Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews: Sciencedirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser
Critical indicators of sustainability for biofuels: An analysis through a life T

cycle sustainabilty assessment perspective
M. Collottaa, P. Champagnec,∗, G. Tomasonia, M. Albertia, L. Busia, W. Mabeeb
a
DIMI, Department of Industrial and Mechanical Engineering, University of Brescia, Via Branze 38, 25123, Brescia, Italy
b
Queen's University, Department of Geography and Planning, Mackintosh-Corry Hall, 68 University Avenue, K7L 3N6, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
c
Queens University, Department of Civil Engineering, Ellis Hall, 58 University Avenue, K7L 3N6, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT
Keywords: The reduction of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate climate change poses challenges across
Bioenergy multiple sectors. Biofuels have been touted as a replacement for petroleum-based fuels, but policy guiding this
Biofuels sector must ensure that biomass is obtained in a sustainably. In this context, Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment
Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) (LCSA) tools have been identified as a means to conduct comprehensive impact evaluations of the biofuel sector.
Life cycle assessment (LCA)
The objective of this work is to highlight key environmental, economic, and social indicators currently being
Life cycle costing (LCC)
Social life cycle assessment (S-LCA)
assessed using LCSA, and to relate these back to the framework of Principles and Criteria (P&C) developed by the
Roundtable on sustainable biomaterials (RSB) Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB) to assess the ability of LCSA approaches to effectively inform all
Sustainability Principles within the RSB. 60 LCSA studies, published since 2007, were selected to include a range of biofuel
production scenarios, including various technologies and geographic settings. System boundaries and functional
units used in these studies were evaluated and compared. The ability of each study to provide quantitative
indicators related to environmental, economic, and social sustainability was tabulated. It was found that some
RSB Principles can be effectively evaluated using an LCSA approach, including Principle 3 (greenhouse gas
emissions) and Principle 10 (air quality). Most other Principles within the RSB P&C framework, however, are
only partially addressed, and Principle 11 (technology, inputs, and management of waste) is not informed in any
way by existing LCSA. The results suggest that existing LCSA studies, while expanding to consider more eco-
nomic and social sustainability considerations, are unlikely to cover all aspects of biofuel production systems and
are not sufficient to completely inform the full range of RSB Criteria. In the future, LCSA should be further
extended to help address critical aspects of sustainability, while the RSB framework should be strengthened to
employ a life cycle approach across all Principles.
1. Introduction energy sector. Robust tools that can assess the impacts of energy con-
sumption are required to ensure that biofuel options provide real en-
Human activities, including the combustion of fossil fuels and changes in vironmental benefits compared to fossil energy use [7–9]. Because the
land use, have had significant impacts on the global carbon cycle [1]. The production and use of biofuels presents an opportunity for job creation
problem posed by fossil fuel use is increasing; it has been estimated that and rural development [10,11], it is important that social benefits also
global oil consumption grew by approximately 1% per annum between be assessed. Finally, the development of biofuel feedstocks and increase
2004 and 2018, reaching a global oil demand of 99.2 million barrels per day in biofuel use will have economic ramifications, including costs to
in 2018 [2,3]. At the same time, national targets found across the European consumers and impacts on trade, which need to be understood [12,13].
Union (EU) [4], as well as in Canada [5], promote a shift towards a less The need for robust assessment tools is increasing because biofuel use is
carbon intensive economy. Language to this effect can also be found within growing rapidly. At global level, the use of established transportation bio-
the 2015 Paris Agreement [6], which has been signed by 197 countries and fuels (e.g. ethanol, biodiesel) rose by 4% to reach 83 Mtoe (143 billion
ratified by 185 countries (as of June 2019). litres) in 2017, with an average prospective of growth of 2.5% every year
One means to counter the expanding use of fossil fuels is greater [14]. The Renewable Energy Directive (RED) of the EU promotes the pro-
uptake of renewable alternatives, including solid and liquid biofuels, duction of energy from renewable sources, calling for the equivalent of
which could potentially reduce the environmental footprint of the 252 TWh (approximately 26.6 billion litres) of biodiesel by 2020 [4,15]. In
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: pascale.champagne@queensu.ca (P. Champagne), warren.mabee@queensu.ca (W. Mabee).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109358
Received 1 October 2018; Received in revised form 17 August 2019; Accepted 26 August 2019
1364-0321/ Crown Copyright © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Collotta, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358
the USA, the current Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS II) targets the use of established (ethanol, biodiesel); others include more recent market
over 136 billion litres of various biofuels by 2022. Both the EU and the USA entrants (hydrotreatment of animal or vegetable oils to produce re-
have broadened their focus beyond established or conventional biofuels to newable diesel), or emerging fuels (synthesis of syngas to produce di-
incorporate advanced or drop-in biofuels including cellulosic ethanol and methyl ether). Fig. 1 illustrates a simplified overview of these produc-
renewable diesel; the introduction of new, biomass-based fuels has raised tion pathways, identifying feedstocks, process elements (‘A’ and ‘B’),
new concerns over sustainability [16]. These concerns are likely to grow; and intermediate (or ‘raw’) biofuels as well as ‘finished’ or consumer-
the International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that a mixture of established ready fuels. Different biofuel products may be gaseous or liquid in form,
and advanced biofuels will provide up to 27% of the world's transportation and are derived through different production processes for a variety of
fuel by 2050 [17]. Debate over the sustainability of biofuels is complicated end uses. For example, biogas produced from the anaerobic digestion of
by the intertwined nature of environmental, economic, and social sustain- biomass is used primarily for the production of electricity and heat;
ability measures, and hindered by a lack of holistic tools capable of esti- liquid biofuels such as ethanol are typically generated through a bio-
mating the overall impact of renewable fuels [18]. logical conversion process and used in the transport sector. The effi-
For decision-makers to better understand sustainability issues, it is ciency of transformation from biomass to a liquid or gaseous fuel is
clear that quantitative environmental, economic and social assessments influenced by biomass yield, costs and scale of supply, and efficiency of
are necessary [19]. The predominant tool used to assess sustainability production [27].
of biofuel systems is life cycle assessment (LCA). As initially applied, the According to the US Department of Agriculture, global biofuel
LCA methodology was somewhat limited in that it focused on en- production is projected to grow in coming years, although at a slower
vironmental impacts of the systems, with less capacity to measure pace than over the last half decade [28]. European biofuels for trans-
economic and/or social aspects of sustainability (e.g. Refs. [10,19]). portation are likely to reach 8.7% of consumption by 2020, just below
Environmental, economic and social measures are strongly interlinked, the 10% target set by the EU Transportation Commission [29]. The
however, and their interactions affect all aspects of the emerging bio- International Energy Agency suggests that global consumption of bio-
fuel sector, from land use policies through to agricultural markets fuels for road transport will likely range between 5% and 18% by 2040,
[11,20]. In recognition of this fact, a suite of life cycle sustainability reaching proportions as high as 31% in the EU and 29% in the United
assessment (LCSA) tools now exist that are better able to evaluate the States [30,31].
overall sustainability of a biofuel production system, including en- In the face of increasing biofuel use, it is important that safeguards
vironmental (LCA), economic (life cycle costing or LCC), and social are put in place to ensure that biomass is grown and harvested in a
impacts (social life cycle assessment or S-LCA) [21,22]. sustainable fashion, and that the impact of biofuel production systems –
While LCSA models now incorporate wide aspects of sustainability, they which are highly variable, as highlighted by Fig. 1 – deliver net benefits
remain time- and data-intensive tools, and are not ideal as policy instru- when compared to fossil fuel production systems. This is particularly
ments. An option often adopted in regulatory policy is that of certification true for environmental benefits (e.g. reduction of greenhouse gas
schemes, which use indicator frameworks to carry out a simplified (but emissions), as this is one of the primary drivers for increased biofuels
holistic) review of environmental, economic, and social impacts associated use. It is also increasingly important that biofuels deliver positive
with given products. One such system is the Roundtable on Sustainable economic outcomes (e.g. relatively low-cost fuels, reasonable returns on
Biomaterials (RSB), which is made up of principles and criteria designed to investment) and social performance (e.g. jobs, community benefits), as
ensure that bio-based products are being produced in a manner that is en- these metrics are critical to the success of these ventures. This analysis
vironmentally, economically, and socially sustainable [23]. The RSB fra- focuses on recent LCSA studies related to established transportation
mework is one among many frameworks that have been proposed to biofuels including bioethanol from corn and biodiesel from soybean and
evaluate sustainability of bioproducts and biofuels. A recent review of five rapeseed, which are currently the most adopted source of renewable
leading frameworks suggested that the RSB was the most comprehensive energy in the transportation sector [27,32,33].
choice available, particularly praising the incorporation of social sustain-
ability principles within the RSB [24]. One of the successes of the RSB has 2.2. The Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials
been its ability to overcome detractors and controversy by essentially in-
venting new sustainability measures; to be effective, these measures must be While LCSA is an effective scientific tool for measuring the impacts
supported with comprehensive data [25]. related to biofuel systems, it is complicated and time consuming.
This paper evaluates the ability of existing LCSA studies to provide Decision-makers and regulatory bodies may find it more feasible to
high-quality data that can inform each of the principles of the RSB, as regulate sustainability by using simpler tools, such as a framework of
applied to biofuel production. The only similar study in the literature principles, criteria and/or indicators. One such system, specifically
was recently published by Van Schoubroeck et al. (2018); they con- designed for advanced bio-based products, has been developed by the
sidered data availability to support sustainable biochemical production Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB). The RSB is an in-
and reported that many existing sets of indicators lack a holistic view dependent and global multi stakeholder coalition with the goal of
on sustainability, are incomplete, or lack focus [26]. A goal of the promoting the sustainability of biomaterials. The Principles & Criteria
present paper is the application of the RSB principles framework in (P&C) for Sustainable Biofuels Production published by the RSB defines
order to highlight gaps in the ability of current LCSA data to inform different environmental, economic and social criteria in order to assess
sustainability analyses of biofuels, and to inform the design of future the sustainability of global biofuel production. Moreover, all of these
LCSA studies. A large set of recent and relevant LCSA studies on biofuels principles and criteria are in agreement with the sustainability re-
is reviewed and their ability to assess environmental, economic, and quirements laid in the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED).
social impacts of biofuel is explored. The current range of indicators The principles presented in the RSB system cover a range of en-
measured in existing LCSA studies are then reviewed to understand vironmental, social, and economic criteria. Since these are meant to be
their ability to inform specific criteria within the RSB framework. guidelines for assessing overall biofuel sustainability, the demarcation
between environmental, social and economic considerations within an
2. Methods individual criterion is not always clear. For environmental impacts, the
criteria used are greenhouse gas emissions (GHG); soil, water, air and
2.1. Biofuels ecosystem preservation; land use; and, the impact of the use of tech-
nology on the environment and people. Criteria describing the social
There are several classes of biofuels, each of which may be produced impact of biofuels focus on the legality; planning; monitoring and
following different production processes. Some biofuels are well- continuous improvement; human and labor rights; rural and social
2
Fig. 1. Pathways linking biomass to intermediate and finished liquid (L) and gaseous (G) biofuel outputs.
development; local food security; and, land rights. Finally, economic 2.3. Selecting LCSA studies
criteria include planning; monitoring; continuous improvement factors;
and, the implementation of a business plan. All of these points reflect a The question of biofuel sustainability is a complicated one, and
commitment to long-term economic viability within an en- involves a variety of factors which have not been considered in previous
vironmentally- and socially-beneficial system. criteria and indicator systems. For example, biofuels often rely on crops
The principals and criteria framework that has been introduced by which can displace existing forest lands, which brings into question
the RSB specifies the requirements necessary to certify sustainable op- issues of indirect land use change; a number of the studies we consider
erations along the entire supply chain of biofuel production. For ex- look at indirect land use change, often with different conclusions as to
ample, guidelines on best practices are provided in the production and the severity of the issue. Similarly, the technological complexity of the
harvest of feedstock, and for the production, use and transport of bio- processes applied in converting biomass into various fuels means that
fuel. The P&C framework developed by the RSB shows a clear re- the production of a single product (such as ethanol) can include a
lationship to other tools designed to ensure sustainability. A series of number of co-products; how those co-products are used may have a
criteria and indicator (C&I) frameworks developed in the 1990s by the wide range of actual environmental, economic, and/or social impacts,
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) which need to be captured. This is part of the justification for the use of
are used to promote sustainable forest management (SFM), which seeks life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) in trying to assess the overall
to enable positive environmental, economic and social performance for impacts of biofuel systems.
managed forest ecosystems [34]. Different regional C&I processes have This study presents an analysis on a large set of LCSA papers for the
been developed for different parts of the world, each having unique production of both liquid and solid biofuel coming from different bio-
forest ecosystems. As an example, the Montreal Process defines SFM for mass feedstocks. The main objectives of the analysis are to highlight the
North America and has been discussed and developed over the last 20 key environmental, economic, and social indicators currently being
years. Under the Montreal Process, a regional, scientific set of indicators explored through LCSA, and to relate these indicators back to the P&C
has been developed that can be used to evaluate the conservation and framework developed by the RSB in order to assess whether existing
sustainable management of temperate and boreal forestlands [35]. LCSA studies can inform the RSB process effectively.
While the RSB framework was developed to operate independently of Each of the LCSA studies explored in this paper are listed in Table 1.
these tools, at least one author has explored the potential of linking RSB Keywords used in identifying LCSAs include ‘life cycle sustainability
with existing tools to further promote sustainability of bioenergy pro- assessment’, ‘LCSA’, ‘biofuels’, ‘ethanol’, ‘biodiesel’, ‘bioenergy’, ‘life
duction [36]. cycle assessment’, ‘LCA’, ‘life cycle costing’, ‘LCC’, ‘social life cycle as-
It is worthwhile noting that a number of international certification sessment’, ‘S-LCA’, and ‘sustainability’. The initial list of studies was
and labeling systems have been developed that follow the UNCED C&I then restricted to those published after 2005, and further reduced to
tools. For example, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certifies for- reflect the most complete studies covering a range of biofuel production
ests globally using their own modified C&I framework, providing a scenarios, technologies and geographic settings. In all, 60 studies were
third-party assessment of forest sustainability [37]. selected for detailed analysis. In terms of technologies, the selected
3
Table 1
Main characteristics of the LCSA studies analized.
# Year of Functional Unit Country of Study LCA tools, LCIA methods utilized LCA database utilized Included primary Presented sensitivity Reference
study data analysis
M. Collotta, et al.
1 2016 1 GJ Biodiesel Argentina Simapro 8.0.4.3, ReCiPe (H) Ecoinvent 3.1,PestLCI ✓ Fernandez et al., 2016 [38]
2 2009 SOM, soil nutrient balance Argentina Simapro 7.0, Eco-indicator 95 n/s ✓ Van Dam et al., 2009 [39]
3 2015 1 km distance (FFV) Turkey Gabi 4, EDPI Ecoinvent 2.0 Daylan and Ciliz, 2016 [40]
4 2005 1 l bioethanol Canada GHGenius IPCC inventory ✓ Spatari et al., 2005 [41]
5 2005 1 l bioethanol, 1 l biodiesel USA n/s, DAYCENT NREL report Adler et al., 2007 [27]
6 2006 1 ha per year EU n/s, n/s IPCC, NFS, FS, NLUS, ✓ Styles and Jones 2007 [42]
DEFRA
7 2013 n/s EU n/s, n/s n/s Ekener-Petersen et al., 2014 [3]
8 2007 1 kg Bioethanol USA n/s, DAYCENT DEAM and other sources ✓ Kim et al., 2008 [32]
9 2007 1 kg of crop produced Canada GHGenius, SimaPro 7.0, CML 2 GHGenius, Ecoinvent 2.0 Pelletier et al., 2008 [43]
Baseline
10 2007 1 kg monosaccharide Australia n/s, Eco-indicator 95 Australian LCI, Ecoinvent Reneuf et al., 2008 [44]
2.0
11 2008 CO2 per MWh electricity USA/Canada GHGenius, GREET NREL report Searcy et al., 2008 [45]
12 2008 1 kg of dry biomass USA GREET, DAYCENT EFMA Kim et al., 2009 [46]
13 2009 MJ of Bioethanol USA GREET, BESS USDA-NASS, ERS, EPA Liska et al., 2009 [47]
14 2008 GJ energy crops and hectare EU Simapro 7.0, Eco-Indicator 99 Ecoinvent v1.1 Monti et al., 2009 [48]
15 2015 1 MJ of fuel India SimaPro 7.1, IMPACT 2002+ Ecoinvent v1.1 ✓ Portugal-Pereira et al., 2016 [49]
16 2009 1 km driving n/s Chain Mgmt, LCA Ecoinvent v1.3 ✓ Bai et al., 2010 [33]
17 2009 amt biomass treated per year n/s Simapro 7, CML Baseline 2000 IPCC inventory ✓ Cherubini et al., 2010 [50]
18 2014 1 MJ butanol produced USA GaBi 5.0, ISO 14040 GREET Väisänen et al., 2016 [51]
19 2010 MJprim/MJfuel, MJprim/ha, World n/s, ISO 14040 CONCAWE Hoefnagels et al., 2010 [52]
20 2010 1 km traveled by a FFV USA SimaPro v.7.1 & Aspen-Plus, GREET Ecoinvent .2.0 US LCI, AP ✓ Hsu et al., 2010 [53]
42
4
21 2010 Energy yield per hectare and year EU GaBi 4, CML Baseline 2001 PE International GmbH Schumacher et al., 2010 [54]
22 2010 1 tonne of bioethanol EU GaBi 4, EDIP 2003 GaBi Database, DEFRA ✓ Stephenson et al., 2010 [13]
report
23 2012 1 kg bioethanol used in a FFV EU Simapro v7.3 & Aspen-Plus, CML EMEP/EEA, NREL report ✓ Wang et al., 2012 [55]
Baseline 2000
24 2007 1 ha of land for one year EU n/s, CML Baseline 2001 Ecoinvent 1.2 ✓ Brandão et al., 2011 [56]
25 2010 5000 tons/day biorefinery USA GREET & Aspen-Plus, USDA NRCS n/s ✓ Eranki and Dale 2011 [57]
26 2011 Production of annual crops EU SimaPro, CML Baseline 2000 Ecoinvent v1.1 ✓ ✓ Fazio and Monti 2011 [58]
27 2009 Production of bioethanol Canada GHGenius 3.19 IPCC inventory ✓ Hussain et al., 2010 [59]
28 2010 Prod./combust. 1 MJ ethanol USA GREET, Aspen-Plus n/s Kaliyan et al., 2011 [60]
29 2010 Prod. bioethanol/bio-oil/bio-char USA GREET, DAYCENT GREET and IPCC inventory ✓ Kauffman et al., 2011 [61]
30 2009 1 year supply heat, electricity EU n/s, ICBM n/s ✓ Kimming et al., 2011 [62]
31 2011 Prod./delivery 1 t dry stover Canada GHGenius 3.19 IPCC inventory ✓ Whitman et al., 2011 [63]
32 2012 1 MJ of heat from bioethanol USA SimaPro v.7.3.0 & Aspen-Plus, GREET, Ecoinvent v2.1 and US LCI ✓ Budsberg et al., 2012 [64]
TRACI
33 2011 Combustion of biomass EU n/s, SUMMA, GER, CML Baseline n/s ✓ Buonocore et al., 2012 [65]
2000
34 2008 1 ha land, GJ grain output EU n/s, Input/Output n/s ✓ Goglio et al., 2012 [66]
35 2011 1 ha of SRC willow EU SimaPro 7.3, CML Baseline 2000 Ecoinvent v2.0 ✓ González-García et al., 2012 [67]
36 2011 1 ha of willow plantation EU SimaPro 7.10, CML Baseline 2000 Ecoinvent v2.0 ✓ González-García et al., 2012 [68]
37 2012 1 ha of ag. land use EU SimaPro 7.3.3, EDIP 2003 Ecoinvent v2.2 ✓ Tonini et al., 2012 [69]
38 2012 Fossil energy for MJ of bioethanol USA GREET n/s Wang et al., 2012 [70]
39 2011 Fuel for 1 km of vehicle driven USA GREET Ecoinvent v2.0 ✓ Yang et al., 2012 [71]
40 2012 10 GWh of heat from biomass EU SimaPro 7.2, CML Baseline2000 Ecoinvent v2.1 ✓ Godard et al., 2013 [72]
41 2012 1 km driven FFV, 1 MJ combust. biomass EU n/s, CML Baseline2000 Ecoinvent v2.0 González-García et al., 2013 [73]
42 2012 1 ha corn stover production USA n/s, IPCC USDA, GREET, Ecoinvent, Murphy and Kendall 2013 [74]
GaBi
43 2012 Combustion of bioethanol China n/s, IPCC Different reports, papers ✓ Yang & Chen 2013 [75]
44 2013 Combusting 1 MJ algae EU n/s, ReCiPe (E) Ecoinvent v2.0 Collet et al., 2014 [76]
(continued on next page)
studies most often considered ethanol or biodiesel products, although
Ribeiro and Quintanilla 2015 [80]

