Beverages and water supply - SUM: Sustainability Management Wiki

Authors: Victoria Hamborg, Steffen Holzfuß, Michel Jessen, Meisje Wolf
Last updated: October 2nd 2023

1 Definition, relevance and background

Drinking water is a basic human need. According to recommendations, we should drink at least 2 litres every day, however this might just be a clever marketing ruse from the beverage industry.¹ Water is the most important resource of life for human beings and every other living creature, it is also a crucial input for all industrial sectors, with agriculture being primary sector for water consumption globally.² As water is becoming exceedingly scarce, it’s protection has been a central topic on the international level for more than 20 years. In 2000 the United Nations (UN) published the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in which they declare to aim to reduce the proportion of people not having safe access to drinking water by half by 2015³. Furthermore, the World Economic Forum listed water scarcity as a global system risks of high concern in the beginning of the 21st century⁴. Years later the UN included the topic water in the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the Agenda 2030. The SDG 6 – “Clean water and sanitation” and the SDG 14 – “Life below water” are directly dedicated to the subject water⁵. The SDG 6 emphasizes – among others – the reduction in water usage and the pollution of water by industries, as well as the universal access to affordable drinking water⁶. The SDG 14 addresses the issue in terms of sustainable development of oceans, seas and marine resources⁷. (For more information concerning water supply and pollution see the wiki entry on Water usage and pollution (http://sustainability-management.wiki/topics/water-usage-pollution/) These developments with regard to water usage also affect business activities of firms⁸. For example, the price for water could be rising as it becomes a more scarce resource than it is already. This is turn has a major impact on the beverage industry, as water is a crucial resource input⁹.

The beverage industry is often included in the so called “Food and Beverage Industry (F&B)”. Looking at the beverage industry itself there are two main sectors classified: non-alcoholic and alcoholic drinks¹⁰. Non-alcoholic drinks include mineral water, juices, and soft drinks but also so called “Ready-to-drink (RTD)” beverages like coffee and tea, while alcoholic drinks include drinks like beer and wine. As the sales for mineral water, juices, soft drinks, coffee and tea and alcoholic drinks are increasing every year, the beverage industry is a steadily growing sector¹¹. While the global revenues of non-alcoholic drinks such as mineral water, soft drinks and juices were 807,37 billion Euro in 2014, it reached 1.224,42 billion Euro in 2022¹². Also, the consumption of mineral water is steadily growing. In 2020 the annual turnover of mineral water worldwide was 227,72 billion Euro and is predicted to grow up to 401,00 billion Euro until 2027¹³. A reason for the growing consumption could be economic water scarcity and thus the alternative consumption of water via bottled mineral water. The soft drink segment recorded an increase of sales as well. While the worldwide revenues reached 576,90 billion Euro in 2020 they went up to 721,00 billion Euro in 2022 and are predicted to grow up to 957,90 billion Euro until 2027¹⁴. In comparison to the segments of bottled water and soft drinks, juices have a small share of global sales. In 2020 juices had a share of 80,69 billion Euro, in 2022 97,92 billion Euro and the forecast for 2027 predicts an increase up to 128,80 billion Euro¹⁵. Furthermore, coffee and tea play a big role on the international beverage market. While RTD beverages like coffee and tea reached a per capita sale of 11,86 Euro in 2020 it reached 15,71 Euro in 2022 and is predicted to grow up to 21,63 Euro until 2027¹⁶. Another part of the beverage sector are alcoholic drinks like wine and beer. The worldwide annual turnover of beer grew from 2014 to 2019 up to 548 billion Euro. In 2020 the consumption of beer fell to 446,80 billion Euro. A reason for the decrease could be the Covid-19 pandemic which was accompanied by lock-downs also in the businesses in the restaurant and catering industry. In 2023 the sales for beer worldwide reached another high of 540,50 billion Euro. As well as the sales of beer the turnovers of wine fell during the Covid-19 pandemic from 312,80 billion Euro in 2019 to 254,80 billion Euro in 2020. In 2023 it reached the same level of 312,80 billion Euro as in 2019 and is predicted to grow as well¹⁷.

Figure 1: Top 5 companies in the beverage industry

Looking at the top five of the companies in the beverage sector Anheuser-Busch InBev, Nestlé SA, The Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo Inc. and Starbucks Corp. (in this order) were the firms with the biggest annual revenue in 2021¹⁸. The Belgian company Anheuser-Busch InBev (ABInBev) was the leading company in the worldwide beverage industry and the world’s leading brewer with around 54 million US Dollar in sales in excess¹⁹. The company is responsible for more than 500 brands such as Becks, Corona or Budweiser. With sales about 50 million U.S. Dollar the Swiss multinational company Nestlé S.A. takes the second place of the global players within the industry²⁰. Among many others, Nestlé is known for drinks like Nestea or Vittel. Nestlé is often associated with non-sustainable business practices and human rights violations, for example the use of child slave labour or the controversial marketing of infant formula²¹ ²². With a gap of approximately 10 million US Dollar the US-American firm Coca-Cola Co. is the third largest company with around 38 million US Dollar in 2021²³. The classics in the Coca-Cola portfolio are Fanta, Sprite and of course Coca-Cola. Just as Nestlé, Coca-Cola was confronted with discussions about health impact of sugary beverages, environmental issues related to plastic waste and social issues such as labour practices in some regions where the company operates. For example, the Coca-Cola Co. is – amongst others – criticized for human right violations in Columbia and controversial waste-disposal practices and intensive groundwater withdrawal in India²⁴. The main competitor – especially in the production of caffeinated drinks – of Coca-Cola is PepsiCo. With only about 3 million US Dollar difference between the two companies PespiCo is Coca-Colas most important competitor. On the fifth place of the biggest players in the beverage sector is the Starbucks Corp. which is specialized on the production of RTD products such as coffee products with sales of 29.060 million US Dollar in 2021.

The current trends in the beverage sector are moving towards more environmental conscious and health oriented direction. The latter is – amongst others – demonstrated by the rising consumption of allegedly healthy functional drinks. According to a study executed by Facit, 59 % of more than 2000 surveyed people in Germany try to avoid sugar containing beverages²⁵. The segment of functional drinks advertises with low-calorie and organic ingredients and promises the preservation of hydration, anti-ageing or energy supplying effects to the consumer²⁶. But especially so called functional drinks like energy drinks, juices or drinks with sweetener instead of sugar often contain unhealthy, alternative ingredients and it is advisable to check these ingredients carefully for potential carcinogen substances²⁷. Another indicator for a trend towards healthy and conscious consumption is the steadily increasing turnover of alternatives to alcoholic drinks like beer. For example, while the turnover of alcohol-free beer was 20,21 billion Euro in 2020 it grew up to 30,49 billion Euro in 2022 and is predicted to increase in the following years²⁸. This drives breweries to expand their range of non-alcoholic alternatives. Even though the trends tend to move towards more sustainable and healthy drinks the sales for classics like coffee and beer still increase. From 2020 until 2022 mineral water was the most purchased beverage in Germany, followed by juices, coffee, coca cola and beer²⁹. This is particularly astonishing, as drinking water is readily available, safe-to-drink and of excellent quality from the tap. In most countries, it complies with international standards and undergoes processes to ensure its quality and safety from microbial, chemical, and radiological contamination. Also the European Union passed a new version of the Drinking Water Directive in 2020. This directive contains requirements for more efficient monitoring of water quality, up-to-date quality standards, better availability and more transparency in general concerning drinking water³⁰. Additionally, the goal is to reduce the plastic waste in the form of water bottles which means fewer greenhouse gas emissions and less waste³¹. The trend towards more sustainability is noticeable in the beverage industry as well, as it has been increasingly focusing on environmental issues in recent years. For example, this can be shown by the growing market for organic food and beverages. While the worldwide turnover of organic food and beverages was 80 billion Euro in 2014 it reached 124,8 billion Euro in 2021³².

To get a deeper insight into sustainability in the beverage industry it is important to differentiate between the types of beverages. Especially in terms of sustainable business practices and strategic management for more sustainability it is important to involve the specialities of the different beverages. For example, bottled water does not need further agricultural ingredients like fruits, sugar or hops in comparison to juices, soft drinks, beer and wine or coffee and tea. In terms of sustainability the beverage industry faces challenges in measuring and improving the sustainability impact of business areas such as agricultural ingredients, sustainable sourcing, energy efficiency, water and waste management and packaging. The following wiki entry gives an overview of the way how to measure sustainability, how to practically implement sustainable business practices, of the drivers and barriers for the implementation and best practice examples.

2 Sustainability measurements in the beverage sector

The beverage sector and its products have a significant impact on different topics of sustainability. For some of these topics, different guidelines on how to measure the related impacts are already available for the sector’s companies. In the area of environmental impacts, larger companies from the beverage sector are engaged in the improvement of such sustainability measurements.³³ Others areas of impacts, such as the impact on human health, lack such an engagement. The following part will provide an overview of the different areas of the beverage sector’s impact on the topic of sustainability.

2.1 Environmental impacts

Considering the different impacts the beverage sector has on the environment, three main sub-areas of impact can be identified: (1) GHG emissions; (2) water consumption and (3) plastic waste creation.

In the area of GHG emissions, there is a lack of data regarding the overall emissions output in the beverage sector. In most emission-based studies and databases the beverage industry either gets considered as a part of the food sector³⁴ or in combination with it³⁵, which does not allow for precise information on the overall emission output of the beverage sector. However, there is comprehensive data available on the different product-based carbon footprints within the sector. Here, the biggest share of emissions on the product-level mostly is located within the scope 3 emissions. This can be emphasized by comparing the Carbon Footprints of fruit juices that are made of imported ingredients (2,86 kg CO2/l produced) with fruit juices that are made of local ingredients (0,48 kg CO2/l produced)³⁶. Generally, one can say that beverages with a high reliance on agricultural ingredients such as coffee, tea, or fruits, are leading the list of carbon footprints. Moreover, non-sugary sweeteners are among the ingredients with the highest contribution to the product footprint in the beverage sector.³⁷
On behalf of the assessment of GHG emissions, companies within the beverage sector use different carbon accounting methods. For the measurement of company-wide emissions, the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard has turned out to be the most popular tool. On the product-based level, beverage companies mainly use the Life Cycle Assessment, in particular the ISO 14044 or PAS 2050 standard.³⁸ The Beverage Industry Environmental Roundtable (BIER) regularly publishes a sector specific guideline, which is supposed to support smaller beverage companies who want to disclose in the area of GHG emissions.³⁹

One of the most critical environmental impacts of the beverage sector is the level of water withdrawing within the sector. In this context, the water footprint (WF) is a very popular measurement tool, which enables companies to measure the amount of water used to produce their goods and services.⁴⁰ In order to determine their WF, beverage companies mainly use the water-use ratio, which is defined as the total withdrawal of water divided by the total production at a bottling facility⁴¹. Here, the average operational water footprint of beverage companies is more than 4 times higher in comparison to the average operational water footprint of food companies.⁴²
Furthermore, the operational WF of bottled water is up to 30 times higher than the operational WF of the water supply sector.⁴³ However, this type of WF is of limited value, since the largest share of water withdrawal within the production process of beverages is located in the supply chain. According to Ercin et al. (2011)⁴⁴, the operational WF of a 0.5l soft drink only contributes 0,2-0,3% to the full WF of the product. This is mainly because beverage manufacturing companies highly rely on the agricultural sector for ingredients, which can be considered as the industrial sector with the largest WF. This high interdependence with the agricultural sector makes the beverage sector the manufacturing sector with the largest WF, next to the food sector.⁴⁵
In order to facilitate the process of obtaining WF-relevant data from the supply chain, beverage companies may use databases, such as the WaterStat database of the Water Footprint Network, that include data on the different ingredients from the agricultural sector.⁴⁶

Plastic waste is another area where the impact of the beverage sector can be considered as critical. According to the Global Commitment 2022 Progress Report that got published by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, the two companies with the world’s largest plastic usage in 2021 were The Coca-Cola Company (3,224k metric tonnes of plastic used) and PepsiCo (2,500k metric tonnes of plastic used).⁴⁷ Moreover, the Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo were found to be the companies with the largest impact on the issue of marine plastic pollution .⁴⁸
Beverage companies who want to disclose on the topic of plastic usage can choose between various tools that facilitate the gathering of information on a particular area of the issue. The Marine Plastic Footprint tool by the IUCN e.g., offers the opportunity to assess the impact on marine plastic pollution from a life-cycle perspective.⁴⁹ However, there is no globally accepted reporting and disclosure framework that companies may use in order to gather comprehensive data on the topic of plastic usage. Different organizations are currently engaged in decreasing the reporting burden for companies who want to disclose on the topic, by providing policy-based approaches and data that facilitate the development of the required accountability system.⁵⁰

As coffee cultivation is a large part of some beverage companies’ supply chains, the impact of coffee bean cultivation on deforestation and land degradation should also be considered in the context of the environmental impacts of the beverage sector. Here, the increasing demand for coffee and the changing climate have turned out to be a driver for deforestation. The changing circumstances have led to the migration of coffee farms to higher altitudes, where farmers find better requirements for successfully growing coffee. Therefore, forests in the affected areas are getting lumbered in order to create space for the cultivation of the coffee beans.⁵¹ ⁵² Similar impacts can be found by looking at the tea cultivation, which also has a high impact on deforestation. Tea cultivation was further found to cause an annual soil loss of up to 20 tonnes per hectare.⁵³

2.2 Social impacts

Some areas of the beverage sector also have a significant impact on certain social issues, such as Gender Equality, Labour Conditions or Human Health. Here, the cultivation of coffee and tea is primarily responsible for the negative impacts on Gender Equality and Labour Conditions.

