Economic and Environmental Assessment of the Wine Chain in Southeastern Spain

Abstract

The sustainability of the wine chain in the southeast of Spain is evaluated through life cycle costing (LCC) and life cycle assessment (LCA) methodologies. A winery model is established based on the information provided by representative companies in the area. The LCC and LCA are applied to the production of the wine bottle, and a sensitivity analysis is applied to evaluate the effect of the different types of vineyard, as well as the weight of the glass bottle. In the cellar phase, the processes are highly technical and are very efficient in relation to the consumption of energy, water, and other inputs. However, the weight of the glass bottle should be minimized as it has a great impact on both environmental and production costs. The socioeconomic importance of the wine chain is relevant, both in quantitative terms and for what it means as a brand transmission mechanism for the agri-food sector. It should also be taken into account that the environmental cost of the processes is low, and that the activity contributes to the conservation of the soil and landscape in a semi-arid area.

1. Introduction

Europe possesses the largest area of vineyards of any continent and, in addition, there is a general stability in the area of vineyards in the European Union (EU), which has stood at 3.3 million hectares over the last 8 years [1]. This stability can be attributed to the management of the wine production potential, which, since 2016, has allowed the EU member states to authorize planting that achieves an annual growth of 1% of the vineyard area already planted, which has translated into a balance between the uprooting of vines and new plantings. Among the EU member states, Spain has the largest area of vineyards, 964,000 ha, followed by France (798,000 ha) and Italy (718,000 ha). However, Spain is the third largest producer of wine (35.3 million hectoliters), after Italy (50.2 million hectoliters) and France (37.6 million hectoliters) [1]. These data, however, reflect the path that still remains to be traveled in Spain, both in technology and in the quality of the wines, in order to improve the wine output as well as its commercial value. Even so, the Spanish wine sector is of great economic importance at the national level, since it contributes almost 4.8% of the production of the agricultural sector [2] and the wine activity, including viticulture, comprises 2.2% of the Spanish gross value added (GVA) [3]. In addition to its economic weight, it also has a significant social and environmental value, due to the maintenance of the rural areas by the population involved in this sector and the role of vine cultivation in the preservation of the environment [4].

The region of Murcia is located in the southeast of Spain. It is a semi-arid zone in which water resources are highly limited [5,6] and, in addition, it is a territory subject to desertification [7,8]; therefore, it is very vulnerable to the impact of climate change. The cultivation of vines is located in the Altiplano, Valle del Guadalentín, and northwest areas, and is configured in three denominations of origin (DO): Jumilla, Bullas, and Yecla. The vineyard area in 2019 was 23,251 ha, while in 2009 it was 35,437 ha [9]. That is to say, in 10 years there has been a reduction in area of 34% (12,186 ha), mainly as a result of a marked decrease in the area dedicated to dry land (rain-fed) crops, which occupy the majority of the vineyard area. In the case of irrigated vineyards, the area has decreased slightly as a result of limited water availability and the high price of water. In any case, this situation is mainly the result of the low price of the grape, which has meant that many farms are not viable [10,11,12]. The main factor in this is the use of the traditional system of payment per kilogram, which favors irrigated vineyards that have higher production and harms not only rain-fed systems that are economically more vulnerable, but also those involving regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) [13]. In RDI, the application of water is reduced in a controlled way in those phenological periods in which a moderate water deficit does not significantly affect the production and quality of the harvest. Faced with this situation, wine producers have tried to increase yields and reduce costs and, in turn, have been increasing the size of farms in order to achieve viability. This increase has taken place progressively, with the result that the average vineyard size in Murcia is the largest nationwide [2]. In Murcia, vineyards occupy an area of 23,251 ha and 738,192 hectoliters of wine are produced, representing 2.43% and 1.94%, respectively, of the national totals. Organic vineyards occupy 11,799 ha, 9.7% of the national total, yielding 4.5% of the national bottled wine [3]. In addition, 74.6% of the wine produced in Murcia is exported bottled, representing 3.7% of Spanish exports [3].

The agri-food sector is faced with a market with a growing demand for products from sustainable production systems. The concern of consumers regarding food safety and the environment has caused the EU to demand quality standards for products and compliance with practices that are respectful of the environment [14]. This has stimulated the interest of many companies that are using socioeconomic and environmental characteristics as an instrument for the commercial differentiation of their products. However, sustainable development means changing current operating models, to reduce the consumption of raw materials and energy and minimize environmental impacts. However, the agri-food sector is among the most polluting economic sectors [15], producing around 10% of European greenhouse gas emissions [16] and approximately 90% of acidifying contaminants, and depleting almost 34% of freshwater resources [17]. A reduction in these impacts represents the greatest challenge for producing countries and has been strongly supported by the EU [18]. However, among the different economic activities, it is probably the agricultural sector that has experienced the greatest progress in the field of sustainability [19].

The Spanish wine sector is undergoing a significant evolution in the face of the competition in international markets and must respond to the commitments to improve sustainability. Thus, in the current situation, it is important to assess the sustainability of wine production in the southeast of Spain, and identify the “hot spots” and how these can evolve and what alternatives can be economically and environmentally viable. In this sense, the combined use of life cycle costing (LCC) and life cycle assessment (LCA) has proven to be a very useful tool, both in agricultural production [12,20,21,22,23,24] and in aquaculture [25].

Environmental studies on wine production from the perspective of the life cycle distinguish, in general, four phases: grape production (viticulture), winemaking (vinification), bottling/packaging, and distribution/consumption [26]. However, the latter is addressed in very few cases [27,28], presumably because the final market is very varied and this can have a highly significant influence on environmental impacts. Considering only the first three phases, different studies have found that viticulture and bottling/packaging are the two that contribute the most to environmental impacts [26], the latter being the one that generally has the most impact environmentally and on production costs [21]. However, in some studies, the impacts of viticulture were found to be higher than those of bottling/packaging [28,29]. The impacts of viticulture are mainly due to the consumption of fossil fuels by agricultural machinery, and the use of fertilizers and phytosanitary products, due to both their manufacture and their application in the field. Nonetheless, the results of the different studies show great variability; in terms of global warming (GW), the values range from 0.08 to 2.1 kg CO₂-eq [26,30]. This high variability mainly corresponds to differences in the agricultural practices, grape variety, and agroclimatic conditions [12,21,31]. In vinification, however, the impacts are lower and there is less variability than in viticulture [26,30], since the processes are more standardized and less dependent on environmental conditions. The energy consumed is usually the factor that most affects the impacts in this phase [29,32].

Therefore, in the life cycle of wine production, viticulture is generally the phase that imparts the greatest variability to the environmental impacts, and bottling/packaging is the phase that contributes the most to them, especially in terms of GW as well as production costs, mainly due to the use of the glass bottle, the most usual container in which wine is sold [1].