some chose unique functional units as their basis of analysis (for ex-
Guerrero and Muñoz 2018 [90]

Mukhopadhyay and Thomassin
Prapaspongsa et al., 2017 [91]

ample, kg of monosaccharides). In terms of geographic range, the USA
de Azevedo et al., 2017 [87]
Brito and Martins 2017 [89]
Levasseur et al., 2017 [92]

and EU are most commonly used as study regions, although other
Lindorfer et al., 2014 [82]

Collotta et al., 2016 [83]
Lechon et al., 2011 [81]
Ekener et al., 2018 [88]

Rocha et al., 2014 [77]
countries such as Canada or parts of Asia and South America are also
Yang et al., 2015 [78]
represented. Some studies presented new primary data, while others

were based on secondary sources; some include sensitivity analyses
which speak to the variability within the studies, while others do not.
2011 [79]
Reference
Some of the studies focused exclusively on environmental (LCA), eco-

nomic (LCC), or social assessments (S-LCA), while others presented
more comprehensive LCSA. The tools and inventories utilized to carry
out the studies are also detailed in Table 1, as are the functional units
Presented sensitivity
used to present the analysis. Fig. 2 shows a subdivision of the studies

based on the type of functional unit adopted.
3. Results and discussion

analysis
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓ As expected when reviewing LCSA studies, no two analyses ex-

amined here are exactly alike, although many covered similar fuels or
Included primary
were conducted in the same geographic region. Table 1 describes a list

of studies, spread over a wide geographic and temporal span, that are
informed by a wide range of tools and a number of different life cycle
inventories. The range of options available to a proponent who seeks to
data
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
achieve RSB certification is significant and presents a challenge that

will be explored below. Another challenge is related to the number of
different functional units were used, as shown in Fig. 2; the most
LCA database utilized
common functional units were units of fuel (or energy) produced or

units of feedstock provided to the system, although some studies were
Ecoinvent v.3.1
IPCC inventory
Ecoinvent v2.0
Ecoinvent v2.0
Ecoinvent v2.0
Ecoinvent v2.0
Ecoinvent v2.0
Ecoinvent v2.0
Ecoinvent v2.2
Ecoinvent v2.2
Delphi survey
Ecoinvent v.3
Ecoinvent v.3
based on the units of fuel combusted. A number of studies used geo-

graphic units (km traveled or route selected). The range of functional
units selected reflects emphasis of individual studies; the choice of
n/s
n/s
n/s
functional unit heavily influences system boundaries, as discussed fur-

ther below. The indicators used by individual LCSA studies are highly
SimaPro 7.0.1, CML 2 Baseline 2000
variable, and the ability of these studies to provide critical information

SimaPro 8.0.4.30, ReCiPe midpoint
LCA tools, LCIA methods utilized
pertaining to environmental, economic, and social sustainability is as-

SimaPro 8.0.4.30, ReCipe2008
sessed and discussed. Based on the 60 studies selected, an initial as-

SimaPro 8.0.4.30, Impact
sessment of the ability of LCSA to inform the RSB framework is dis-

Gabi, Recipe 2008/CML
Simapro 7.3.2, Recipe
cussed, and the practical implications of the study – including policy

n/s, IMPACT 2002+
Input/Output model
Input/Output model
recommendations – are summarized in the final section below.

2002 + method
Delphi method
Simapro 7.3
Simapro 7.3
Simapro 7.3
Simapro 7.3
3.1. Current challenges in biofuel sustainability associated with the RSB

BioGrace
method
(H)
n/s
LCSA can provide scientifically-rigorous data describing the en-

vironmental, economic, and social sustainability of a specific biofuel
Country of Study
production system, but the overview of the 60 LCSA studies provided in

Table 1 highlights challenges involved in employing this methodology.
Thailand
As a scientific method, LCSA is malleable and can (and should) be

Canada
World
China
Brazil
Brazil
adapted to each unique circumstance, and ISO standards make it very

CA
EU
EU
EU
EU
EU
EU
EU
EU
EU
clear that life cycle assessments are not designed for comparison [93].
1 MJ of energy released in the combustion
Production of 14 million litres of biodiesel
From a policy perspective, this creates a massive challenge: even a

Production of 1 kg of Chlorella vulgaris
Production of 1 kg of dry algal biomass
Processing of 1000 kg of cattle manure
‘standardized’ approach to life cycle analysis provides great latitude for

interpretation of project- or site-specific data.
While the RSB represents a simplified approach to assessing the
Production 1 kg of n-butanol
Production of 1 kg of lipids
Production of 1 kg butanol
1 MJ bioethanol, biodiesel
sustainability of a biofuel system, it relies on the application of life cycle

Biodiesel from microalgae
Production of Bioethanol
science to inform the P&C framework. This is overt in some components

of the RSB standard; for example, the standard clearly states that in-
1 MJ of Bioethanol
Functional Unit
n/s – included but not specified.
dividual proponents must use a lifecycle approach to calculate green-

of bioethanol
house gas emissions related to their project, as per Principle 3 [94,95];

the RSB has developed a detailed GHG calculation methodology (cur-
rently on version 2.3) which provides very clear guidance on aspects of
n/s
Table 1 (continued)
the analysis, including system boundaries and functional units [96].

The RSB has developed their own tool to facilitate calculation of GHG
Year of
impacts, and specifies use of data from databases including EcoInvent,