The cultivation of tea and coffee is still affected with the allegation of Gender Discrimination. This is because women are still mainly situated at the bottom of the social hierarchy on tea plantations, were they make up 75-85% of the labour force. The men working on the plantation are mostly employed in the position of overseers because women are supposedly better at picking.⁵⁴ ⁵⁵ At coffee plantations, women make up approximately 70% of the labour force, but are rarely among the persons that own the land or directly benefit from the cultivation.⁵⁶

Another social issue that can be found on tea and coffee plantations is the minimum age that is required in order to be able to work on the farms. In many countries and regions, the minimum age is 12, which leads to the exploitation of child labour. In most of the cases, the children who are working at the farms are young women, who are not enrolled in school and want to support the family income.⁵⁷ ⁵⁸ Workers on coffee and tea plantations also do piecework, which is why their salaries are often below national or international poverty indicators.⁵⁹

Certain beverages consist of ingredients that supposedly have a negative impact on the human health. In this context, non-sugary sweeteners can be identified as very controversial ingredients. Recent studies suggest, that products containing these sweeteners, such as diet drinks, should not be consumed on a regular basis, since they might be carcinogen.⁶⁰ ⁶¹ The same applies to alcoholic beverages, since alcohol as an ingredient was already identified as carcinogenic several years ago. Alcohol can further cause other significant health issues, such as addictions, injuries, disabilities, or mental problems.⁶²

2.3 Sustainability measurements in the public water sector

The public water sector is responsible for supplying drinking water to a large share of the global population. In 2020, three out of four persons were granted access to safe drinking water by their local water authorities. A safe water source is defined here as a source located directly on the property that allows the consumer to draw water directly from the tap that is free of microbiological and priority chemical contaminants.⁶³

As there has only been a 4% progress compared to the proportion of people with access to safe drinking water in 2015, a huge increase is needed to achieve SDG 6, which aims for universal access to safe drinking water for the world’s population by 2030.⁶⁴ From a social perspective, this increase is further needed because of the tremendous effects of unsafe water on the human health. According to the “Global Burden of Disease” study, unsafe drinking water caused the death of about 1.2 million people in 2017 and was further responsible for 6% of total deaths in low-income countries.⁶⁵ Unsafe water is a major risk factor for diseases such as diarrhoea, which especially affects young children. Inorganic and chemical pollutants such as fluoride, nitrate and arsenic can further lead to acute nausea, cancer or skin rashes.⁶⁶

Unsafe drinking water can further have negative impacts on the well-being of females, since the consumption of contaminated drinking water can cause issues during pregnancy or negatively influence menstrual health of women and girls.⁶⁷ Furthermore, females are more affected from an unsafe and inadequately located water source than men, since the majority of women and girls in low-income countries with corresponding access to water are in charge for the household water management. In 4 out of 5 cases, women and girls here are responsible for the collection of water in their households. For this, they must walk long distances, in order to get to the closest reliable water source. The physical transportation of the water from the source to the women’s homes puts a hard strain on the women’s bodies.⁶⁸ Moreover, women and girls in areas with no access to safe water and sanitation facilities tend to be more frequently affected by sexual harassment and violence, since it is hard for them to find a private and safe place for properly cleaning and defecating them.⁶⁹

Even though the water supply sector builds on the resource of water, the WF in this sector is particularly low, compared to other sectors. It is estimated, that municipal freshwater withdrawals only account for 12% of the global water usage. This share includes the water withdrawn for the direct use of the population, such as for cleaning, washing, cooking, or drinking purposes.⁷⁰ According to Hoekstra et al., the blue WF of tap water can range between 0.065 L/L to 0.65 L/L, depending on how much of the used water can return to the water system from which it was withdrawn.⁷¹ In comparison, the WF of a 0.5L Bottle of Coca-Cola can range between 169 L/L and 309L/L, which depends on the origin of the sugar ingredient which is needed in order to produce the good.⁷²

3 Practical implementation of sustainability in the beverage industry

When it comes to practical measures to implementing sustainability in the beverage, there is a multitude of processes and concepts available. Within this chapter, measures are thematically clustered in the following subsections: water management, sustainable sourcing, carbon footprint reduction and packaging, waste management and recycling.

Water management

Water resources are one of the most important resources for the beverage industry. However, for a transformation to a strategically more sustainable economy, the beverage industry’s water consumption must be reduced.⁷³ As earlier mentioned, one of the great environmental impacts of the beverage industry is the level of water withdrawal.

To measure the water footprint and to produce beverages water efficiently, the internet of things (IoT) approach can be a solution. The IoT allows a precise monitoring of the water usage in every step of production.⁷⁴ In the beverage industry, the IoT approach is implemented through four different layers: sensing, network, service, and application. “The sensors are used to understand the quality of both raw water and wastewater, their chemical composition, water temperature, and wear and tear of the equipment used for pumping water. Some of the water quality parameters measured are pH, chlorine level, electrical conductivity, dissolved oxygen, oxidation, and reduction potential.”⁷⁵ Once the various parameters have been measured, the data is transferred via the network layer to the service layer, where it is stored in memory. In the application layer, water consumption and other parameters can be monitored and analysed in application software programs.⁷⁶ According to the case study of Jagtap et al. 2021⁷⁷ the effectiveness of the IoT approach is reflected in the following numbers: Almost 11% water savings come together through reused water from different systems in the production process. Another result is that the investments in the technology are amortized after six months, which shows that using the IoT approach is worthwhile not only from a sustainability point of view, but also from an economic point of view. In addition to the numerical savings from implementing the system, the case study also revealed that a side effect was a change in production management behaviour resulting from real-time monitoring.⁷⁸

Besides the reduction of water consumption in the production process, the minimization of wastewater and the recycling of used water is a point of eminent importance for an overall reduction of water consumption.

In the context of conserving water resources within industrial processes, a range of techniques and measures have been developed with distinct objectives focused on reducing, recycling, and reusing water. Alkaya and Demirer (2015)⁷⁹ summarized techniques and measures as follows:

Addressing the goal of decreasing overall water consumption, particularly in the realm of cooling systems, a multifaceted approach has been put into practice:

One key strategy involves the replacement of conventional once-through cooling systems with more efficient closed-circuit cooling systems. This strategic shift has been endorsed in various sectors, including fruit concentrate and fruit juice production lines. Research by Casani and Knøchel (2002)⁸⁰ underscores the efficacy of this transition. A complementary tactic centres on the recycling of bottle rinsing water, re-purposing it for use as cooling water. This approach not only contributes to water conservation but also underscores the potential for cross-functional resource utilization. Furthermore, an emphasis has been placed on segregating spent cooling water from wastewater streams. This measure emphasizes the importance of distinct water management within industrial contexts. Additionally, the practice of reusing cooling water blow-down in various ancillary processes, such as fruit washing and facility cleaning, has gained traction.⁸¹

Parallel efforts to curtail water usage are evident in washing and cleaning operations, with strategies focusing on reduction, recycling, and reuse: The application of membrane processes to treat and recycle wastewater originating from filter cleaning operations exemplifies a targeted approach to water conservation.⁸² Drawing inspiration from successful cooling water practices, the recycling of bottle rinsing water for cleaning applications presents a dual-purpose solution, in line with recommendations of Casani and Knøchel.⁸³ Efforts to reduce water consumption are further enhanced through the introduction of automatic shut-off valves for water taps. Moreover, the implementation of auto-cut off nozzles for cleaning hoses during facility cleaning aligns with best practices yielding tangible water savings.⁸⁴Strategies aimed at preventing water losses from hoses left turned on during non-production periods represent a proactive approach to resource management. The integration of high-pressure, low-volume jet/spray cleaning systems equipped with optimized nozzles showcases a technology-driven avenue to achieving water conservation goals.⁸⁵

Furthermore, recognizing the imperative of reducing unaccounted water losses, a suite of measures has been established: Regular maintenance programs for water transmission systems have been proven effective in detecting damages and preventing leaks.⁸⁶

In a broader context of water recycling and reuse, the following strategies have been outlined: Treating wastewater through a combination of reverse osmosis and ion-exchange systems for subsequent use in washing and cleaning processes has been endorsed by Haroon et al.⁸⁷ Efforts to recycle and reuse water are also visible in specific operations such as bottle cleaning overflows after sedimentation and filtration.⁸⁸ Similarly, the recycling and reuse of final rinses from tank cleaning operations reinforce the commitment to resource efficiency.⁸⁹ Incorporating product condensate into food production processes or re-purposing it for other operational tasks, except disinfection purposes, in accordance with Casani and Knøchel⁹⁰ insights, showcases a holistic approach to water resource management. Notably, the reuse of condensate water as boiler make-up attests to the intricate interplay between diverse operational components in achieving comprehensive water conservation goals.⁹¹ Finally, the installation of chlorination systems for the treatment and recycling of transport/flume water demonstrates a proactive stance toward maintaining water quality while optimising consumption.⁹²

In summary, these various techniques and measures collectively highlight a concerted effort to transform industrial water usage practices, reflecting a multifaceted approach that combines technology, behaviour change, and innovative resource management.

The use of advanced technologies such as reverse osmosis, filtration systems and advanced wastewater treatment processes facilitates the recovery and reuse of water in beverage production cycles. This approach not only reduces water demand from conventional sources, but also mitigates the environmental impacts associated with wastewater discharge.

The Danish Brewery Carlsberg A/S uses various technologies, processes and measures to decrease their water usage per litre beverage. Through the use of these innovations and technologies, the company has managed to reduce water consumption from 3.6 to 2.5 hl per hl of brewed beer. This represents a reduction of 31 percent and makes the brewery the most water-efficient of the major breweries in the world.⁹³

Sustainable sourcing

The principles of sustainable sourcing have become a critical factor in shaping the direction of businesses across various sectors, as companies prioritise sustainability. Sustainable procurement processes require strategic decision-making, as a detailed analysis of each supplier is essential to achieve sustainable procurement.⁹⁴ ⁹⁵ ⁹⁶

The research has shown that procurement managers play a crucial role in the adoption of sustainable procurement practices, as sustainable procurement processes cannot be implemented, or are difficult to implement, without the necessary relationship between supplier and purchaser.⁸ This results from the fact that a high degree of transparency is necessary in sustainable procurement in order to be able to act according to sustainability principles.⁹⁷

Procurement managers’ decisions are shaped by multiple motivations, ranging from the imperatives of stakeholder pressure to the compulsions of compliance requirements.⁹⁸ They navigate a dynamic landscape where market dynamics, competitor actions, and top management’s vision drive them to adopt sustainability practices.

Sustainable sourcing practices can lead to a competitive advantage, a more positive image in society, and tentative reductions in operating costs.⁹⁹ ¹⁰⁰ Market expansion, risk mitigation, improved stakeholder trust, and strengthened relationships with governmental and non-governmental organizations are all important outcomes of these efforts.¹⁰¹ In addition to these quantifiable benefits, responsible sourcing is resonating with an increasingly conscious consumer base that values ethical and sustainable business practices.¹⁰²

Integral to the procurement managers’ journey in sustainable sourcing is the rigorous process of supplier evaluation and selection. This pivotal phase hinges on multifaceted methodologies that encompass both qualitative and quantitative factors. Elements such as supplier evaluation methods, auditing processes, and certification prerequisites are integral parts of the selection criteria. As procurement managers strive for a comprehensive alignment with sustainability goals, the methods for evaluating suppliers must mirror the complexity of the practices they seek to cultivate.¹⁰³

As the horizon of sustainable sourcing research expands, it is clear that the focus is shifting from compliance-driven factors to broader outcomes.¹⁰⁴ This shift is being driven by the expansive sustainability initiatives of global supply networks. With a keen eye on the future, researchers are expected to delve into areas such as portfolio management, vertical and horizontal coordination strategies, stakeholder collaboration, and the intricate dynamics of reverse logistics and supplier rating systems.¹⁰⁵

As the journey towards sustainable sourcing progresses, it’s evident that mutual motivations of purchasers and suppliers converge to create a synergy of sustainability practices.¹⁰⁶ This symbiotic integration of efforts becomes the bedrock for aligning sustainable sourcing within the intricate weave of supply chains. Looking ahead, a critical step would involve the development of comprehensive measurement scales that holistically capture the intertwined motives, practices, and processes across diverse industries and geographic regions.¹⁰⁷

Anheuser-Busch InBev is a global acting company and one of the largest breweries in the world. The company is sharing their global policies for sustainable sourcing. On their website, ABInBev informs about their policies in a large scope and they put afford in the publishing of all individual points of sustainable sourcing by splitting the main topics environmental responsibility, social responsibility and the economic responsibility each in subtopics. For example, the subtopics of the social responsibility are, inter alia, “Discrimination and Harassment”, “Child Labour and Young People” and “Working hours and Compensation/Adequate Standard of Living”.¹⁰⁸ According to their policy, Anheuser-Busch InBev is a signatory of the United Nations (UN) Global Compact and several other agreements.¹⁰⁹ By providing a hotline for grievance and initiating external reporting, AB InBev is showing that the company tries to operate with the proactive management strategy. By applying concepts of sustainable sourcing, companies can put themselves in a position to positively change the global situation sustainably in various ways. A company like Anheuser-Busch InBev has a lot of suppliers all over the world, thus a lot of power to establish a sustainable way to operate.