In southeastern Spain, the sustainability of the four types of vineyard that supply grapes for wine production has been evaluated [24]. These are conventional and organic rain-fed vineyards with goblet formation, and conventional and organic irrigated vineyards with trellis training. The greatest differences in the cost structure between the two systems (rain-fed and irrigated) are due to the amortization of the irrigated vineyard infrastructure, which requires high grape production. In addition, the environmental impacts are higher due to this infrastructure. The differences between conventional and organic for each type of vineyard are of little relevance. In all cases, the inputs are very finely tuned to lower the costs, and this results in low economic and environmental costs. However, conventional management supposes slightly higher impacts than organic management. However, the vinification phase and how the origin of the grape influences the final bottle of wine have not yet been evaluated.

Thus, the objectives of this work were, first, to establish a model of the winery phase (vinification and bottling/packaging) in the region of Murcia, which produces three types of wine: young, semi-crianza (oak), and crianza (not taking into account the vineyard phase); second, to apply LCC and LCA to the production of the bottle of wine; and, third, to carry out a sensitivity analysis, to economically and environmentally assess how the origin of the grape, according to the four types of vineyard in the region [24], affects the bottle of wine, as well as the influence of the weight of the glass bottle.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. The Winery Model

The winery model was set up within the framework of the VINECOCIR Operational Group financed by the Department of Water, Agriculture, Livestock, and Fisheries of the region of Murcia, and by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (FEADER), through the call of the Regional Program of Rural Development. The companies that participated and provided the data to run the model were Esencia Wine Cellars (D.O. Jumilla), Bodegas del Rosario (D.O. Bullas), and Bodegas Castaño (D.O. Yecla). These are medium-sized and representative wineries in the southeast of Spain.

The winery model contemplates the production of three types of wine: young, semi-crianza (or semi-crianza), and crianza (

Table 1. General data of the winery model.

Category	Quantity
Total capacity for the entry of grapes (kg year−1)	2,000,000
Maximum daily capacity for the entry of grapes (kg day−1)	125,000
Gross production of wine (dm3)	1,379,000
Gross production of bottles (units)	1,838,667
Weight of the green glass bottle (kg)	0.42
Number of bottles of young wine (%)	40
Number of bottles of semi-crianza wine (%)	40
Number of bottles of crianza wine (%)	20
Time in barrel for semi-crianza wine (months)	4–6
Time in barrel for crianza wine (months)	9–12

). The differences in the three types of wine lie in the aging time in the barrel. The young wine is not subjected to barrel aging. The semi-crianza wine is aged in barrels for 4–6 months, and the crianza for 9–12 months.

2.1.1. Common Production Processes of the Three Types of Wine

In the winery, a series of processes are carried out that are common to the elaboration of the three types of wine:

• Reception-controlled entry into the winery. Once the grapes have arrived at the winery, they are received and quality controlled, followed by the destemming–squeezing process using hoppers with feeders. The standard winery is dimensioned on the basis that it can handle two hoppers, each with a capacity of 20,000 kg h⁻¹;
• Destemming–squeezing. Two independent machines with an average yield of 18,000 kg h⁻¹, fed from reception hoppers. At the end of this stage, the scrapings are removed to a container by means of a crusher and a conveyor belt. The balance of the removed biomass is 6%; that is, the resulting mass in relation to the initial mass is 94%;
• Transferred to tanks. The paste is transferred by means of a booster pump to the refrigeration tanks (cold maceration), with an average net yield of 8000 kg h⁻¹;
• Cold maceration. In the tanks, 2 days of cold maceration are considered, with grape entry at 28 °C and exit at 16 °C;
• Alcoholic fermentation. Controlled fermentation at 22–24 °C for 7–8 days. It is considered to occur in three fermentation batches and, therefore, the number of tanks is dimensioned in three separate fermentations. The tanks have a gross capacity of 70,000 and 50,000 dm³ and a useful capacity of 85%, and the possibility of overlapping two fermentation batches is established;
• Pump-overs. Six pump-overs are carried out per day in alcoholic fermentation with an average duration of 20 min and maximum flow 30,000 dm³ h⁻¹;
• Devatting–pressing. The devatting is carried out with positive pressure and the support of transfer pumps to feed the press with an average yield of 14,000 kg h⁻¹. The pressing occurs with a load capacity of 20,000 kg and a total working time of 2.75 h;
• Filling of tanks for malolactic fermentation. Transfer pumps are used, with a net average output of 18,000 dm³ h⁻¹ in the liquid phase. Withdrawal of pomace (21% of the gross initial input) occurs with an average net yield of 8000 kg h⁻¹;
• Malolactic fermentation. This occurs in tanks with parameters similar to those of the alcoholic fermentation batches but with controlled conditions appropriate for malolactic fermentation. A heat exchange by means of jacket water up to an average temperature of 23 °C, for about five days, is considered. For dimensioning, the following balance is established: a raw grape input of 100 kg yields 70 dm³ of malolactic acid;
• Clarification–stabilization. The liquid is bubbled with nitrogen, and pea protein is added to achieve clarification (200 mg per liter of wine). In this stage, the sludge and lees are removed, representing a balance of 3% of the gross input of grapes. Racking is performed by pumping to the stabilization–conservation tanks or to barrels, in the case of aging (semi-crianza or crianza wines); one step per filtrate is carried out by pressure plate filtration, with an average yield of 5000 dm³ h⁻¹. The average net yield in the transfers is 18,000 dm³ h⁻¹ of filtered liquid;
• Microfiltration–tartaric stabilization. Just before bottling, tangential filtration is applied to all wines, followed by microfiltration through plastic cartridges with a pore size of 0.45 µ. Tartrate removal and color stabilization are performed with potassium polyaspartate or carboxymethylcellulose;
• Bottling–corking. This includes feed pumping from a regulating reservoir. Bottling is performed with “cuatribloc” equipment (washing, sterilizing, filling, corking), with an average output of 2000 bottles h⁻¹ in a programmable process. The use of hot water, produced by a DHW boiler with a diesel burner, in the bottling stage is assumed;
• Labeling. This comprises the use of a labeling machine with an average performance of 3000 bottles h⁻¹, together with a box former and transporter (6 bottles per box);
• Internal transport–packing–dispatch. The transport and dispatching equipment is dimensioned: forklift and electric pallet trucks.

2.1.2. Specific Processes of the Semi-Crianza and Crianza Wines

• Aging in barrels. The wines are transferred to oak barrels after clarification and stabilization, just after passing through the filtering plates. The cellar is dimensioned with barrels with a capacity of 225 dm³ (220 useful dm³). The semi-crianza wine represents 40% and the crianza wine 20% (Table 1). The semi-crianza wine spends 4–6 months in the barrel and the crianza wine 9–12 months. The barrels are stacked four high. The barrels are comprised of 50% American oak and 50% French oak;
• Aging in bottles. Cages for bottle aging and the corresponding turners are used, as well as two-barrel sleepers.

