Elsevier

Journal of Cleaner Production

Volume 137, 20 November 2016, Pages 1018-1037
Journal of Cleaner Production

Review
The emerging role of water footprint in supply chain management: A critical literature synthesis and a hierarchical decision-making framework

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.210Get rights and content

Highlights

  • We provide a literature synthesis on product water footprint (WF) assessment.

  • Research on holistic WF accounting at a supply chain level is rather limited.

  • The agrifood sector dominates global freshwater utilization.

  • WF mitigation practices are identified in the academic and corporate literature.

  • We propose a decision-making framework for WF management in agrifood supply chains.

Abstract

Freshwater overexploitation and scarcity have led to extensive shifts in demand patterns for water-friendly products. As several agricultural and industrial activities are closely intertwined with water consumption, the availability of sufficient freshwater resources constitutes a significant precondition for covering global consumer needs. In this context, the design and management of sustainable supply chains in terms of freshwater resources' preservation have emerged as major challenges in the corporate agenda. As such, the concept of water footprint as a key performance indicator of freshwater utilization has been introduced at national, corporate and product levels. In this manuscript, we first provide a critical literature synthesis concerning product water footprint assessment in order to map the state-of-the-art research related to freshwater consumption and pollution in the agricultural and industrial sectors. Our analysis demonstrates that although water footprint assessment is a rapidly evolving research field, scientific publications focusing on a holistic approach concerning freshwater exploitation at a supply chain extent are rather limited. The findings further verify that the agrifood sector dominates global water use. In this respect, we analyse both corporate and academic literature in order to identify emerging issues on freshwater resources' management for agrifood products. Finally, we propose a first-effort hierarchical decision-making framework that includes water footprint mitigation policies for agrifood supply chains in order to support all stakeholders in developing a comprehensive water stewardship strategy.

Introduction

Except for the humanitarian perspective of freshwater resources, water is a pivotal constituent of major economic activities, including agricultural and industrial operations (Jefferies et al., 2012). According to statistics, the agricultural sector accounts for 70% of the global freshwater exploitation, while the industrial sector is responsible for 22% of the worldwide freshwater utilization (UN Water, 2009), allowing only 8% of freshwater resources for domestic use (WBSCD, 2006). However, there are several factors that pose significant stress over the availability of global freshwater supplies, such as growing world population, climate change and continuing industrialization (Manzardo et al., 2014). Moreover, changes in the production and consumption patterns due to rapid economic development, as well as the competition among water-dependent business sectors over freshwater appropriation, further influence the future of water resources (Ercin and Hoekstra, 2014).

As freshwater is depleting at an alarming rate, projections highlight that more than 40% of the world population will be living in regions facing severe water scarcity in 2050 (UN Water, 2014). In this regard, the identification, assessment and management of water-related risks have emerged as major concerns for companies, policy-makers and society (McKinsey and Company, 2009). Specifically, the European Union (2000) has enacted the Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC), which is one of the most contemporary and advanced legislative frameworks for water protection worldwide (Hoekstra, 2011), in order to set targets to the member states concerning the preservation of freshwater resources. At the same time, the Union has funded research projects, such as E4WATER (2016) and EcoWater (2014), towards sustainable freshwater assessment and management in agriculture and industry. Indicatively, the EcoWater project aims at assessing the economic and environmental efficiency of various water-friendly practices in order to better support decision-making in diverse water use systems (Levidow et al., 2016). Regarding the business sector, empirical evidence clearly documents that not only have leading corporations integrated water stewardship into their corporate social responsibility agenda, but also they have fostered their profitability through water management initiatives (CDP, 2015).

In this perspective, the scientific community has developed the concept of water footprint (WF) as a key performance indicator of water use at national, corporate and product levels (Hoekstra et al., 2011). The term was initially introduced as a measure of freshwater resources' appropriation (Hoekstra and Hung, 2002) based on the theories of “ecological footprint” and “virtual water” developed by Wackernagel and Rees (1996) and Allan (1998), respectively. In particular, the WF of a product is defined as the total volume of freshwater consumed and polluted directly or indirectly across the product's entire supply chain (Hoekstra, 2008). As a multidimensional indicator, WF is comprised of three components, namely blue, green and grey water (Hoekstra et al., 2011). The blue water refers to the consumptive use of surface or groundwater, while the green water addresses the rain water stored in the soil and then absorbed by plants. Finally, grey water constitutes the amount of freshwater required for assimilating the load of pollutants given existing water quality standards. According to this approach, Hoekstra et al. (2011) developed the Water Footprint Assessment (WFA) methodology as a set of four discrete stages: (i) setting goal and scope, (ii) WF accounting, (iii) WF sustainability assessment, and (iv) WF response formulation. In particular, the first stage aims at determining the purpose of the study and the system boundaries. The second stage includes the collection of the necessary data and the calculation of the WF as a sum of the different water components, while the third stage focuses on the evaluation of water use from environmental, social and economic perspectives. The final stage embraces the identification of strategies and policies for WF mitigation.

