Journal of Cleaner Production 326 (2021) 129331

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Life cycle assessment (LCA) of dairy processing industry: A case study of

North India
Mukesh Kumar a, Vikas Kumar Choubey a, Anurag Deepak b, Vidyadhar V. Gedam c,
Rakesh D. Raut d, *
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology Patna, 800005, India
b
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India
c
Sustainability Management Area, #610, Level 6, ALB Building, National Institute of Industrial Engineering (NITIE), Powai, Mumbai, 400087, India
d
Dept. of Operations and Supply Chain Management, National Institute of Industrial Engineering (NITIE), Vihar Lake, NITIE, Powai, Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400087,
India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling editor: Zhen Leng India is the world’s largest milk producer and contributes significantly to global milk production. In recent times,
due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a surge in demand for milk and other dairy products
Keywords: because of its high nutritional value. However, the dairy sector is responsible for colossal greenhouse gas (GHG)
Dairy industry emissions and environmental impacts (EI). The main objective of this study is to assess the gate-to-gate EI of
Impact assessment (IA)
several dairy products during its processing and packaging stage, using Impact 2002+ for assessing EI. Addi­
Life cycle assessment (LCA)
tionally, the study also explores various hotspots for analyzing the impact causing factors for these dairy
Environmental impacts (EI)
products, for which, it employs the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach, using SimaPro software. Through its
analyses the study shows that the consumption of electricity and fuel for thermal energy, utilization of freshwater
and several chemicals, along with the packaging materials are some of the main contributing factors to EI.
Further, the findings highlight that paneer, ice cream, and butter are the top three contributors to climate
change.
Based on the findings, the study recommends the dairy processing industry to minimize environmental
damage through sustainable development. The study findings would improve sustainability performance of the
dairy processing industry, and the suggested recommendations would help policy and decision-makers to
minimize EI in the dairy processing industry.

1. Introduction
Consumption of dairy products is expected to increase substantially
in the coming decade due to strong demand growth in developing na­
tions, driven by a surge in population, increases in income, and lifestyle
changes (FAO, 2021). India is the world’s largest milk producer and is
projected to contribute more than half of global milk production over
the next decade, accounting for more than 30% of the world’s milk
production by 2030 (FAO, 2021). Consequently, this would lead to a
surge in Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions (FAO, 2019), as the dairy
products are intrinsically interconnected with Environmental Impacts
(EI) (Chalermthai et al., 2021; Rotz et al., 2021). The dairy processing
industry is resource-intensive, and thereby consumes substantial energy,
water, chemicals etc. that lead to considerable EI (Mahath et al., 2019).
Thus, it is paramount for this industry to look to achieve sustainable
development.
Approximately one-fourth of global GHG emissions occur in the food
processing industry alone, contributing to 10% of global eutrophication
potential, 4% GHG, and 6% acidic potential (Noya et al., 2018; Hannah
Ritchie, 2019). The EI of dairy products, particularly during processing
and packaging, contributes considerably to GHG emissions, for example,
butter (0.41–0.69 kg CO2 eq./kg) and cheese (0.46–1.3 kg CO2 eq/kg)
(Finnegan et al., 2017b; Yan and Holden, 2018). Within the food pro­
cessing industry, the dairy industry is the 2nd largest emitter of GHGs
(Tarighaleslami et al., 2019; Berton et al., 2021; Rotz et al., 2021; Huang
et al., 2021). Interestingly, GHG emissions from dairy products are

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mukesh.me18@nitp.ac.in (M. Kumar), vikas.choubey@nitp.ac.in (V. Kumar Choubey), adeepak@me.iitr.ac.in (A. Deepak), vgedam@nitie.ac.in
(V.V. Gedam), rraut@nitie.ac.in (R.D. Raut).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129331
Received 4 June 2021; Received in revised form 9 September 2021; Accepted 8 October 2021
Available online 14 October 2021
0959-6526/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Kumar et al.
significantly high as compared to other food products that have the
same/similar nutritional value (Djekic et al., 2014; Berton et al., 2021;
Cortés et al., 2021). However, EI could vary greatly depending on the
type of system, methodological approach, and region, primarily due to
the product and process variations (Baldini et al., 2017; Mahath et al.,
2019; Egas et al., 2020). Extant literature cited that GHG emissions in
the dairy industry may be attributed due to the intrinsic use of methane,
nitrogen, and nitrous oxides during manure and waste management;
grain production; land irrigation; enteric fermentation etc. (Alves et al.,
2019; Drews et al., 2020; Romano et al., 2021). Thus, it is crucial for this
industry to gradually shift towards climate-resilient and low carbon
footprint pathways for sustainable growth.
Some of the significant contributors to EI include ozone layer
depletion, climate change, resource depletion, wastewater generation
etc. (Berton et al., 2021). Specifically, EI occurs during milk production,
milk processing, and other dairy production stages (Santos et al., 2017;
Palmieri et al., 2017; Wilkes et al., 2020). In fact, according to
González-García et al. (2013c) and Finnegan et al. (2017a), the milk
production stage alone accounts for around 63–89% of all EI, and
81–97% of GHG emissions. The EI is mostly associated with the con­
sumption of water, energy, cleaning products, packaging material,
among others (Alves et al., 2019; Huang et al., 2021). The industry at
large, tends to utilize significant electricity for refrigeration; and
chemicals for both preservation and cleaning, which go on to contribute
to EI (Doublet et al., 2013; Mahath et al., 2019; Akinyemi et al., 2021;
Chalermthai et al., 2021). Additionally, the industry generates a lot of
wastewater (about 2–2.5 L per kg) of processed milk, which in turn,
contains grease, chemicals, fat, etc. (Rotz et al., 2021; Berton et al.,
2021; Harris et al., 2021).
With growing environmental degradation, especially within the past
two decades,‘sustainability’ has been the ‘buzzword’; and virtually
every industry is being compelled to embrace sustainable production
and consumption approaches. The dairy processing industry shouldn’t
be an exception; thus, it is essential to examine EI within this industry,
especially in the context of a developing economy. Minimizing/con­
trolling EI would help the industry to foster a sustainability transition
(Finnegan et al., 2017a; Cortés et al., 2021). Therefore, it is crucial to use
methods and approaches that would enable this industry to identify EI
associated with its production, and mitigate it thereof.
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is thereby assumed to be the most
preferred approach to comprehensively assess EI (Depping et al., 2017;
Wang et al., 2021). This approach has been widely accepted, and has
been used to both identify and evaluate EI of processes and product life
cycles (ISO, 14040: 2006a; ISO, 14044: 2006b). Studies in the past have
used LCA to assess EI of the food industry at large, including dairy
(Djekic et al., 2014, 2018; Finnegan et al., 2017a; Mahath et al., 2019;
Egas et al., 2020; Tarighaleslami et al., 2020; Berton et al., 2021; Rotz
et al., 2021); cheese and organic mozzarella cheese production
(González-García et al., 2013b; Kim et al., 2013, 2014; Santos et al.,
2017; Canellada et al., 2018; Alves et al., 2019; Salas-Vargas et al.,
2021) meat and beef (Rivera Huerta et al., 2016; Li et al., 2020;
González-Quintero et al., 2021); biscuit (Noya et al., 2018); tomato (Del
Borghi et al., 2014); yoghurt and egg yolk (González-García et al.,
2013a; Houssard et al., 2021; Vasilaki et al., 2016; Üçtuğ et al., 2019;
Tsai et al., 2021). Some of the salient studies in this regard encompass
Baldini et al. (2017) and Finnegan et al. (2018) critical review of LCA
literature, wherein they have examined EI of milk and cheese produc­
tion, and highlighted that future LCA studies should focus on a broader
range of EIs. Further, Huang et al. (2014) used the LCA approach to
investigate EI of water use in the Chinese dairy industry. Wang et al.
(2018) used the LCA approach to evaluate EI and the use of various
resources during milk production. Sharma et al. (2018) used LCA in the
food supply chain to evaluate EI. Smith and Barling (2014) applied LCA
to assess social impacts in European Food and drink SMEs. Laso et al.
(2018) employed combined LCA and data envelopment analysis (DEA)
in the Spanish agri-food supply chain to assess the energy used vis a vis
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 326 (2021) 129331
environmental efficiency. Famiglietti et al. (2019) employed LCA to
evaluate environmental performance of food packaging. Tasca et al.
(2017) used LCA for assessing the agri-food environmental sustainability
during production and distribution stage. Djekic et al. (2014) used LCA
to explore the environmental impact of various dairy products in the
Serbian dairy industry. Wang et al. (2019) applied LCA for assessing EI
of 36 dairy plants in China, and stated that the capacity of a dairy plant
significantly affects the surrounding environment. Yan & Holden (2018)
used LCA for butter and milk powder of four dairy plants. They noted
that a dairy plant generally tends to have a high cumulative energy
demand, which varies from process to another. Wilkes et al. (2020)
employed the LCA approach to assess EI during industrial milk pro­
duction; they found that raw milk production has considerable EI. A
detailed summary of previous studies using the LCA method within the
ambit of the dairy industry is shown below in Table 1.
The plethora of literature highlights that both the dairy processes
and products are effectively accountable as significant EI generators,
and thereby have called for a more extensive investigation (Alves et al.,
2019). However, existing literature seems to be falling short of studies
using LCA for a few specific dairy products that include processed milk,
curd, butter, ghee, lassie, ice-cream, cheese, etc. Moreover, earlier
studies using LCA on milk and dairy production, seem to be discordant
and ‘conditioned’ by experts’ choices, making it difficult thereby in
order to specifically identify EI vis a vis environmental-friendly ap­
proaches (Baldini et al., 2017). Importantly, a vast majority of studies
that have actually focused on EI of the dairy processing industry, have
been for developed economies; limited studies seem to be available in
the context of a ‘developing economy’, specifically India (Finnegan
et al., 2017b). Moreover, extant literature also seemed to allude to the
fact that EI actually varies from plant to plant and region to region; thus,
there is definitely a scope to understand EI of the dairy industry in
developing nations (Djekic et al., 2014, 2018; Vasilaki et al., 2016;
Finnegan et al., 2017; Mahath et al., 2019). Thus, the studies to assess
the EI of the dairy processing industry using the LCA approach are vital
for a gradual shift towards sustainable development (Famiglietti et al.,
2019; Elginoz et al., 2020; Elginoz et al., 2020, 2020; Varma et al.,
2021). To fill these gaps in existing literature, this study explores EI of
the Indian dairy processing industry, using the LCA approach for a
varied range of products. The proposed research focuses on the
following research objectives:
RO1: To identify EI of seven different dairy products (processed milk,
curd, butter, ghee, lassie, ice-cream, and cheese) using the LCA
approach.
RO2: To identify the most significant EI causing factor for various
dairy products.
RO3: To provide input to policy and decision-makers to overcome
the identified EI, and suggest suitable improvement to the dairy pro­
cessing industry at large.
The literature review also reveals that only a few scholars have
studied the EI of the dairy processing industry in the context of emerging
economies. The very recent work of Mahath et al. (2019) examined the
EI of the south India dairy processing industry using the LCA approach.
It concluded that the EI of different dairy products varies greatly and
requires further exploration. Thus, to fulfill the research objective and to
fill literature gap, the present study investigates the EI of various dairy
products through the LCA approach in the north Indian dairy processing
industry. The work incites further exploration of EI of processing and
packaging various dairy products and analyzes the critical stages and
possible improvement. The study has been conducted using the SimaPro
LCA software and the Ecoinvent database. However, due to limited
variation of EI, and data availability in the upstream side of the milk
production stage, this study excludes the impact of raw milk and focuses
on investigating EI both during the processing and packaging stage
(Djekic et al., 2014; Finnegan et al., 2017b; Noya et al., 2018; Mahath
et al., 2019).
The rest of the paper is thus structured; Section 2 discusses the
M. Kumar et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 326 (2021) 129331