Along with sustainable sourcing comes a commitment to fair trade initiatives.¹¹⁰ Embracing this approach ensures fair compensation for producers, fosters resilient local economies, and protects workers’ rights. By supporting fair trade practices, the beverage industry demonstrates its commitment to global justice and strengthens its ethical standing with consumers and stakeholders.¹¹¹

Integral to this endeavour is the promotion of responsible and sustainable agricultural practices. The strategic collaboration with farmers and suppliers adopting organic farming techniques, agro-forestry, and biodiversity conservation cultivates a harmonious nexus between agricultural production and ecosystem preservation. This approach culminates in reduced chemical inputs, soil regeneration, and amplified ecological resilience.¹¹²

Carbon footprint reduction

Carbon capture and utilization (CCU) is a technology, which can be considered as a practical alternative to CO₂ capture and storage (CCS). CCU is the process of transferring captured CO₂ from other industrial processes into different valuable goods and products. The result is that the storage of the captured CO2 in geological reservoirs will no longer be necessary.¹¹³ In the case of the beverage industry, the captured CO2 can be used for carbonated beverages, but also for the shelf life of beverages, for cleaning production containers as well as bottles and as a flavour carrier. The application of CCU technology in the beverage industry has garnered attention as a potential avenue for enhancing sustainability by reducing carbon emissions and fostering a circular carbon economy.¹¹⁴

One of the main advantages of CCU technology is its potential to convert a greenhouse gas into a resource, thus meeting both environmental concerns and economic needs.¹¹⁵Since beverage producers often generate their own CO2 through the use of fossil fuels, by reusing captured CO2, producers can reduce their use of fossil fuels and lower their carbon footprint.¹¹⁶ This change is not only in line with global efforts to mitigate climate change, but also creates a symbiotic relationship between economic growth and environmental responsibility.¹¹⁷

However, a critical review of CCU technology in the context of the beverage industry reveals several complex aspects that need to be considered. First, the efficiency and scalability of CO2 capture from industrial processes are critical factors in determining the net environmental benefits of CCU. The energy intensity of CO2 capture and transport could potentially offset the emissions saved by its use. The increase in toxicity and acidification potential when using the technology also plays a non-negligible role here. Therefore, a comprehensive life cycle analysis is essential to assess the overall environmental impact of the technology.¹¹⁸

In summary, carbon capture and recovery technology represent an opportunity to improve emissions in the beverage industry by redefining captured CO2 as a valuable resource for carbonation. However, its implementation needs to be carefully assessed and integrated into a broader sustainability framework. To ensure that CCU contributes meaningfully to the industry’s environmental goals, the use of chemicals to capture CO2 must be included in the environmental impact. For CCU to be used wisely, it should be based on resources, processes, and energies that have low GHG emissions. In this way, the multifunctional use of CO2 can function with better environmental impacts.¹¹⁹ The ability to source CO2 from carbon capture technology is a helpful way to cut emissions. However, companies in the beverage industry should look at other ways of reducing emissions, such as using electricity from renewable sources, which can actively reduce companies’ emissions and lead to a better carbon footprint.¹²⁰

Packaging, waste management and recycling

As the beverage industry continues to grow and evolve, addressing the environmental impact of packaging waste has become a critical concern.¹²¹ The objective of packaging is multifaceted, encompassing containment, protection, handling, delivery, and presentation of goods.¹²² Choice of packaging material plays an important role in preventing degradation, in maintaining organoleptic qualities (scent, flavour, texture), and nutritional value (e.g., prevention of vitamin C oxidation in orange juice), and in ensuring consumer health and safety.¹²³ ¹²⁴ Several packaging materials are appropriate in barrier and mechanical properties for use in beverage packaging. Beverage packaging includes glass bottles, aluminium cans, foil-laminated carton boxes, foil-laminated flexible pouches, and plastic bottles.¹²⁵

The focus on sustainability has led to a greater emphasis on waste management and recycling, particularly in the context of bottles used for beverages.¹²⁶ The challenges associated with packaging waste are evident, driven by the extensive use of various materials across the beverage sector.¹²⁷ This has contributed to a surge in waste generation, ranging from manufacturing by-products to discarded containers. Addressing this multifaceted challenge holds paramount importance in reducing the industry’s environmental footprint.¹²⁸ Within the beverage sector, bottles, often composed of glass or plastic, have garnered significant attention due to their potential for recycling and repeated use.

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET or PETE), which is a polyester plastic, is one of the most widely used packaging materials for beverages.¹²⁹ ¹³⁰ Due to its excellent transparency, light weight, gas and water barrier properties, impact strength, UV resistance, stability the production and use of PET bottles for beverage packaging has consistently increased worldwide.¹³¹ ¹³² PET is a recyclable solution with performance benefits that are not available in alternative packaging options, such as glass bottles, aluminium cans, paperboard cartons, and other plastics. “According to the data extracted from Euromonitor International (London, England), in the beverage industry, the PET bottle accounts for 67% of the market share between water, carbonated soft drinks, energy drinks, tea, and coffee. For single-serve bottles (<1 L), PET accounted for 44.7% of single-serve beverage packaging in the US in 2021. In comparison, aluminium cans accounted for 39%, glass for 11%, and high-density polyethylene (HDPE) for 3.4%.”¹³³

Glass bottles are used for a wide variety of beverages. Glass is distinguished for its stability, re-usability and barrier properties.¹³⁴ However, they pose challenges related to their weight and susceptibility to breakage. To address these concerns and improve sustainability, the practice of recycling glass bottles has gained traction. Glass recycling involves collecting, processing, and melting or, as earlier mentioned, rinsing used glass containers to create new bottles and other glass products. Recycling glass conserves raw materials, reduces energy consumption, and decreases the amount of waste in landfills.¹³⁵

PET bottles are lightweight and versatile, making them popular choices for packaging beverages. However, the environmental impact of plastic waste, particularly single-use plastics, has led to a global push for increased recycling efforts. The recycling process for plastic bottles involves sorting, cleaning, shredding, and melting the plastic to create new bottles or other plastic products. Recycled plastic, also known as rPET, can be used to make new bottles, reducing the demand for virgin plastic and minimizing the associated environmental impact.¹³⁶

Benefits of Recycling in the Beverage Sector:

Resource Conservation: Recycling bottles, whether made of glass or plastic, reduces the need for new raw materials, conserving natural resources and energy required for extraction and production.¹³⁷
Emissions Reduction: The production of new packaging materials, especially from virgin sources, often contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. Recycling bottles helps lower emissions associated with manufacturing processes.¹³⁸
Waste Reduction: By recycling bottles, the amount of waste destined for landfills or incineration is significantly reduced, minimizing the negative impact on ecosystems and public health.¹³⁹
Circular Economy: Incorporating recycled materials back into the production cycle supports a circular economy model, where materials are reused and recycled rather than disposed of after single use.¹⁴⁰
Consumer Perception: Consumers increasingly favour products and brands that demonstrate commitment to sustainability. Incorporating recycled materials and promoting recycling initiatives can enhance a company’s reputation and attract environmentally conscious consumers.¹⁴¹

While recycling is a promising avenue for sustainability improvement, challenges remain. The challenges include ensuring proper collection, sorting, and processing of bottles for recycling, which requires investment in infrastructure and consumer education.¹⁴² Factors such as contamination of recycling streams, inadequate recycling facilities, and lack of recycling awareness can hinder progress.¹⁴³

The beverage sector’s focus on packaging waste management and recycling, particularly in the context of bottles, signifies a crucial step toward achieving sustainability goals.¹⁴⁴ Through effective recycling practices, the industry can reduce its environmental impact, conserve resources, and contribute to the global effort of minimizing packaging waste. However, success requires collaborative efforts from producers, consumers, and regulatory bodies to create a holistic and effective recycling ecosystem.¹⁴⁵

4 Drivers and Barriers for sustainability in the beverage sector

Why do some companies adopt sustainable practices and other don‘t? The underlying drivers and barriers for sustainable business practices can be classified in many different ways and every study and paper adopts a different classification. For the purpose of this wiki-article, we categorise them as firm-internal/firm-external, as well as political/legal, economic, social, technological.

4.1 Drivers

One firm-internal social driver for sustainability is the ethical motivation of top-level management, such as the CEO¹⁴⁶. In the beverage industry this commitment to sustainability materialises for example in the membership of the BIER, endorsing the CEO Water Mandate and being a member of the Alliance for Water Stewardship.

Figure 2: BIER members according to the BIER website

The Beverage Industry Environmental Roundtable (BIER) – “is a technical coalition of leading global beverage companies working together to advance environmental sustainability within the beverage sector“¹⁴⁷ The portfolio of the 17 member companies includes beer, bottled water, carbonated soft drinks, juice, tea, coffee, spirits, and wine. With over $260 Billion in combined annual revenue and over 2,000 facilities across 170 countries, the companies in this coalition have a significant environmental impact.¹⁴⁸ BIER publishes sectoral guidance on e.g. de-carbonisation as well as sustainability tool kits and best practise insights. They can be considered a base of knowledge for companies in the beverage industry. Additionally, BIER conducts global benchmarking activities with regard to energy and water usage in factories of its 17 members, which have recently shown a reduction of water and energy use, making the impact of adopted sustainability practices visible.¹⁴⁹ However, as the members of the roundtable provide funding for the research conducted as well as the publications, the documents need to be evaluated critically, as the members influence the focus on certain topics and all data is self-reported.

A second way for top-level management to engage and demonstrate commitment to sustainability issues is the CEO Water Mandate, an initiative established by the UN Global Compact and the UN Secretary-General. “Companies that endorse the CEO Water Mandate commit to action in six areas of water stewardship and to report annually on progress.”¹⁵⁰ The six areas are: Direct operations, supply chain and watershed management, collective action, public policy, community engagement and transparency. “In implementing water stewardship, endorsers also identify and reduce critical water risks to their businesses, seize water-related opportunities, and contribute to water security and the Sustainable Development Goals.”¹⁵¹

The mandate is endorsed by companies across all industry sectors. In the beverage sector, the endorsers include some of the BIER members (see above) and e.g. Starbucks among others. ¹⁵² The CEO Water Mandate does not set specific targets, policies or approaches. The argument is, that each company is in a unique position which must be taken into account.¹⁵³ However the question remains if the mandate truly fosters the adoption of sustainable business practices, or whether it is used as a marketing tool to attract investors.

A third membership-based organisation that concerns sustainable use of water is the Alliance for Water Stewardship (AWS). Members include a range of commercial enterprises, such as Nestlé, Diageo, Unilever, PepsiCo and CocaCola, to name the ones that are most relevant to the beverage sector, alongside major retailers, but also NGOs, universities and public sector units. AWS has developed a framework, the AWS standard, that helps major water users understand and manage their water use and impacts. It promotes sustainable water management within a specific region by encouraging collaboration and transparency. The standard aims to achieve social, environmental, and economic sustainability on a large scale by engaging water-using sites in addressing shared water challenges and site-specific risks and opportunities. The standard asks users to strive for best practise in five areas: good water governance, sustainable water balance, good water quality, protection of important water-related areas, and access to safe water, hygiene, and sanitation for all. To achieve these, the standard encourages collaborative approaches involving businesses, industries, governments, communities, and civil society organizations ¹⁵⁴. If all criteria in all five areas are fulfilled, the specific site can be certified against the standard. As of 16th of August 2023, 268 sites have obtained this certification, 117 of them are F&B manufacturing sites, out of which 34 are Coca-Cola factories, 31 Nestlé and 12 Diageo factories.¹⁵⁵ In contrast to the CEO Water Mandate, the AWS standard sets specific goals and criteria to be achieved, which enhances credibility and comparability.

Reporting on environmental performance/impact is often a requirement from environmentally-minded investors. For companies this can be both – an opportunity to establish new investment streams, so an internal economic driver, as well as a financial burden, as it requires resources to collect the required data.

One example for a popular reporting tool is the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), a charitable organisation that collects data on GHG emissions, water scarcity, deforestation and other climate relevant data. Advantages of disclosing with CDP are e.g. meeting the demands of investors and customers, protecting and improving the companies’ reputation, as well as, identifying potential risks and opportunities, tracking and comparing progress. As obligatory reporting is becoming more widespread, utilizing CDP for disclosure also allows companies to stay ahead of regulatory requirements.¹⁵⁶ Using sustainability reporting tools such as the CDP has proven successful for example for ABInBev: in 2021 they secured the first sustainability linked loan revolving credit facility, which they link back to their CDP reporting. ¹⁵⁷

There is evidence, that GHG reporting, which is part of CDP reporting and part of the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) , leads to more resource efficiency and thus helps to reduce costs¹⁵⁸. This can be considered another internal economic driver. Reporting on water and energy use has a similar effect, as is shown in the benchmarking studies of BIER members.¹⁵⁹ Additionally, reporting on GHG emissions helps companies to anticipate costs of carbon pricing schemes and makes it more resilient, which is another important factor for investors.

Besides internal drivers such as ethical motivation of top management and economic benefits, there is mounting external societal and political pressure for the adoption of sustainable business practices, also referred to as stakeholder pressure.¹⁶⁰ The growing public conciousness around climate change and ecosystem boundaries combined with the substantial ecological and social impact that the beverage industry has, lead to consumers integrating sustainability-linked considerations into their purchasing behaviour.¹⁶¹ Another study confirms that companies in the beverage industry strive towards more sustainable business practices to meet customer expectations and regulatory requirements.¹⁶² ¹⁶³

Transparency has become increasingly important, as consumers are demanding clear information about the ingredients and production processes used in their favourite beverages. This has pushed companies to be more transparent about their sourcing and manufacturing practices. Additionally, market visibility plays a crucial role in driving sustainability in the industry. As consumers become more aware of the environmental and social impacts of their choices, they seek out brands that align with their values and are committed to sustainability. This can be observed in the growing market segments of niches such as organic and fair-trade beverages.¹⁶⁴ Lastly, health-related trends have also become a significant driver for sustainability in the beverage industry. As consumers pay more attention to their health and wellness, there is a growing demand for healthier beverage options.¹⁶⁵ This has led breweries to expand their assortment and introduce non-alcoholic drinks to cater to this increasing trend. Furthermore, craft beer consumption has been perceived by consumers as more sustainable, as it is often made with locally sourced ingredients and produced on a smaller scale, which aligns with the values of sustainability-conscious consumers.¹⁶⁶

As another stakeholder, political institutions, such as governments, mirror the societal demand for more sustainability in policies and political road maps, outlining future legislation. In Europe, the European Green Deal and the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe, as well as new harmonised standards such as the Product Ecological Footprint (PEF) and the Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF)¹⁶⁷ shape a framework which makes environmental performance of products and companies more easily comparable, which can in turn have an effect on the consumer decision to buy or not buy a certain product. Additionally measures such as carbon taxes and recycling regulations, where they are implemented, drive the transformation towards more sustainability in the beverage sector. As mentioned previously, the Council of the European Union has updated its directive on the quality of water intended for human consumption to enhanced quality and access to tap water in order to reduce plastic water and its associated environmental impacts. ¹⁶⁸

A third group of stakeholders driving the sustainability transformation in the beverage industry are the employees. The attraction and retention of employees has been mentioned as a driving force for sustainability by top managers of large beverage manufacturing companies in Australia, as employees find themselves under scrutiny from their social and professional sphere regarding their employers sustainability performance. ¹⁶⁹

4.2 Barriers

Most studies assert that barriers to sustainability exist in particular for SMEs and due to the fragmented and diverse nature of the industry.¹⁷⁰ Since SMEs make up the vast majority of the food and beverage sector (e.g. > 99% in Europe), the challenges and barriers they face are of great importance when talking about ways to transform this industry towards more sustainability. Primarily they often lack the economic resources and flexibility to invest in new technologies or investigate more efficient production techniques.¹⁷¹

Explicitly, one of the most often named internal economic barriers in literature are long pay-back periods for investments in e.g. energy-saving or CO2-reducing equipment. Funds and workforce are usually directed towards projects, which deliver results more short-term.¹⁷² ¹⁷³ Empirical research shows that there are technologies with short return periods (less than three to five years) available, which could be of interest and implementable for SMEs.¹⁷⁴ However, various studies identified the capacity to investigate suitable energy saving measures as another barrier alongside missing in-depth knowledge, which led to the inability to identify efficiency measures or energy saving potentials.¹⁷⁵ Any resources available are usually directed towards developing new products to satisfy the market demand and stay competitive amongst fast-paced changes in beverage trends. Sovacool et al. observe that ”the industry spent more on developing and selling energy drinks than they did on R&D in energy and sustainability.”¹⁷⁶ Inefficiency often also stems from how companies in the beverage sector typically grow. Most start out as a small enterprises with limited production capacity. As the companies grow, machinery is usually only adapted to meet the demand, but companies do not have the financial resources to buy new, more efficient equipment. This leads to considerable efficiency losses. In most cases energy-efficiency and resource-efficiency measures are only available or realistic for large sites operating continuous production cycles.¹⁷⁷

Additionally, measures are often specific/unique to a certain factory/site, even if they are transferable to another manufacturing facility, the preliminary investigations to determine whether a certain measure can be implemented or not, require the working time of employees that is usually required for other more “pressing” issues.