2.2. Life Cycle Costing

Within the LCC analysis, multiple indicators can be used, which must be directed towards the evaluation objectives, in each case. We apply cost accounting within the scope of the general LCC methodology, in line with various papers, both directly related to the wine chain [22,24], and to other agricultural productions [23,25]. Other papers develop methodology in the area of LCC but that uses other indicators [20,21]. The costs were accounted for one year of production. To carry out this analysis, the production costs were identified, then grouped and classified into fixed costs and variable costs:

• Fixed costs. The fixed costs were calculated as the annual amortization cost, applying the linear method or constant installments;
• Variable costs. These include the cost of the inputs, services, and activities involved in the course of one production cycle. They were calculated taking as a reference the cost of the inputs used and the activities carried out in the production process.

For each of the costs, both fixed and variable, the corresponding opportunity cost was calculated. That is, the alternative use of money in bank savings accounts without risk was taken into account.

2.2.1. Initial Investment: Winery, Installation, and Equipment. Fixed Amortization Costs

Table 2. Summary of the investment and calculation of the disaggregated annual amortization costs.

General	Value	UL	Residual	Amortization	Total Cost (EUR)
Category 1. Civil works	956,665	30	191,333	25,511	25,894
Category 2. Installations	214,045	30	-	7135	7,242
Category 3. Process machinery/equipment	1,801,406	15	180,141	108,084	109,706
Category 4. Project, work management, licenses	229,658	30	-	7655	7770
	3,201,774				150,611
Crianza	Value	UL	Residual	Amortization	Total (EUR)
Category 1. Civil works	278,060	30	55,612	7415	7526
Category 2. Installations	62,213	30	0	2074	2105
Category 5. Barrels	1,560,815	5	234,122	265,339	269,319
Category 6. Auxiliary equipment for Crianza	230,305	15	0	15,354	15,584
	2,131,393				294,534
Total initial inversion/Total annual cost	5,333,167				445,145

UL: useful life in years.

details the amortizations associated with the investment, which were calculated by applying the constant installment method. The final cost of each category, expressed in EUR, includes the opportunity cost. To calculate the opportunity cost, an interest rate of 1.5% was used, equivalent to the average of the public debt of the last 10 years minus the average inflation in that period [24].

When dimensioning the winery, the work, installations, and equipment involved in the general production process were separated from those involved specifically in the aging process (semi-crianza and crianza wine production). This allowed us to pass on the depreciation costs in a disaggregated way to each type of wine produced in the model winery. This separation is reflected in Table 2, both at the investment level and in the annual amortization cost (which includes the opportunity cost).

Table A1. Breakdown of the categories of the total initial investment in the model winery.

Category	Value (EUR)	Category Total (EUR)
Civil works		1,234,725
Earth movements	21,425
Foundation and screed	294,670
Metallic structure	261,100
Deck	134,280
Enclosures, partitions, and false ceilings	358,080
Pavements and flooring	103,370
Exterior metallic carpentry	37,300
Exterior urbanization	38,500
Installations		276,258
Water and sanitation	67,140
Electrical installation and communications	168,670
Fire protection	20,888
Furniture, computing, and communications	19,560
Equipment, machinery, and barrels		3,592,526
Process equipment and machinery	1,772,666
Barrels	1,560,815
Auxiliary aging equipment	230,305
Other general equipment	28,740
Project, construction management, licenses		229,658
TOTAL		5,333,167

shows a breakdown of the categories of the initial investment.

2.2.2. Variable Costs

Table 3. Supplies.

Category	Amounts
Grape (kg)	2,000,000
Unit cost of the grape (EUR/kg−1) (1)	0.43
Winery personnel (no. of workers) (2)	11.5
Electrical energy (kwh) (3)	158,759
Diesel (boiler and vehicles)	4078
Mains water	4200
Metabisulfite (kg)	70
Sulfur dioxide gas (dm3)	42
Yeast (kg)	280
Pea protein (kg)	280
Potassium polyaspartate (dm3)	1400
Bottles: 0.75 dm3, 0.42 kg each (units)	1,866,667
Cap/capsule/label (units per item)	1,866,667
Corrugated board box for 6 bottles	311.111
Maintenance costs (EUR) (4)	33,124
Insurance and associated fixed taxes (EUR) (5)	15,562
Fixed taxes (EUR)	15,562
Payment for the back label CRDO (0.03 EUR/unit) (EUR)	5600

(1) The unit cost of the grape varies, according to the productive orientation, between 0.43 and 0.48 EUR/kg⁻¹ [24]. (2) Personnel: 1 director–manager, 1 winemaker, 1 manager, 5.5 operators, 1 administrator, 2 auxiliary workers. (3) Table A2: electricity consumption in the different phases of winemaking. (4) Annual maintenance is 1% on the site, installations, and machinery. (5) Cost of insurance and fixed taxes is 1% on the site, installations, and machinery.

shows the fundamental technical and economic data, characteristic of the winery process, on which the subsequent assessment was based to establish the cost structure of the process or working capital costs.

We developed a basic cost structure on which a sensitivity analysis was later carried out for important variables, such as the cost of the grape or the type of bottle. For example, we applied the different costs of grapes according to the water supply (rain-fed/irrigated) and the crop management (conventional/ecological) characteristic of the region of Murcia.

2.3. Life Cycle Assessment

The LCA, according to the ISO 14040 standard [33], consists of four interrelated phases: (i) goal and scope; (ii) life cycle inventory analysis; (iii) impact analysis; and (iv) interpretation of the results.

2.3.1. Goal and Scope

The objective of this LCA, in addition to contributing to the environmental evaluation of wine production in the winery, was to provide data for the scientific evaluation of the potential impacts of viticulture in a semi-arid area such as southeastern Spain.

The functional unit (FU) to which the environmental impacts will refer is a 0.75 dm³ bottle of wine. The LCA, therefore, focused on the winery that produces three types of wine: young, semi-crianza, and crianza. However, in the sensitivity analysis, the complete system was analyzed, evaluating the four vine production options described by García Castellanos et al. [24].

The winery was treated as a monofunctional subsystem that only produces wine. The scrap, pomace, and lees were considered as residues used for other production processes (compost and alcohol) but, since they are not priced here, it was not considered appropriate to classify them as co-products; therefore, environmental burden allocation procedures were not applied. In fact, when they do have a price it is so low [34] that the impact on the allocation of environmental charges can be considered negligible. To carry out the LCA, SimaPro 9.4 software [35] was used. The background data (raw materials, energy, fuel, materials, products, etc.) were obtained from the Ecoinvent 3.8 database, available in SimaPro 9.4 software. The components of the system that were taken into account were:

• Supplies. Raw materials, transport and production of the products used in the different phases of winemaking (metabisulfite, sulfur dioxide, yeast, pea protein, and potassium polyaspartate), and water consumption;
• Energy. The electrical energy consumed in all processes: destemming and crushing, alcoholic fermentation, pressing, malolactic fermentation, stabilization, bottling and packaging, lighting, and others (

  Table A2. Summary of the installed power and the electrical energy consumed in the different phases of winemaking.