Table 1
Summary of previous LCA studies in dairy processing industry.
Sr. Author Country Product studied Software Impact categories Objective Findings of the study
No. used

Berton et al. Italy Milk, cheese, SimaPro CML-IA and CED To identify cradle to gate The study reveals that main impact
(2021) butter environmental profile of associated with dairy supply chain is
milk and dairy processing. processing, raw milk production and the
main impacts are due to energy
consumption.
Cortés et al. (2021) Galician Milk production LCA Carbon and water To assess eco-efficiency of The study highlights that a positive
Spain (SimaPro), footprint 96 dairy firms relation exists between EI and firm size.
and DEA
Tarighaleslami New Dairy, Cheese OpenLCA CED, ReCipe To find an optimal energy The work depicts that the utilization of
et al. (2020) Zealand 1.7. endpoint source in the energy geothermal energy has the lowest EI for
transition phase. all categories except Photochemical
Oxidant Formation which is minimum for
natural gas.
Elginoz et al. Sweden Dairy industry GaBi CML 2001 To identify environmental Finding highlights that the thermal
(2020) hotspots during production energy is the main contributor of EI.
of volatile fatty acid
Drews et al. (2020) Northern Milk production SimaPro ReCipe To access the EI during the The work shows that the choice of feed
Germany production of Milk through for animals and increasing productivity
LCA approach has the major impact mitigation
potential.
Egas et al. (2020) Catalonia Dairy products CalcPEF Environmental To access environmental The 78% of total emission takes place
Spain (Milk, cheese, footprint footprint of milk and dairy from dairy firm’s activity particularly
youhurt) products from raw milk production.
Wang et al. (2019) China Cattle feed GWP, AP, EP, EC To evaluate feeding The feeding pattern largely affects the EI
patterns on the several EI and Beef production contributes 40% of
using LCA and PCA the total emission.
Mahath et al., 2019 India Dairy products SimaPro IMPACT 2002+ To identify the EI of Frozen products like Ice cream contribute
different dairy products largely to end-point impacts followed by
ghee and butter.
Üçtuğ et al., 2019 Turkey Yoghurt CCaLC CML 2001 To assess and reduce During yoghurt production, the
software carbon footprint by consumption of thermal energy and
producing Yoghurt electricity contributes to carbon
footprint.
Bai et al. (2018) China Dairy Manual by Water footprint To analyze water footprint The different processing stages has the
equation to determine water largest impact leading to water
scarcity, water pollution, contamination and the water scarcity has
water quality. main impact related to water footprint.
Yan & Holden Ireland Butter and milk SimaPro 8.2 CED and Carbon To obtain CF and CED for The CED for butter varied between 9.73
(2018) Footprint butter and skimmed milk and 6.93 MJ/kg solids, while carbon
powder and understand footprint varies between 0.62 and 0.41 kg
various impacts CO2 eq/kg solids.
Palmieri et al. Italy cheese and whey SimaPro IMPACT 2002+ The LCA of whey and The finding reveals that, the raw milk
(2017) cheese manufacturing. production has significant impact
category in dairy industry supply chain.
Vasilaki et al. Catalonia Yoghurt SimaPro Carbon Footprint To determine the water and The study results highlights that the raw
(2016) Spain and Water carbon footprint of various milk is the main impact causing factor
Footprint yogurts. while in the processing phase heat input
is the main cause of EI.
Finnegan et al., Ireland Milk, butter, SimaPro GWP To assess the global The work shows that, the refrigeration
2017 cheese, milk warming production of utilises 39% of the total electricity
powder, whey, various dairy products in consumption during butter processing
cream Serbian dairy and butter production generates around
1.482 kg CO2eq emission.
Djekic et al. (2014) Serbia Cheese, butter, CCALC GWP, AP, EP, OLD, To identify the impact of The study reveals that the cheese and
yogurt, milk, PS, HT the seven dairy products in butter contribute most GHG emission
and cream Serbia. from dairy products.
Kim et al. (2013) USA Cheese and SimaPro IMPACT 2002+ To assess the EI of whey The finding demonstrates that water
whey and cheese production conservation is important which can be
achieved by improving water use
efficiency.
González-García Portugal Yogurt SimaPro CML 2001 To explore the energy The milk production stage is the major
et al. (2013a) balance and EI of the impact causing stage whereas energy
yogurt consumption has major impact during
processing stage.

materials and methods that have been used, specifically talking about
the data collection process, system boundary, and allocation methods.
Section 3 discusses the results obtained from LCA software, along with
its analyses. It also elaborates upon sensitivity analysis and provides
some recommendations thereof. Finally, Section 4 concludes and
highlights the future research directions.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Case description
The proposed study is based upon a case from a reputed dairy pro­
cessing firm in the Indian state of Bihar. In fact, it is the most populous
state in North India. The per-day production capacity of this firm is 250