Another firm-internal technological barrier to change processes and adopt sustainable measures is the risk of not meeting required product quality or changing the sensory character of products, such as colour, smell or taste.¹⁷⁸ Furthermore hygienic standards must be met to comply with legislation. This results in a risk-adverse mindset when it comes to new technologies and has recently resulted an increase in energy consumption within the beverage industry.¹⁷⁹ Furthermore, implementing new technologies or production processes may also lead to a disruption of production processes resulting in economic losses, which is a factor to consider for companies of all sizes, but may be critical for SMEs in particular.¹⁸⁰

Looking at external barriers for implementing sustainability in the beverage industry, they can mostly be classified as political and social barriers, and are mostly applicable to larger companies within the beverage industry. These companies are perceived to have greater environmental and social impact, but also greater leverage in their supply chains and downstream operations. This results in more pungent pressure and scrutiny from consumers and the market in general.¹⁸¹

Multi-national companies struggle with the vastly differing regulations around the globe. One example is recycling and the use of deposit systems. These are mostly European and US-American phenomena. Outside of these markets, companies need to investigate other ways of reducing their impact on plastic waste in the rest of the world, which many beverage manufacturers have vouched to do, but struggle to implement. Connected to this is an external technological barrier for beverage manufacturers: the limited availability of sustainable packaging material. There have been great advances in the development of environmentally-friendly packaging materials and more efficiency resources use, especially in the area of PET recycling. Looking at PCT PET in particular, factors such as price, lagging legislation and product quality variance are hindering a wide-spread commercial adoption of this material in the beverage industry. ¹⁸²

The lack of uniform reporting standards in the beverage industry pose problem, as they do in other industries. Companies use different methodologies, units of measurement and reporting frameworks when conducting their environmental impact assessments (see chapter 2). This makes it difficult to collect reliable and standardised data for analysis and comparison, which is relevant for investors, consumers and governments. Furthermore, there is also no consensus on which criteria and metrics are most relevant and important in environmental impact assessments for regulatory authorities, such as governments. The EU has addressed this issue with the PEF and OEF, however for globally operating companies the only solution is using commercial standards such as GRI and SASB.

Social barriers to more sustainability in the beverage sector include strong user habits and preferences. One of them is an aversion of tap water and the preference of bottled water over tap water, despite the environmental impact of the created plastic waste that is known to most consumers. This aversion stems consumer concerns regarding the municipal distribution water services and outdated water pipes, additionally they succumb to the marketing tactics of bottled water companies, which aggressively advertise their water as having superior quality.¹⁸³

Looking at plastic waste and sustainability advancement in the beverage industry in the developing countries, a different set of barriers arises. There is a lack of water treatment and purification infrastructure, which results in many communities having only limited access to safe drinking water. Water must either be fetched from wells or public taps, which is associated with social distress such as facing abuse in the queue, being late for work or not being able to undertake any activities to generate household income. An alternative to this is buying water from a merchant, which is considerably more expensive, thus reduces the household budget and elevates financial stress, and is often associated with psychological stress due to e.g. arguments and fights with shopkeepers or having to beg.¹⁸⁴ Additionally, there are usually no recycling or deposit systems in place, so plastic bottles end up in landfills or are discarded in the environment, which increases the negative environmental impact further. In order to assist companies to overcome these barriers, there have been efforts in legislation, but also funding initiatives from both public and private sources as well as initiatives to foster public-private partnerships to support innovation and the implementation of sustainability measures for SMEs as well as big players in the beverage industry.¹⁸⁵ With regard to user habits such as the preference of bottled water over tap water, educational efforts should be fostered further to enhance the knowledge of consumers all over the world.

