Document Type : CASE STUDY


1 Department of Agribusiness, Faculty of Agriculture, Andi Djemma University, Indonesia. Research Center for Sustainable Production System and Life Cycle Assessment, National Research and Innovation Agency, Jakarta, Indonesia

2 Research Center for Sustainable Production System and Life Cycle Assessment, National Research and Innovation Agency, Jakarta, Indonesia

3 Republic of Indonesia Defence University, Indonesia Peace and Security Centre, Bogor Indonesia

4 Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Gajah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

5 Faculty of Agriculture, Moeslim University of Indonesia, Makassar, Indonesia


BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The global competitiveness of the cocoa processing industry is enhanced through the implementation of technical policies as a sustainable economic sector. The effort is motivated by the potential of large cocoa production and the international market demands for the industry to apply innovative, effective technology and comply with sustainability standards (environment, social, and economic). Therefore, this study aimed to analyze the environmental impact assessment of cocoa production from upstream to downstream processes in North Luwu Regency, South Sulawesi.
METHODS: Data were collected from 321 respondents actively working and had at least 8 years of experience in cocoa cultivation and production. Respondents included staff of the Masagena Farmers’ Cooperative from Chalodo Sibali Resoe Industry, Masamba City, and North Luwu Regency, and the secondary data were obtained from a literature review. In addition, the environmental impact was determined using the Midpoint Recipe method and the ecoinvent 3.8 database. This was conducted based on the International Standard Organization of life cycle assessment 14040 and 14044 with a function unit of 1 kilogram chocodate cashew production.
FINDINGS: The results showed that reducing chemical fertilizer was environmentally preferable to decreasing all the impact categories assessed since the total potential global warming impact from chocodate cashew production was 2.092 kilogram carbon dioxide equivalent. In this context, electricity and fertilizer were the main contributors to environmental pollution, accounting for 0.438 kilogram carbon dioxide equivalent and 0.215 kilogram carbon dioxide equivalent at 20.97 percent and 10.27 percent, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The reduction in the use of inorganic nitrogen, phosphate, potassium fertilizer, from 3.75 to 1.25 kilogram perkilogram cocoa, or the adoption of bio-based nitrogen, phosphate, potassium fertilizer at a rate of 2.5/ kilogram, could substantially mitigate the environmental impact. This mitigation resulted in a 16 percent decrease in global warming potential, reducing from 2.092 to 1.745 kilogram carbon dioxide equivalent. In addition, valuable insights were provided into the scope of life cycle assessment studies and contributed to the selection of sustainable cacao farming systems. These results could be relevant to life cycle assessment practitioners, stakeholders, and governments in offering valuable insights for the formulation of policies and programs for developing cacao farming in the future.

Graphical Abstract

Life cycle assessment of cocoa farming sustainability by implementing compound fertilizer


  • The sustainability of Indonesian cacao industry is influenced by cocoa processing industry''s global competitiveness and international standards;
  • This current study aims to evaluate the environmental impact of chocodate cashew production based on the ISO LCA 14040 and 14044 standards to improve the standards of Indonesian cacao production;
  • The total potential impact of GWP on 1 kg chocodate cashew production is 2,092 kg CO2-eq, with the highest contribution from fertilizer usage of around 83.4%. Reduction 30% in inorganic NPK fertilizer from 3.75 to 1.25 kg will reduce GWP by around 16% or 0,347 kg CO2-eq/1 kg chocodate


Main Subjects


©2024 The author(s). This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit:


GJESM Publisher remains neutral concerning jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.


Google Scholar Scopus Web of Science PlumX Metrics Altmetrics Mendeley |


GJESM Publisher

Letters to Editor

GJESM Journal welcomes letters to the editor for the post-publication discussions and corrections which allows debate post publication on its site, through the Letters to Editor. Letters pertaining to manuscript published in GJESM should be sent to the editorial office of GJESM within three months of either online publication or before printed publication, except for critiques of original research. Following points are to be considering before sending the letters (comments) to the editor.

[1] Letters that include statements of statistics, facts, research, or theories should include appropriate references, although more than three are discouraged.
[2] Letters that are personal attacks on an author rather than thoughtful criticism of the author’s ideas will not be considered for publication.
[3] Letters can be no more than 300 words in length.
[4] Letter writers should include a statement at the beginning of the letter stating that it is being submitted either for publication or not.
[5] Anonymous letters will not be considered.
[6] Letter writers must include their city and state of residence or work.
[7] Letters will be edited for clarity and length.