3
M. Kumar et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 326 (2021) 129331

TLPD, and its dairy products are supplied to more than ten districts Table 2
within Bihar. Fig. 1 provides a pictorial view of the study location. Some Input data required to LCA.
of its dairy products include pasteurized milk, which is packed in a 1 kg Inputs required Average Quantity per month
and 0.5 kg plastic pouches. Tables 2 and 3 depitct the resources and
Raw milk 7380000 L/month
inputs this firm requires to process various dairy products, detailing out Electricity consumption 480560 KWH
the average production per day. Notably, while our preliminary data Ground water 8550000 L/month
were collected from an environmental audit report during the year Rice husk Briquettes 195000 kg/month
2019–2020, the database support for secondary data was taken from the Chemicals
Nitric Acid 2340 L/month
Ecoinvent database available in SimaPro LCA software. sodium hydroxide 7600 kg/month
Refrigerants
2.2. LCA methodology Ammonia 465 L/month
Packaging materials
LDPE 71226.6 kg/month
During the study, the LCA methodology mentioned in ISO HDPE 766.1 kg/month
(14040:2006a) and ISO (14044:2006b) is adopted and the LCA was Cardboard 9533.15 kg/month
performed using SimaPro LCA software and Ecoinvent database. The
ISO (14040:2006a; 14044:2006b) proposed step-by-step procedure for
assessing the EI using LCA approach is shown in Fig. 2. Table 3
Average production of dairy products.
2.2.1. Goal and scope definition
Products Kg/month
The proposed research aims to identify EI of seven dairy products
during the processing and packaging stage and improve the dairy pro­ Processed milk 7031657.50
Dahi (Curd) 308740.95
cessing industry’s environmental performance in Bihar, India. The LCA
Lassi 256309.33
approach was employed during the proposed work, which helps identify Ice-cream 154316.69
and investigate the EI of seven dairy products. The seven dairy products Paneer 121658.00
studied include processed milk, cheese, ghee, butter, lassie, curd, and ice Ghee 30992.00
Butter 4291.00
cream. The input parameters required for using the LCA approach are
associated with raw milk, water, cleaning chemicals, fuel, and electricity
for different packaging materials. The outputs parameters on the other
hand, include final dairy products, wastewater, and solid waste. The

Fig. 1. The geographical location of the study area.

(Source: https://thementalclub.com/tourist-spots-in-patna-district-bihar-india-21049)

4
M. Kumar et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 326 (2021) 129331

identified a minimum variation that seems to exist in the upstream side

Fig. 2. Methodological cycle of LCA framework.
(Source: ISO (14040:2006a) and ISO (14044:2006b))
data required during the study were collected through a questionnaire,
which in turn, was developed as per the international dairy federation
guidelines. We also visited onsite to collect the required data during
2019–2020. However, the accuracy of the data does depend on the in­
puts provided by managers, record files etc. Notably, the data that were
unavailable, were accessed from the Ecoinvent database.
2.2.2. Functional Unit (FU) and allocation method
Normalizing both the outputs and inputs within the system into a
single reference unit is known as Functional Unit (FU). Processing a
dairy product in effect, is a multi-input and multi-output system. Thus,
an allocation method is necessary to allocate EI of various products
(Feitz et al., 2007; IDF, 2010). Based on our research objectives and
previous research, 1 Kilogram (Kg) of the final product at the factory
gate was used as FU (Mahath et al., 2019). The percent allocation of a
particular product was calculated as per the standard formula reported
by Feitz et al. (2007). This formula is shown below in Eq. (1). After
allocation, the inputs required for producing one kg of the final product
are shown in Table 4. Herein, it may be interesting to note that some
studies in the past preferred Kg or Liter (L) as FU, given that the primary
product studied was milk or packaged milk (Iribarren et al., 2011; Fantin
et al., 2012; Djekic et al., 2014; Baldini et al., 2017). Some other studies
proposed FPCM, ECM, physicochemical allocation methods, specifically
for the dairy processing industry. However, these methods are not
standardized and well-established (Feitz et al., 2007; IDF, 2010; Baldini
et al., 2017).
Productionx × AFx
Percent allocationx = ∑
xy productionxy × AFxy
Where, AF is specific allocation factor.
2.2.3. System boundary and processing stages
Gate-to-gate is a LCA analysis focuses on specific value-added pro­
cess during the entire production activity; it was applied for our study
too (Mahath et al., 2019). Fig. 3 shows the system boundary of the dairy
processing plant. This study focuses on dairy plant processing and
packaging, including both inputs and outputs from the plant in the
processing stage. It may be noted from previous literature that it has
of the dairy industry, whereby there’s significant variations within the
plant and regions (Garg et al., 2016; Drews et al., 2020). Additionally, it
may also be noted that different processing stages do require different
amounts of resources, like fuel, electricity, chemicals, and packaging
materials (Finnegan et al., 2017b; Vasilaki et al., 2016). Thus, this study
preferred the gate-to-gate system boundary analysis.
In fact, within the system boundary, the inputs for calculating
emissions include consumption of groundwater, electricity, combustible
fuel for boiler, chemicals for cleaning activity, and several types of
packaging materials. Fig. 3 displays the process flow chart for all the
dairy products, along with a system boundary. Notably, the output from
this dairy plant included for EI consist of air emission and packaging
wastes. Importantly, while all the crucial activities occurring within the
plant were taken into consideration, we did exclude EI associated with
raw milk, because the milk in the dairy products is the same for the
consequences (Bartl et al., 2011; Vasilaki et al., 2016). Moreover, due to
limited data availability, and the larger goal of our study, emission from
wastewater (emission from the processing and packaging of the dairy
products) was also excluded.
2.2.4. Life cycle inventory phase
Collecting required inputs and outputs data while opting for the LCA
approach is an essential task (Baldini et al., 2017). In fact, the life cycle
inventory phase is mainly dependent upon data collected from the sys­
tem. Further, we followed the general guidelines suggested by both IDF
(IDF, 2010) and ISO (ISO, 14040: 2006a; ISO, 14044: 2006b) to collect
data. As mentioned ealier, both the primary and secondary data were
collected by visiting the dairy processing firm from 2019 to 2020. The
data collection process further included actual observation during plant
visit, interaction with plant officials and staff, referring to official re­
cords etc. Additionally, we also used a data collection sheet. We
observed that in order to fulfill process water requirements, the firm
used tap water and/or groundwater and generated wastewater thereof.
However, this wastewater in turn, was treated in a wastewater treatment
plant operated by municipal authorities. Thus, due to this partial
treatment of sewage in the plant, the emission from the wastewater was
excluded.
195000 Kg biomass rice husk briquettes have been used per month as
fuel for heating the boilers. Additionally, the firm also used a few
chemicals, like nitric acid and sodium hydroxide for cleaning purposes.
The ash generated from the rice husk briquettes was in turn mostly sent
for brick manufacturing; at times, it was dumped in and around plant
premises. The firm also used several types of packaging materials; for
instance, LDPE was used mainly for packing products like milk, lassie,
curd, ghee. HDPE and PET jars were used to pack high quantity curd and
ghee. Laminated paper cones and aluminized papers were used to pack
ice cream, ghee, and curd container. The unavailable required data was
taken from the world-leading database Ecoinvent v3.6 available in
SimaPro software.

Table 4
Allocated Input required for the production of one kg of the final product.
Products Inputs required per kg of product processing

Raw Milk Electricity Consumption Ground Water Consumption Fuel (Briquettes Husk) Nitric Acid (L) Sodium Hydroxide
(Kg) (KWH) (L) consumption (Kg)
(Kg)

Milk 0.836 0.037 0.854 0.020300701 0.00010870 0.00072787

Butter 5.648 0.096 2.276 0.115037304 0.00543512 0.00090984
Ghee 6.691 0.096 2.276 0.033834501 0.00543512 0.00090984
Paneer 4.150 0.151 7.968 0.067669003 0.01087024 0.00636889
Dahi 0.953 0.228 1.594 0.074435903 0.00010870 0.00072787
Lassie 0.927 0.228 1.594 0.074435903 0.00010870 0.00072787
Ice- 1.491 0.509 3.870 0.00270676 0 0.00818857
cream