  Phase of Process	Power (kW)	Power (%)	Energy (kWh)	Energy (%)	Unit Energy (kW h hL−1)
  Reception, destemming, squeezing	61.30	14.1%	5361	3.1%	0.39
  Alcoholic fermentation	166.80	38.3%	74,840	43.6%	5.43
  Pressing, malolactic fermentation	30.85	7.1%	17,760	10.3%	1.29
  Stabilization	12.00	2.8%	1120	0.7%	0.08
  Bottling, storage, dispatch	50.14	11.5%	38,871	22.6%	2.82
  Lighting, other uses	11.20	2.6%	15,053	8.8%	1.09
  Auxiliaries (air, recirculation, etc.)	103.61	23.8%	18,780	10.9%	1.36
  TOTAL	435.90	100.0%	171,785	100.0%	12.46

  ); also, the diesel consumed by the boiler;
• Aging. Raw materials, transport and manufacture of 225 dm³ barrels for semi-crianza and crianza wines;
• Bottling. Raw materials, transport and manufacture of the 0.75 dm³ glass bottle (0.42 kg in weight), the transport pallet, and the plastic packaging;
• Packaging. This includes the label, cork stopper, capsule, and corrugated board box.

As in most winery LCAs, the infrastructures were not taken into account given the long amortization periods [26,29,30,34,36,37,38,39]. The 0.45 µ plastic cartridge filters were not taken into account either, because specific information was not available.

2.3.2. Life Cycle Inventory

The foreground data of this LCA, based on what is described in Section 2.2., are shown in

Table 4. Inputs per bottle of wine (0.75 dm³).

	Unit	Amount
Supplies
Potassium metabisulfite	g	3.750 × 10−3
Sulfur dioxide (liquefied SO2)	g	2.250 × 10−3
Yeast	g	1.500 × 10−2
Pea protein	g	1.500 × 10−2
Potassium polyaspartate	g	7.500 × 10−5
Energy
Electricity	kwh	9.340 × 10−2
Diesel	g	1.885 × 100
Aging (Semi-crianza)
Barrel	kg	2.323 × 10−1
Transportation	tkm	1.162 × 10−1
Aging (Crianza)
Barrel	kg	2.371 × 10−1
Transportation	tkm	1.186 × 10−1
Bottling
Green glass bottle	kg	4.200 × 10−1
Transportation	tkm	1.680 × 10−1
Pallet	g	3.079 × 101
Packaging film (LDPE)	g	9.200 × 10−1
Packaging
Cork	g	4.500 × 100
Capsule	g	1.200 × 100
Paper for label	g	8.000 × 10−1
Corrugated board	g	3.783 × 101
Packaging film (LDPE)	g	1.000 × 100

, which displays the inputs in relation to the functional unit. The background data (raw materials, energy, fuel, materials, products, and transport) were obtained from the Ecoinvent 3.8 database available in SimaPro. For the glass bottle, a process that uses a mixture of raw materials and recycled glass (85% glass cullet) was employed. The weight of the bottle for the three types of wine was 0.42 kg. The data relating to the aging barrels were taken from [40]; the barrels have a useful life in the cellar of 5 years and are then reused for very different purposes. The stem, pomace, and lees were not considered as their destination is in composting (stem) or the production of alcohols (pomace and lees), without assuming a net return.

2.3.3. Life Cycle Impact

For the characterization of the potential environmental impacts, the CML-IA baseline 4.7 (August 2016) midpoint methodology (available in SimaPro) was used. This has been applied widely in LCA for agri-food products [15,21,23,28,31,34,41] and for aquaculture [25,42,43]. The impact categories used were: abiotic depletion (AD), abiotic depletion fossil fuels (ADFF), global warming (GW), ozone layer depletion (OLD), human toxicity (HT), fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity (FWAE), marine aquatic ecotoxicity (MAE), terrestrial ecotoxicity (TE), photochemical oxidation (PO), acidification (A), and eutrophication (E).

In the sensitivity analysis in which the effect of the origin of the grape on the bottle of wine was evaluated, the global warming potential (midpoint CML-IA) and the single score (SS) were used as impact indicators according to the ReCiPe methodology with a hierarchical perspective (H). ReCiPe first characterizes 17 potential midpoint environmental impacts (ReCiPe 2016 Midpoint), which analyze multiple environmental issues [44]; these are translated into 17 endpoint categories that are then multiplied by damage factors and aggregated into three endpoint categories: damage to human health, damage to ecosystems, and damage to the availability of resources. Finally, the values are normalized, weighted, and aggregated into a single score (SS, mPt), which facilitates the interpretation and understanding of the environmental consequences of a product and, therefore, implies better communication with society in general. However, damage-oriented (endpoint) methods are associated with high levels of uncertainty compared to problem-oriented (midpoint) methods. Thus, the CML-IA methodology has been used to identify the hot spots in relation to the potential environmental impacts of the different components of the winery model, in the same way as in a previous study on the different types of vineyards [24]. The single score according to the ReCiPe methodology has been used because it provides an easier-to-interpret global environmental evaluation of the final product, that is, the bottle of wine according to the different grape origins.

2.4. Sensitivity Analysis

The effects of the following two factors on the bottle of wine were evaluated economically (LCC) and environmentally (LCA), based on the model described:

• The weight of the glass bottle. Although the trend seems to be to reduce the weight of the bottle, for both economic and environmental reasons, crianza wine continues to be bottled in heavy bottles (such as 0.65 kg);
• The origin of the grape, according to the type of vineyard. Currently, the options for wine grapes in the region of Murcia, as described by García Castellanos et al. [24], are:
  • Conventional rain-fed vineyard with goblet formation (CR);
  • Organic rain-fed vineyard with goblet formation (OR);
  • Conventional irrigated vineyard with trellis formation (CI);
  • Organic irrigated vineyard with formation (OI).

In addition to the impact on the unit cost (one bottle of wine), the employment generated in the two phases of the wine chain (vineyard and winery) was also analyzed. For this, the agricultural work unit (AWU ha⁻¹) was used, which indicates the generation of employment per hectare. To establish the employment generated, the work involved in agricultural work was calculated. In the region of Murcia, one AWU corresponds to 1800 h [23,24].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Life Cycle Costing

Table 5. Annual costs for a winery with a capacity for 2,000,000 kg of grapes.