References

1
Hermann, L. Wasser trinken: So viel ist gesund. https://utopia.de/ratgeber/wasser-trinken-so-viel-ist-gesund/ (2023)
2
Dolan, F., Lamontagne, J., Link, R. et al. Evaluating the economic impact of water scarcity in a changing world. Nat Commun 12, 1915 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22194-0
3
United Nations General Assembly. 55/2. United Nations Millennium Declaration. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly A/RES/55/2. 5 (2000)
4
Hoekstra, A. Y. Water scarcity challenges to business. Nature Climate Change 4. 318 (2014).
5
United Nations General Assembly. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015 A/RES/70/1. 14 (2015)
6
United Nations General Assembly. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015 A/RES/70/1. 14 (2015)
7
United Nations General Assembly. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015 A/RES/70/1. 14 (2015)
8
Morrison, J., Morikawa, M., Murphy, M., Schulte, P. Water Scarcity & Climate Change: Growing Risks for Businesses & Investors. Ceres Report. 5 (2009).
9
Weber, O., Saunders-Hogberg, G. Corporate social responsibility, water management, and financial performance in the food and beverage industry. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2 (2020)
10
Uzuner, S., Cekmecelioglu, D. Enzymes in the Beverage Industry. Enzymes in Food Biotechnology (2019).
11
Huo, V. Non-Alcoholic Drinks Report. Statista Consumer Market Outlook – Market Report. (2023).
12
Huo, V. Non-Alcoholic Drinks Report. Statista Consumer Market Outlook – Market Report. (2023).
13
Huo, V. Non-Alcoholic Drinks Report. Statista Consumer Market Outlook – Market Report. (2023).
14
Huo, V. Non-Alcoholic Drinks Report. Statista Consumer Market Outlook – Market Report. (2023).
15
Huo, V. Non-Alcoholic Drinks Report. Statista Consumer Market Outlook – Market Report. (2023).
16
Huo, V. Non-Alcoholic Drinks Report. Statista Consumer Market Outlook – Market Report. (2023).
17
Huo, V. Alcoholic Drinks Report. Statista Consumer Market Outlook – Market Report. (2023).
18
Beverage Industry Magazine. Umsatz der führenden Hersteller von Getränken weltweit im Jahr 2021. Statista. (2022).
19
Beverage Industry Magazine. Umsatz der führenden Hersteller von Getränken weltweit im Jahr 2021. Statista. (2022).
20
Beverage Industry Magazine. Umsatz der führenden Hersteller von Getränken weltweit im Jahr 2021. Statista. (2022).
21
Dahan, Y. et al. Shared Responsibility and Labor Rights in Global Supply Chains. Journal of Business Ethics 182. 1035 (2023)
22
Boyd, C. The Nestle´ Infant Formula Controversy and a Strange Web of Subsequent Business Scandals. Journal of Business Ethics 106. 284 (2012)
23
Beverage Industry Magazine. Umsatz der führenden Hersteller von Getränken weltweit im Jahr 2021. Statista. (2022).
24
Karnani, A. Corporate social responsibility does not avert the tragedy of the commons. Case study: Coca-Cola India. Economics, Management, and Financial Markets 9 (3). 7 (2014).
25
Facit. Umfrage zu Aspekten des bewussten Getränkekonsums in Deutschland 2020 Nachhaltigkeitsstudie. 9 (2020).
26
Dini, I. An Overview of functional beverages. The Science of Beverages (11). 1 (2019)
27
Dini, I. An Overview of functional beverages. The Science of Beverages (11). 1 (2019)
28
Statista. Umsatz mit alkoholfreiem Bier weltweit in den Jahren 2014 bis 2022 mit einer Prognose bis 2027 (in Milliarden Euro). Statista Consumer Market Outlook. (2023).
29
IfD Allensbach. Ranking der meistgekauften bzw. meistkonsumierten Getränke in der Bevölkerung in Deutschland in den Jahren 2020 bis 2022. Allensbacher Markt- und Werbeträger-Analyse. (2023).
30
European Parliament, European Council. Directive on the quality of water intended for human consumption. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32020L2184&qid=1691317512351 (2020)
31
European Parliament. Trinkwasser in der EU: Bessere Qualität, besserer Zugang. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/de/headlines/society/20181011STO15887/trinkwasser-in-der-eu-bessere-qualitat-besserer-zugang (2020).
32
Forschungsinstitut für ökologischen Landbau. Umsatz mit Bio-Lebensmitteln weltweit in den Jahren 1999 bis 2021. The World of Organic Agriculture 2023. 61 (2023).
33
BIER. Beverage Industry Continues to Drive Improvement in Water , Energy , and Emissions Efficiency. (2022).
34
Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360, 987–992 (2018).
35
Meyers, S., Schmitt, B., Chester-Jones, M. & Sturm, B. Energy efficiency, carbon emissions, and measures towards their improvement in the food and beverage sector for six European countries. Energy 104, 266–283 (2016).
36
Petersson, T. u. a. SU-EATABLE LIFE: a comprehensive database of carbon and water footprints of food commodities. auf https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/SUEATABLE_LIFE_a_comprehensive_database_of_^[1]Hermann, L. Wasser trinken: So viel ist gesund. https://utopia.de/ratgeber/wasser-trinken-so-viel-ist-gesund/ (2023)
37
Meinrenken, C. J. u. a. The Carbon Catalogue public database – Carbon footprints of 866 commercial products across 8 industry sectors and 5 continents. auf https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.16908979.v1 (2022).
38
Gibassier, D. Implementing an EMA innovation: The case of carbon accounting. Corporate Carbon and Climate Accounting (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-27718-9_6.
39
BIER. Beverage Industry Continues to Drive Improvement in Water , Energy , and Emissions Efficiency. (2022).
40
Gibassier, D. Implementing an EMA innovation: The case of carbon accounting. Corporate Carbon and Climate Accounting (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-27718-9_6.
41
Hoekstra, A. Y. The water footprint of industry. Assessing and Measuring Environmental Impact and Sustainability (Elsevier Inc., 2015). doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-799968-5.00007-5.
42
Clarke, C., Ferguson, C., Crocker, T., Marcell, K. & Crocker, T. Fast Moving Consumers. 1–5 (2019).
43
Hoekstra, A. Y. The water footprint of industry. Assessing and Measuring Environmental Impact and Sustainability (Elsevier Inc., 2015). doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-799968-5.00007-5.
44
Ercin, A. E., Aldaya, M. M. & Hoekstra, A. Y. Corporate Water Footprint Accounting and Impact Assessment: The Case of the Water Footprint of a Sugar-Containing Carbonated Beverage. Water Resources Management 25, 721–741 (2011).
45
Hoekstra, A. Y. The water footprint of industry. Assessing and Measuring Environmental Impact and Sustainability (Elsevier Inc., 2015). doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-799968-5.00007-5.
46
Gibassier, D. Implementing an EMA innovation: The case of carbon accounting. Corporate Carbon and Climate Accounting (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-27718-9_6.
47
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Beverage sector – The Global Commitment 2022 Progress Report. (2022).
48
Break Free from Plastic. Brand Audit Reports 2018-2022. (2022).
49
Boucher, J., Billard, G., Simeone, E. & Sousa, J. The marine plastic footprint. The marine plastic footprint (2020). doi:10.2305/iucn.ch.2020.01.en.
50
Garin, D. Embedding corporate accountability into the global plastics treaty. WBCSD (2023).
51
Panhuysen, S. & Pierrot, J. Coffee Barometer 2020. 56 (2021).
52
Sachs, J., Cordes, K. Y., Rising, J., Toledano, P. & Maennling, N. Ensuring Economic Viability and Sustainability of Coffee. https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/sustainable_investment_staffpubs/53 (2019).
53
Munasinghe, M., Deraniyagala, Y., Dassanayake, N. & Karunarathna, H. Economic, social and environmental impacts and overall sustainability of the tea sector in Sri Lanka. Sustainable Production and Consumption 12, 155–169 (2017).
54
Munasinghe, M., Deraniyagala, Y., Dassanayake, N. & Karunarathna, H. Economic, social and environmental impacts and overall sustainability of the tea sector in Sri Lanka. Sustainable Production and Consumption 12, 155–169 (2017).
55
van der Wal, S. Sustainability issues in the tea sector: A comparative analysis of six leading producing countries. (2008).
56
Sachs, J., Cordes, K. Y., Rising, J., Toledano, P. & Maennling, N. Ensuring Economic Viability and Sustainability of Coffee. https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/sustainable_investment_staffpubs/53 (2019).
57
Sachs, J., Cordes, K. Y., Rising, J., Toledano, P. & Maennling, N. Ensuring Economic Viability and Sustainability of Coffee. https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/sustainable_investment_staffpubs/53 (2019).
58
Munasinghe, M., Deraniyagala, Y., Dassanayake, N. & Karunarathna, H. Economic, social and environmental impacts and overall sustainability of the tea sector in Sri Lanka. Sustainable Production and Consumption 12, 155–169 (2017).
59
Munasinghe, M., Deraniyagala, Y., Dassanayake, N. & Karunarathna, H. Economic, social and environmental impacts and overall sustainability of the tea sector in Sri Lanka. Sustainable Production and Consumption 12, 155–169 (2017).
60
More, T. A., Shaikh, Z. & Ali, A. Artificial Sweeteners and their Health Implications: A Review. Biosciences Biotechnology Research Asia 18, 227–237 (2021).
61
Shearer, J. & Swithers, S. E. Artificial sweeteners and metabolic dysregulation: Lessons learned from agriculture and the laboratory. Reviews in Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders 17, 179–186 (2016).
62
Lam, T. H. & Chim, D. Controlling alcohol-related global health problems. Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health 22, (2010).
63
Ritchie, H. & Roser, M. Clean Water and Sanitation. OurWorldInData.org https://ourworldindata.org/water-access#citation (2021).
64
United Nations. Clean water and sanitation. unstats.un.org https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2023/Goal-06/ (2023).
65
Ritchie, H. & Roser, M. Clean Water and Sanitation. OurWorldInData.org https://ourworldindata.org/water-access#citation (2021).
66
Hunter, P. R., MacDonald, A. M. & Carter, R. C. Water Supply and Health. PLoS Medicine 7, (2010).
67
Kayser, G. L., Rao, N., Jose, R. & Raj, A. Water, sanitation and hygiene: Measuring gender equality and empowerment. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 97, 438–440 (2019).
68
De Guzman, K. u. a. Drinking water and the implications for gender equity and empowerment: A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative evidence. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health 247, 114044 (2023).
69
Sommer, M., Ferron, S., Cavill, S. & House, S. Violence, gender and WASH: spurring action on a complex, under-documented and sensitive topic. Environment and Urbanization 27, 105–116 (2015).
70
Ritchie, H. & Roser, M. Water Use and Stress. OurWorldInData.org https://ourworldindata.org/water-use-stress#citation (2017).
71
Hoekstra, A. Y. The water footprint of industry. Assessing and Measuring Environmental Impact and Sustainability (Elsevier Inc., 2015). doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-799968-5.00007-5.
72
Ercin, A. E., Aldaya, M. M. & Hoekstra, A. Y. Corporate Water Footprint Accounting and Impact Assessment: The Case of the Water Footprint of a Sugar-Containing Carbonated Beverage. Water Resources Management 25, 721–741 (2011).
73
Ercin, A. E., Aldaya, M. M. & Hoekstra, A. Y. Corporate Water Footprint Accounting and Impact Assessment: The Case of the Water Footprint of a Sugar-Containing Carbonated Beverage. Water Resources Management 25, 721–741 (2011).
74
Jagtap, S. et al. An Internet of Things Approach for Water Efficiency: A Case Study of the Beverage Factory Sustainable Manufacturing Systems Centre, School of Aeronautical, Transport, and Manufacturing. (2021) doi:10.3390/su13063343.
75
Jagtap, S. et al. An Internet of Things Approach for Water Efficiency: A Case Study of the Beverage Factory Sustainable Manufacturing Systems Centre, School of Aeronautical, Transport, and Manufacturing. (2021) doi:10.3390/su13063343.
76
Jagtap, S. et al. An Internet of Things Approach for Water Efficiency: A Case Study of the Beverage Factory Sustainable Manufacturing Systems Centre, School of Aeronautical, Transport, and Manufacturing. (2021) doi:10.3390/su13063343.
77
Jagtap, S. et al. An Internet of Things Approach for Water Efficiency: A Case Study of the Beverage Factory Sustainable Manufacturing Systems Centre, School of Aeronautical, Transport, and Manufacturing. (2021) doi:10.3390/su13063343.
78
Jagtap, S. et al. An Internet of Things Approach for Water Efficiency: A Case Study of the Beverage Factory Sustainable Manufacturing Systems Centre, School of Aeronautical, Transport, and Manufacturing. (2021) doi:10.3390/su13063343.
79
Alkaya, E. & Demirer, G. N. Water recycling and reuse in soft drink/beverage industry: A case study for sustainable industrial water management in Turkey. Resour Conserv Recycl 104, 172–180 (2015).
80
Casani, S. & Knøchel, S. Application of HACCP to water reuse in the food industry. Food Control 13, 315–327 (2002).
81
Alkaya, E. & Demirer, G. N. Water recycling and reuse in soft drink/beverage industry: A case study for sustainable industrial water management in Turkey. Resour Conserv Recycl 104, 172–180 (2015).
82
Oktay, S., Iskender, G., Germirli Babuna, F., Kutluay, G. & Orhon, D. Improving the wastewater management for a beverage industry with in-plant control. Desalination 211, 138–143 (2007).
83
Casani, S. & Knøchel, S. Application of HACCP to water reuse in the food industry. Food Control 13, 315–327 (2002).
84
Alkaya, E. & Demirer, G. N. Water recycling and reuse in soft drink/beverage industry: A case study for sustainable industrial water management in Turkey. Resour Conserv Recycl 104, 172–180 (2015).
85
Alkaya, E. & Demirer, G. N. Water recycling and reuse in soft drink/beverage industry: A case study for sustainable industrial water management in Turkey. Resour Conserv Recycl 104, 172–180 (2015).
86
Alkaya, E. & Demirer, G. N. Water recycling and reuse in soft drink/beverage industry: A case study for sustainable industrial water management in Turkey. Resour Conserv Recycl 104, 172–180 (2015).
87
Haroon, H., Waseem, A. & Mahmood, Q. Treatment and reuse of wastewater from beverage industry. J Chem Soc Pak 35, 5–10 (2013).
88
Haroon, H., Waseem, A. & Mahmood, Q. Treatment and reuse of wastewater from beverage industry. J Chem Soc Pak 35, 5–10 (2013. & Demirer, G. N. Water recycling and reuse in soft drink/beverage industry: A case study for sustainable industrial water management in Turkey. Resour Conserv Recycl 104, 172–180 (2015).
89
Alkaya, E. & Demirer, G. N. Water recycling and reuse in soft drink/beverage industry: A case study for sustainable industrial water management in Turkey. Resour Conserv Recycl 104, 172–180 (2015).
90
Casani, S. & Knøchel, S. Appli & Mahmood, Q. Treatment and reuse of wastewater from beverage industry. J Chem Soc Pak 35, 5–10 (2013).
91
Alkaya, E. & Demirer, G. N. Water recycling and reuse in soft drink/beverage industry: A case study for sustainable industrial water management in Turkey. Resour Conserv Recycl 104, 172–180 (2015).
92
Alkaya, E. & Demirer, G. N. Water recycling and reuse in soft drink/beverage industry: A case study for sustainable industrial water management in Turkey. Resour Conserv Recycl 104, 172–180 (2015).
93
Carlsberg A/S. Carlsberg Group ESG Report 2022. Carlsberg Group ESG Report 2022 (2023).
94
Ambekar, S., Kapoor, R., Prakash, A. & Patyal, V. S. Motives, processes and practices of sustainable sourcing: a literature review. Journal of Global Operations and Strategic Sourcing vol. 12 2–41 Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1108/JGOSS-11-2017-0046 (2019).
95
van der Werff, S., Trienekens, J., Hagelaar, G. & Pascucci, S. Patterns in sustainable relationships between buyers and suppliers: evidence from the food and beverage industry. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 21, 1023–1043 (2018).
96
Ludin, D. & Wellbrock, W. Betriebswirtschaftliche Implikationen eines nachhaltigen Beschaffungsmanagements. in Nachhaltiges Beschaffungsmanagement 3–16 (Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, 2019). doi:10.1007/978-3-658-25188-8_1.
97
Ambekar, S., Kapoor, R., Prakash, A. & Patyal, V. S. Motives, processes and practices of sustainable sourcing: a literature review. Journal of Global Operations and Strategic Sourcing vol. 12 2–41 Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1108/JGOSS-11-2017-0046 (2019).
98
van der Werff, S., Trienekens, J., Hagelaar, G. & Pascucci, S. Patterns in sustainable relationships between buyers and suppliers: evidence from the food and beverage industry. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 21, 1023–1043 (2018).
99
Bager, S. L. & Lambin, E. F. Sustainability strategies by companies in the global coffee sector. Bus Strategy Environ 29, 3555–3570 (2020).
100
Reuter, C., Foerstl, K., Hartmann, E. & Blome, C. Sustainable Global Supplier Management: The Role Of Dynamic Capabilities In Achieving Competitive Advantage. Journal of Supply Chain Management 46, 45–63 (2010).
101