5
M. Kumar et al.
Fig. 3. Gate to Gate System Boundary for LCA in a dairy plant.
*Note: The final assessment of the emission due to raw milk consumption and wastewater are not considered.
2.2.5. Life cycle impact assessment: LCIA
The Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) assesses EI during the entire
life of a product or process per se. To perform LCIA, one requires in­
ventory data, along with both input-output flow/reference flow (Mahath
et al., 2019). We referred to the ISO standard to perform LCA, using
SimaPro LCA software and Ecoinvent v2 database. Notably, the ISO
standard highlights that the impact categories should signify a broad set
of system environmental issues under consideration, taking the scope
and goal into account (14040:200a; ISO 14044:2006b). Furthermore,
we used the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Impact (2002)+
assessment method to perform IA (Mahath et al., 2019; Palmieri et al.,
2017; Rafiee et al., 2016). The Impact 2002+ has 15 mid-point impact
categories, which were summed up into four endpoint categories that
include climate change, human toxicity, resource use, and ecosystem
toxicity. The score of all mid-point impact categories is presented in the
unit of reference, i.e. the substance linked to the four endpoint cate­
gories (Jolliet et al., 2003). Notably, EI associated with the impact
category was based upon a description of the model illustrating the
surrounding environmental system’s mechanism, which effectively ties
the inventory data to a specific indicator. We selected IMPACT 2002+
due to its practical application of the combined midpoint/damage
6
Journal of Cleaner Production 326 (2021) 129331
approach (Jolliet et al., 2003).
2.2.6. Data interpretation and sensitivity analysis
Interpretation is an iterative approach that helps in checking
whether the findings of LCIA do meet the goal and scope of the results. In
our case, we analyzed the findings of LCIA in order to improve the
environmental performance of this dairy processing firm, while looking
to reduce its EI and also suggest suitable alternatives. For the data
interpretation, we performed sensitivity analysis for the IA methods.
Herein, it may also be noted that the LCA approach did have some un­
certainties mainly due to parameter variations. Thus, uncertainty anal­
ysis was paramount too (Rafiee et al., 2016; Palmieri et al., 2017). We
thereby used IMPACT, 2002+ V2.1 as the base impact category, while
CML-IA baseline V3.06/World 2000 and Eco-indicator 95 V2.06 were
used for sensitivity analysis.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Environmental impact (EI) assessment
To assess the environmental profile of seven dairy products, we used
M. Kumar et al.
the Impact 2002+ assessment method. It has 15 mid-point impact cat­
egories, along with 4 endpoint/damage assessments categories. The
impact categories include Ionizing radiation (IR), Non-Carcinogens
(NCG), Carcinogens (CG), Respiratory inorganics (RI), Respiratory or­
ganics (RO), Ozone layer depletion (OLD), Terrestrial acid/nutria (TA),
Terrestrial ecotoxicity (TE), Aquatic ecotoxicity (AEC), Aquatic acidifi­
cation (AA), Land occupation (LO), Mineral extraction (ME), Non-
renewable energy (NRE), and Global warming potential (GWP).
Whereas, Resources (RC), Climate Change (CC), Ecosystem Quality
(EQ), Aquatic eutrophication (AEU), and Human Health (HH) are the
endpoint or damage assessment categories (Jolliet et al., 2003).
Figs. 4 and 5 depict the findings of mid-point IA and end-point results
respectively. The finding of mid-point IA reveals that butter is the most
impact contributing product for NCG, AE, TE, TA, LO, AA, and AEU. Ice
cream on the other hand, contributes most for RO, IR, and OLD, followed
by paneer, which contributes to GWP, NRE, and ME impacts (Fig. 4).
Impotantly, we note that GWP of paneer is significantly high (100% i.e.
0.3894 Kg CO2 eq.) followed by ice-cream (92%), butter (85%), dahi
and lassi (65%), ghee (49%) and processed milk (19%). Additionally,
ice-cream seems to be a major contributor to OLD (100% i. e 9.299E-09
kg CFC-11 eq.), followed by paneer (91%), butter (75%), dahi and lassi
(45%), ghee (38%) and processed milk (15%). By and large, the findings
of this study concur with earlier literature (Djekic et al., 2014; Palmieri
et al., 2017; Mahath et al., 2019; Rotz et al., 2021).
The endpoint IA shows that paneer significantly contributes to
climate change and resources (Fig. 5). Earlier literature also under­
pinned that paneer production has been major contributor to both
climate change and resource use (Palmieri et al., 2017; Berton et al.,
2021). Butter, on the other hand, contributes most to ecosystem quality,
while ice-cream contributes to human health. In fact, ice-cream is the
most impact causing dairy product for human health (100%-4.92E-07
Disability-Adjusted Life-Year) followed by butter (94%), paneer (90%),
dahi and lassi (69%), ghee (49%), and processed milk (18%). Further­
more, impact on the resource may be attributed to paneer
(100%-8.113664 MJ primary), followed by ice-cream (65%), butter
(54%), ghee (49%), dahi and lassi (48%) and processed milk (16%).
The characterization analysis of the seven dairy products is shown in
Table 5, while the damage assessment result is shown in Table 6. Table 5
further depicts that paneer is the biggest contributor to global warming
(0.3894 kg CO2 eq.), followed by ice-cream (0.359 kg CO2 eq.) butter
(0.329 kg CO2 eq.), and lassi (0.255 kg CO2 eq). Among other midpoint
Fig. 4. The midpoint impact assessment result of different dairy product (Characterization of dairy products).
7
Journal of Cleaner Production 326 (2021) 129331
impacts, i.e. non-renewable energy, butter is the most contributing
product, followed by ice-cream, paneer, and dahi (curd), with an impact
value of 8.108, 5.297, 4.34, and 3.56 MJ respectively. Additionally, it
may also be noted that land occupation impact is mainly associated with
paneer, followed by ghee, ice-cream, and dahi with a value of 0.391,
0.171, 0.1487, and 0.1487 m2org.arable respectively.
As mentioned earlier, most of our findings concur with extant liter­
ature. In fact, among available literature related to the dairy industry
and dairy products, Palmieri et al. (2017) found that the milk production
stage has a great impact on the entire supply chain of the dairy industry.
LCA study of pasteurized milk production performed by Rafiee et al.
(2016) highlighted that GWP of raw milk is enormous. Moreover, feed
production stages account for more than 69% of the total EI. The work of
Finnegan et al. (2017b) also pinpointed that the production of powder
milk, and processing of raw milk to butter contribute largely to GWP.
Raw milk and its associated products contribute significantly to all
impact categories, particularly GWP (around 80–96%) (Vasilaki et al.,
2016). Üçtuğ et al. (2019) also concluded that the supply of raw milk
and yogurt production is a critical stage, contributing to around 82% of
EI.
The most emission-causing factors for all the products are shown in
Table 7. This table also shows that the primary hotspot for EI from the
dairy processing industry includes electricity consumption, combustible
fuel utilization, packaging material, and sodium hydroxide. Notably, the
emission that occurs during producing butter and paneer primarily arise
due to fuel consumption, heating, packaging material, and electricity
(Yan and Holden, 2018). Thus, the primary hotspot for emission during
butter and paneer production includes heating, packaging material, and
electricity consumption. At the same time, the emission from curd and
lassi are high due to electricity consumption, as compared to fuel and tap
water. Our findings show that electricity consumption is the main driver
for all the impacts associated with the seven dairy products chosen
(Canellada et al., 2018; Üçtuğ et al., 2019; Alves et al., 2019).
3.2. Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis helps in testing the factors that substantially
affect LCA assessment output (Palmieri et al., 2017). Thus, we per­
formed the sensitivity analysis for IA methods, the results of which, are
shown in Table 8. The base method used for IA is Impact 2002+, which
included fifteen midpoint impact categories, along with four endpoint
M. Kumar et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 326 (2021) 129331

Fig. 5. The endpoint impact assessment result of different dairy product (Damage point assessment).