Category	Absolute Cost (EUR)	Relative Cost (%)
Fixed asset costs
Civil works–urbanization	33,420	1.02%
Installations, IT, and equipment	9347	0.29%
Process machinery–auxiliary equipment	109,706	3.36%
Equipment for wine aging	284,903	8.72%
Project, construction management, licenses, legalization	7770	0.24%
Total fixed costs	445,145	13.63
Working capital costs
Wine grapes	881,020	26.97%
Staff	343,765	10.52%
Electric power	32,228	0.99%
Diesel oil	2877	0.09%
Water	5158	0.16%
Inputs (sulfur dioxide, yeasts, clarifiers, etc.)	21,070	0.64%
Bottles	738,920	22.62%
Packaging/dispatch (caps, labels, boxes, etc.)	672,607	20.59%
Payments to C.R.	56,840	1.74%
Maintenance of installations, equipment, and machinery	33,621	1.03%
Insurance and fixed taxes	33,621	1.03%
Total working capital	2,821,726	86.37%
Total cost (EUR)	3,266,871	100.00%
Cost for young wine (EUR/bottle−1)	1.59
Cost for semi-crianza wine (EUR/bottle−1)	1.79
Cost for crianza wine (EUR/bottle−1)	1.99
Unit cost (EUR/bottle−1)	1.75

shows the structure of the annual costs, both fixed assets and working capital. The relative cost (%) indicates the relevance of each cost in relation to the total cost.

The cost structure of the winery shows that the fixed costs and working capital represent 13.63 and 86.37%, respectively, of the total cost (Table 5). As in other agri-food industries, the investment is high (EUR 5,333,167, Table 2) but in relative terms, it does not reach 14% of the total cost. It is a value intermediate between those of the fixed assets of the rain-fed and irrigated cultivation phases, which represent approximately 10% and 21% of the total cost, respectively [12,24]. If we express it in a relative way, the winery needs an average investment of EUR 2667 per ton of red grapes. One hectare of rain-fed land with an average production of 3500 kg year⁻¹ entails an investment of EUR 3982 in the cultivation phase and EUR 9334 in the winery phase. This figure gives an idea of the economic importance of the investments in wineries on the territory.

Table 2 breaks down the fixed assets into the costs of the general process and those specific to aging, and we can verify that wine aging accounts for 66% of the total fixed assets (EUR 294,534, out of a total of EUR 445,145). This is mainly due to the amortization of the barrels, since the cost of the barrels alone amounts to 61% of the fixed assets (Table 2).

In the aggregate fixed assets, the category of machinery and equipment stands out (processing machinery (3.36%) plus aging equipment (8.72%)), reaching 12% of the total cost (89% of the fixed assets) (Table 5). The civil works and installations together with the procedures and legalizations related to the activity only represent 1.55% of the total cost; there is no doubt that the longer useful life of these elements (30 years) in relation to the machinery–equipment (15 years) makes their cost low (Table 2).

The greatest contribution to the annual working capital is the cost of the grapes, which reaches 26.97% of the total cost (Table 5). However, the most notable is the cost related to packaging and shipping (that is, the sum of the bottles, caps, labels, capsules, and shipping boxes—all the material surrounding the wine), which represents 43.21% of the production cost. The bottles alone, considering a simple Bordeaux bottle of 0.42 kg, represent a relative cost of 22.62% (Table 5).

The energy cost is not very relevant in economic terms, since the energy consumed (electricity and diesel) in the production processes (Table 3 and Table A2) comprises only 1.08% of the production cost (Table 5). The wine production process is highly technical [45,46,47]. The equipment and the winery processes are very efficient at a productive level in relation to the energy required. Of course, a good dimensioning of the equipment and installations is necessary to produce wine at a lower cost and save energy. Water consumption is another example of an optimized input (0.16%) and has little importance in the cost (Table 5). The cost of the personnel (10.52%) is important, but it is also a highly optimized cost for which there is no room for maneuver when attempting to lower the cost of the product.

In terms of the unit cost of the product, under the established standard winery conditions, we see that the average cost of each bottle (0.75 dm³), considering all the costs passed on to that average product, is EUR 1.75 (Table 5). This value corresponds to the cost of grapes grown under rain-fed conditions, with goblet formation and a conventional production system [48], together with a simple 0.42 kg bottle. Under the conditions of this initial hypothesis, the unit cost (per bottle) is EUR 1.59 for young wine, EUR 1.79 for semi-crianza wine, and EUR 1.99 for crianza wine. These are relatively close values, since the productive capacity of the model winery entails a high minimum cost per bottle due to common processes and costs. Aging makes the unit product more expensive by 25%, in the most extreme case; that is, for a crianza wine compared to a young wine. This statement is true in the case of equal starting conditions: cost of the grapes, type and cost of the bottle, and its decoration. For this reason, we introduced variability into certain costs to see the impact on the final product (Section 3.3.1.).

3.2. Life Cycle Assessment

For the three types of wine, bottling is the component that globally contributes the most to environmental impacts—especially for young wine, for which it represents 86.50% (

Table 6. Characterization of the potential environmental impacts for the three types of wine, and the contributions of the system components.

	Values	Supplies (%)	Energy (%)	Aging (%)	Bottling (%)	Packaging (%)	Waste Treatment (%)
Young
AD (Sb-eq)	5.89 × 10−6	0.09	5.64		89.67	5.70	−1.10
ADFF (MJ)	5.43 × 100	0.18	7.83		80.90	12.04	−0.95
GW (CO2-eq)	4.64 × 10−1	0.19	6.60		82.53	10.97	−0.29
OLD (kg CFC-11-eq)	5.02 × 10−8	0.13	5.21		89.89	7.90	−3.13
HT (kg 1,4-DB-eq)	1.11 × 100	0.06	2.06		95.43	2.51	−0.06
FWAE (kg 1,4-DB-eq)	4.81 × 10−1	0.15	6.64		83.17	10.10	−0.06
MAE (kg 1,4-DB-eq)	1.32 × 103	0.12	4.44		80.22	15.27	−0.04
TE (kg 1,4-DB-eq)	1.20 × 10−2	0.09	2.69		95.64	1.58	−0.01
PO (kg C2H4-eq)	1.15 × 10−4	0.23	7.69		81.98	10.45	−0.34
A (kg SO2-eq)	2.09 × 10−3	0.22	11.34		79.94	8.71	−0.20
E (kg PO4-eq)	2.17 × 10−3	0.12	2.50		92.12	5.26	−0.01
Overall contribution (%)		0.14	5.69		86.50	8.23	−0.56
Semi-crianza
AD (Sb-eq)	6.33 × 10−6	0.08	5.25	6.94	83.45	5.30	−1.02
ADFF (MJ)	6.03 × 100	0.16	7.05	9.92	72.87	10.84	−0.85
GW (CO2-eq)	5.13 × 10−1	0.17	5.97	9.49	74.70	9.93	−0.27
OLD (kg CFC-11-eq)	5.52 × 10−8	0.11	4.74	9.13	81.68	7.18	−2.84
HT (kg 1,4-DB-eq)	1.15 × 100	0.06	1.99	3.40	92.19	2.42	−0.06
FWAE (kg 1,4-DB-eq)	5.37 × 10−1	0.13	5.96	10.30	74.60	9.06	−0.05
MAE (kg 1,4-DB-eq)	1.39 × 103	0.11	4.19	5.65	75.69	14.41	−0.04
TE (kg 1,4-DB-eq)	1.23 × 10−2	0.09	2.63	2.10	93.64	1.55	−0.01
PO (kg C2H4-eq)	1.28 × 10−4	0.20	6.90	10.22	73.60	9.38	−0.30
A (kg SO2-eq)	2.33 × 10−3	0.20	10.20	10.04	71.91	7.83	−0.18
E (kg PO4-eq)	2.24 × 10−3	0.12	2.42	3.15	89.21	5.09	−0.01
Overall contribution (%)		0.13	5.21	7.30	80.32	7.55	−0.51
Crianza
AD (Sb-eq)	6.34 × 10−6	0.08	5.24	7.07	83.33	5.30	−1.02
ADFF (MJ)	6.04 × 100	0.16	7.04	10.11	72.72	10.82	−0.85
GW (CO2-eq)	5.14 × 10−1	0.17	5.96	9.67	74.55	9.91	−0.26
OLD (kg CFC-11-eq)	5.53 × 10−8	0.11	4.73	9.30	81.53	7.17	−2.84
HT (kg 1,4-DB-eq)	1.15 × 100	0.06	1.99	3.47	92.12	2.42	−0.06
FWAE (kg 1,4-DB-eq)	5.38 × 10−1	0.13	5.95	10.49	74.45	9.04	−0.05
MAE (kg 1,4-DB-eq)	1.40 × 103	0.11	4.18	5.76	75.60	14.40	−0.04
TE (kg 1,4-DB-eq)	1.23 × 10−2	0.09	2.63	2.14	93.60	1.55	−0.01
PO (kg C2H4-eq)	1.28 × 10−4	0.20	6.89	10.41	73.44	9.36	−0.30
A (kg SO2-eq)	2.33 × 10−3	0.20	10.18	10.23	71.76	7.82	−0.18
E (kg PO4-eq)	2.24 × 10−3	0.12	2.42	3.22	89.16	5.09	−0.01
Overall contribution (%)		0.13	5.20	7.44	80.21	7.53	−0.51