Bager, S. L. & Lambin, E. F. Sustainability strategies by companies in the global coffee sector. Bus Strategy Environ 29, 3555–3570 (2020).
102
Bager, S. L. & Lambin, E. F. Sustainability strategies by companies in the global coffee sector. Bus Strategy Environ 29, 3555–3570 (2020).
103
Reuter, C., Foerstl, K., Hartmann, E. & Blome, C. Sustainable Global Supplier Management: The Role Of Dynamic Capabilities In Achieving Competitive Advantage. Journal of Supply Chain Management 46, 45–63 (2010).
104
Reuter, C., Foerstl, K., Hartmann, E. & Blome, C. Sustainable Global Supplier Management: The Role Of Dynamic Capabilities In Achieving Competitive Advantage. Journal of Supply Chain Management 46, 45–63 (2010).
105
Pagell, M., Wu, Z. & Wasserman, M. E. Thinking Differently About Purchasing Portfolios: An Assessment Of Sustainable Sourcing. Journal of Supply Chain Management 46, 57–73 (2010).
106
van der Werff, S., Trienekens, J., Hagelaar, G. & Pascucci, S. Patterns in sustainable relationships between buyers and suppliers: evidence from the food and beverage industry. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 21, 1023–1043 (2018).
107
van der Werff, S., Trienekens, J., Hagelaar, G. & Pascucci, S. Patterns in sustainable relationships between buyers and suppliers: evidence from the food and beverage industry. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 21, 1023–1043 (2018).
108
AB InBev. Responsible Sourcing https://www.ab-inbev.com/suppliers/sourcing-responsibly/.
109
AB InBev. Responsible Sourcing https://www.ab-inbev.com/suppliers/sourcing-responsibly/.
110
Bager, S. L. & Lambin, E. F. Sustainability strategies by companies in the global coffee sector. Bus Strategy Environ 29, 3555–3570 (2020).
111
Bager, S. L. & Lambin, E. F. Sustainability strategies by companies in the global coffee sector. Bus Strategy Environ 29, 3555–3570 (2020).
112
Bager, S. L. & Lambin, E. F. Sustainability strategies by companies in the global coffee sector. Bus Strategy Environ 29, 3555–3570 (2020).
113
Hosseini, S. M., Aslani, A. & Kasaeian, A. Life cycle cost and environmental assessment of CO2 utilization in the beverage industry: A natural gas-fired power plant equipped with post combustion CO2 capture. Energy Reports 9, 414–436 (2023).
114
Von Der Assen, N., Jung, J. & Bardow, A. Life-cycle assessment of carbon dioxide capture and utilization: avoiding the pitfalls. Energy Environ Sci 6, 2721–2734 (2013).
115
Ghiat, I. & Al-Ansari, T. A review of carbon capture and utilisation as a CO2 abatement opportunity within the EWF nexus. Journal of CO2 Utilization 45, 101432 (2021).
116
Hosseini, S. M., Aslani, A. & Kasaeian, A. Life cycle cost and environmental assessment of CO2 utilization in the beverage industry: A natural gas-fired polity strategies by companies in the global coffee sector. Bus Strategy Environ 29, 3555–3570 (2020).
117
Von Der Assen, N., Jung, J. & Bardow, A. Life-cycle assessment of carbon dioxide capture and utilization: avoiding the pitfalls. Energy Environ Sci 6, 2721–2734 (2013).
118
Hosseini, S. M., Aslani, A. & Kasaeian, A. Life cycle cost and environmental assessment of CO2 utilization in the beverage industry: A natural gas-fired power plant equipped with post combustion CO2 capture. Energy Reports 9, 414–436 (2023).
119
Von Der Assen, N., Jung, J. & Bardow, A. Life-cycle assessment of carbon dioxide capture and utilization: avoiding the pitfalls. Energy Environ Sci 6, 2721–2734 (2013).
120
Sovacool, B. K. et al. Decarbonizing the food and beverages industry: A critical and systematic review of developments, sociotechnical systems and policy options. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 143, 110856 (2021).
121
Santonja, G. G., Karlis, P., Stubdrup, K. R. & Brinkmann, T. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Food, Drink and Milk Industries. (2010) doi:10.2760/243911.
122
Santonja, G. G., Karlis, P., Stubdrup, K. R. & Brinkmann, T. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Food, Drink and Milk Industries. (2010) doi:10.2760/243911.
123
Santonja, G. G., Karlis, P., Stubdrup, K. R. & Brinkmann, T. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Food, Drink and Milk Industries. (2010) doi:10.2760/243911.
124
Benyathiar, P., Kumar, P., Carpenter, G., Brace, J. & Mishra, D. K. Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Bottle-to-Bottle Recycling for the Beverage Industry: A Review. (2022) doi:10.3390/polym14122366.
125
Benyathiar, P., Kumar, P., Carpenter, G., Brace, J. & Mishra, D. K. Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Bottle-to-Bottle Recycling for the Beverage Industry: A Review. (2022) doi:10.3390/polym14122366.
126
Santonja, G. G., Karlis, P., Stubdrup, K. R. & Brinkmann, T. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Food, Drink and Milk Industries. (2010) doi:10.2760/243911.
127
Samuel, A. U., Oyawale, F. & Fayomi, O. S. I. Effects of Waste Management in Beverage Industries: A Perspective. J Phys Conf Ser 1378, (2019).
128
Santonja, G. G., Karlis, P., Stubdrup, K. R. & Brinkmann, T. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Food, Drink and Milk Industries. (2010) doi:10.2760/243911.
129
Santonja, G. G., Karlis, P., Stubdrup, K. R. & Brinkmann, T. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Food, Drink and Milk Industries. (2010) doi:10.2760/243911.
130
Benyathiar, P., Kumar, P., Carpenter, G., Brace, J. & Mishra, D. K. Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Bottle-to-Bottle Recycling for the Beverage Industry: A Review. (2022) doi:10.3390/polym14122366.
131
Benyathiar, P., Kumar, P., Carpenter, G., Brace, J. & Mishra, D. K. Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Bottle-to-Bottle Recycling for the Beverage Industry: A Review. (2022) doi:10.3390/polym14122366.
132
Ghoshal, G. Recent Development in Beverage Packaging Material and its Adaptation Strategy. Trends in Beverage Packaging:Reference Document for the Food, Drink and Milk Industries. (2010) doi:10.2760/243911.
133
Benyathiar, P., Kumar, P., Carpenter, G., Brace, J. & Mishra, D. K. Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Bottle-to-Bottle Recycling for the Beverage Industry: A Review. (2022) doi:10.3390/polym14122366.
134
Santonja, G. G., Karlis, P., Stubdrup, K. R. & Brinkmann, T. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Food, Drink and Milk Industries. (2010) doi:10.2760/243911.
135
Santonja, G. G., Karlis, P., Stubdrup, K. R. & Brinkmann, T. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Food, Drink and Milk Industries. (2010) doi:10.2760/243911.
136
Benyathiar, P., Kumar, P., Carpenter, G., Brace, J. & Mishra, D. K. Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Bottle-to-Bottle Recycling for the Beverage Industry: A Review. (2022) doi:10.3390/polym14122366.
137
Santonja, G. G., Karlis, P., Stubdrup, K. R. & Brinkmann, T. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Food, Drink and Milk Industries. (2010) doi:10.2760/243911.
138
Santonja, G. G., Karlis, P., Stubdrup, K. R. & Brinkmann, T. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Food, Drink and Milk Industries. (2010) doi:10.2760/243911.
139
Benyathiar, P., Kumar, P., Carpenter, G., Brace, J. & Mishra, D. K. Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Bottle-to-Bottle Recycling for the Beverage Industry: A Review. (2022) doi:10.3390/polym14122366.
140
Samuel, A. U., Oyawale, F. & Fayomi, O. S. I. Effects of Waste Management in Beverage Industries: A Perspective. J Phys Conf Ser 1378, (2019).
141
Santonja, G. G., Karlis, P., Stubdrup, K. R. & Brinkmann, T. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Food, Drink and Milk Industries. (2010) doi:10.2760/243911.
142
Samuel, A. U., Oyawale, F. & Fayomi, O. S. I. Effects of Waste Management in Beverage Industries: A Perspective. J Phys Conf Ser 1378, (2019).
143
Santonja, G. G., Karlis, P., Stubdrup, K. R. & Brinkmann, T. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Food, Drink and Milk Industries. (2010) doi:10.2760/243911.
144
Samuel, A. U., Oyawale, F. & Fayomi, O. S. I. Effects of Waste Management in Beverage Industries: A Perspective. J Phys Conf Ser 1378, (2019).
145
Santonja, G. G., Karlis, P., Stubdrup, K. R. & Brinkmann, T. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Food, Drink and Milk Industries. (2010) doi:10.2760/243911.
146
Adams, D., Donovan, J., & Topple, C. Sustainability in large food and beverage companies and their supply chains: An investigation into key drivers and barriers affecting sustainability strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32( 4), 1451– 1463. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3198 (2023)
147
BIER. About bier – Our Role in the Global Beverage Industry. https://www.bieroundtable.com/about/ (2019)
148
BIER. BIER Members – Beverage Industry Leaders. https://www.bieroundtable.com/members/ (2019)
149
BIER. Beverage Industry Benchmarking. https://www.bieroundtable.com/work/benchmarking/ (2019)
150
CEO Water Mandate. About. https://ceowatermandate.org/collectiveaction/about/ (2023)
151
CEO Water Mandate. What is the Mandate? https://ceowatermandate.org/about/what-is-the-mandate/ (2023)
152
CEO Water Mandate. Endorsing Companies. https://ceowatermandate.org/about/endorsing-companies/ (2023)
153
CEO Water Mandate. What is the Mandate? https://ceowatermandate.org/about/what-is-the-mandate/ (2023)
154
Alliance for Water Stewardship. The AWS International Water Stewardship Standard https://a4ws.org/the-aws-standard-2-0/ (2023)
155
Alliance for Water Stewardship. Certified sites. https://a4ws.org/certification/certified-sites/ (2023)
156
CDP, Why disclose as a company, https://www.cdp.net/en/companies-discloser (2023)
157
https://www.ab-inbev.com/content/dam/abinbev/news-media/press-releases/2021/02/ABI%20Sustainability-Linked%20Loan%20Announcement_EN_vfinal.pdf
158
Damkær Hansen, A., Kuramochi, T., Wicke, B., The status of corporate greenhouse gas emissions reporting in the food sector: An evaluation of food and beverage manufacturers, Journal of Cleaner Production, 361, ISSN 0959-6526, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132279. (2022)
159
BIER. Beverage Industry Benchmarking. https://www.bieroundtable.com/work/benchmarking/ (2019)
160
Adams, D., Donovan, J., & Topple, C. Sustainability in large food and beverage companies and their supply chains: An investigation into key drivers and barriers affecting sustainability strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32( 4), 1451– 1463. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3198 (2023)
161
Rodriguez-Sanchez, C.; Sellers-Rubio, R. Sustainability in the Beverage Industry: A Research Agenda from the Demand Side. Sustainability 2021, 13, 186. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13010186
162
Sajjad, A., Eweje, G. , Tappin, D. Managerial perspectives on drivers for and barriers to sustainable supply chain management implementation: Evidence from New Zealand, Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(2), 592-604.https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2389 (2020)
163
Ali, I., Aboelmaged, M. Implementation of supply chain 4.0 in the food and beverage industry: perceived drivers and barriers, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management DOI: 10.1108/IJPPM-07-2020-0393(2021)
164
Forschungsinstitut für ökologischen Landbau. Umsatz mit Bio-Lebensmitteln weltweit in den Jahren 1999 bis 2021. The World of Organic Agriculture 2023. 61 (2023).
165
Demartini, M., Pinna, C., Aliakbarian, B., Tonelli, F. & Terzi, S. Soft Drink Supply Chain Sustainability: A Case Based Approach to Identify and Explain Best Practices and Key Performance Indicators. Sustainability 10, 3540 (2018).
166
Rodriguez-Sanchez, C.; Sellers-Rubio, R. Sustainability in the Beverage Industry: A Research Agenda from the Demand Side. Sustainability 2021, 13, 186. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13010186
167
Dri M., Antonopoulos I. S., Canfora P., Gaudillat P., Best Environmental Management Practice for the Food and Beverage Manufacturing Sector, JRC Science for Policy Report, EUR 29382 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, doi:10.2760/2115, JRC113418. (2018)
168
European Parliament. Trinkwasser in der EU: Bessere Qualität, besserer Zugang. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/de/headlines/society/20181011STO15887/trinkwasser-in-der-eu-bessere-qualitat-besserer-zugang (2020).
169
Adams, D., Donovan, J., & Topple, C. Sustainability in large food and beverage companies and their supply chains: An investigation into key drivers and barriers affecting sustainability strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32( 4), 1451– 1463. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3198 (2023)
170
Griffin, P., Hammond, G., Norman, J., Industrial energy use and carbon emissions reduction: a UK perspective.WIREs Energy and Environment, 5 (6), 684-714. https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.212 (2016)
171
Meyers, S. , Schmitt, B., Chester-Jones, M., Sturm, B. Energy efficiency, carbon emissions, and measures towards their improvement in the food and beverage sector for six European countries, Energy, 104, 266-283, ISSN 0360-5442, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.03.117.
172
Adams, D., Donovan, J., & Topple, C. Sustainability in large food and beverage companies and their supply chains: An investigation into key drivers and barriers affecting sustainability strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32( 4), 1451– 1463. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3198 (2023)
173
Meyers, S. , Schmitt, B., Chester-Jones, M., Sturm, B. Energy efficiency, carbon emissions, and measures towards their improvement in the food and beverage sector for six European countries, Energy, 104, 266-283, ISSN 0360-5442, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.03.117.
174
Dri M., Antonopoulos I. S., Canfora P., Gaudillat P., Best Environmental Management Practice for the Food and Beverage Manufacturing Sector, JRC Science for Policy Report, EUR 29382 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, doi:10.2760/2115, JRC113418. (2018)
175
Meyers, S. , Schmitt, B., Chester-Jones, M., Sturm, B. Energy efficiency, carbon emissions, and measures towards their improvement in the food and beverage sector for six European countries, Energy, 104, 266-283, ISSN 0360-5442, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.03.117.
176
Sovacool,B. , Bazilian, M. , Griffiths, S. , Kim, J., Foley, A., Rooney, D. Decarbonizing the food and beverages industry: A critical and systematic review of developments, sociotechnical systems and policy options, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 143 (2021)
177
Meyers, S. , Schmitt, B., Chester-Jones, M., Sturm, B. Energy efficiency, carbon emissions, and measures towards their improvement in the food and beverage sector for six European countries, Energy, 104, 266-283, ISSN 0360-5442, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.03.117.
178
Sovacool,B. , Bazilian, M. , Griffiths, S. , Kim, J., Foley, A., Rooney, D. Decarbonizing the food and beverages industry: A critical and systematic review of developments, sociotechnical systems and policy options, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 143 (2021)
179
Griffin, P., Hammond, G., Norman, J., Industrial energy use and carbon emissions reduction: a UK perspective.WIREs Energy and Environment, 5 (6), 684-714. https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.212 (2016)
180
Sovacool,B. , Bazilian, M. , Griffiths, S. , Kim, J., Foley, A., Rooney, D. Decarbonizing the food and beverages industry: A critical and systematic review of developments, sociotechnical systems and policy options, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 143 (2021)
181
Adams, D., Donovan, J., & Topple, C. Sustainability in large food and beverage companies and their supply chains: An investigation into key drivers and barriers affecting sustainability strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32( 4), 1451– 1463. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3198 (2023)
182
Benyathiar, P., Kumar, P., Carpenter, G., Brace, J. & Mishra, D. K. Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Bottle-to-Bottle Recycling for the Beverage Industry: A Review. Polymers 14 (2022).
183
Valavanidis, A. Tap Drinking Water versus Bottled Water. Risk perceptions on safety and taste increased use of bottled drinking water that fit with the modern way of life. 1. 1-36. (2020). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344044374_Tap_Drinking_Water_versus_Bottled_Water_Risk_perceptions_on_safety_and_taste_increased_use_of_bottled_drinking_water_that_fit_with_the_modern_way_of_life
184
Bisung, E., Elliott, S.; Psychosocial impacts of the lack of access to water and sanitation in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review. J Water Health 1 February 2017; 15 (1): 17–30. doi: https://doi.org/10.2166/wh.2016.158
185
Meyers, S., Schmitt, B., Chester-Jones, M. & Sturm, B. Energy efficiency, carbon emissions, and measures towards their improvement in the food and beverage sector for six European countries. Energy 104, 266–283 (2016).