As opposed to WFA methodology, life cycle analysis (LCA) researchers have developed several alternative methodologies for the assessment of freshwater consumption and pollution (Kounina et al., 2013). Specifically, Ridoutt and Pfister (2010) propose a water-related LCA method based on the impact of freshwater utilization in relation to local water stress. In particular, the authors argue that green water does not contribute to water scarcity until it becomes blue water, while it is only accessible through the use of land. As such, the stressed-weighted WF is expressed as the total blue and grey water multiplied by the “water scarcity index” developed by Pfister et al. (2009). All scientific approaches for assessing WF impacts in a LCA context paved the way for the development of an international standard on water footprinting, namely ISO 14046 (ISO, 2014), which is considered as the water-oriented successor of the general LCA-based ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 (ISO, 2006). ISO 14046 specifies the principles, requirements and guidelines for the quantification, impact assessment and reporting of the WF of products, processes and organizations. Notably, the aforementioned standard can support decision-makers in identifying water risks, as well as management opportunities, in order to maximize water-related efficiency.

Notwithstanding scientific efforts in the field of water footprinting, several water accounting tools are relatively new or still underdeveloped (Christ, 2014), failing to address freshwater use and management holistically in a full supply chain context (Chico et al., 2013). In addition, industrial water management practices aim mainly at protecting local freshwater resources, with minor focus on recognising the related impact across supply chain networks (Northey et al., 2014). To that end, Quinteiro et al. (2014) emphasize the necessity of further research in order to determine actions for reducing the effects of consumptive and degradative freshwater utilization in the supply chain echelons that exhibit a dominant contribution to local water scarcity. In this respect, this work is a first research effort towards: (i) synthesizing the existing literature on product WF assessment in order to identify relevant gaps and opportunities, and (ii) mapping corporate WF management policies for supply chains, following the natural hierarchy of the decision-making process, in order to provide valuable managerial insights. The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, we provide a critical synthesis of scientific publications focusing on product WF assessment in the agricultural and industrial sectors. In Section 3, we propose a comprehensive business-oriented hierarchical framework that includes WF mitigation decisions for agrifood supply chains as proposed by both academic and corporate communities. Finally, conclusions and recommendations for future research are discussed in Section 4.

Section snippets

Water footprint assessment in the literature

In this section, we first present the research methodology in order to provide a critical synthesis of the scientific literature on product WF assessment. The synthesis is followed by a brief discussion on the related results and findings in order to identify any gaps in the existing body of knowledge, as well as opportunities for prospective research.

Water footprint management for agrifood supply chains

In this section, we review both academic and corporate literature on state-of-the-art WF mitigation policies with emphasis on corporations of the agrifood sector, which dominates global freshwater consumption and pollution. We then develop a novel holistic framework for water management in agrifood supply chains based on the natural hierarchy of the decision-making process.

Conclusions

Freshwater constitutes a vital resource in a plethora of agricultural and industrial activities (UN Water, 2009). As such, the overexploitation of available water supplies has motivated governmental authorities and business corporations to act towards the protection of freshwater resources through efficient WF assessment, management and monitoring (McKinsey and Company, 2009). Taking into consideration the supply chain perspective, this paper provides a critical literature synthesis on product

Acknowledgements

One of the authors (E.A.) would like to express her sincere thanks to the Public Benefit Foundation Alexander S. Onassis for financially supporting this research work as a part of her doctoral studies. In addition, this paper has been conducted in the context of the GREEN-AgriChains project that has received funding from the European Community's 7th Framework Programme (FP7-REGPOT-2012-2013-1) under grant agreement No 316167.

References (126)

  • K.L. Christ

    Water management accounting and the wine supply chain: empirical evidence from Australia

    Br. Account. Rev.

    (2014)
  • A. de Miguel et al.

    Sustainability of the water footprint of the Spanish pork industry

    Ecol. Indic.

    (2015)
  • M. Deurer et al.

    Can product water footprints indicate the hydrological impact of primary production? a case study of New Zealand kiwifruit

    J. Hydrol.

    (2011)
  • S.-A. Ene et al.

    Water footprint assessment in the winemaking industry: a case study for a Romanian medium size production plant

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2013)
  • A.E. Ercin et al.

    Water footprint scenarios for 2050: a global analysis

    Environ. Int.

    (2014)
  • A.E. Ercin et al.

    The water footprint of soy milk and soy burger and equivalent animal products

    Ecol. Indic.

    (2012)
  • I.C.M. Francke et al.