study
2013
2014
2010
2014
2008
2013
2016
2017
2017
2018
2017
2018
2017
2017
2017
2017
the IPCC, and the USDA in various places throughout. The RSB tool, like
other LCSA tools and GHG calculators, supports sensitivity analyses,
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
#
although the RSB Standard does not specify the use of sensitivity
5
Fig. 2. Type of functional unit adopted in the studies analyzed. Bars of the same color indicate similar types of functional unit. (For interpretation of the references to
color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
analyses to understand the potential range of performance associated Often the production of biofuels is not a localized operation; a number
with different biofuel pathways [95]. of different countries may be involved at different points in the supply
The application of LCSA is implicit in other Principles included chain. While Criterion 5b specifies development of new employment
within the RSB framework. For example, Principles 8 (Soil), 9 (Water), programs in regions of poverty (as defined by the UN) [94], a detailed
and 10 (Air) speak to maintaining key environmental services [94] that supply chain is required to ensure that all of these regions are identified
are best measured using a life cycle approach. Similarly, Principle 2 – including the producers of all inputs, including feedstocks, process
incorporates monitoring and planning, while Principle 11 incorporates chemicals and water, as well as regions that accept outputs of the
waste management, both of which are important aspects of product life process, such as pollution, that might have negative impacts. Without
cycle. Principle 6 examines food security and Principle 7 deals with detailed supply chains, these areas might not be identified or ac-
conservation and biodiversity – essentially impacts associated with new knowledged in the RSB certification process. Similarly, Criterion 1 fo-
product development which again can be captured using a life cycle cuses on complying with all applicable laws of the country in which the
approach. To give one example of why life cycle is important within operation occurs; a challenge arises when different nations are involved
these P&C: Criterion 9c states that ‘water used for the operations shall in the supply chain, which again might not be captured in the RSB
not be withdrawn beyond replenishment capacity … ’ [94]. To be able without a detailed analysis of both inputs and outputs. Applying an
to address this criteria, a biofuel producer would need to know exactly LCSA approach could help to strengthen the development of data to
how much water is being used throughout their process, including the support these P&C.
stages of biomass production as well as industrial processing, and this in
turn would require a life cycle approach. Water removals could impact 3.2. System boundaries and existing LCSAs
food production and biodiversity, depending on where and to what
extent water is being taken. Process wastewater needs to be managed An LCSA approach may help to better define data inputs to the RSB
and returned to the ecosystem, and all aspects of water use need to be framework, but only if system boundaries are defined in a rigorous
monitored. The life cycle approach would allow for this to happen, fashion. As discussed in the previous section, the RSB does provide very
supporting multiple Principles within the RSB standard and ensuring clear guidance on system boundaries with respect to greenhouse gas
that data was collected and managed in a rigorous fashion. To date, emissions. For other Principles, however, the RSB is relatively quiet,
however, the RSB has not provided detailed procedures to meet these P with only occasional guidance recommending a national rating (as with
&C; clear instructions for setting system boundaries are not in place and Criteria 1 & 5b) [94]. If an LCSA approach is to be used to better inform
functional units are not defined. The challenge around each of these the RSB, it is very important that this approach cover the full range of
Principles becomes how, exactly, data is being collected, assessed, and biofuel production.
interpreted to support specific criteria. The review of 60 studies made it clear that existing LCSAs rarely
The RSB has other Principles which on the surface appear to be less adhere to a ‘holistic’ set of system boundaries that incorporate all as-
suited to an LCSA approach. For example, Principle 1 (legality), pects of biofuel production. Table 2 describes nine unique production
Principle 4 (human and labour rights), Principle 5 (rural and social phases: cultivation and cultivation input production, land use, trans-
development), and Principle 12 (land rights) all are deeply rooted in portation, biomass pre-processing, biofuel production, storage, by-
issues of law and/or economics. Many of the individual Criteria under product management, and biofuel use, while Fig. 3 shows the number of
these Principles are met through the development of new training, studies that examined each production phase. Interestingly, of the 60
education, or employment programs. In some cases the RSB has pro- studies reviewed, only one [52] covered all nine of these production
vided guidance on how these P&C can be informed; for example, phases, while five studies covered eight of the nine production phases.
Criterion 5b deals with regions of poverty, which in turn are defined by This analysis suggests that the current practice with respect to LCSAs
the United Nations Human Development Indicators at the national level has trended towards more focused analyses of specific aspects of biofuel
[94]. systems, addressing critical areas of concern rather than attempting to
The challenge associated with these Principles arises from the rather understand the overall impacts of these systems.
complicated supply chains that define many biofuel supply chains. The data also highlights the fact that LCSA has been successfully
6
Table 2
Production phases identified in 60 LCSA studies.
LCA # Cultivation Cultivation Land use Inter-operational Biomass pre- Biofuel Inter- Bio-waste and co- Biofuel usage Total number of
Input Transportation processing production operational product - use of the production phases
Production Storage management final product considered
19 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 9
4 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ 8
16 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 8
17 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ 8
35 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i 8
41 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 8
1 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i 7
3 n/i ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 7
14 ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i 7
15 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ 7
18 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ 7
21 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ 7
22 ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ 7
32 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ 7
38 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ 7
8 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ 6
24 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i 6
30 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ 6
33 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ 6
36 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i ✓ 6
43 ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ 6
44 ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ 6
45 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i 6
54 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i 6
58 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i 6
59 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i 6
10 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ n/i 5
11 n/i ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ 5
20 ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ 5
23 n/i n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ 5
25 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i 5
27 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i 5
28 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i ✓ 5
29 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i 5
31 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i 5
34 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i ✓ 5
37 ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i ✓ 5
39 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i ✓ 5
40 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i ✓ ✓ n/i 5
50 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i 5
52 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i 5
53 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i 5
55 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i 5
56 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i 5
57 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i 5
60 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i 5
2 n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i 4
5 ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i 4
6 ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i 4
42 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i 4
51 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i 4
13 n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i 3
26 ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ 3
49 ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i 3
9 ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i 2
12 ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i 2
7 n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i 0
51 55 29 43 39 40 66 21 26
n/s – included but not specified; n/i – not included.
applied to all nine of the production phases effectively, with multiple more than half of the studies considered. Fig. 3 illustrates the number of
studies existing that could inform approaches to analyzing each part of studies that were found to correspond to each component in the biofuel
the biofuel system. In the 60 studies selected cultivation was the most production system.
widely studied component, showing up in 55 LCSA publications. The The system boundary discussion is important because it highlights
phases most often omitted in LCSA studies included storage and co- the limited ability of existing LCSA studies to adequately report on the
product management. Perhaps worryingly, two of the most contentious overall impact of biofuel production. While the RSB Standard does a
components of the system – land use and biofuel use – were omitted in good job of defining system boundaries for greenhouse gas emissions,
7
Fig. 3. Percentage of LCSA studies to incorporate individual production phases. Bars of the same color indicate closely linked or co-located phases of production. (For
interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
the Standard is much less clear on the boundaries that need to be ap- eutrophication have been presented as two of the most important im-
plied for other Principles. It may be assumed that some of the data used pact categories in several LCA studies [32,33,40,44,48,50,55,65,66]; a
to inform the Criteria under these Principles will be sourced from ex- primary source for these two categories is nitrogen losses from soil (NOx
isting LCSA studies; if so, there is a strong chance that important ele- and NO3-). Soil organic carbon (SOC) is another important environ-
ments of the biofuel supply chain are not being reflected in current RSB mental factor that usually reduces the impact in the soil when the crop/
certification practices. cultivation is removed.
The review suggests that significant environmental impacts are not
3.3. Key impacts considered in existing LCSAs well covered in the literature, including water use and respiratory ef-
fects. Water use in particular is an important aspect of RSB certification,
The indicators that are used within LCSA studies can vary sig- and the relative paucity of data available in the literature to inform this
nificantly, depending upon the scope of the LCSA, the system bound- Criteria suggests that additional work is needed in this space. Certainly
aries and functional unit that are selected, and the data that is available. a review of those studies that did include water use suggests that the
In the 60 LCSAs that are reviewed in this paper, a wide variety of en- data requirements are challenging, and that a collective effort to in-
vironmental, economic, and social indicators were employed to ex- crease data availability would be welcome.
amine key areas of impact as shown in Table 3. The table highlights the
strong emphasis that studies to date have placed on certain environ- 3.3.2. Economic impacts
mental impacts, but also identifies certain economic and social impacts Seven studies were identified that do address economic impacts, and
that are not yet well documented in the literature. these are listed in Table 3. The consideration of the economic impact of
biofuels is an element of fundamental importance. Companies and
3.3.1. Environmental impacts consumers make their choices largely based on cost effectiveness or
Environmental impacts are well described within the LCSAs, as competitiveness with fossil energy; as a result, the diffusion of biofuels
shown in Table 3. There are several factors that strongly influence the in the market is highly dependent on their cost. Furthermore, improved
cultivation of biomass. The most important of these include the nature economic performance of biofuels essentially reduces the need for fiscal
and quantity of the commodities displaced by co-products (i.e. surplus incentive policies and encourages the entry of new participants into the
energy for combustion), yield of monosaccharide per hectare of agri- biofuel market.
cultural production, soil proprieties, climate conditions and finally crop Compared to environmental impacts, economic indicators are rarely
and nitrogen management [44]. A number of studies underline the included in LCSA, and more detailed life cycle costing studies are rarely
relationship between the use of nitrogen in the biomass cultivation and assessed in concert with other environmental factors. In the literature, a
corresponding environmental impacts [32,44,46,63,77,97,98]. Another few papers present a complete techno-economic analysis conducted
important consideration is the production and consumption of agro- across the life cycle of different production processes
chemicals (fertilizers) and fuels used in field cultivation [13,19,32,39,40,45,78,79]. Common economic impacts that were in-
[27,32,39,40,46,59,61]. It is also important to consider GHG fluxes cluded are economic indices, value of co-products, capital expenditures,
associated with biomass cultivation, including soil CO2 and methane and operating costs [32,39,99]. Two approaches are commonly taken to
(CH4) fluxes; finally, agricultural equipment operation has significant modeling economic life cycle impacts; most studies consider the eco-
impacts [27]. nomic feasibility of bioethanol production at the project level (i.e. a
The impacts of biomass production on soil chemistry, including combination of capital and operating costs), while others work at a
carbon sequestration and N2O emissions, are critical factors in de- regional scale, utilizing Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and other
termining environmental footprint. A possible reduction in the emission macroeconomic indicators [13,32,40,78,79]. Critical indicators identi-
of nitrogen from soil is usually related to precision farming technolo- fied in these studies include transportation costs, food prices, and land
gies, and planting of winter cover crops. The dominant source that di- prices, all of which have a significant influence on overall economic
rectly influences the environmental impact is N2O, which is mainly sustainability [19,39]. This is particularly important when one con-