Table 5
Impact characterization of dairy products.
Impact category Unit Butter Dahi (Curd) Ghee Ice-cream Lassi Paneer Processed Milk

CG kg C2H3Cl eq. 0.0051939 0.003205972 0.0052743 0.0050749 0.0032067 0.0126531 0.0018303

NCG kg C2H3Cl eq 0.027734 0.012321123 0.0075743 0.0082128 0.0123264 0.0148507 0.0034525
RI kg PM2.5 eq 0.0005243 0.000416488 0.0002559 0.000648 0.0004163 0.0005242 0.0001054
IR Bq C-14 eq 2.8242738 2.789422585 1.56836 5.7274514 2.7893985 3.8372359 0.7068276
OLD kg CFC-11 eq 1.826E-08 1.1022E-08 9.299E-09 2.46E-08 1.102E-08 2.244E-08 3.525E-09
RO kg C2H4 eq 6.107E-05 2.62547E-05 5.833E-05 4.005E-05 2.628E-05 0.0002106 2.823E-05
AEC kg TEG water 181.99659 48.53476233 41.963868 52.889633 48.573834 63.967929 12.868251
TE kg TEG soil 71.032428 23.80845097 15.999778 11.830214 23.819612 27.077317 6.5230342
TA kg SO2 eq 0.0153653 0.009698864 0.0058519 0.0059302 0.0096966 0.0119058 0.0027107
LO m2org.arable 0.3914469 0.148780415 0.1132568 0.0520718 0.1487086 0.1719309 0.0408131
AA kg SO2 eq 0.003301 0.002205798 0.0013455 0.0017029 0.0022024 0.002757 0.0006148
AEU kg PO4 P-lim 0.0001778 9.33162E-05 5.036E-05 7.027E-05 9.333E-05 0.0001016 2.483E-05
GWP kg CO2 eq 0.329112 0.25562639 0.18855 0.358988 0.255628 0.389433 0.073375
NRE MJ primary 4.342759 3.484210185 3.567154 5.2977314 3.4842481 8.1086932 1.3493403
ME MJ surplus 0.0033224 0.000892379 0.0029208 0.0022163 0.0008996 0.0049709 0.0005664

Table 6
Damage assessment of dairy products.
Damage category Unit Butter Dahi Ghee Ice cream Lassi Paneer Processed Milk

HH DALY 4.6E-07 3.36E-07 2.16E-07 4.92E-07 3.36E-07 4.45E-07 8.88E-08

EQ PDF*m2*yr 1.01366 0.363019 0.258201 0.159158 0.363028 0.417179 0.099549
CC kg CO2 eq 0.329112 0.255626 0.18855 0.358988 0.255628 0.389433 0.073375
RC MJ primary 4.346081 3.485103 3.570075 5.299948 3.485148 8.113664 1.349907

Eco-indicator 95 V2.06 during our sensitivity analysis. Leiden University

Table 7
presented the CML-IA baseline, and it has all the characterization factors
Products and emission causing factors.
mentioned in LCA handbook (Goedkoop et al., 2013).
Products Impact causing factors The analysis shows that GWP for butter from Impact (2002)+ is
Butter Briquettes Packaging material, Electricity consumption 0.329 kg CO2 eq. while for the two scenarios i.e., CML baseline, and Eco-
Ice-cream Electricity consumption, Sodium hydroxide, Tap water Indicator 95, GWP was 4.29 and 0.357 kg CO2 eq. Respectively.
Paneer Briquettes, Packaging material, Electricity consumption
Notably, GWP for butter processing varies between 0.329 and 0.429 kg
Curd Electricity, Briquettes, and Tap water
Lassi Electricity, Briquettes, and Tap water CO2 eq. The sensitivity analysis of butter, paneer, and ice cream for
Ghee Electricity, packaging material, Briquettes, and Nitric acid GWP, OLD, AP, and RO are shown in Table 8 and graphically repre­
Processed milk Briquettes, electricity, and packaging material sented in Fig. 6.

damage assessments, coupled with the integration of Impact 2000), 3.3. Discussion
Eco-Indicator 99, CML, and IPCC (Mahath et al., 2019). We compared
the two IA methods, i.e. CML-IA baseline V3.06/World 2000 and This section analyzes and discusses the comparative analysis of
previous research findings with the present results. In addition, EI of

8
M. Kumar et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 326 (2021) 129331

Table 8
Sensitivity analysis of IA methods.
Impact assessment (IA) method Impact Category Unit Butter Paneer Ice-cream

Impact 2002+ Ozone layer Depletion kg CFC-11 eq 1.82585E-08 2.2436E-08 2.4595E-08

CML Baseline kg CFC-11 eq 1.80423E-08 2.2309E-08 2.459E-08
Eco-Indicator 95 kg CFC11 2.03996E-08 2.57561E-08 2.76919E-08
Impact 2002+ Global warming Potential kg CO2 eq 0.329111927 0.38943329 0.3589883
CML Baseline kg CO2 eq 0.4294519 0.4712632 0.37978592
Eco-Indicator 95 kg CO2 0.357738812 0.413383621 0.359227935
Impact 2002+ Acidification potential kg SO2 eq 0.003300976 0.00275696 0.00170287
CML Baseline kg SO2 eq 0.003189263 0.00266036 0.00165428
Eco-Indicator 95 kg SO2 0.003287163 0.002727629 0.001690235
Impact 2002+ Respiratory organics kg C2H4 eq 6.10658E-05 0.00021063 4.0047E-05
CML Baseline kg C2H4 eq 0.000117723 0.00015574 6.6494E-05
Eco-Indicator 95 kg C2H4 7.25887E-05 0.00018715 3.5785E-05

factor. Among all damage categories, the highest impact was noted for
CC (46% with 0.1527 kg CO2 eq.). At the same time, we also noted that
electricity consumption impacts CC, HH, and RC, which were within a
kg SO2 eq

range of 19–21% each. Our LCA study reports that 66% of total GWP
from the dairy processing industry is primarily due to heating fuel and
electricity consumption. Earlier findings in this domain reported that
energy contributes around 78% and 89% of the total GWP, specifically
during butter and milk powder production (Finnegan et al., 2017b). The
work of Finnegan et al. (2017a) found that GWP of dairy products is
mainly contributed by direct energy use, whereby the values lie between
91% and 98%. Yan and Holden (2018) study further suggests that during
butter production, both electrical and thermal energy (16–30%), and
kg CFC-11 eq

specifically processing of thermal energy (9–23%) are significant con­

tributors to CC. Berton et al. (2021) reported that raw milk production
alone leads to 80% of total GWP, while the rest is drawn from the pro­
cessing stage.
Focusing on the packaging of dairy products, our findings illustrate
that during butter production, the packaging material is the second most
impact causing factor after the energy consumption stage (Berton et al.,
2021). Hereby, GWP from packaging material is 29% (0.097404 kg CO2
eq.) of the total GWP. Moreover, the impact on EQ is noted to be mainly
due to craft paper and corrugated board box is 0.369 (36%) and 0.148
(14%) PDF-m2-yr respectively. Finnegan et al. (2017b) reported that
GWP of packaging material used for butter is around 0.032 kg CO2 eq.
(11%), while the packaging and processing stage seemed to contribute
to around 0.032–0.37 kg CO2 eq. Other dairy products, such as yoghurt
manufacturing, the packaging has been identified as an environmental
hotspot for all impact categories (González-García et al., 2013a; Vasilaki
et al., 2016).

3.3.2. Impact assessment (IA) of ice-cream production

The production of ice-cream shows (Fig. 8) a considerable EI. The
kg C2H4 eq

Fig. 6. LCIA sensitivity analysis of butter, paneer (Indian cottage cheese), and
Ice-cream is shown (A) Acidification Potential, (B) Ozone Layer Depletion, (C)
Global Warming Potential, and (D) Respiratory Organics characterization.
most contributing dairy products is also analyzed and discussed further.
3.3.1. Impact assessment (IA) of butter production
As shown in Fig. 4, butter production does have a significant EI,
associated to heating, electricity, and packaging material consumption.
Fig. 7 shows the individual EI of butter. Among all the factors, fuel
consumption for thermal energy seems to be the most impact causing
impacts associated with ice-cream include OLD, IR, and RO. Fig. 8 also
illustrates that electricity consumption leads to RC, CC, and HH with
about 94–95% of total emission, followed by sodium hydroxide and
water consumption. Furthermore, electricity consumption impact values
is around 95% of the total CC emission, i.e., 0.348 kg CO2 eq, and 2.8%
due to sodium hydroxide. Vasilaki et al. (2016) study found that
ice-cream (natural and flavored) is possibly the most environmentally
intensive product with a GWP of 4.1% and 4.0%. The impact of
ice-cream may mainly be ascribed to the consumption of electricity, as
ice-cream requires a highly controlled temperature (i.e. around − 25 ◦ C)
(Konstantas et al., 2019). Notably, frozen dairy products, like ice-cream,
ice-cream candy etc., attribute more EI to endpoint categories (Xu et al.,
2019; Mahath et al., 2019).
3.3.3. Impact assessment (IA) of paneer production
EI of paneer (Indian cottage cheese) production and packaging is
shown in Fig. 9. The LCA study shows that paneer is an impactful dairy
product that contributes to ME, NRE, GWP, and RC (Finnegan et al.,
2017b; Canellada et al., 2018). The GWP of paneer was observed to be

9
M. Kumar et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 326 (2021) 129331

Fig. 7. IA of butter.