AD: abiotic depletion. ADFF: abiotic depletion fossil fuels. GW: global warming. OLD: ozone layer depletion. HT: human toxicity. FWAE: fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity. MAE: marine aquatic ecotoxicity. TE: terrestrial ecotoxicity. PO: photochemical oxidation. A: acidification. E: eutrophication.

). For semi-crianza and crianza wines, the contribution of bottling is less (80%) because barrel aging comes into play, although its contribution is not very high (7%). Packaging represents around 8% for the three wines. The contribution of inputs is almost negligible (0.13–0.14%), while energy also makes low global contributions, of around 5%.

The contribution of bottling is mainly due to the glass bottle, even though it uses recycled glass. It has repercussions for all environmental impacts, with values above 90% in HT and TE for the three types of wine. This great contribution of the glass bottle to the environmental impacts of the winery has been recorded in many studies [26,28,30,34,38,39,49].

The contribution of energy is low, because electricity consumption can be considered low in relation to that recorded in other studies. The range of electricity consumption in relation to one bottle of wine (0.75 dm³) found in various studies is 0.012–0.918 kWh, with an average value of 0.209 [28,29,32,34,37,38,39,49,50,51,52], while in this study the electricity consumption is only 0.094 kWh (Table 4; Table A2). This is presumably due to greater energy efficiency in the winery, which is possible due to a general concern of the winery sector to reduce the production costs associated with the electricity bill. One factor that must have played an important role in reducing electricity consumption is the current microfiltration–tartaric stabilization technology. Until a few years ago, this process was carried out in the cold, lowering the temperature from room temperature (24–26 °C) to 4 °C to precipitate the tartarates. Currently, this procedure is in disuse due to its electrical consumption and the required installed power. As described in Section 2.1.1., tangential filtration, microfiltration with 0.45 µ plastic cartridges, and tartarate removal and color stabilization with potassium polyaspartate or carboxymethylcellulose are currently used. Possibly, the wineries described in the above-mentioned studies would show lower electricity consumption today.

The values of GW, which is the most widely used impact category in LCAs, for the three types of wines vary between 0.464 kg CO₂-eq (young) and 0.514 kg CO₂-eq (crianza) and are, therefore, within the range recorded by different authors [26,28,30,32,34,37,38,50]. Navarro et al. [30] evaluated 18 wineries in Spain and France and the range of GW was 0.09–1.48 kg CO₂-eq, with an average value of 0.62 kg CO₂-eq. The lowest values corresponded to wines that are not marketed in glass bottles. In our model winery, the glass bottle is, as in most studies, the component that contributes the most to GW.

The differences in environmental impacts among the three types of wine are not very significant (

Table 7. Relative difference (RD) of the potential environmental impacts among the three types of wine.

	RD1 Young vs. Semi-Crianza	RD2 Young vs. Crianza	RD3 Semi-Crianza vs. Crianza
AD	7.45	7.61	0.14
ADFF	11.02	11.25	0.21
GW	10.49	10.70	0.20
OLD	10.04	10.25	0.19
HT	3.52	3.59	0.07
FWAE	11.48	11.72	0.21
MAE	5.99	6.11	0.12
TE	2.14	2.19	0.04
PO	11.38	11.62	0.21
A	11.16	11.39	0.21
E	3.26	3.32	0.07

RD1 = (semi-crianza − young) × 100/young. RD2 = (crianza − young) × 100/young. RD3 = (crianza − semi-crianza) × 100/semi-crianza.

). However, the aging of wine in barrels contributes to a certain increase compared to young wine. The difference between the semi-crianza and young wines is between 2% (TE) and around 11% (ADFF, FWAE, PO, and A), and the difference between semi-crianza and crianza is less than 0.21% (Table 7). It should be noted that for the three types of wine, a glass bottle weighing 0.42 kg was considered.

3.3. Sensitivity Analysis

3.3.1. Life Cycle Costing

Table 8. Unit cost (EUR/bottle⁻¹) according to the grape cultivation system and type of bottle.

Cultivation System	Grape Yield (kg ha−1) (1)	Cost of the Grape (EUR kg−1) (1)	Young (EUR/ud)	Semi- Crianza (EUR/ud)	Crianza-1 (EUR/ud) (2)	Crianza-2 (EUR/ud) (3)
Rain-fed conventional	3500	0.416	1.59	1.79	1.99	2.20
Rain-fed organic	3250	0.422	1.60	1.80	2.00	2.21
Irrigated conventional	8000	0.450	1.63	1.83	2.03	2.24
Irrigated organic	7250	0.458	1.64	1.84	2.04	2.25

(1) The yield and unit cost of the grape vary according to the cultivation system [24]. (2) Standard Bordeaux bottle of 0.42 kg (young, semi-crianza, crianza-1). (3) Bordeaux bottle of 0.65 kg (crianza-2).

shows the unit costs of different alternatives linked to the unit cost of the grape according to the cultivation system, as well as those of a crianza wine with a heavier Bordeaux bottle (0.65 kg). In the case, for example, of a crianza wine produced using grapes from rain-fed conventional cultivation and bottled in a 0.42 kg Bordeaux bottle (crianza-1), the unit cost would be EUR 1.99/bottle⁻¹; for grapes from irrigated organic cultivation and bottling with a Bordeaux bottle weighing 0.65 kg, the unit cost increases 13%, to EUR 2.25/bottle⁻¹ (crianza-2).