associated with nitrogen fertilizers [32]. Acidification and siders the relationship between these indicators and other
8
Table 3
Environmental, economic and social impacts considered in 60 LCSA studies.
LCSA impacts considered Effects Studies #s
Abiotic depletion Stratospheric ozone concentration and ozone depletion potential 17, 39f, 44, 35, 36, 1a, 9a, 16, 23, 40, 41, 14, 26, 7f, 45, 12f,
42a, 5a, 6a, 15f, 22a, 32a, 38a,
Acidification Base saturation and terrestrial acidification potential 17, 39, 44, 35, 36, 1, 9, 16, 23, 40, 41, 14, 26, 3, 7, 10, 24, 33,
45, 8, 12, 21, 30, 34, 42, 15, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59,
60
Ecotoxicity Hazard-weighted concentration 17g, 39, 36g, 16, 23b, 40, 41g, 14g, 26g, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56
Energy use Energy depletion potential 17, 35, 36, 40, 4, 10, 24, 8, 21, 30, 34, 5, 19, 49, 20, 27, 31
Eutrophication Phosphorus, nitrogen concentration and freshwater/marine 17, 39, 44, 35, 36, 1b, 9b, 16, 23, 40, 41, 14, 26, 3d, 7, 10, 24,
eutrophication potential 33, 45, 12, 21, 34, 42, 37, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
Global warning potential Infra-red radiative forcing, global warming potential 17, 39, 44, 35, 36, 1, 9, 16, 23, 40, 41, 14, 26, 3, 4, 7, 10, 24,
33, 45, 2, 8, 12, 21, 30, 34, 42, 5, 6, 15, 19, 22, 32, 37, 38, 49,
18, 20, 27, 31, 11, 13, 28, 29, 43, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56,
57, 58, 59, 60
Human toxicity Hazard-weighted dose and human toxicity potential 17, 39m, 44, 36, 1, 9, 16, 23, 41, 14, 26, 33, 45, 51, 52, 53, 54,
55, 56, 58, 59
Ionizing radiation Ionising radiation potential 44, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55
Land Use Agricultural and urban land occupation potential 17, 39, 44, 35, 1, 9, 4, 2, 30, 6, 19, 22, 37, 38, 49, 18, 51, 52,
53, 54, 55, 56, 57
Marine toxicity Marine ecotoxicity potential 51, 52, 53,54, 55, 56
Ozone depletion Stratospheric ozone concentration and ozone depletion potential 17, 39, 44, 35, 36, 1, 9, 16, 23, 40, 41, 14, 26, 3, 8, 51, 52, 53,
54, 55, 56, 58, 60
Particulate matter formation PM10 Concentration 44, 4, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58,
Photochemical oxidation Stratospheric ozone concentration and ozone depletion potential 17, 39, 44, 35, 36, 1, 9, 16, 23, 40, 41, 3, 7, 33, 51, 52, 53, 54,
55, 56, 58, 59, 60
Respiratory effects Inorganics substances
Water use Amount of water and water depletion potential 39, 35, 10, 2, 32,
Other environmental impact Different effects 4e, 24c, 2c, 25jh
Production cost Driving cost per km, Optimal theoretical plant size 3, 11, 56
Economic impact multiplier CNY/CNY Economy growth 46
Economic index = value added/ Corn prices, energy prices, chemicals prices index, fixed operating 2, 8, 22
operating cost costs, land prices,
GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and Direct and indirect effects of bioethanol production 47, 56
Industrial output impact
Social well-being Direct, indirect and induced job creation and income and 1, 2, 7, 56
development opportunities to rural communities, human rights,
working conditions, property violations, social well-being, integrity of
the company, corruption and legal system,
Employment impact multiplier people/ Rising employment, Direct and indirect effects of bioethanol 46, 47
10000 CNY production
Probability, Reversibility and Inclusion of small-scale farmers/producers in the supply chain, On/ 48
Monitorability of every social Off-site food security, Water security (feedstock and process related),
impact Biodiversity security, Employment generation for low-skilled workers
Notes: a fossil fuel consumption; b freshwater and terrestrial; c soil organic carbon; d terrestrial and aquatic; e volatile organic compounds; f non-renewable energy
consumption; g freshwater, marine water and terrestrial; h respiratory inorganic effects; j net energy yield; l net carbon emission reduction; m cancer, non-cancer,
respiratory.
environmental impacts associated with biomass production, and the net potentially impact the price and supply of food, as well as labor force
impact of the entire biomass supply chain. conditions, especially in developing countries [19]. At the current time,
The review highlights the relative lack of attention paid to economic a major challenge with social impacts is that they are difficult to
impacts within LCSA, and the range of options available to practitioners measure in a quantitative or empirical fashion, particularly at a project
who do wish to incorporate some economic factors. Within the LCSA scale rather than a regional or national level.
studies considered, economic impacts tended to be restricted to a single Socio-economic impacts of biofuel production and usage are taken
impact category, rather than representing different types of impacts into account in a number of LCSA studies. In Table 3, seven studies that
within the same study. In part, this reflects the relative novelty of in- take an S-LCA approach are presented [3,38,39,78–80,100]. Critical
corporating economic factors into LCSA work; at the same time, it may social factors identified within these studies include the need to ensure
reflect upon the challenges with incorporating this type of analysis into that benefits associated with biofuel projects accrue at a local level
a methodology that until recently has focused on environmental factors. [39], the importance of assessing the impacts of biofuel production on
land, food and feed prices, and the anticipated changes in land own-
3.3.3. Social impacts ership, and vegetation and crop patterns. The most socially divisive
It has been previously noted that policy plays an important role in issue related to biofuels has been the potential impacts of increased
developing sustainability criteria, particularly in the USA and EU con- biofuel feedstock production on food systems, and the need to ensure
text. Social sustainability has become a greater concern to policymakers that biomass production for energy does not endanger food supply [39].
in recent years, and the need to achieve ‘social license’ is now a real Modern LCSAs, such as those carried out by Ekener-Pedersen et al., in
issue associated with new biofuel projects. With this in mind, it is im- 2014 and 2016 [3,100], now incorporate issues such as human rights,
portant to note that neither the US nor the EU have mandated social labor situations, health and safety, community and governance impact
sustainability criteria for renewable fuels, even if there is considerable categories. The main indicators related to social impact categories tend
global attention to developing indicators and methodologies capable of to be gender equity, health-related diseases, forced labour, minimum
evaluating social impacts; in contrast, the RFS does include a number of wages, injuries, large land holdings and corruption.
social measures, as discussed in the next section. Biofuel production can Understanding social sustainability through the LCSA lens may be
9
Table 4
Comparison between RSB criteria, primary indicators, and the availability of LCSA-informed data.
n RSB criteria Main indicators for RSB LCSA impacts considered Study #s
M. Collotta, et al.
1 Legality Follow all applicable laws Governance and legal system corruption 7
2 Planning, Monitoring and Mitigation, monitoring and Cumulative Energy Demand 9, 24, 25, 35, 36
Continuous Improvement evaluation plans
Business plan for long-term economic Net Energy Yield
viability Fossil energy consumption/non renewable energy consumption 8, 39
3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions GHG reduction compared to fossil fuel GHG emissions CO2 N2O CH4, GWP [CO2 eq] 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26,
(RSB method) 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 49, 50, 51,
52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
4 Human and Labor Rights Freedom of association Communicable diseases, indigenous rights, gender equity, conflict, 7, 56
non-communicable diseases, obesity
Slave or forced labor Child Labour, forced labour, minimum wages, non-poverty wages,
forced labour, freedom of association, labour laws, migration
Working conditions, wages and safety Non-fatal injuries, Fatal injuries, occupation health
Child Labor Human rights, working conditions, property violations, social well- 2, 56
being, integrity of the company
Discrimination Human Toxicity, Human health cancer/non-cancer/respiratory 14, 16, 17, 23, 26, 33, 35, 36, 39, 41, 44
5 Rural and social development Improvement of socioeconomic status Inclusion of small-scale farmers in the supply chain 48
of locals
Participation of women, youth and Inclusion of small-scale producers
indigenous Local prosperity, Social well-being 1, 2, 46, 47, 48, 56
6 Local Food Security Food security risk assessment On-site food security, Off-site food security 48
Land process, food and feed prices 2
7 Conservation Biodiversity, ecosystem and Biodiversity security 48
conservation impact
10
Habitats fragmentation
Invasive species monitoring
8 Soil Soil chemical and biological Terrestrial Ecotoxicity 14, 17, 23, 26, 36, 40, 41, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58,
conditions
Soil degradation Forest Ecosystem Health
Soil health maintenance Ecological Toxicity 39
9 Water Respect of existing water rights Water security (feedstock and process related) 48
Water management plan for efficient Eutrophication potential 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 26, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45,
use 33, 44, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
Surface or groundwater depletion Fresh/marine water Ecotoxicity 14, 17, 26, 36, 39, 41, 55
Surface and groundwater quality Water Use 10, 32, 33, 35, 39
enhancement
10 Air Air pollution emissions/open air Acidification potential 3, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 26, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44,
burning 45, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60
Particulate Matter Formation 15, 44, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60
Volatile Organic Compounds 4
Abiotic Depletion potential/Fossil Fuel Consumption 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 26, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 55
Fossil energy consumption/non renewable energy consumption 8, 39, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58
Ozone Layer Depletion 3, 9, 14, 16, 17, 23, 26, 29, 33, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 44, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58
Photochemical Oxidant Formation 3, 8, 16, 17, 23, 33, 35, 36, 40, 41, 44, 55
Soil Organic Carbon 2, 24
11 Use of Technology, Inputs and Production efficiency
Management of Waste Social and environmental long-term
performance
Damages risk for people and
environment
Good practices implementation
Residues, waste and byproduct
12 Land Rights Existing land right and land use rights Land Use, land competition 2, 5, 18, 19, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58
Table 5
Comparison of the 60 biofuel from biomass papers.
LCA # Reference Year of Functional Unit Country of Study LCA tools, LCIA methods utilized LCA database utilized Included primary Presented sensitivity
study data analysis
M. Collotta, et al.
1 Fernandez et al., 2016 2016 1 GJ Biodiesel Argentina Simapro 8.0.4.3, ReCiPe (H) Ecoinvent 3.1, ✓
PestLCI
2 Van Dam et al., 2009 2009 SOM, soil nutrient balance Argentina Simapro 7.0, Eco-indicator 95 n/s ✓
3 Daylan and Ciliz, 2016 2015 1 km distance (FFV) Turkey Gabi 4, EDPI Ecoinvent 2.0
4 Spatari et al., 2005 2005 1 l bioethanol Canada GHGenius IPCC inventory ✓
5 Adler et al., 2007 2005 1 l bioethanol, USA n/s, DAYCENT NREL report
1 l biodiesel
6 Styles and Jones 2007 2006 1 ha per year EU n/s, n/s IPCC, NFS, FS, NLUS, DEFRA ✓
7 Ekener-Petersen et al., 2014 2013 n/s EU n/s, n/s n/s
8 Kim et al., 2007 2007 1 kg Bioethanol USA n/s, DAYCENT DEAM and other sources ✓
9 Pelletier et al., 2008 2007 1 kg of crop produced Canada GHGenius, SimaPro 7.0, CML 2 GHGenius, Ecoinvent 2.0
Baseline
10 Reneuf et al., 2008 2007 1 kg monosaccharide Australia n/s, Eco-indicator 95 Australian LCI, Ecoinvent 2.0
11 Searcy et al., 2008 2008 CO2 per MWh electricity USA/Canada GHGenius, GREET NREL report
12 Kim et al., 2009 2008 1 kg of dry biomass USA GREET, DAYCENT EFMA
13 Liska et al., 2009 2009 MJ of Bioethanol USA GREET, BESS USDA-NASS, ERS, EPA
14 Monti et al., 2009 2008 GJ energy crops and hectare EU Simapro 7.0, Eco-Indicator 99 Ecoinvent v1.1
15 Portugal-Pereira et al., 2016 2015 1 MJ of fuel India SimaPro 7.1, IMPACT 2002+ Ecoinvent v1.1 ✓
16 Bai et al., 2010 2009 1 km driving n/s Chain Mgmt, LCA Ecoinvent v1.3 ✓
17 Cherubini et al., 2010 2009 amt biomass n/s Simapro 7, CML Baseline 2000 IPCC inventory ✓
treated per year
18 Väisänen et al., 2016 2014 1 MJ butanol produced USA GaBi 5.0, ISO 14040 GREET
19 Hoefnagels et al., 2010 2010 MJprim/MJfuel, MJprim/ha, World n/s, ISO 14040 CONCAWE
20 Hsu et al., 2010 2010 1 km traveled by a FFV USA SimaPro v.7.1 & Aspen-Plus, GREET Ecoinvent .2.0 ✓
11
US LCI, AP 42
21 Schumacher et al., 2010 2010 Energy yield per hectare and year EU GaBi 4, CML Baseline 2001 PE International GmbH
22 Stephenson et al., 2010 2010 1 tonne of bioethanol EU GaBi 4, EDIP 2003 GaBi Database, DEFRA report ✓
23 Wang et al., 2012 2012 1 kg bioethanol used in a FFV EU Simapro v7.3 & EMEP/EEA, NREL report ✓
Aspen-Plus, CML Baseline 2000
24 Brandão et al., 2011 2007 1 ha of land for one year EU n/s, CML Baseline 2001 Ecoinvent 1.2 ✓
25 Eranki and Dale 2011 2010 5000 tons/day biorefinery USA GREET & Aspen-Plus, USDA NRCS n/s ✓
26 Fazio and Monti 2011 2011 Production of annual crops EU SimaPro, CML Baseline 2000 Ecoinvent v1.1 ✓ ✓
27 Hussain et al., 2010 2009 Production of bioethanol Canada GHGenius 3.19 IPCC inventory ✓
28 Kaliyan et al., 2011 2010 Prod./combust. 1 MJ ethanol USA GREET, n/s
Aspen-Plus
29 Kauffman et al., 2011 2010 Prod. bioethanol/bio-oil/bio-char USA GREET, DAYCENT GREET and IPCC inventory ✓
30 Kimming et al., 2011 2009 1 year supply heat, electricity EU n/s, ICBM n/s ✓
31 Whitman et al., 2011 2011 Prod./delivery 1 t dry stover Canada GHGenius 3.19 IPCC inventory ✓
32 Budsberg et al., 2012 2012 1 MJ of heat from bioethanol USA SimaPro v.7.3.0 & Aspen-Plus, Ecoinvent v2.1 and US LCI ✓
GREET, TRACI
33 Buonocore et al., 2012 2011 Combustion of biomass EU n/s, SUMMA, GER, CML Baseline n/s ✓
2000
34 Goglio et al., 2012 2008 1 ha land, GJ grain output EU n/s, Input/Output n/s ✓
35 González-García et al., 2012 2011 1 ha of SRC willow EU SimaPro 7.3, CML Baseline 2000 Ecoinvent v2.0 ✓
36 González-García et al., 2012 2011 1 ha of willow plantation EU SimaPro 7.10, CML Baseline 2000 Ecoinvent v2.0 ✓
37 Tonini et al., 2012 2012 1 ha of ag. land use EU SimaPro 7.3.3, EDIP 2003 Ecoinvent v2.2 ✓
38 Wang et al., 2012 2012 Fossil energy for MJ of bioethanol USA GREET n/s
39 Yang et al., 2012 2011 Fuel for 1 km of vehicle driven USA GREET Ecoinvent v2.0 ✓
40 Godard et al., 2013 2012 10 GWh of heat from biomass EU SimaPro 7.2, CML Baseline2000 Ecoinvent v2.1 ✓
41 González-García et al., 2013 2012 1 km driven FFV, 1 MJ combust. biomass EU n/s, CML Baseline2000 Ecoinvent v2.0
42 Murphy and Kendall 2013 2012 1 ha corn stover production USA n/s, IPCC USDA, GREET, Ecoinvent, GaBi
43 Yang & Chen 2013 2012 Combustion of bioethanol China n/s, IPCC Different reports, papers ✓
44 Collet et al., 2014 2013 Combusting 1 MJ algae EU n/s, ReCiPe (E) Ecoinvent v2.0
(continued on next page)
Presented sensitivity one of the most challenging propositions for practitioners, as the data
required to inform LCSA tends to be unavailable at the local level; social
statistics tend to be presented in aggregate and on a periodic basis (e.g.
coinciding with census reports every 4–6 years). The ability of a biofuel
proponent to collect data regarding social impacts may be limited by
analysis
ethical concerns or by practical limitations. In the RSB standard, criteria

✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
related to social sustainability tend to focus on actions that can be taken
to alleviate potential issues, such as the creation of education, training,
Included primary
and employment programs. These types of activities are not typically

captured within LCSA studies today.
data
3.4. LCSA as a tool to inform the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials

✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
In Table 4, the Principles and Criteria defined by the RSB are related
to specific LCSA outputs obtained in the 60 studies considered in this
review. In particular, each RSB Principle is matched with the studies
from which quantitative information can be gleaned in order to inform
LCA database utilized
Ecoinvent v.3.1 the Criteria within the Principle. For each Principle, the applicable data
that may be taken from the studies reviewed in this paper are pre-
IPCC inventory
Ecoinvent v2.0
Ecoinvent v2.0
Ecoinvent v2.0
Ecoinvent v2.0
Ecoinvent v2.0
Ecoinvent v2.0
Ecoinvent v2.2
Ecoinvent v2.2
Delphi survey
Ecoinvent v.3
Ecoinvent v.3
sented. It is clear from Table 4 that some of the Principles within the
RSB framework are well documented through LCSA, indicating that
methodologies are well established and that the necessary data to in-
n/s
n/s
n/s
form these Principles are available. The Criteria that are best informed
SimaPro 7.0.1, CML 2 Baseline 2000
include those related to GHG emissions (Principle 3), water manage-