Fig. 8. IA of ice-cream.

Fig. 9. IA of Paneer (Indian cottage cheese).

0.389433 kg CO2 eq., while RC was 8.113664 MJ/kg. Finnegan et al.
(2017b) study identified that GWP of cheese is around 0.46–1.3 kg CO2
eq./kg, while its RC was 7.1–19.5 MJ/kg. In this study, GWP for paneer
is 0.236 for processing, and 0.153 Kg CO2 eq/kg from packaging. The
findings of Sheane et al. (2011) reported GWP of cheese to be around 0.2
and 0.3 Kg CO2 eq/kg, respectively, while Finnegan et al. (2017a)
reported 0.46 kg CO2 eq/Kg from the processing stage. While studying
cradle to retail store boundary, Canellada et al. (2018) revealed 10.2 kg
CO2 eq kg− 1 of CC for full-fat cheese. They also stated that around 80%
of the carbon footprint occur from raw milk production. While in pro­
cessing fuel for heating purposes, electricity consumption and packaging
material were noted to be the key contributors to EI (Palmieri et al.,

10
M. Kumar et al.
2017; Canellada et al., 2018). Kim et al. (2013) reported that RC in
cheese processing is 8.66 MJ/kg, while the value is 1.23 MJ/kg in
packaging. It may be noted herein that EI associated with cheese pro­
duction is mostly linked to different sources of energy, types of pack­
aging material, and allocation factors (Gonzalez-Garcia et al., 2013;
Djekic et al., 2014; Finnegan et al., 2017b; Berton et al., 2021).
In terms of packing material, butter production is the most emission-
causing factor, which considerably impacts the surrounding environ­
ment. Herein, the use of packaging material led to an impact on RC
(63%- 5.11 MJ primary), CC (40%), and HH (33.5%). Thus, sustainable
packaging is paramount to reduce the EI associated with dairy products
(Spreafico and Russo, 2021).
The other end point impacts include EQ (64%), which seemed to be
highly affected by fuel utilization for heating purposes, followed by HH
(24%) and CC (23%) (Goh et al., 2020). Alves et al. (2019) also argued
that electricity consumption is the third most impact-causing factor that
affects HH (33%) after CC, RC, and EQ. Thus, in an effort to reduce EI
associated with electricity consumption, Tarighaleslami et al. (2020)
and Zheng et al. (2020) stated that using natural gas and/or renewable
energy is crucial.
The individual IA of other dairy products (processed milk, ghee,
curd, and lassi, is shown in Appendix 1. The study’s findings show that
dairy products like Ghee, lassi, and dahi are nearly similar resource
utilization 3.57, 3.48, and 3.48 MJ/kg of products, respectively, almost
the same reported by (Mahath et al., 2019).
3.4. Recommendations and policy implications
Our study highlighted EI of both processing and packaging seven
different dairy products using the LCA approach. The findings do indi­
cate that a significant EI viz-via end point and mid-point indicators were
observed due to electricity consumption, combustible fuel use, different
packaging material, and cleaning chemicals. Earlier LCA studies also
depicted that both fuel and electricity consumption in the dairy pro­
cessing industry were environmental hotspots, and urgent attention was
always called for in order to reduce their EI via reduction energy and
fuel consumption (Garg et al., 2016; Vasilaki et al., 2016; Elginoz et al.,
2020). The dairy processing industry can reduce its energy consumption
footprints with more efficient equipment, particularly in heating and
refrigeration systems (ÜÇTUĞ et al., 2021).
The Indian energy basket is dominated by coal as a primary source of
power. In the state of Bihar, nearly 90% of the total power that is
available, ie generated from coal-based thermal power plants. Only
7–8% is from hydro power plants, and a meager 2–3% is from solar or
another renewable energy sources. In processing dairy products, a lot of
waste heat is indeed generated; this could be minimized using suitable
insulation in boilers. Induction of boiler, dryers, evaporators, and
refrigeration systems that have high energy efficiency could help in
minimizing this industry’s EI (Finnegan et al., 2017b). Moreover,
nanofiltration systems may also be employed in order to improve steam
generation efficiency (Jolanta et al., 2012). Importantly, this industry
cannot make any significant and sustainable progress until it chooses to
shift from existing non-renewable energy sources to renewable sources
(Tarighaleslami et al., 2020), like for instance, using solar energy via
photovoltaic panels, or using natural gas instead of coal (Üçtuğ et al.,
2019). The decision-makers and the ‘big’ players within this industry
could opt for solar heating systems, or possibly choose to instal a
multi-gas analyser, deaerator, and economizer in the boiler for energy
efficiency.
If this industry does begin this shift towards renewable energy
sources, it would significantly help the industry reduce its environ­
mental footprint. Additionally, the consortia of the dairy industry must
develop policies and guidelines that align with the United Nations’
Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDGs). Thus, the decision-makers
and policymakers both at the firm level and the government level
should proactively initiate approaches related to Circular Economy,
11
Journal of Cleaner Production 326 (2021) 129331
Resource Efficiency etc.
Specifically the Government of India (GoI) need to accelerate their
efforts to transition to clean energy, and thereby expand their renewable
energy capacity to support various industries for achieving sustainabil­
ity goals. In this endeavor, the government should possibly consider
scraping old environmental regulations/rules, and instead develop a
new set of sustainability policies and financial support schemes. Indeed,
GoI has initiated a clean energy transition focusing on the transport and
power sectors in post-pandemic circumstances. However, more efforts
must focus on the industrial sector’s clean energy transition (NITI
AYOG, 2020).
Specifically for the dairy processing industry, decision-makers across
the board need to develop strategies to reduce the EI caused by packing
for example, and focus on reducing the weight of packaging material.
They could also indulge in recycling and reuse, reduction in the quan­
tum of packing material, optimal packaging sizes, use of green/biode­
gradable packing, etc. (Vasilaki et al., 2016; Molina-Besch et al., 2019).
4. Conclusion
The study presented a gate-to-gate LCA approach for the seven most
consumable dairy products in India (i.e. processed milk, ghee, butter,
cure, Ice-cream, paneer, and lassi) from a dairy processing plant in the
state of Bihar. This unique study attempted to evaluate the environ­
mental profile of several dairy products that are common in India. It
shed light on various EI of the dairy processing industry especially
within the context of a developing economy. Additionally, this study
also provides policy recommendations to the Indian dairy industry in
order to improve its environmental profile and progress toward sus­
tainable development.
The data collected during visiting the dairy processing industry, from
the record file, observation, and interviewing the plant officials were
satisfactory. Additional required data was accessed via Ecoinvent
database and modeled in LCA software SimaPro. To assess the EI,
IMPACT, 2002+ is used as a base IA tool due to the unique feature of
having 15 mid-point and 4 endpoint impact categories. The findings of
this study signify that paneer is the most global warming contributing
dairy products with 0.3894 kg CO2 equivalent along with ice-cream,
butter, and lassi (0.359, 0.329, and 0.255 kg CO2 eq. respectively).
Among Indian dairy products, butter has the significant EI, particularly
in the damage category of non-renewable energy, followed by Ice-
cream, Paneer, and Dahi (Curd) with 8.108, 5.297, 4.34, and 3.56 MJ
primary. At the same time, power (electricity) consumption and fuel
consumption are the most impacts causing factors followed by pack­
aging material. The sensitivity analysis also highlights that the GWP of
paneer, ice cream, and butter processing varies between 0.389-0.471
and 0.358–0.379 and 0.32–0.42 kg CO2 eq. respectively.
The study finding shows that the EI in the dairy processing industry is
mainly attributed to electricity, thermal energy consumption, use of
packaging material, and various cleaning chemical. The improvement
for reducing EI of the dairy industry via policy, process, and techno­
logical interventions is also suggested. The suggestions include primar­
ily shifting to a renewable energy source, minimizing energy losses,
effective and efficient use of chemicals, wastewater management,