The employment generated in the two phases of the wine chain was also analyzed.

Table 9. Equivalent area, employment (in AWU) by phase, and the AWUc (crop)/AWUw (winery) ratio.

Cultivation System	Area (ha)	Employment in Cultivation (AWUc)	Employment in the Winery (AWUw)	Total Employment (AWU)	AWUc/AWUw Ratio
Rain-fed conventional	571	28.5	11.5	40	2.48
Rain-fed organic	615	30.7	11.5	42	2.67
Irrigated conventional	250	25.0	11.5	36.5	2.17
Irrigated organic	276	24.8	11.5	36	2.16

Equivalent area: cultivation area necessary, according to the production system [24], to supply the demand of the established model winery.

shows the calculated cultivation area necessary, according to the production system [24], to supply the demand of the established typical winery. Based on this area and the AWU data generated in each system, Table 9 shows the jobs per phase (crop + winery) and the total. The AWUc/AWUw ratio indicates the proportion of jobs generated in cultivation (AWUc) compared to those in the winery (AWUw). As can be seen, in all systems, the cultivation phase generates more than twice as many jobs as the winery. The maximum employment is achieved with the rain-fed organic crop. Grape cultivation has an important social component, especially when it is rain-fed cultivation. However, it is also relevant that the cost of the average AWU in the winery phase is double (2.05 times) that of the average AWU in the cultivation phase (29,451 EUR/AWU and 14,352 EUR/AWU, respectively) [24]. Therefore, employment in the winery is of a higher quality, reflecting the specialized technical knowledge of a large number of the employees.

3.3.2. Life Cycle Assessment

Although there is an apparent tendency to use bottles of around 0.42 kg in weight, heavier bottles of up to 0.65 kg are also used for crianza wine. Environmentally, the differences are very significant (

Table 10. The potential environmental impacts of the wine bottle according to the weight of the glass bottle and the relative difference in relation to those of the 0.42 kg bottle.

	Crianza-1 Bottle 0.42 kg	Crianza-2 Bottle 0.65 kg	RD (%)
AD (kg Sb-eq)	6.34 × 10−6	9.20 × 10−6	45.17
ADFF (MJ)	6.04 × 100	8.40 × 100	39.16
GW (kg CO2-eq)	5.14 × 10−1	7.21 × 10−1	40.31
OLD (kg CFC-11-eq)	5.53 × 10−8	7.98 × 10−8	44.15
HT (kg 1,4-DB-eq)	1.15 × 100	1.73 × 100	50.28
FWAE (kg 1,4-DB-eq)	5.38 × 10−1	7.55 × 10−1	40.47
MAE (kg 1,4-DB-eq)	1.40 × 103	1.97 × 103	41.17
TE (kg 1,4-DB-eq)	1.23 × 10−2	1.86 × 10−2	51.18
PO (kg C2H4-eq)	1.28 × 10−4	1.78 × 10−4	38.89
A (kg SO2-eq)	2.33 × 10−3	3.23 × 10−3	38.75
E (kg PO4-eq)	2.24 × 10−3	3.32 × 10−3	48.58

RD = (bottle-0.65 − bottle-0.42) × 100/bottle-0.42.

). The average relative difference of all the potential impacts is 44%, which increases with the 0.65 kg bottle. The impacts that are higher than this average value are for OLD, HT, TE, and E. In terms of GW, the potential impact is 0.513 kg CO₂-eq for the 0.42 kg bottle of wine and 0.721 kg CO₂-eq for the 0.65 kg bottle, which represents a relative difference of 40%.

Given that the glass bottle is the element that contributes the most to the environmental impacts of the entire wine production chain, different mitigation alternatives have been evaluated and discussed [27,39,53]. Thus, increased use of recycled glass in the manufacture of the bottle and the use of lighter bottles have been suggested. Based on the procedures available in Ecoinvent 3.8, a bottle with recycled glass (84%) exhibits a GW reduction of 46% compared to a bottle without recycled glass, regardless of weight. Even so, the environmental impacts remain very high. The weight of the bottle has an important effect, as has been shown here, so lower weights of around 0.3 kg could be considered [30]. In addition, it must be taken into account that the weight of the bottle also has repercussions for the transport of the wine. However, glass is very brittle so the scope for weight reduction is limited. The reuse of the bottle has also been evaluated, to reduce the impacts [53], but it was found to be a convenient alternative only when considering the local market, for distributions of less than 100 km [53].

Likewise, other materials have been used as an alternative to glass, such as the multilayer PET bottle, aseptic carton, and bag-in-box, the latter appearing to be the most environmentally friendly alternative [53]. However, these alternatives, particularly for quality wines, do not appear to be commercially viable for the moment. However, the bag-in-box (2–10 dm³) is experiencing expansion, representing 4% of world export volumes and 2% of economic value in 2020 [1].

Regarding the origin of the grape, the GW values recorded by García Castellanos et al. [24] in the vineyard were always superior in conventional crops compared to organic ones. However, there were no substantial differences between the two conventional ones or between the two organic ones (

Table 11. Global warming potential (GW, CML-IA) and single score (SS, ReCiPe) values of the four types of vineyard and of the three types of wine, including the corresponding values of the vineyard. The GW data corresponding to the vineyard are from [24].

	Vineyard	Young	Semi-Crianza	Crianza-1	Crianza-2
GW (kg CO2-eq)
Rain-fed conventional	0.248	0.714	0.763	0.764	0.971
Rain-fed organic	0.162	0.628	0.677	0.678	0.885
Irrigated conventional	0.220	0.686	0.735	0.736	0.943
Irrigated organic	0.177	0.643	0.692	0.693	0.900
SS (mPt)
Rain-fed conventional	8.252	32.257	35.000	35.057	45.954
Rain-fed organic	7.260	31.266	34.009	34.065	44.963
Irrigated conventional	15.612	39.617	42.360	42.417	53.315
Irrigated organic	16.212	40.217	42.960	43.017	53.915

). This pattern is consequently reflected in the different types of wine (Table 11).

For all the types of wine, the phase that contributes the most to GW is bottling (Figure 1). If crianza-2 is not taken into account, bottling represents, on average, 54.92%, viticulture 28.67%, winemaking 9.11%, and packaging 7.30% (

Table A3. Global warming potential (GW, CML-IA) of the four types of vineyard and the three types of wine, including the corresponding values of the vineyard. The GW data corresponding to the vineyard are from García Castellanos et al. (2022).