1
Hermann, L. Wasser trinken: So viel ist gesund. https://utopia.de/ratgeber/wasser-trinken-so-viel-ist-gesund/ (2023)
2
Dolan, F., Lamontagne, J., Link, R. et al. Evaluating the economic impact of water scarcity in a changing world. Nat Commun 12, 1915 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22194-0
3
United Nations General Assembly. 55/2. United Nations Millennium Declaration. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly A/RES/55/2. 5 (2000)
4
Hoekstra, A. Y. Water scarcity challenges to business. Nature Climate Change 4. 318 (2014).
5
United Nations General Assembly. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015 A/RES/70/1. 14 (2015)
6
United Nations General Assembly. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015 A/RES/70/1. 14 (2015)
7
United Nations General Assembly. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015 A/RES/70/1. 14 (2015)
8
Morrison, J., Morikawa, M., Murphy, M., Schulte, P. Water Scarcity & Climate Change: Growing Risks for Businesses & Investors. Ceres Report. 5 (2009).
9
Weber, O., Saunders-Hogberg, G. Corporate social responsibility, water management, and financial performance in the food and beverage industry. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2 (2020)
10
Uzuner, S., Cekmecelioglu, D. Enzymes in the Beverage Industry. Enzymes in Food Biotechnology (2019).
11
Huo, V. Non-Alcoholic Drinks Report. Statista Consumer Market Outlook – Market Report. (2023).
12
Huo, V. Non-Alcoholic Drinks Report. Statista Consumer Market Outlook – Market Report. (2023).
13
Huo, V. Non-Alcoholic Drinks Report. Statista Consumer Market Outlook – Market Report. (2023).
14
Huo, V. Non-Alcoholic Drinks Report. Statista Consumer Market Outlook – Market Report. (2023).
15
Huo, V. Non-Alcoholic Drinks Report. Statista Consumer Market Outlook – Market Report. (2023).
16
Huo, V. Non-Alcoholic Drinks Report. Statista Consumer Market Outlook – Market Report. (2023).
17
Huo, V. Alcoholic Drinks Report. Statista Consumer Market Outlook – Market Report. (2023).
18
Beverage Industry Magazine. Umsatz der führenden Hersteller von Getränken weltweit im Jahr 2021. Statista. (2022).
19
Beverage Industry Magazine. Umsatz der führenden Hersteller von Getränken weltweit im Jahr 2021. Statista. (2022).
20
Beverage Industry Magazine. Umsatz der führenden Hersteller von Getränken weltweit im Jahr 2021. Statista. (2022).
21
Dahan, Y. et al. Shared Responsibility and Labor Rights in Global Supply Chains. Journal of Business Ethics 182. 1035 (2023)
22
Boyd, C. The Nestle´ Infant Formula Controversy and a Strange Web of Subsequent Business Scandals. Journal of Business Ethics 106. 284 (2012)
23
Beverage Industry Magazine. Umsatz der führenden Hersteller von Getränken weltweit im Jahr 2021. Statista. (2022).
24
Karnani, A. Corporate social responsibility does not avert the tragedy of the commons. Case study: Coca-Cola India. Economics, Management, and Financial Markets 9 (3). 7 (2014).
25
Facit. Umfrage zu Aspekten des bewussten Getränkekonsums in Deutschland 2020 Nachhaltigkeitsstudie. 9 (2020).
26
Dini, I. An Overview of functional beverages. The Science of Beverages (11). 1 (2019)
27
Dini, I. An Overview of functional beverages. The Science of Beverages (11). 1 (2019)
28
Statista. Umsatz mit alkoholfreiem Bier weltweit in den Jahren 2014 bis 2022 mit einer Prognose bis 2027 (in Milliarden Euro). Statista Consumer Market Outlook. (2023).
29
IfD Allensbach. Ranking der meistgekauften bzw. meistkonsumierten Getränke in der Bevölkerung in Deutschland in den Jahren 2020 bis 2022. Allensbacher Markt- und Werbeträger-Analyse. (2023).
30
European Parliament, European Council. Directive on the quality of water intended for human consumption. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32020L2184&qid=1691317512351 (2020)
31
European Parliament. Trinkwasser in der EU: Bessere Qualität, besserer Zugang. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/de/headlines/society/20181011STO15887/trinkwasser-in-der-eu-bessere-qualitat-besserer-zugang (2020).
32
Forschungsinstitut für ökologischen Landbau. Umsatz mit Bio-Lebensmitteln weltweit in den Jahren 1999 bis 2021. The World of Organic Agriculture 2023. 61 (2023).
33
BIER. Beverage Industry Continues to Drive Improvement in Water , Energy , and Emissions Efficiency. (2022).
34
Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360, 987–992 (2018).
35
Meyers, S., Schmitt, B., Chester-Jones, M. & Sturm, B. Energy efficiency, carbon emissions, and measures towards their improvement in the food and beverage sector for six European countries. Energy 104, 266–283 (2016).
36
Petersson, T. u. a. SU-EATABLE LIFE: a comprehensive database of carbon and water footprints of food commodities. auf https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/SUEATABLE_LIFE_a_comprehensive_database_of_^[1]Hermann, L. Wasser trinken: So viel ist gesund. https://utopia.de/ratgeber/wasser-trinken-so-viel-ist-gesund/ (2023)
37
Meinrenken, C. J. u. a. The Carbon Catalogue public database – Carbon footprints of 866 commercial products across 8 industry sectors and 5 continents. auf https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.16908979.v1 (2022).
38
Gibassier, D. Implementing an EMA innovation: The case of carbon accounting. Corporate Carbon and Climate Accounting (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-27718-9_6.
39
BIER. Beverage Industry Continues to Drive Improvement in Water , Energy , and Emissions Efficiency. (2022).
40
Gibassier, D. Implementing an EMA innovation: The case of carbon accounting. Corporate Carbon and Climate Accounting (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-27718-9_6.
41
Hoekstra, A. Y. The water footprint of industry. Assessing and Measuring Environmental Impact and Sustainability (Elsevier Inc., 2015). doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-799968-5.00007-5.
42
Clarke, C., Ferguson, C., Crocker, T., Marcell, K. & Crocker, T. Fast Moving Consumers. 1–5 (2019).
43
Hoekstra, A. Y. The water footprint of industry. Assessing and Measuring Environmental Impact and Sustainability (Elsevier Inc., 2015). doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-799968-5.00007-5.
44
Ercin, A. E., Aldaya, M. M. & Hoekstra, A. Y. Corporate Water Footprint Accounting and Impact Assessment: The Case of the Water Footprint of a Sugar-Containing Carbonated Beverage. Water Resources Management 25, 721–741 (2011).
45
Hoekstra, A. Y. The water footprint of industry. Assessing and Measuring Environmental Impact and Sustainability (Elsevier Inc., 2015). doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-799968-5.00007-5.
46
Gibassier, D. Implementing an EMA innovation: The case of carbon accounting. Corporate Carbon and Climate Accounting (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-27718-9_6.
47
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Beverage sector – The Global Commitment 2022 Progress Report. (2022).
48
Break Free from Plastic. Brand Audit Reports 2018-2022. (2022).
49
Boucher, J., Billard, G., Simeone, E. & Sousa, J. The marine plastic footprint. The marine plastic footprint (2020). doi:10.2305/iucn.ch.2020.01.en.
50
Garin, D. Embedding corporate accountability into the global plastics treaty. WBCSD (2023).
51
Panhuysen, S. & Pierrot, J. Coffee Barometer 2020. 56 (2021).
52
Sachs, J., Cordes, K. Y., Rising, J., Toledano, P. & Maennling, N. Ensuring Economic Viability and Sustainability of Coffee. https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/sustainable_investment_staffpubs/53 (2019).
53
Munasinghe, M., Deraniyagala, Y., Dassanayake, N. & Karunarathna, H. Economic, social and environmental impacts and overall sustainability of the tea sector in Sri Lanka. Sustainable Production and Consumption 12, 155–169 (2017).
54
Munasinghe, M., Deraniyagala, Y., Dassanayake, N. & Karunarathna, H. Economic, social and environmental impacts and overall sustainability of the tea sector in Sri Lanka. Sustainable Production and Consumption 12, 155–169 (2017).
55
van der Wal, S. Sustainability issues in the tea sector: A comparative analysis of six leading producing countries. (2008).
56
Sachs, J., Cordes, K. Y., Rising, J., Toledano, P. & Maennling, N. Ensuring Economic Viability and Sustainability of Coffee. https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/sustainable_investment_staffpubs/53 (2019).
57
Sachs, J., Cordes, K. Y., Rising, J., Toledano, P. & Maennling, N. Ensuring Economic Viability and Sustainability of Coffee. https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/sustainable_investment_staffpubs/53 (2019).
58
Munasinghe, M., Deraniyagala, Y., Dassanayake, N. & Karunarathna, H. Economic, social and environmental impacts and overall sustainability of the tea sector in Sri Lanka. Sustainable Production and Consumption 12, 155–169 (2017).
59
Munasinghe, M., Deraniyagala, Y., Dassanayake, N. & Karunarathna, H. Economic, social and environmental impacts and overall sustainability of the tea sector in Sri Lanka. Sustainable Production and Consumption 12, 155–169 (2017).
60
More, T. A., Shaikh, Z. & Ali, A. Artificial Sweeteners and their Health Implications: A Review. Biosciences Biotechnology Research Asia 18, 227–237 (2021).
61
Shearer, J. & Swithers, S. E. Artificial sweeteners and metabolic dysregulation: Lessons learned from agriculture and the laboratory. Reviews in Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders 17, 179–186 (2016).
62
Lam, T. H. & Chim, D. Controlling alcohol-related global health problems. Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health 22, (2010).
63
Ritchie, H. & Roser, M. Clean Water and Sanitation. OurWorldInData.org https://ourworldindata.org/water-access#citation (2021).
64
United Nations. Clean water and sanitation. unstats.un.org https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2023/Goal-06/ (2023).
65
Ritchie, H. & Roser, M. Clean Water and Sanitation. OurWorldInData.org https://ourworldindata.org/water-access#citation (2021).
66
Hunter, P. R., MacDonald, A. M. & Carter, R. C. Water Supply and Health. PLoS Medicine 7, (2010).
67
Kayser, G. L., Rao, N., Jose, R. & Raj, A. Water, sanitation and hygiene: Measuring gender equality and empowerment. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 97, 438–440 (2019).
68
De Guzman, K. u. a. Drinking water and the implications for gender equity and empowerment: A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative evidence. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health 247, 114044 (2023).
69
Sommer, M., Ferron, S., Cavill, S. & House, S. Violence, gender and WASH: spurring action on a complex, under-documented and sensitive topic. Environment and Urbanization 27, 105–116 (2015).
70
Ritchie, H. & Roser, M. Water Use and Stress. OurWorldInData.org https://ourworldindata.org/water-use-stress#citation (2017).
71
Hoekstra, A. Y. The water footprint of industry. Assessing and Measuring Environmental Impact and Sustainability (Elsevier Inc., 2015). doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-799968-5.00007-5.
72
Ercin, A. E., Aldaya, M. M. & Hoekstra, A. Y. Corporate Water Footprint Accounting and Impact Assessment: The Case of the Water Footprint of a Sugar-Containing Carbonated Beverage. Water Resources Management 25, 721–741 (2011).
73
Ercin, A. E., Aldaya, M. M. & Hoekstra, A. Y. Corporate Water Footprint Accounting and Impact Assessment: The Case of the Water Footprint of a Sugar-Containing Carbonated Beverage. Water Resources Management 25, 721–741 (2011).
74
Jagtap, S. et al. An Internet of Things Approach for Water Efficiency: A Case Study of the Beverage Factory Sustainable Manufacturing Systems Centre, School of Aeronautical, Transport, and Manufacturing. (2021) doi:10.3390/su13063343.
75
Jagtap, S. et al. An Internet of Things Approach for Water Efficiency: A Case Study of the Beverage Factory Sustainable Manufacturing Systems Centre, School of Aeronautical, Transport, and Manufacturing. (2021) doi:10.3390/su13063343.
76
Jagtap, S. et al. An Internet of Things Approach for Water Efficiency: A Case Study of the Beverage Factory Sustainable Manufacturing Systems Centre, School of Aeronautical, Transport, and Manufacturing. (2021) doi:10.3390/su13063343.
77
Jagtap, S. et al. An Internet of Things Approach for Water Efficiency: A Case Study of the Beverage Factory Sustainable Manufacturing Systems Centre, School of Aeronautical, Transport, and Manufacturing. (2021) doi:10.3390/su13063343.
78
Jagtap, S. et al. An Internet of Things Approach for Water Efficiency: A Case Study of the Beverage Factory Sustainable Manufacturing Systems Centre, School of Aeronautical, Transport, and Manufacturing. (2021) doi:10.3390/su13063343.
79
Alkaya, E. & Demirer, G. N. Water recycling and reuse in soft drink/beverage industry: A case study for sustainable industrial water management in Turkey. Resour Conserv Recycl 104, 172–180 (2015).
80
Casani, S. & Knøchel, S. Application of HACCP to water reuse in the food industry. Food Control 13, 315–327 (2002).
81
Alkaya, E. & Demirer, G. N. Water recycling and reuse in soft drink/beverage industry: A case study for sustainable industrial water management in Turkey. Resour Conserv Recycl 104, 172–180 (2015).
82
Oktay, S., Iskender, G., Germirli Babuna, F., Kutluay, G. & Orhon, D. Improving the wastewater management for a beverage industry with in-plant control. Desalination 211, 138–143 (2007).
83
Casani, S. & Knøchel, S. Application of HACCP to water reuse in the food industry. Food Control 13, 315–327 (2002).
84
Alkaya, E. & Demirer, G. N. Water recycling and reuse in soft drink/beverage industry: A case study for sustainable industrial water management in Turkey. Resour Conserv Recycl 104, 172–180 (2015).
85
Alkaya, E. & Demirer, G. N. Water recycling and reuse in soft drink/beverage industry: A case study for sustainable industrial water management in Turkey. Resour Conserv Recycl 104, 172–180 (2015).
86
Alkaya, E. & Demirer, G. N. Water recycling and reuse in soft drink/beverage industry: A case study for sustainable industrial water management in Turkey. Resour Conserv Recycl 104, 172–180 (2015).
87
Haroon, H., Waseem, A. & Mahmood, Q. Treatment and reuse of wastewater from beverage industry. J Chem Soc Pak 35, 5–10 (2013).
88
Haroon, H., Waseem, A. & Mahmood, Q. Treatment and reuse of wastewater from beverage industry. J Chem Soc Pak 35, 5–10 (2013. & Demirer, G. N. Water recycling and reuse in soft drink/beverage industry: A case study for sustainable industrial water management in Turkey. Resour Conserv Recycl 104, 172–180 (2015).
89
Alkaya, E. & Demirer, G. N. Water recycling and reuse in soft drink/beverage industry: A case study for sustainable industrial water management in Turkey. Resour Conserv Recycl 104, 172–180 (2015).
90
Casani, S. & Knøchel, S. Appli & Mahmood, Q. Treatment and reuse of wastewater from beverage industry. J Chem Soc Pak 35, 5–10 (2013).
91
Alkaya, E. & Demirer, G. N. Water recycling and reuse in soft drink/beverage industry: A case study for sustainable industrial water management in Turkey. Resour Conserv Recycl 104, 172–180 (2015).
92
Alkaya, E. & Demirer, G. N. Water recycling and reuse in soft drink/beverage industry: A case study for sustainable industrial water management in Turkey. Resour Conserv Recycl 104, 172–180 (2015).
93
Carlsberg A/S. Carlsberg Group ESG Report 2022. Carlsberg Group ESG Report 2022 (2023).
94
Ambekar, S., Kapoor, R., Prakash, A. & Patyal, V. S. Motives, processes and practices of sustainable sourcing: a literature review. Journal of Global Operations and Strategic Sourcing vol. 12 2–41 Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1108/JGOSS-11-2017-0046 (2019).
95
van der Werff, S., Trienekens, J., Hagelaar, G. & Pascucci, S. Patterns in sustainable relationships between buyers and suppliers: evidence from the food and beverage industry. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 21, 1023–1043 (2018).
96
Ludin, D. & Wellbrock, W. Betriebswirtschaftliche Implikationen eines nachhaltigen Beschaffungsmanagements. in Nachhaltiges Beschaffungsmanagement 3–16 (Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, 2019). doi:10.1007/978-3-658-25188-8_1.
97
Ambekar, S., Kapoor, R., Prakash, A. & Patyal, V. S. Motives, processes and practices of sustainable sourcing: a literature review. Journal of Global Operations and Strategic Sourcing vol. 12 2–41 Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1108/JGOSS-11-2017-0046 (2019).
98
van der Werff, S., Trienekens, J., Hagelaar, G. & Pascucci, S. Patterns in sustainable relationships between buyers and suppliers: evidence from the food and beverage industry. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 21, 1023–1043 (2018).
99
Bager, S. L. & Lambin, E. F. Sustainability strategies by companies in the global coffee sector. Bus Strategy Environ 29, 3555–3570 (2020).
100
Reuter, C., Foerstl, K., Hartmann, E. & Blome, C. Sustainable Global Supplier Management: The Role Of Dynamic Capabilities In Achieving Competitive Advantage. Journal of Supply Chain Management 46, 45–63 (2010).
101
Bager, S. L. & Lambin, E. F. Sustainability strategies by companies in the global coffee sector. Bus Strategy Environ 29, 3555–3570 (2020).