SimaPro 8.0.4.30, ReCiPe midpoint
Country of Study LCA tools, LCIA methods utilized
ment (Principle 9), air pollution and the depletion of non-renewable

SimaPro 8.0.4.30, ReCipe2008
resources (Principle 10) (see Table 6) (see Table 7) (see Table 8) (see
SimaPro 8.0.4.30, Impact
Table 5).
Gabi, Recipe 2008/CML
Simapro 7.3.2, Recipe
Other indicators used in the RSB framework are not well detailed,
n/s, IMPACT 2002+
Input/Output model
Input/Output model
particularly those under Principle 11 which incorporates indicators

2002 + method
Delphi method
related to the use of technology, inputs and management of waste, long-

Simapro 7.3
Simapro 7.3
Simapro 7.3
Simapro 7.3
term performance of the system, and good risk management. In fact, no

BioGrace
method
LCSA study considered in this work provided direct measurements of

(H)
n/s
these indicators. While this may simply be a reflection of a lack of in-

terest in exploring these issues through LCSA, this finding may speak to
a lack of readily-available data that could support evaluation of these
system components. The impacts of rapidly changing technologies on
Thailand
product sustainability, and the importance of waste management to life

Canada
World
China
Brazil
Brazil
cycle assessment suggests that this is an area that needs more attention.
CA
EU
EU
EU
EU
EU
EU
EU
EU
EU
The lack of LCSA studies that could support Principle 11 may also be an
1 MJ of energy released in the combustion
Production of 14 million litres of biodiesel
artifact of the study approach, which focused on the outputs of quan-

Production of 1 kg of Chlorella vulgaris
Production of 1 kg of dry algal biomass
Processing of 1000 kg of cattle manure
titative analysis rather than qualitative assessment.

As noted previously, a strength of the RSB framework is the holistic
fashion in which various aspects of sustainability are considered, while
Production 1 kg of n-butanol
Production of 1 kg butanol
1 MJ bioethanol, biodiesel
Biodiesel from microalgae
a strength of the LCSA approach is the scientific rigor which is applied

to data collection and analysis. Fig. 4 summarizes the different RSB

1 MJ of Bioethanol
Principles and the number of existing LCSA studies that might be used
Functional Unit
to inform the Criteria in each; there is very little data available that has
of bioethanol
been developed using an LCSA approach that can describe economic

and social impacts on a life cycle basis. As discussed previously, this
forces the RSB to rely on other types of data; doing so may fail to
n/s
capture significant impacts that would affect the overall sustainability

of a given biofuel system. These are clearly areas where LCSA may be
Year of
expanded to provide better approximations of overall sustainability, as

study
2013
2014
2010
2014
2008
2013
2016
2017
2017
2018
2017
2018
2017
2017
2017
2017
defined by the RSB.

Mukhopadhyay and Thomassin
Ribeiro and Quintanilla 2015
3.5. Practical implications of the study

Guerrero and Muñoz 2018
n/s – included but not specified.

Prapaspongsa et al., 2017
de Azevedo et al., 2017
Brito and Martins 2017
This review suggests that LCSA approaches to impact assessment,

Levasseur et al., 2017
Lindorfer et al., 2014
Collotta et al., 2017b

Collotta et al., 2016

Lechon et al., 2011
Ekener et al., 2018
while becoming more holistic across all aspects of sustainability, are