    Carbon and water footprint analysis of a soap bar produced in Brazil by Natura Cosmetics

    Water Resour. Ind.

    (2013)
  • W. Gerbens-Leenes et al.

    The water footprint of sweeteners and bio-ethanol

    Environ. Int.

    (2012)
  • P.W. Gerbens-Leenes et al.

    The water footprint of energy from biomass: a quantitative assessment and consequences of an increasing share of bio-energy in energy supply

    Ecol. Econ.

    (2009)
  • P.W. Gerbens-Leenes et al.

    Biofuel scenarios in a water perspective: the global blue and green water footprint of road transport in 2030

    Glob. Environ. Change

    (2012)
  • P.W. Gerbens-Leenes et al.

    The water footprint of poultry, pork and beef: a comparative study in different countries and production systems

    Water Resour. Ind.

    (2013)
  • Y. Gu et al.

    Calculation of water footprint of the iron and steel industry: a case study in Eastern China

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2015)
  • J. Hagman et al.

    Do biofuels require more water than do fossil fuels? life cycle-based assessment of jatropha oil production in rural Mozambique

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2013)
  • I. Herath et al.

    The water footprint of hydroelectricity: a methodological comparison from a case study in New Zealand

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2011)
  • I. Herath et al.

    Water footprinting of agricultural products: a hydrological assessment for the water footprint of New Zealand's wines

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2013)
  • I. Herath et al.

    Water footprinting of agricultural products: evaluation of different protocols using a case study of New Zealand wine

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2013)
  • T.M. Hess et al.

    Comparing local and global water scarcity information in determining the water scarcity footprint of potato cultivation in Great Britain

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2015)
  • T. Hess et al.

    The impact of changing food choices on the blue water scarcity footprint and greenhouse gas emissions of the British diet: the example of potato, pasta and rice

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2016)
  • J. Huang et al.

    Water availability footprint of milk and milk products from large-scale dairy production systems in Northeast China

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2014)
  • A.-R. Huerta et al.

    Environmental impact of beef production in Mexico through life cycle assessment

    Resour. Conserv. Recycl.

    (2016)
  • E. Iakovou et al.

    Waste biomass-to-energy supply chain management: a critical synthesis

    Waste Manag.

    (2010)
  • D. Jefferies et al.

    Water footprint and life cycle assessment as approaches to assess potential impacts of products on water consumption. Key learning points from pilot studies on tea and margarine

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2012)
  • H.-K. Jeswani et al.

    Environmental sustainability issues in the food–energy–water nexus: breakfast cereals and snacks

    Sustain. Prod. Consum.

    (2015)
  • B. Joa et al.

    Introduction of a feasible performance indicator for corporate water accounting – a case study on the cotton textile chain

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2014)
  • L. Lamastra et al.

    A new approach to assessing the water footprint of wine: an Italian case study

    Sci. Total Environ.

    (2014)
  • A.M. Leach et al.

    Environmental impact food labels combining carbon, nitrogen, and water footprints

    Food Policy

    (2016)
  • L. Levidow et al.

    Process eco-innovation: assessing meso-level eco-efficiency in industrial water-service systems

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2016)
  • D. Lovarelli et al.

    Water footprint of crop productions: a review

    Sci. Total Environ.

    (2016)
  • A. Manzardo et al.

    Integration of water footprint accounting and costs for optimal chemical pulp supply mix in paper industry

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2014)
  • A. Manzardo et al.

    Lessons learned from the application of different water footprint approaches to compare different food packaging alternatives

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2016)
  • S.A. Northey et al.

    Evaluating the application of water footprint methods to primary metal production systems

    Miner. Eng.

    (2014)
  • I. Noya et al.

    Comparative life cycle assessment of three representative feed cereals production in the Po Valley (Italy)

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2015)
  • I. Noya et al.

    Carbon and water footprint of pork supply chain in Catalonia: from feed to final products

    J. Environ. Manag.

    (2016)
  • G. Page et al.

    Carbon and water footprint tradeoffs in fresh tomato production

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2012)
  • J.-C.-P. Palhares et al.

    Water footprint accounting and scarcity indicators of conventional and organic dairy production systems

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2015)
  • L. Pan et al.

    A supply chain based assessment of water issues in the coal industry in China

    Energy Policy

    (2012)
  • S. Payen et al.

    LCA of local and imported tomato: an energy and water trade-off

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2015)
  • P. Quinteiro et al.

    Addressing the freshwater use of a Portuguese wine (‘vinho verde’) using different LCA methods

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2014)
  • T. Ramírez et al.

    Water and carbon footprint improvement for dried tomato value chain

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2015)
  • B.G. Ridoutt et al.

    A revised approach to water footprinting to make transparent the impacts of consumption and production on global freshwater scarcity

    Glob. Environ. Change

    (2010)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text