102
Bager, S. L. & Lambin, E. F. Sustainability strategies by companies in the global coffee sector. Bus Strategy Environ 29, 3555–3570 (2020).
103
Reuter, C., Foerstl, K., Hartmann, E. & Blome, C. Sustainable Global Supplier Management: The Role Of Dynamic Capabilities In Achieving Competitive Advantage. Journal of Supply Chain Management 46, 45–63 (2010).
104
Reuter, C., Foerstl, K., Hartmann, E. & Blome, C. Sustainable Global Supplier Management: The Role Of Dynamic Capabilities In Achieving Competitive Advantage. Journal of Supply Chain Management 46, 45–63 (2010).
105
Pagell, M., Wu, Z. & Wasserman, M. E. Thinking Differently About Purchasing Portfolios: An Assessment Of Sustainable Sourcing. Journal of Supply Chain Management 46, 57–73 (2010).
106
van der Werff, S., Trienekens, J., Hagelaar, G. & Pascucci, S. Patterns in sustainable relationships between buyers and suppliers: evidence from the food and beverage industry. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 21, 1023–1043 (2018).
107
van der Werff, S., Trienekens, J., Hagelaar, G. & Pascucci, S. Patterns in sustainable relationships between buyers and suppliers: evidence from the food and beverage industry. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 21, 1023–1043 (2018).
108
AB InBev. Responsible Sourcing https://www.ab-inbev.com/suppliers/sourcing-responsibly/.
109
AB InBev. Responsible Sourcing https://www.ab-inbev.com/suppliers/sourcing-responsibly/.
110
Bager, S. L. & Lambin, E. F. Sustainability strategies by companies in the global coffee sector. Bus Strategy Environ 29, 3555–3570 (2020).
111
Bager, S. L. & Lambin, E. F. Sustainability strategies by companies in the global coffee sector. Bus Strategy Environ 29, 3555–3570 (2020).
112
Bager, S. L. & Lambin, E. F. Sustainability strategies by companies in the global coffee sector. Bus Strategy Environ 29, 3555–3570 (2020).
113
Hosseini, S. M., Aslani, A. & Kasaeian, A. Life cycle cost and environmental assessment of CO2 utilization in the beverage industry: A natural gas-fired power plant equipped with post combustion CO2 capture. Energy Reports 9, 414–436 (2023).
114
Von Der Assen, N., Jung, J. & Bardow, A. Life-cycle assessment of carbon dioxide capture and utilization: avoiding the pitfalls. Energy Environ Sci 6, 2721–2734 (2013).
115
Ghiat, I. & Al-Ansari, T. A review of carbon capture and utilisation as a CO2 abatement opportunity within the EWF nexus. Journal of CO2 Utilization 45, 101432 (2021).
116
Hosseini, S. M., Aslani, A. & Kasaeian, A. Life cycle cost and environmental assessment of CO2 utilization in the beverage industry: A natural gas-fired polity strategies by companies in the global coffee sector. Bus Strategy Environ 29, 3555–3570 (2020).
117
Von Der Assen, N., Jung, J. & Bardow, A. Life-cycle assessment of carbon dioxide capture and utilization: avoiding the pitfalls. Energy Environ Sci 6, 2721–2734 (2013).
118
Hosseini, S. M., Aslani, A. & Kasaeian, A. Life cycle cost and environmental assessment of CO2 utilization in the beverage industry: A natural gas-fired power plant equipped with post combustion CO2 capture. Energy Reports 9, 414–436 (2023).
119
Von Der Assen, N., Jung, J. & Bardow, A. Life-cycle assessment of carbon dioxide capture and utilization: avoiding the pitfalls. Energy Environ Sci 6, 2721–2734 (2013).
120
Sovacool, B. K. et al. Decarbonizing the food and beverages industry: A critical and systematic review of developments, sociotechnical systems and policy options. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 143, 110856 (2021).
121
Santonja, G. G., Karlis, P., Stubdrup, K. R. & Brinkmann, T. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Food, Drink and Milk Industries. (2010) doi:10.2760/243911.
122
Santonja, G. G., Karlis, P., Stubdrup, K. R. & Brinkmann, T. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Food, Drink and Milk Industries. (2010) doi:10.2760/243911.
123
Santonja, G. G., Karlis, P., Stubdrup, K. R. & Brinkmann, T. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Food, Drink and Milk Industries. (2010) doi:10.2760/243911.
124
Benyathiar, P., Kumar, P., Carpenter, G., Brace, J. & Mishra, D. K. Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Bottle-to-Bottle Recycling for the Beverage Industry: A Review. (2022) doi:10.3390/polym14122366.
125
Benyathiar, P., Kumar, P., Carpenter, G., Brace, J. & Mishra, D. K. Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Bottle-to-Bottle Recycling for the Beverage Industry: A Review. (2022) doi:10.3390/polym14122366.
126
Santonja, G. G., Karlis, P., Stubdrup, K. R. & Brinkmann, T. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Food, Drink and Milk Industries. (2010) doi:10.2760/243911.
127
Samuel, A. U., Oyawale, F. & Fayomi, O. S. I. Effects of Waste Management in Beverage Industries: A Perspective. J Phys Conf Ser 1378, (2019).
128
Santonja, G. G., Karlis, P., Stubdrup, K. R. & Brinkmann, T. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Food, Drink and Milk Industries. (2010) doi:10.2760/243911.
129
Santonja, G. G., Karlis, P., Stubdrup, K. R. & Brinkmann, T. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Food, Drink and Milk Industries. (2010) doi:10.2760/243911.
130
Benyathiar, P., Kumar, P., Carpenter, G., Brace, J. & Mishra, D. K. Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Bottle-to-Bottle Recycling for the Beverage Industry: A Review. (2022) doi:10.3390/polym14122366.
131
Benyathiar, P., Kumar, P., Carpenter, G., Brace, J. & Mishra, D. K. Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Bottle-to-Bottle Recycling for the Beverage Industry: A Review. (2022) doi:10.3390/polym14122366.
132
Ghoshal, G. Recent Development in Beverage Packaging Material and its Adaptation Strategy. Trends in Beverage Packaging:Reference Document for the Food, Drink and Milk Industries. (2010) doi:10.2760/243911.
133
Benyathiar, P., Kumar, P., Carpenter, G., Brace, J. & Mishra, D. K. Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Bottle-to-Bottle Recycling for the Beverage Industry: A Review. (2022) doi:10.3390/polym14122366.
134
Santonja, G. G., Karlis, P., Stubdrup, K. R. & Brinkmann, T. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Food, Drink and Milk Industries. (2010) doi:10.2760/243911.
135
Santonja, G. G., Karlis, P., Stubdrup, K. R. & Brinkmann, T. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Food, Drink and Milk Industries. (2010) doi:10.2760/243911.
136
Benyathiar, P., Kumar, P., Carpenter, G., Brace, J. & Mishra, D. K. Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Bottle-to-Bottle Recycling for the Beverage Industry: A Review. (2022) doi:10.3390/polym14122366.
137
Santonja, G. G., Karlis, P., Stubdrup, K. R. & Brinkmann, T. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Food, Drink and Milk Industries. (2010) doi:10.2760/243911.
138
Santonja, G. G., Karlis, P., Stubdrup, K. R. & Brinkmann, T. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Food, Drink and Milk Industries. (2010) doi:10.2760/243911.
139
Benyathiar, P., Kumar, P., Carpenter, G., Brace, J. & Mishra, D. K. Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Bottle-to-Bottle Recycling for the Beverage Industry: A Review. (2022) doi:10.3390/polym14122366.
140
Samuel, A. U., Oyawale, F. & Fayomi, O. S. I. Effects of Waste Management in Beverage Industries: A Perspective. J Phys Conf Ser 1378, (2019).
141
Santonja, G. G., Karlis, P., Stubdrup, K. R. & Brinkmann, T. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Food, Drink and Milk Industries. (2010) doi:10.2760/243911.
142
Samuel, A. U., Oyawale, F. & Fayomi, O. S. I. Effects of Waste Management in Beverage Industries: A Perspective. J Phys Conf Ser 1378, (2019).
143
Santonja, G. G., Karlis, P., Stubdrup, K. R. & Brinkmann, T. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Food, Drink and Milk Industries. (2010) doi:10.2760/243911.
144
Samuel, A. U., Oyawale, F. & Fayomi, O. S. I. Effects of Waste Management in Beverage Industries: A Perspective. J Phys Conf Ser 1378, (2019).
145
Santonja, G. G., Karlis, P., Stubdrup, K. R. & Brinkmann, T. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Food, Drink and Milk Industries. (2010) doi:10.2760/243911.
146
Adams, D., Donovan, J., & Topple, C. Sustainability in large food and beverage companies and their supply chains: An investigation into key drivers and barriers affecting sustainability strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32( 4), 1451– 1463. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3198 (2023)
147
BIER. About bier – Our Role in the Global Beverage Industry. https://www.bieroundtable.com/about/ (2019)
148
BIER. BIER Members – Beverage Industry Leaders. https://www.bieroundtable.com/members/ (2019)
149
BIER. Beverage Industry Benchmarking. https://www.bieroundtable.com/work/benchmarking/ (2019)
150
CEO Water Mandate. About. https://ceowatermandate.org/collectiveaction/about/ (2023)
151
CEO Water Mandate. What is the Mandate? https://ceowatermandate.org/about/what-is-the-mandate/ (2023)
152
CEO Water Mandate. Endorsing Companies. https://ceowatermandate.org/about/endorsing-companies/ (2023)
153
CEO Water Mandate. What is the Mandate? https://ceowatermandate.org/about/what-is-the-mandate/ (2023)
154
Alliance for Water Stewardship. The AWS International Water Stewardship Standard https://a4ws.org/the-aws-standard-2-0/ (2023)
155
Alliance for Water Stewardship. Certified sites. https://a4ws.org/certification/certified-sites/ (2023)
156
CDP, Why disclose as a company, https://www.cdp.net/en/companies-discloser (2023)
157
https://www.ab-inbev.com/content/dam/abinbev/news-media/press-releases/2021/02/ABI%20Sustainability-Linked%20Loan%20Announcement_EN_vfinal.pdf
158
Damkær Hansen, A., Kuramochi, T., Wicke, B., The status of corporate greenhouse gas emissions reporting in the food sector: An evaluation of food and beverage manufacturers, Journal of Cleaner Production, 361, ISSN 0959-6526, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132279. (2022)
159
BIER. Beverage Industry Benchmarking. https://www.bieroundtable.com/work/benchmarking/ (2019)
160
Adams, D., Donovan, J., & Topple, C. Sustainability in large food and beverage companies and their supply chains: An investigation into key drivers and barriers affecting sustainability strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32( 4), 1451– 1463. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3198 (2023)
161
Rodriguez-Sanchez, C.; Sellers-Rubio, R. Sustainability in the Beverage Industry: A Research Agenda from the Demand Side. Sustainability 2021, 13, 186. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13010186
162
Sajjad, A., Eweje, G. , Tappin, D. Managerial perspectives on drivers for and barriers to sustainable supply chain management implementation: Evidence from New Zealand, Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(2), 592-604.https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2389 (2020)
163
Ali, I., Aboelmaged, M. Implementation of supply chain 4.0 in the food and beverage industry: perceived drivers and barriers, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management DOI: 10.1108/IJPPM-07-2020-0393(2021)
164
Forschungsinstitut für ökologischen Landbau. Umsatz mit Bio-Lebensmitteln weltweit in den Jahren 1999 bis 2021. The World of Organic Agriculture 2023. 61 (2023).
165
Demartini, M., Pinna, C., Aliakbarian, B., Tonelli, F. & Terzi, S. Soft Drink Supply Chain Sustainability: A Case Based Approach to Identify and Explain Best Practices and Key Performance Indicators. Sustainability 10, 3540 (2018).
166
Rodriguez-Sanchez, C.; Sellers-Rubio, R. Sustainability in the Beverage Industry: A Research Agenda from the Demand Side. Sustainability 2021, 13, 186. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13010186
167
Dri M., Antonopoulos I. S., Canfora P., Gaudillat P., Best Environmental Management Practice for the Food and Beverage Manufacturing Sector, JRC Science for Policy Report, EUR 29382 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, doi:10.2760/2115, JRC113418. (2018)
168
European Parliament. Trinkwasser in der EU: Bessere Qualität, besserer Zugang. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/de/headlines/society/20181011STO15887/trinkwasser-in-der-eu-bessere-qualitat-besserer-zugang (2020).
169
Adams, D., Donovan, J., & Topple, C. Sustainability in large food and beverage companies and their supply chains: An investigation into key drivers and barriers affecting sustainability strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32( 4), 1451– 1463. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3198 (2023)
170
Griffin, P., Hammond, G., Norman, J., Industrial energy use and carbon emissions reduction: a UK perspective.WIREs Energy and Environment, 5 (6), 684-714. https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.212 (2016)
171
Meyers, S. , Schmitt, B., Chester-Jones, M., Sturm, B. Energy efficiency, carbon emissions, and measures towards their improvement in the food and beverage sector for six European countries, Energy, 104, 266-283, ISSN 0360-5442, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.03.117.
172
Adams, D., Donovan, J., & Topple, C. Sustainability in large food and beverage companies and their supply chains: An investigation into key drivers and barriers affecting sustainability strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32( 4), 1451– 1463. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3198 (2023)
173
Meyers, S. , Schmitt, B., Chester-Jones, M., Sturm, B. Energy efficiency, carbon emissions, and measures towards their improvement in the food and beverage sector for six European countries, Energy, 104, 266-283, ISSN 0360-5442, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.03.117.
174
Dri M., Antonopoulos I. S., Canfora P., Gaudillat P., Best Environmental Management Practice for the Food and Beverage Manufacturing Sector, JRC Science for Policy Report, EUR 29382 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, doi:10.2760/2115, JRC113418. (2018)
175
Meyers, S. , Schmitt, B., Chester-Jones, M., Sturm, B. Energy efficiency, carbon emissions, and measures towards their improvement in the food and beverage sector for six European countries, Energy, 104, 266-283, ISSN 0360-5442, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.03.117.
176
Sovacool,B. , Bazilian, M. , Griffiths, S. , Kim, J., Foley, A., Rooney, D. Decarbonizing the food and beverages industry: A critical and systematic review of developments, sociotechnical systems and policy options, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 143 (2021)
177
Meyers, S. , Schmitt, B., Chester-Jones, M., Sturm, B. Energy efficiency, carbon emissions, and measures towards their improvement in the food and beverage sector for six European countries, Energy, 104, 266-283, ISSN 0360-5442, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.03.117.
178
Sovacool,B. , Bazilian, M. , Griffiths, S. , Kim, J., Foley, A., Rooney, D. Decarbonizing the food and beverages industry: A critical and systematic review of developments, sociotechnical systems and policy options, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 143 (2021)
179
Griffin, P., Hammond, G., Norman, J., Industrial energy use and carbon emissions reduction: a UK perspective.WIREs Energy and Environment, 5 (6), 684-714. https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.212 (2016)
180
Sovacool,B. , Bazilian, M. , Griffiths, S. , Kim, J., Foley, A., Rooney, D. Decarbonizing the food and beverages industry: A critical and systematic review of developments, sociotechnical systems and policy options, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 143 (2021)
181
Adams, D., Donovan, J., & Topple, C. Sustainability in large food and beverage companies and their supply chains: An investigation into key drivers and barriers affecting sustainability strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32( 4), 1451– 1463. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3198 (2023)
182
Benyathiar, P., Kumar, P., Carpenter, G., Brace, J. & Mishra, D. K. Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Bottle-to-Bottle Recycling for the Beverage Industry: A Review. Polymers 14 (2022).
183
Valavanidis, A. Tap Drinking Water versus Bottled Water. Risk perceptions on safety and taste increased use of bottled drinking water that fit with the modern way of life. 1. 1-36. (2020). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344044374_Tap_Drinking_Water_versus_Bottled_Water_Risk_perceptions_on_safety_and_taste_increased_use_of_bottled_drinking_water_that_fit_with_the_modern_way_of_life
184
Bisung, E., Elliott, S.; Psychosocial impacts of the lack of access to water and sanitation in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review. J Water Health 1 February 2017; 15 (1): 17–30. doi: https://doi.org/10.2166/wh.2016.158
185
Meyers, S., Schmitt, B., Chester-Jones, M. & Sturm, B. Energy efficiency, carbon emissions, and measures towards their improvement in the food and beverage sector for six European countries. Energy 104, 266–283 (2016).