Rocha et al., 2014
Yang et al., 2015
still not sufficient to completely inform the full range of P&C laid out by
Table 5 (continued)
the RSB. After assessing the LCSA data developed across the 60 studies
LCA # Reference
considered in this paper, it was clear that RSB Principle 11 is not in-
2011
formed in any way. Three other RSB Principles (1, 6, 7) are only par-
tially addressed, through one or two studies each. While significant
LCSA data is available to inform the other Principles, there remain a
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
number of Criteria that are not well covered or absent altogether, as
12
Table 6
Production phase analyzed in the LCA biofuel from biomass papers.
LCA # Cultivation Cultivation Land use Inter-operational Biomass pre- Biofuel Inter- Bio-waste and co- Biofuel usage Total number of
Input Transportation processing production operational product - use of the production phases
Production Storage management final product considered
19 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 9
4 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ 8
16 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 8
17 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ 8
35 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i 8
41 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 8
1 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i 7
3 n/i ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 7
14 ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i 7
15 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ 7
18 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ 7
21 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ 7
22 ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ 7
32 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ 7
38 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ 7
8 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ 6
24 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i 6
30 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ 6
33 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ 6
36 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i ✓ 6
43 ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ 6
44 ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ 6
45 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i 6
54 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i 6
58 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i 6
59 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i 6
10 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ n/i 5
11 n/i ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ 5
20 ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ ✓ n/i n/i ✓ 5
23 n/i n/i n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ 5
25 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i 5
27 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i 5
28 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i ✓ 5
29 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i 5
31 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i 5
34 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i ✓ 5
37 ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i ✓ 5
39 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i ✓ 5
40 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i ✓ ✓ n/i 5
50 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i 5
52 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i 5
53 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i 5
55 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i 5
56 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i 5
57 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i 5
60 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i 5
2 n/i ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i 4
5 ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i 4
6 ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i 4
42 ✓ ✓ n/i ✓ n/i n/i ✓ n/i n/i 4
51 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i 4
13 n/i ✓ n/i n/i n/i ✓ n/i ✓ n/i 3
26 ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i ✓ 3
49 ✓ ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i 3
9 ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i 2
12 ✓ ✓ n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i 2
n/s – included but not specified; n/i – not included.
described in Table 4. It should be noted that some P&C are very well certification are able to inform each of the criteria. The practical im-
detailed, particularly with respect to Principle 3 (greenhouse gas plication of these findings is that much of the data that is being used to
emissions) and Principle 10 (air impacts); there are multiple studies, inform the RSB is not being generated through an LCSA approach. As
covering wide geographic areas, which provide useful data and which discussed previously, this may be a serious issue because of the complex
detail strong methodological approaches to measuring these impacts. and expansive nature of biofuel production pathways; inputs and out-
It is important to reflect that the RSB does not dictate the use of puts to biofuel production may travel great distances, across multiple
LCSA to inform each Principle and Criteria within the Standard. Data is borders, and may impact a number of different ecological, economic,
available, and the proponents that are working with the RSB to obtain and social systems across a full life cycle. Extending the LCSA approach
13
Table 7
Environmental, economic and social indicators incorporated in 60 biofuel from biomass studies.
n LCSA impacts considered Effects Studies
1 Abiotic depletion Stratospheric ozone concentration and ozone depletion potential 17, 39f, 44, 35, 36, 1a, 9a, 16, 23, 40, 41, 14, 26, 7f, 45, 12f,
42a, 5a, 6a, 15f, 22a, 32a, 38a,
2 Acidification Base saturation and terrestrial acidification potential 17, 39, 44, 35, 36, 1, 9, 16, 23, 40, 41, 14, 26, 3, 7, 10, 24, 33,
45, 8, 12, 21, 30, 34, 42, 15, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59,
60
3 Ecotoxicity Hazard-weighted concentration 17g, 39, 36g, 16, 23b, 40, 41g, 14g, 26g, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56
4 Energy use Energy depletion potential 17, 35, 36, 40, 4, 10, 24, 8, 21, 30, 34, 5, 19, 49, 20, 27, 31
5 Eutrophication Phosphorus, nitrogen concentration and freshwater/marine 17, 39, 44, 35, 36, 1b, 9b, 16, 23, 40, 41, 14, 26, 3d, 7, 10, 24,
eutrophication potential 33, 45, 12, 21, 34, 42, 37, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59,
60
6 Global warning potential Infra-red radiative forcing, global warming potential 17, 39, 44, 35, 36, 1, 9, 16, 23, 40, 41, 14, 26, 3, 4, 7, 10, 24,
33, 45, 2, 8, 12, 21, 30, 34, 42, 5, 6, 15, 19, 22, 32, 37, 38, 49,
18, 20, 27, 31, 11, 13, 28, 29, 43, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56,
57, 58, 59, 60
7 Human toxicity Hazard-weighted dose and human toxicity potential 17, 39m, 44, 36, 1, 9, 16, 23, 41, 14, 26, 33, 45, 51, 52, 53, 54,
55, 56, 58, 59
8 Ionizing radiation Ionising radiation potential 44, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55
9 Land Use Agricultural and urban land occupation potential 17, 39, 44, 35, 1, 9, 4, 2, 30, 6, 19, 22, 37, 38, 49, 18, 51, 52,
53, 54, 55, 56, 57
10 Marine toxicity Marine ecotoxicity potential 51, 52, 53,54, 55, 56
11 Ozone depletion Stratospheric ozone concentration and ozone depletion potential 17, 39, 44, 35, 36, 1, 9, 16, 23, 40, 41, 14, 26, 3, 8, 51, 52, 53,
54, 55, 56, 58, 60
12 Particulate matter formation PM10 Concentration 44, 4, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58,
13 Photochemical oxidation Stratospheric ozone concentration and ozone depletion potential 17, 39, 44, 35, 36, 1, 9, 16, 23, 40, 41, 3, 7, 33, 51, 52, 53, 54,
55, 56, 58, 59, 60
14 Respiratory effects Inorganics substances
15 Water use Amount of water and water depletion potential 39, 35, 10, 2, 32,
16 Other environmental impact Different effects 4e, 24c, 2c, 25jh
17 Production cost Driving cost per km, Optimal theoretical plant size 3, 11, 56
18 Economic impact multiplier CNY/ Economy growth 46
CNY
19 Economic index = value added/ Corn prices, energy prices, chemicals prices index, fixed operating 2, 8, 22
operating cost costs, land prices,
21 GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and Direct and indirect effects of bioethanol production 47, 56
Industrial output impact
22 Social well-being Direct, indirect and induced job creation and income and development 1, 2, 7, 56
opportunities to rural communities, human rights, working
conditions, property violations, social well-being, integrity of the
company, corruption and legal system,
23 Employment impact multiplier Rising employment, Direct and indirect effects of bioethanol 46, 47,
people/10000 CNY production
24 Probability, Reversibility and Inclusion of small-scale farmers/producers in the supply chain, On/ 48
Monitorability of every social Off-site food security, Water security (feedstock and process related),
impact Biodiversity security, Employment generation for low-skilled workers
Notes:a fossil fuel consumption;b freshwater and terrestrial;c soil organic carbon;d terrestrial and aquatic;e volatile organic compounds;f non-renewable energy
consumption;g freshwater, marine water and terrestrial;h respiratory inorganic effects;j net energy yield;l net carbon emission reduction;m cancer, non-cancer,
respiratory.
in a fashion similar to the way that the RSB already treats Principle 3 sustainability of alternative fuel systems consider the use of LCSA to
(related to GHG emissions) – implementing a more rigorous metho- inform these analyses, and promote the expansion of LCSA to inform
dology with clearly defined system boundaries, functional units, and critical aspects of economic and social sustainability.
data sources – would help to ensure that all upstream and downstream
impacts are being captured by the RSB framework.
4. Conclusion
This study also has implications for the practice of LCSA. The RSB
brings a holistic overview of sustainability to the table, and the review
This work is based on the idea that the LCSA methodology provides
of existing LCSA studies suggest that there is significant room to expand
the most robust, scientifically-rigorous data to inform our under-
the number of indicators used within LCSA, particularly to reflect
standing of the sustainability of biofuel systems, and that the RSB has
economic and social impacts. The RSB has suggested interesting Criteria
developed one of the most robust certification frameworks for sus-
to help track social and economic sustainability issues, which may be
tainable biofuels. The RSB P&C framework for certifying biofuel sys-
translated in some cases to indicator sets for use within LCSA. In this
tems already includes overt use of life cycle methodologies (Principle
way, LCSA could be significantly strengthened and the applicability of
3), and implies a life cycle approach in other areas (Principles 2, 6, 7, 8,
these tools to RSB Certification (or to other frameworks for assessing
9, & 10). The remaining Principles within the P&C framework would
sustainability) would be increased.
likely benefit from the application of a life cycle approach as well.
Based on the findings of this study, it is recommended that the RSB
To determine the ability of existing LCSA studies to inform the RSB
consider implementing guidelines on a life cycle basis which clearly
P&C framework, an assessment of 60 recent LCSA studies was carried
delineate system boundaries, functional units, and data sources for each
out. This review identified some interesting trends. In examining system
of the Principles included in the P&C framework. A potential template
boundaries used in these studies, it was found that very few LCSA
for these guidelines exists in relation to Principle 3 (see RSB 2017b). It
studies considered all aspects of biofuel production systems when as-
is also recommended that policymakers seeking to enhance the
sessing sustainability. This is an important finding, as it suggests that
14
Table 8
Comparison between RSB criteria, primary indicators, and the availability of LCSA-informed data.
n RSB criteria Main indicators for RSB LCSA impacts considered Study #s
M. Collotta, et al.
1 Legality Follow all applicable laws Governance and legal system corruption 7
2 Planning, Monitoring and Mitigation, monitoring and Cumulative Energy Demand 9, 24, 25, 35, 36
Continuous Improvement evaluation plans Net Energy Yield
Business plan for long-term economic Fossil energy consumption/non renewable energy consumption 8, 39
viability
3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions GHG reduction compared to fossil fuel GHG emissions CO2 N2O CH4, GWP [CO2 eq] 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26,
(RSB method) 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 49, 50, 51,
52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
4 Human and Labor Rights Freedom of association Communicable diseases, indigenous rights, gender equity, conflict, 7, 56
Slave or forced labor non-communicable diseases, obesity
Working conditions, wages and safety Child Labour, forced labour, minimum wages, non-poverty wages,
Child Labor forced labour, freedom of association, labour laws, migration
Discrimination Non-fatal injuries, Fatal injuries, occupation health
Human rights, working conditions, property violations, social well- 2, 56
being, integrity of the company
Human Toxicity, Human health cancer/non-cancer/respiratory 14, 16, 17, 23, 26, 33, 35, 36, 39, 41, 44
5 Rural and social development Improvement of socioeconomic status Inclusion of small-scale farmers in the supply chain 48
of locals Inclusion of small-scale producers
Participation of women, youth and Local prosperity, Social well-being 1, 2, 46, 47, 48, 56
indigenous
6 Local Food Security Food security risk assessment On-site food security, Off-site food security 48
Land process, food and feed prices 2
7 Conservation Biodiversity, ecosystem and Biodiversity security 48
conservation impact
15
Habitats fragmentation
Invasive species monitoring
8 Soil Soil chemical and biological Terrestrial Ecotoxicity 14, 17, 23, 26, 36, 40, 41, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58,
conditions Forest Ecosystem Health
Soil degradation Ecological Toxicity 39
Soil health maintenance
9 Water Respect of existing water rights Water security (feedstock and process related) 48
Water management plan for efficient Eutrophication potential 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 26, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45,
use 33, 44, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
Surface or groundwater depletion Fresh/marine water Ecotoxicity 14, 17, 26, 36, 39, 41, 55
Surface and groundwater quality Water Use 10, 32, 33, 35, 39
enhancement
10 Air Ari pollution emissions Acidification potential 3, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 26, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44,
Open air burning 45, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60
Particulate Matter Formation 15, 44, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60
Volatile Organic Compounds 4
Abiotic Depletion potential/Fossil Fuel Consumption 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 26, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 55
Fossil energy consumption/non renewable energy consumption 8, 39, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58
Ozone Layer Depletion 3, 9, 14, 16, 17, 23, 26, 29, 33, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 44, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58
Photochemical Oxidant Formation 3, 8, 16, 17, 23, 33, 35, 36, 40, 41, 44, 55
Soil Organic Carbon 2, 24
11 Use of Technology, Inputs and Production efficiency
Management of Waste Social and environmental long-term
performance
Damages risk for people and
environment
Good practices implementation
Residues, waste and byproduct
12 Land Rights Existing land right and land use rights Land Use, land competition 2, 5, 18, 19, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58
Fig. 4. Number of studies informing each RSB criterion.
LCSA approaches to impact assessment have not trended towards being Acknowledgments
able to provide holistic measures of biofuel production impacts, but
rather have focused on isolated components of the production system to The authors gratefully acknowledge funding from the Ontario
answer specific questions. This in turn means that fewer studies are Ministry of Research Innovation (Ontario Research Fund). Additional
available in the literature that can be used as exemplars for biofuel funds were provided via a National Science and Engineering Research
producers, and indeed implies that our current state of knowledge when Council (NSERC) Strategic Project Grant and through the Canada
it comes to the impacts of biofuel production is curtailed by a lack of Research Chairs Program. Finally, the authors thank BioFuelNet Canada
holistic work on the subject. for funding support and access to data during the writing of this paper.
While there may be relatively few studies in the literature that can
comment on holistic biofuel production impacts, the fact that individual References
LCSA studies do exist that cover all production phases related to biofuel