minimizing and reusing packing material, and so on so forth. The dairy
industry requires an immediate shift towards renewable energy and
technical interventions to reduce their EI. In a nutshell, adopting cleaner
techniques, energy efficiency, resource efficiency can facilitate the dairy
industry to reduce their environmental footprints and progress towards
sustainable development. The option of manufacturing dairy products
with environmentally friendly raw material, processing bi-products
back in dairy processing via circular economy approaches, and using
sustainable packing materials can help the dairy industry improve its
environmental footprints.
However, the optimum use of dairy resources and technological and
process modification in actual environmental benefits need deeper
M. Kumar et al.
investigation. Further, multicriteria decision-making tools can be uti­
lized to rank the dairy products in a single ecological index. The main
limitation of this article is that the study focused on assessing the
environmental profile of seven dairy products focusing on processing
and packaging stages only. Further, the study explores the EI of different
dairy products from one dairy processing industry. Future studies can
explore a comparative analysis of different dairy products from different
dairy processing industries. The better insight from the LCA approach
focusing on the entire supply chain of dairy products can be investigated
further.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Mukesh Kumar: Idea generation, Co-writing of the conception and
design, Selection of relevant theories, Development and design of
methodology, Participate in the whole revision process of the manu­
script, Co-writing of the first draft, advanced draft, and final paper.
Vikas Kumar Choubey: Co-writing of the conception and design,
Development and design of methodology, Participate in the whole
revision process of the manuscript, Co-writing of the first draft,
advanced draft, and final paper. Anurag Deepak: Co-writing of the
advanced draft and final paper, Participate in the whole revision process
of the manuscript, Validation of the final paper. Vidyadhar V. Gedam:
Co-writing of the conception and design, Participate in the whole revi­
sion process of the manuscript, Co-writing of the advanced draft and
final paper, Co-writing of the advanced draft and final paper. Rakesh D.
Raut: Idea generation, Coordinate the team during the entire process,
Co-writing of the first draft, advanced draft, and final paper, Participate
in the whole revision process of the manuscript, Validation of the final
paper.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129331.
References
Akinyemi, M.O., Ayeni, K.I., Ogunremi, O.R., Adeleke, R.A., Oguntoyinbo, F.A.,
Warth, B., Ezekiel, C.N., 2021. A review of microbes and chemical contaminants in
dairy products in sub-Saharan Africa. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 20 (2),
1188–1220.
Alves, E.C., Soares, B.B., de Almeida Neto, J.A., Rodrigues, L.B., 2019. Strategies for
reducing the environmental impacts of organic mozzarella cheese production.
J. Clean. Prod. 223, 226–237.
Bai, X., Ren, X., Khanna, N.Z., Zhou, N., Hu, M., 2018. Comprehensive water footprint
assessment of the dairy industry chain based on ISO 14046: a case study in China.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 132, 369–375.
Baldini, C., Gardoni, D., Guarino, M., 2017. A critical review of the recent evolution of
Life Cycle Assessment applied to milk production. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 421–435.
Bartl, K., Gómez, C.A., Nemecek, T., 2011. Life cycle assessment of milk produced in two
smallholder dairy systems in the highlands and the coast of Peru. J. Clean. Prod. 19
(13), 1494–1505.
Berton, M., Bovolenta, S., Corazzin, M., Gallo, L., Pinterits, S., Ramanzin, M., et al., 2021.
Environmental impacts of milk production and processing in the Eastern Alps: a
“cradle-to-dairy gate” LCA approach. J. Clean. Prod. 303, 127056.
Canellada, F., Laca, A., Laca, A., Díaz, M., 2018. Environmental impact of cheese
production: a case study of a small-scale factory in southern Europe and global
overview of carbon footprint. Sci. Total Environ. 635, 167–177.
Chalermthai, B., Giwa, A., Schmidt, J.E., Taher, H., 2021. Life cycle assessment of
bioplastic production from whey protein obtained from dairy residues. Bioresource
Technology Reports 15, 100695.
Cortés, A., Feijoo, G., Fernández, M., Moreira, M.T., 2021. Pursuing the route to eco-
efficiency in dairy production: the case of Galician area. J. Clean. Prod. 285, 124861.
12
Journal of Cleaner Production 326 (2021) 129331
Del Borghi, A., Gallo, M., Strazza, C., Del Borghi, M., 2014. An evaluation of
environmental sustainability in the food industry through Life Cycle Assessment: the
case study of tomato products supply chain. J. Clean. Prod. 78, 121–130.
Djekic, I., Miocinovic, J., Tomasevic, I., Smigic, N., Tomic, N., 2014. Environmental life-
cycle assessment of various dairy products. J. Clean. Prod. 68, 64–72.
Djekic, I., Smigic, N., Glavan, R., Miocinovic, J., Tomasevic, I., 2018. Transportation
sustainability index in dairy industry–Fuzzy logic approach. J. Clean. Prod. 180,
107–115.
Doublet, G., Jungbluth, N., Stucki, M., Schori, S., 2013. Life Cycle Assessment of
Romanian Beef and Dairy Products. SENSE-Harmonised Environmental
Sustainability in the European Food and Drink Chain. Seventh Framework
Programme: Project, p. 288974.
Drews, J., Czycholl, I., Krieter, J., 2020. A life cycle assessment study of dairy farms in
northern Germany: the influence of performance parameters on environmental
efficiency. J. Environ. Manag. 273, 111127.
Egas, D., Ponsá, S., Colon, J., 2020. CalcPEFDairy: a Product Environmental Footprint
compliant tool for a tailored assessment of raw milk and dairy products. J. Environ.
Manag. 260, 110049.
Elginoz, N., Atasoy, M., Finnveden, G., Cetecioglu, Z., 2020. Ex-ante life cycle assessment
of volatile fatty acid production from dairy wastewater. J. Clean. Prod. 269, 122267.
Fantin, V., Buttol, P., Pergreffi, R., Masoni, P., 2012. Life cycle assessment of Italian high
quality milk production. A comparison with an EPD study. J. Clean. Prod. 28,
150–159.
FAO, 2019. Climate change and the global dairy cattle sector:the role of the dairy sector
in a low-carbon future. Available at: http://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/
CA2929EN/. (Accessed August 2021).
FAO, 2021. Dairy and dairy products. In: OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2021-2030.
Available at: http://www.fao.org/dairy-production-products/resources/publicatio
ns/fao-publications/en/. (Accessed August 2021).
Feitz, A.J., Lundie, S., Dennien, G., Morain, M., Jones, M., 2007. Generation of an
industry-specific physico-chemical allocation matrix. Application in the dairy
industry and implications for systems analysis (9 pp). Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12 (2),
109–117.
Finnegan, W., Goggins, J., Clifford, E., Zhan, X., 2017a. Global warming potential
associated with dairy products in the Republic of Ireland. J. Clean. Prod. 163,
262–273.
Finnegan, W., Goggins, J., Clifford, E., Zhan, X., 2017b. Environmental impacts of milk
powder and butter manufactured in the Republic of Ireland. Sci. Total Environ. 579,
159–168.
Finnegan, W., Yan, M., Holden, N.M., Goggins, J., 2018. A review of environmental life
cycle assessment studies examining cheese production. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 23
(9), 1773–1787.
Garg, M.R., Phondba, B.T., Sherasia, P.L., Makkar, H.P., 2016. Carbon footprint of milk
production under smallholder dairying in Anand district of Western India: a cradle-
to-farm gate life cycle assessment. Anim. Prod. Sci. 56 (3), 423–436.
Goh, B.H.H., Chong, C.T., Ge, Y., Ong, H.C., Ng, J.H., Tian, B., et al., 2020. Progress in
utilisation of waste cooking oil for sustainable biodiesel and biojet fuel production.
Energy Convers. Manag. 223, 113296.
González-García, S., Castanheira, É.G., Dias, A.C., Arroja, L., 2013a. Environmental life
cycle assessment of a dairy product: the yoghurt. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18 (4),
796–811.
González-García, S., Castanheira, É.G., Dias, A.C., Arroja, L., 2013b. Using Life Cycle
Assessment methodology to assess UHT milk production in Portugal. Sci. Total
Environ. 442, 225–234.
González-García, S., Hospido, A., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., Arroja, L., 2013c.
Environmental life cycle assessment of a Galician cheese: san Simon da Costa.
