. and Neto, B. (2018), “Life cycle assessment of
aquafeed ingredients”, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 23 No. 5,
pp. 995-1017.
Singh, A., Mishra, N., Ali, S.I., Shukla, N. and Shankar, R. (2015), “Cloud computing technology:
reducing carbon footprint in beef supply chain”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 164, pp. 462-471.
Singh, A., Kumari, S., Malekpoor, H. and Mishra, N. (2018), “Big data cloud computing framework for
low carbon supplier selection in the beef supply chain”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 202,
pp. 139-149.
Six, L., De Wilde, B., Vermeiren, F., Van Hemelryck, S., Vercaeren, M., Zamagni, A., Masoni, P.,
Dewulf, J. and De Meester, S. (2017), “Using the product environmental footprint for supply
chain management: lessons learned from a case study on pork”, The International Journal of
Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 22 No. 9, pp. 1354-1372.
Skunca, D., Tomasevic, I. and Djekic, I. (2015), “Environmental performance of the poultry meat chain
– LCA approach”, Procedia Food Science, Vol. 5, pp. 258-261.
Skunca, D., Tomasevic, I., Nastasijevic, I., Tomovic, V. and Djekic, I. (2018), “Life cycle assessment of
the chicken meat chain”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 184, pp. 440-450.
Sp aker, P. and J€onsson, H. (2011), “Environmental impact of meat meal
angberg, J., Hansson, P.A., Tid
fertilizer vs. chemical fertilizer”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 55 No. 11,
pp. 1078-1086.
Tallentire, C.W., Edwards, S.A., Van Limbergen, T. and Kyriazakis, I. (2019), “The challenge of
incorporating animal welfare in a social life cycle assessment model of European chicken
production”, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 1093-1104.
Tseng, M.-L., Chang, C.-H., Lin, C.-W.R., Wu, K.-J., Chen, Q., Xia, L. and Xue, B. (2020), “Future trends
and guidance for the triple bottom line and sustainability: a data driven bibliometric analysis”,
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 27 No. 27, pp. 33543-33567.
ard, S., Brunsdon, E.R. and Alvseike, O.A. (2020), “Life
Valente, C., Møller, H., Johnsen, F.M., Saxeg
cycle sustainability assessment of a novel slaughter concept”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 272, 122651.
Winkler, T., Schopf, K., Aschemann, R. and Winiwarter, W. (2016), “From farm to fork – a life cycle
assessment of fresh Austrian pork”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 116, pp. 80-89.
Yang, D., Jia, X., Dang, M., Han, F., Shi, F., Tanikawa, H. and Klemes, J.J. (2020), “Life cycle assessment
of cleaner production measures in monosodium glutamate production: a case study in China”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 270, 122126.
MEQ Yao, Y., Huang, G., An, C., Chen, X., Zhang, P., Xin, X., Jian, S. and Agnew, J. (2020), “Anaerobic
digestion of livestock manure in cold regions: technological advancements and global impacts”,
33,6 Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 119, 109494.
Zucali, M., Tamburini, A., Anna, S. and Luciana, B. (2017), “Global warming and mitigation potential
of milk and meat production in Lombardy (Italy)”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 153,
pp. 474-482.

1552
Corresponding author
Liane Mahlmann Kipper can be contacted at: liane@unisc.br

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