Wine Type	Crop Type	GW (kg CO2-eq)	Vineyard	Winemaking	Bottling	Packaging
			Contribution (%)
Young	CR	0.714	34.74	4.42	53.70	7.14
	OR	0.628	25.80	5.02	61.06	8.11
	CI	0.686	32.08	4.60	55.89	7.43
	OI	0.643	27.54	4.91	59.63	7.93
Semi-crianza	CR	0.763	32.52	10.52	50.27	6.68
	OR	0.677	23.95	11.86	56.66	7.53
	CI	0.735	29.95	10.93	52.19	6.94
	OI	0.692	25.60	11.60	55.43	7.37
Crianza-1	CR	0.764	32.48	10.64	50.20	6.67
	OR	0.678	23.91	11.99	56.58	7.52
	CI	0.736	29.91	11.05	52.12	6.93
	OI	0.693	25.56	11.73	55.35	7.36
Crianza-2	CR	0.971	25.55	8.37	60.84	5.25
	OR	0.885	18.31	9.18	66.75	5.76
	CI	0.943	23.34	8.62	62.64	5.40
	OI	0.900	19.67	9.03	65.64	5.66

CR: Conventional rain-fed vineyard with goblet formation. OR: Organic rain-fed vineyard with goblet formation. CI: Conventional irrigated vineyard with trellis formation. OI: Organic irrigated vineyard with formation.

). For crianza-2, obviously, the contribution of bottling is higher, with 63.97%. In any case, the contribution profile in general terms is similar to that described by other authors [26,36,49]. However, a greater contribution of viticulture to the impacts, compared to bottling, has also been reported [28,29].

The SS, which is the result of various environmental impacts, shows differences between rain-fed and irrigated crops, the latter having an SS that is practically double that of rain-fed crops (Table 11, Figure 2), despite the higher yield in the conventional vineyard (Table 8). This pattern obviously carries over to the values of the bottle of wine as well (Table 11, Figure 2).

The higher values of SS in irrigated crops are mainly due to the infrastructures (70% contribution), especially the metallic materials of the trellis [24]. In rain-fed vineyards, the value for organic cultivation is 12% lower than that for conventional cultivation; on irrigated land, although the values are very close, that of organic cultivation is 4% higher, which is the result of the lower grape yield in this system [24].

The results from different studies on the environmental impacts of very different conventional and organic crops are controversial [54]. Thus, more favorable results (minor impacts) have been described for organic crops [31,55,56,57]; but, in contrast, more favorable results for conventional crops or minimal differences between the two systems have also been reported [21,54,58,59]. In any case, as some authors have indicated [21,58], the LCA results may not be exhaustive enough to fully define the environmental profile of organic production. There are environmental aspects that are not evaluated through an LCA: organic agriculture, compared to conventional agriculture, increases biodiversity at a local scale, improves soil quality, and increases the organic component of soils [58]. Also, organic agriculture could be environmentally preferable to conventional if the functional unit were the hectare of cultivation [60]—that is, if the data were normalized in terms of area (ha). Hence, in rain-fed conditions, the GW values would be 868 kg CO₂-eq ha⁻¹ for conventional cultivation and 527 kg CO₂-eq ha⁻¹ for organic; and with irrigation the GW value would be 1760 kg CO₂-eq ha⁻¹ for conventional compared to 1283 kg CO₂-eq ha⁻¹ for organic.

The SS values for the bottle of wine do not present substantial differences according to the origin of the grapes (conventional or organic) (Table 11, Figure 2). However, the values for the bottle of wine made with grapes from the rain-fed vineyard are clearly lower than those for grapes from the irrigated vineyard, for all types of wine (Table 11, Figure 2). Bottling is the component that contributes the most to SS, between 47% and 63% for the three types of wine (excluding Crianza-2), while viticulture contributes between 21% and 40% (

Table A4. Single score (SS, ReCiPe) values of the four types of vineyard and the three types of wine, including the corresponding values of the vineyard. The SS data corresponding to the vineyard are from García Castellanos et al. (2022).

Wine Type	Crop Type	SS (mPt)	Vineyard	Winemaking	Bottling	Packaging
			Contribution (%)
Young	CR	32.26	25.58	5.50	62.62	6.29
	OR	31.27	23.22	5.68	64.61	6.49
	CI	39.62	39.41	4.48	50.99	5.12
	OI	40.22	40.31	4.41	50.23	5.05
Semi-crianza	CR	35.00	23.58	12.90	57.73	5.79
	OR	34.01	21.35	13.28	59.41	5.96
	CI	42.36	36.86	10.66	47.70	4.79
	OI	42.96	37.74	10.51	47.03	4.72
Crianza-1	CR	35.06	23.54	13.04	57.63	5.78
	OR	34.07	21.31	13.42	59.31	5.95
	CI	42.42	36.81	10.78	47.63	4.78
	OI	43.02	37.69	10.63	46.97	4.71
Crianza-2	CR	45.95	17.96	9.96	67.68	4.41
	OR	44.96	16.15	10.18	69.17	4.51
	CI	53.31	29.28	8.58	58.33	3.80
	OI	53.91	30.07	8.49	57.68	3.76

).

4. Conclusions

In the winery phase, the processes are highly technical and, in general, being well-dimensioned with regard to the equipment and the process, they are very efficient in relation to energy and water consumption. However, the weight of the bottle should be minimized as far as possible, since this is a component with a great impact, on both the environmental and production costs (Figure 3). The waste generated has either been reduced or given a utility in the form of by-products, although they are not interesting from an economic point of view. Environmentally, it is still necessary to increase the efficiency of the processes and implement recycling (added value) alternatives. In this way, the by-products would not only contribute to the profitability of the wine, but would also be a source of raw materials that would avoid the use of resources and processes in the production of other products. In short, recycling would contribute to improvement of the overall efficiency of the production system.

In relation to the employment generated, the wine chain is very socially productive, especially in the cultivation phase; for its part, the winery phase generates higher quality employment. This is a crop with an important social component, especially the rain-fed systems. In the same way, the territorial and environmental component is relevant in all cases due to its component of soil, landscape, and biodiversity conservation, especially in rain-fed areas. Undoubtedly, all these attributes must be valued in the wineries’ marketing strategies as differentiating elements.

The socioeconomic importance of the entire regional wine chain is indisputable, both in direct quantitative terms and for what it means as a brand transmission mechanism for the agri-food sector. The investments and the economic movement generated by the wineries have been quantified and are important for the territory and the rural environment.

There is a need for lines of research aimed at improving production, especially of vine varieties adapted to territorial conditions and the challenges of climate change, all seeking an adaptation that guarantees economic viability and minimizes environmental impacts. Works in this direction should support decision-making on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and, no doubt, the CAP can and must promote sustainable production throughout the vine–wine chain.