J. Clean. Prod. 52, 253–262.
González-Quintero, R., Bolívar-Vergara, D.M., Chirinda, N., Arango, J., Pantevez, H.,
Barahona-Rosales, R., Sánchez-Pinzón, M.S., 2021. Environmental impact of primary
beef production chain in Colombia: carbon footprint, non-renewable energy and
land use using Life Cycle Assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 773, 145573.
Harris, S., Tsalidis, G., Corbera, J.B., Gallart, J.J.E., Tegstedt, F., 2021. Application of
LCA and LCC in the early stages of wastewater treatment design: a multiple case
study of brine effluents. J. Clean. Prod. 307, 127298.
Houssard, C., Maxime, D., Pouliot, Y., Margni, M., 2021. Allocation is not enough! A
system boundaries expansion approach to account for production and consumption
synergies: the environmental footprint of Greek yogurt. J. Clean. Prod. 283, 124607.
Huang, J., Xu, C.C., Ridoutt, B.G., Liu, J.J., Zhang, H.L., Chen, F., Li, Y., 2014. Water
availability footprint of milk and milk products from large-scale dairy production
systems in Northeast China. J. Clean. Prod. 79, 91–97.
Huang, X., Shi, B., Wang, S., Yin, C., Fang, L., 2021. Mitigating environmental impacts of
milk production via integrated maize silage planting and dairy cow breeding system:
a case study in China. J. Clean. Prod. 309, 127343.
Huerta, A.R., Güereca, L.P., Lozano, M.D.L.S.R., 2016. Environmental impact of beef
production in Mexico through life cycle assessment. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 109,
44–53.
IDF, 2010. A Common Carbon Footprint Approach for Dairy e the IDF Guide to Standard
Life Cycle Assessment Methodology for Dairy Sector. International Dairy Federation.
Iribarren, D., Hospido, A., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2011. Benchmarking environmental
and operational parameters through eco-efficiency criteria for dairy farms. Sci. Total
Environ. 409 (10), 1786–1798.
ISO - International Organization for Standardization, 2006a. ISO 14040 - Environmental
Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework. Geneva,
Switzerland.
M. Kumar et al.
ISO - International Organization for Standardization, 2006b. ISO 14044 - Environmental
Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Requirements and Guidelines. Geneva,
Switzerland.
Jolliet, O., Margni, M., Charles, R., Humbert, S., Payet, J., Rebitzer, G., Rosenbaum, R.,
2003. Impact 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess. 8 (6), 324–330.
Kim, D., Thoma, G., Nutter, D., Milani, F., Ulrich, R., Norris, G., 2013. Life cycle
assessment of cheese and whey production in the USA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18
(5), 1019–1035.
Li, S., Qin, Y., Subbiah, J., Dvorak, B., 2020. Life cycle assessment of the US beef
processing through integrated hybrid approach. J. Clean. Prod. 265, 121813.
Mahath, C.S., Kani, K.M., Dubey, B., 2019. Gate-to-gate environmental impacts of dairy
processing products in Thiruvananthapuram, India. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 141,
40–53.
Molina-Besch, K., Wikström, F., Williams, H., 2019. The environmental impact of
packaging in food supply chains—does life cycle assessment of food provide the full
picture? Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 24 (1), 37–50.
NITI Aayog and Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), 2020. Towards a clean energy
economy: post-COVID-19 opportunities for India’s energy and mobility sectors.
Available at: https://www.rmi-india.org/insight/india-stimulus-strategy-recommen
dations-towards-a-clean-energy-economy/. (Accessed May 2021).
Noya, L.I., Vasilaki, V., Stojceska, V., Gonzalez-García, S., Kleynhans, C., Tassou, S.,
et al., 2018. An environmental evaluation of food supply chain using life cycle
assessment: a case study on gluten free biscuit products. J. Clean. Prod. 170,
451–461.
Palmieri, N., Forleo, M.B., Salimei, E., 2017. Environmental impacts of a dairy cheese
chain including whey feeding: an Italian case study. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 881–889.
Rafiee, S., Khoshnevisan, B., Mohammadi, I., Aghbashlo, M., Clark, S., 2016.
Sustainability evaluation of pasteurized milk production with a life cycle assessment
approach: an Iranian case study. Sci. Total Environ. 562, 614–627.
Ritchie, H., 2019. Food Production Is Responsible for One-Quarter of the World’s
Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Our World in Data.
Romano, E., Roma, R., Tidona, F., Giraffa, G., Bragaglio, A., 2021. Dairy farms and life
cycle assessment (LCA): the allocation criterion useful to estimate undesirable
products. Sustainability 13 (8), 4354.
Rotz, C.A., Stout, R., Leytem, A., Feyereisen, G., Waldrip, H., Thoma, G., Kleinman, P.,
2021. Environmental assessment of United States dairy farms. J. Clean. Prod.
128153.
Salas-Vargas, C., Pérez, L.B., Ortiz, V.E.E., García, C.G.M., 2021. Environmental impact
of Oaxaca cheese production and wastewater from artisanal dairies under two
scenarios in Aculco, State of Mexico. J. Clean. Prod. 127586.
Santos, H.C.M., Maranduba, H.L., de Almeida Neto, J.A., Rodrigues, L.B., 2017. Life cycle
assessment of cheese production process in a small-sized dairy industry in Brazil.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 24 (4), 3470–3482.
13
Journal of Cleaner Production 326 (2021) 129331
Sheane, R., Lewis, K., Hall, P., Holmes-Ling, P., Kerr, A., Stewart, K., Webb, D., 2011.
Identifying Opportunities to Reduce the Carbon Footprint Associated with the
Scottish Dairy Supply Chain-Main Report. Scottish Government, Edinburgh.
Spreafico, C., Russo, D., 2021. A sustainable cheese packaging survey involving scientific
papers and patents. J. Clean. Prod. 126196.
Tarighaleslami, A.H., Ghannadzadeh, A., Atkins, M.J., Walmsley, M.R., 2020.
Environmental life cycle assessment for a cheese production plant towards
sustainable energy transition: natural gas to biomass vs. natural gas to geothermal.
J. Clean. Prod. 275, 122999.
Tarighaleslami, A.H., Kambadur, S., Neale, J.R., Atkins, M.J., Walmsley, M.R., 2019.
Sustainable Energy Transition toward Renewable Energies in the New Zealand Dairy
Industry: an Environmental Life Cycle Assessment.
Tsai, J.H., Huang, J.Y., Wilson, D.I., 2021. Life cycle assessment of cleaning-in-place
operations in egg yolk powder production. J. Clean. Prod. 278, 123936.
Üçtuğ, F.G., Atluğkoyun, A.İ., İnaltekin, M., 2019. Environmental life cycle assessment of
yoghurt supply to consumer in Turkey. J. Clean. Prod. 215, 1103–1111.
Üçtuğ, F.G., Günaydin, D., Hünkar, B., Öngelen, C., 2021. Carbon footprints of
omnivorous, vegetarian, and vegan diets based on traditional Turkish cuisine.
Sustainable Production and Consumption 26, 597–609.
Varma, V.S., Parajuli, R., Scott, E., Canter, T., Lim, T.T., Popp, J., Thoma, G., 2021. Dairy
and Swine Manure Management–Challenges and Perspectives for Sustainable
Treatment Technology. Science of The Total Environment, p. 146319.
Vasilaki, V., Katsou, E., Ponsá, S., Colón, J., 2016. Water and carbon footprint of selected
dairy products: a case study in Catalonia. J. Clean. Prod. 139, 504–516.
Wang, L., Setoguchi, A., Oishi, K., Sonoda, Y., Kumagai, H., Irbis, C., et al., 2019. Life
cycle assessment of 36 dairy farms with by-product feeding in Southwestern China.
Sci. Total Environ. 696, 133985.
Wang, X., Ledgard, S., Luo, J., Chen, Y., Tian, Y., Wei, Z., et al., 2021. Life cycle
assessment of alfalfa production and potential environmental improvement
measures in Northwest China. J. Clean. Prod. 304, 127025.
Wang, X., Ledgard, S., Luo, J., Guo, Y., Zhao, Z., Guo, L., et al., 2018. Environmental
impacts and resource use of milk production on the North China Plain, based on life
cycle assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 625, 486–495.
Wilkes, A., Wassie, S., Fraval, S., van Dijk, S., 2020. Variation in the carbon footprint of
milk production on smallholder dairy farms in central Kenya. J. Clean. Prod. 265,
121780.
Xu, Y., Hamid, N., Shepherd, D., Kantono, K., Spence, C., 2019. Changes in flavour,
emotion, and electrophysiological measurements when consuming chocolate ice
cream in different eating environments. Food Qual. Prefer. 77, 191–205.
Yan, M., Holden, N.M., 2018. Life cycle assessment of multi-product dairy processing
using Irish butter and milk powders as an example. J. Clean. Prod. 198, 215–230.
Zheng, T., Wang, B., Rajaeifar, M.A., Heidrich, O., Zheng, J., Liang, Y., Zhang, H., 2020.
How government policies can make waste cooking oil-to-biodiesel supply chains
more efficient and sustainable. J. Clean. Prod. 263, 121494.