Transparency as the Foundation for Sustainable Process Decisions
Life Cycle Assessments in the Food & Beverage Industry
The transition to a more climate-friendly industry presents fundamental challenges for food and beverage production. GEA is convinced that sustainable solutions can only be developed successfully if environmental impacts are understood and actively managed throughout the entire life cycle.
.png?h=2268&iar=0&w=4032&rev=30faa61b815e4449b2b6fc56a52e2494&hash=F64CB75B90B54308D8011770EEF9B614)
Sustainability as a strategic lever
With ambitious climate goals and clear targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Scope 3 emissions are increasingly coming into focus. These emissions arise primarily during the operation of equipment at customers' sites and account for approximately 95% of GEA's total greenhouse gas emissions. They therefore represent a crucial lever on GEA's path to net-zero by 2040 – a reminder that sustainability extends well beyond our own production and must be considered across the entire value chain. A key starting point is designing technologies that operate as energy- and resource-efficiently as possible. GEA relies on a clearly data-driven approach. Through in-depth analyses such as Life Cycle Assessments (LCA), emission drivers are identified and specifically reduced. The key advantage: measures no longer need to be implemented by instinct. Instead, the most effective and cost-efficient levers can be identified and prioritized early on – giving customers solutions that help them measurably reduce their own emissions and reach their corporate sustainability goals more quickly.
Life Cycle Assessments: Transparency across the entire life cycle
Informed decisions require a comprehensive view. LCAs provide exactly this perspective by analyzing environmental impacts from raw material extraction through production and use all the way to end of life.
The benefits are clear:
- Complex relationships become measurable and comparable
- Environmental impacts can be systematically prioritized
- Targeted improvement measures can be identified
As a result, LCAs are becoming a key tool – not only for sustainability reporting, but above all for technological advancement and strategic decision-making.
From analysis to innovation
The value of life cycle assessments lies in how the insights are applied. GEA has therefore made carbon footprint analyses a mandatory part of the product development process, systematically embedding sustainability considerations into every design decision.
In practice, this means:
- Environmental impacts become visible early in development, when changes are still easier and more cost-effective to implement
- Design decisions can be optimized on the basis of data
- Efficiency and sustainability are weighed together from the outset
The result: solutions that are not only technically compelling but also contribute to long-term emission reductions – and support customers in achieving their sustainability goals.
"Sustainability performance is mainly influenced by product design. By quantifying environmental impacts early on, we can specifically develop the technologies that help our customers sustainably reduce their emissions."
Dr. Florian Vogt
VP Sustainable Solutions and Innovation
Comparison in Focus: Aseptic vs. Retort Systems
A recent study in the beverage industry conducted a comparative life cycle assessment of aseptic and retort systems for beverage processing in aluminum containers. Both processes are critical for ensuring microbiological safety and long shelf life. Aseptic systems enable filling under sterile conditions – achieved through separate sterilization of product and packaging, as well as a germ-free process environment – without the need for subsequent heat treatment. Retort systems, by contrast, thermally treat the already-sealed final product under pressure to achieve the required sterility. The goal was to systematically assess and compare the environmental impacts of both technologies across their entire life cycle. The analysis covered several scientifically standardized impact categories:
- Climate change
- Eutrophication
- Particulate matter
- Human toxicity
- Ecotoxicity
- Resource use
- Water use
- Further categories like Ozone depletion, Ionising radiation and Photochemical ozone formation
This holistic approach ensures that environmental impact is assessed not only based on individual metrics, but in all its complexity.
The results show that a system's environmental performance stems from the interplay of multiple factors across its full operational life cycle and cannot be attributed to individual process steps alone. The use phase carries the greatest weight: energy-intensive steps such as thermal treatment, cooling, and filling have the most significant influence on the overall environmental footprint. A direct comparison of the two technologies makes the differences particularly clear. The environmental impacts of aseptic systems are primarily driven by individual process steps – sterilization, filling, and sealing – and remain comparatively moderate. Retort processes, by contrast, generate a significantly higher environmental burden due to intensive heating and cooling cycles, which account for a substantial share across nearly all impact categories assessed. Cleaning cycles, on the other hand, have only a minor influence on the overall balance for both technologies. External factors such as the regional energy mix also affect the results and can either reinforce or diminish the relative advantages of each system. The comparative LCA – conducted in collaboration with Cipack at the University of Parma – concludes that filling and stabilizing a 0.33 l aluminum container with a low-acid beverage carries a lower environmental impact when using an aseptic process. The aseptic process achieves a Global Warming Potential (GWP) approximately 50% lower than that of the retort process.
These findings underscore the importance of a systemic perspective – and provide the foundation for targeted innovation and measurably reduced environmental impacts, established early in the development process.
Environmental impacts comparison [%] of the aseptic and retort processes (FU: aluminium container of 0.33 l). LCA analysis has been done by Cipack, University of Parma, Prof. Roberta Stefanini.
"The LCA empowers us to offer transparent, verified sustainability benefits to our customers. LCA quantified our environmental impact, but has also reshaped how we approach innovation: it enables us to develop solutions genuinely aligned with circular economy principles and to communicate our progress with transparency and confidence."
Dr. Barbara Bricoli
Innovation and Product Sustainability Manager