production does suggest that the LCSA approach can usefully be applied [1] Janzen HH. Carbon cycling in earth systems - a soil science perspective. Agric
to satisfy criteria within the RSB. While this is currently in fact specified Ecosyst Environ 2004;104:399–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2004.01.040.
[2] International Energy Agency. Oil information overview. 2018.
under Principle 3 of the RSB standard, it is suggested that the life cycle [3] Ekener-Petersen E, Höglund J, Finnveden G. Screening potential social impacts of
approach could be implemented across other Principles and Criteria fossil fuels and biofuels for vehicles. Energy Policy 2014;73:416–26. https://doi.
within the RSB to improve the quality of data and ensure that RSB org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.05.034.
[4] European Parliament. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the
certification is capturing the impacts of all aspects of the biofuel pro- Council of 23 April 2009. Off J Eur Union 2009;140:16–62. https://doi.org/10.
duction system. 3000/17252555.L_2009.140.eng.
It is clear from this analysis, however, that LCSA studies that can [5] Environment Canada Inquiry Centre. Canada's emissions trends. 2011. EN81-18/
2013E-PDF.
assess economic or social sustainability are rare, and that the types of [6] United Nations/Framework Convention on Climate Change. Paris agreement. 21st
data generated by these studies are still insufficient to fully support the conf parties. 2015. p. 3. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9.
RSB P&C framework. Of the 60 LCSA studies that were assessed, the [7] Wiebe K, Croppenstedt A, Raney T, Skoet J, Zurek M, Tschirley J, et al.
Environmental impacts of biofuels. Biofuels Prospect Risks Oppor 2008:55–71.
majority (54 studies) provided quantitative assessments of environ-
[8] Pieprzyk B, Kortluke N, Rojas Hilje P. The impact of fossil fuels. 2009.
mental sustainability, across a wide range of indicators. By comparison, [9] Hertwich EG, van der Voet E, Tukker A. Assessing the environmental impacts of
only 7 studies provided quantitative analyses of economic sustain- consumption and production. Priority Products and Materials; 2010.
ability, and only 7 studies provided data on social sustainability. Only [10] Kazamia E, Smith AG. Assessing the environmental sustainability of biofuels. Trends
Plant Sci 2014;19:615–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2014.08.001.
two of these studies considered a combination of environmental, eco- [11] Scarlat N, Dallemand J-F. Recent developments of biofuels/bioenergy sustainability
nomic, and social sustainability. certification : a global overview. Energy Policy 2011;39:1630–46. https://doi.org/
This review suggests interesting new avenues for development of 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.12.039.
[12] Diop D, Blanco M, Flammini A, Schalifer M, Kropiwicka MA, Markhof MM.
LCSA approaches to evaluating sustainability. The RSB P&C framework Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point
incorporates novel methodologies for assessing the economic and social of view of Policy Coherence for Development. 2013.
impacts of biofuel production systems. These approaches include [13] Stephenson AL, Dupree P, Scott SA, Dennis JS. The environmental and economic
sustainability of potential bioethanol from willow in the UK. Bioresour Technol
proactive programs in education, training, and employment, and may 2010;101:9612–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.07.104.
serve as useful indicators within LCSA. Future exploration of these [14] International Energy Agency. World energy outlook 2018. 2018https://doi.org/10.
opportunities is warranted in order to better incorporate economic and 1787/weo-2018-en.
[15] Eurobserver. Biofuels barometer 2018https://www.eurobserv-er.org/pdf/biofuels-
social impacts into the LCSA tool. While this study has focused on barometer-2018/.
biofuel production systems, the types of indicators considered could [16] Efroymson RA, Kline KL, Angelsen A, Verburg PH, Dale VH, Langeveld JWA,
support better sustainability assessments for a wide variety of products McBride A. A causal analysis framework for land-use change and the potential role
of bioenergy policy. Land Use Policy 2016;59:516–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
and processes. This review also provides insight into ways in which the
landusepol.2016.09.009.
RSB P&C could be improved, to better incorporate a life cycle approach [17] Schnepf R, Yacobucci BD. Renewable fuel standard (RFS): overview and issues.
and to strengthen the value of certification using the RSB methodolo- 2010.
gies. [18] Mondou M, Skogstad G. The regulation of biofuels in the United States. European
Union and Canada; 2012. p. 1–33.
16
[19] Cambero C, Sowlati T. Assessment and optimization of forest biomass supply chains https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.08.046.
from economic, social and environmental perspectives - a review of literature. [50] Cherubini F, Jungmeier G. LCA of a biorefinery concept producing bioethanol,
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;36:62–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014. bioenergy, and chemicals from switchgrass. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2010;15:53–66.
04.041. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0124-2.
[20] Nuffield Council on bioethics. Biofuels: Ethical Issues 2011;44:1–226http:// [51] Väisänen S, Havukainen J, Uusitalo V, Havukainen M, Soukka R, Luoranen M.
nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Biofuels_ethical_issues_FULL- Carbon footprint of biobutanol by ABE fermentation from corn and sugarcane.
REPORT_0.pdf, Accessed date: 23 April 2019. Renew Energy 2016;89:401–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.12.016.
[21] Ciroth A, Finkbeiner M, Hildenbrand J, Klöpffer W, Mazijn B, Prakash S, et al. [52] Hoefnagels R, Smeets E, Faaij A. Greenhouse gas footprints of different biofuel
Towards a Life Cycle Sustainability A ssessment: making informed choices on production systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:1661–94. https://doi.org/
products. 2011. DTI/1412/PA. 10.1016/j.rser.2010.02.014.
[22] Zamagni A, Pesonen H-L, Swarr T. From LCA to Life Cycle Sustainability [53] Hsu DD, Inman D, Heath GA, Wolfrum EJ, Mann MK, Aden A. Life cycle environ-
Assessment: concept, practice and future directions. Int J Life Cycle Assess mental impacts of selected U.S. Ethanol production and use pathways in 2022.
2013;18:1637–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0648-3. Environ Sci Technol 2010;44:5289–97. https://doi.org/10.1021/es100186h.
[23] RSB A. Guide to RSB Certification. Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials; 2016. [54] Schumacher B, Oechsner H, Senn T, Jungbluth T. Life cycle assessment of the
[24] Haugen HM. Coherence or forum shopping in biofuels sustainability schemes? conversion of Zea mays and x Triticosecale into biogas and bioethanol. Eng Life Sci
Nordic J Human Rights 2015;33(1):52–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/18918131. 2010;10:577–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/elsc.201000069.
2015.1000052. [55] Wang M, Han J, Dunn JB, Cai H, Elgowainy A. Well-to-wheels energy use and
[25] Winickoff DE, Mondou M. The problem of epistemic jurisdiction in global govern- greenhouse gas emissions of ethanol from corn, sugarcane and cellulosic biomass
ance: the case of sustainability standards for biofuels. Soc Stud Sci 2017;47(1):7–26. for US use. Environ Res Lett 2012;7:45905. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312716667855. 4/045905.
[26] Van Schoubroeck S, Van Dael M, Van Passel S, Malina R. A review of sustainability [56] Brandão M, Milà i Canals L, Clift R. Soil organic carbon changes in the cultivation of
indicators for biobased chemicals. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;94:115–26. energy crops: implications for GHG balances and soil quality for use in LCA.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.06.007. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:2323–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.
[27] Adler PR, Del Grosso SJ, Parton WJ. Life-cycle assessment of net greenhouse-gas 10.019.
flux for bioenergy cropping systems. Ecol Appl 2007;17:675–91. https://doi.org/ [57] Eranki PL, Dale BE. Comparative life cycle assessment of centralized and distributed
10.1890/05-2018. biomass processing systems combined with mixed feedstock landscapes. GCB
[28] Usda. USDA agricultural projections to 2024. United States Dep Agric; 2015. p. 97. Bioenergy 2011;3:427–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01096.x.
[29] Lonza L, Hass H, Maas H, Reid A, Rose K. EU renewable energy targets in 2020: [58] Fazio S, Monti A. Life cycle assessment of different bioenergy production systems
analysis of scenarios for transport fuels. 2011. https://doi.org/10.2788/74948. including perennial and annual crops. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:4868–78.
[30] IEA. World Energy Outlook 2014. 2014 https://www.iea.org/weo/. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.10.014.
[31] Bourguignon D. EU biofuels policy. Eur Parliam Res Serv 2015;10. [59] Hussain MM, Dincer I, Reddy BV. A comparative life cycle assessment of bio- and
[32] Kim S, Dale BE. Life cycle assessment of fuel ethanol derived from corn grain via dry conventional fuels in a Canadian province. Int J Energy Res 2010;35:795–804.
milling. Bioresour Technol 2008;99:5250–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.1742.
2007.09.034. [60] Kaliyan N, Morey RV, Tiffany DG. Reducing life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of
[33] Bai Y, Luo L, Van Der Voet E. Life cycle assessment of switchgrass-derived ethanol corn ethanol by integrating biomass to produce heat and power at ethanol plants.
as transport fuel. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2010;15:468–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:1103–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.
s11367-010-0177-2. 11.035.
[34] United Nations Conference on Environment and development. Authoritative and [61] Kauffman N, Hayes D, Brown R. A life cycle assessment of advanced biofuel pro-
non-legally binding statement of principles for the conservation and sustainable duction from a hectare of corn. Fuel 2011;90:3306–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
management of all types of forests. 1992. fuel.2011.06.031.
[35] The Montreal Process. Criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable [62] Kimming M, Sundberg C, Nordberg Å, Baky A, Bernesson S, Norén O, et al. Biomass
management of temperate and boreal forests. 1995. Hull, Quebec. from agriculture in small-scale combined heat and power plants - a comparative life
[36] Barnett B. An evaluation of the UK's use of SFM standards to procure solid woody cycle assessment. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:1572–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biomass for electricity generation using sustainability bioenergy criteria. Biofuels- biombioe.2010.12.027.
UK 2016;7(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/17597269.2015.1118775. [63] Whitman T, Yanni S, Whalen J. Life cycle assessment of corn stover production for
[37] FSC. Principles and criterias for forest stewardship. 2015. cellulosic ethanol in Quebec. Can J Soil Sci 2011;91:997–1012. https://doi.org/10.
[38] Fernández-Tirado F, Parra-López C, Romero-Gámez M. Life cycle assessment of 4141/cjss2011-011.
biodiesel in Spain: comparing the environmental sustainability of Spanish produc- [64] Budsberg E, Puettmann ME, Volk T a, Johnson L. Life-cycle assessment for the
tion versus Argentinean imports. Energy Sustain Dev 2016;33:36–52. https://doi. production of bioethanol from willow biomass crops via biochemical conversion *.
org/10.1016/j.esd.2016.04.005. For Prod J 2012;62:305–13. https://doi.org/10.13073/FPJ-D-12-00022.1.
[39] van Dam J, Faaij APC, Hilbert J, Petruzzi H, Turkenburg WC. Large-scale bioenergy [65] Buonocore E, Franzese PP, Ulgiati S. Assessing the environmental performance and
production from soybeans and switchgrass in Argentina. Part A: potential and sustainability of bioenergy production in Sweden: a life cycle assessment perspec-
economic feasibility for national and international markets. Renew Sustain Energy tive. Energy 2012;37:69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.07.032.
Rev 2009;13:1710–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.03.009. [66] Goglio P, Bonari E, Mazzoncini M. LCA of cropping systems with different external
[40] Daylan B, Ciliz N. Life cycle assessment and environmental life cycle costing ana- input levels for energetic purposes. Biomass Bioenergy 2012;42:33–42. https://doi.
lysis of lignocellulosic bioethanol as an alternative transportation fuel. Renew org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.03.021.
Energy 2016;89:578–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.11.059. [67] González-García S, Iribarren D, Susmozas A, Dufour J, Murphy RJ. Life cycle as-
[41] Spatari S, Zhang Y, Maclean HL. Life cycle assessment of switchgrass- and corn sessment of two alternative bioenergy systems involving Salix spp. biomass: bioe-
automobiles. Environ Sci Technol 2005;39:9750–8. https://doi.org/10.1021/ thanol production and power generation. Appl Energy 2012;95:111–22. https://
es048293. doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.02.022.
[42] Styles D, Jones MB. Energy crops in Ireland: quantifying the potential life-cycle [68] González-García S, Mola-Yudego B, Dimitriou I, Aronsson P, Murphy R.
greenhouse gas reductions of energy-crop electricity. Biomass Bioenergy Environmental assessment of energy production based on long term commercial
2007;31:759–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.05.003. willow plantations in Sweden. Sci Total Environ 2012;421–422:210–9. https://doi.
[43] Pelletier N, Arsenault N, Tyedmers P. Scenario modeling potential eco-efficiency org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.01.041.
gains from a transition to organic agriculture: life cycle perspectives on Canadian [69] Tonini D, Hamelin L, Wenzel H, Astrup T. Bioenergy production from perennial
canola, corn, soy, and wheat production. Environ Manag 2008;42:989–1001. energy crops: a consequential LCA of 12 bioenergy scenarios including land use
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9155-x. changes. Environ Sci Technol 2012;46:13521–30. https://doi.org/10.1021/
[44] Renouf MA, Wegener MK, Nielsen LK. An environmental life cycle assessment es3024435.
comparing Australian sugarcane with US corn and UK sugar beet as producers of [70] Wang L, Templer R, Murphy RJ. A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) comparison of three
sugars for fermentation. Biomass Bioenergy 2008;32:1144–55. https://doi.org/10. management options for waste papers: bioethanol production, recycling and in-
1016/j.biombioe.2008.02.012. cineration with energy recovery. Bioresour Technol 2012;120:89–98. https://doi.
[45] Searcy E, Flynn PC. Processing of straw/corn stover: comparison of life cycle org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.05.130.
emissions. Int J Green Energy 2008;5:423–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/ [71] Yang Y, Bae J, Kim J, Suh S. Replacing gasoline with corn ethanol results in sig-
15435070802498010. nificant environmental problem-shifting. Environ Sci Technol 2012;46:3671–8.
[46] Kim S, Dale BE, Jenkins R. Life cycle assessment of corn grain and corn stover in the https://doi.org/10.1021/es203641p.
United States. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2009;14:160–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/ [72] Godard C, Boissy J, Gabrielle B. Life-cycle assessment of local feedstock supply
s11367-008-0054-4. scenarios to compare candidate biomass sources. GCB Bioenergy 2013;5:16–29.
[47] Liska AJ, Yang HS, Bremer VR, Klopfenstein TJ, Walters DT, Erickson GE, et al. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2012.01187.x.
Improvements in life cycle energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions of corn- [73] González-García S, Mola-Yudego B, Murphy RJ. Life cycle assessment of potential
ethanol. J Ind Ecol 2009;13:58–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008. energy uses for short rotation willow biomass in Sweden. Int J Life Cycle Assess
00105.x. 2013;18:783–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0536-2.
[48] Monti A, Fazio S, Venturi G. Cradle-to-farm gate life cycle assessment in perennial [74] Murphy CW, Kendall A. Life cycle inventory development for corn and stover
energy crops. Eur J Agron 2009;31:77–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2009.04. production systems under different allocation methods. Biomass Bioenergy
001. 2013;58:67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.08.008.
[49] Portugal-Pereira J, Nakatani J, Kurisu K, Hanaki K. Life cycle assessment of con- [75] Yang Q, Chen GQ. Greenhouse gas emissions of corn-ethanol production in China.
ventional and optimised Jatropha biodiesel fuels. Renew Energy 2016;86:585–93. Ecol Model 2013;252:176–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.07.011.
17
[76] Collet P, Lardon L, Hélias A, Bricout S, Lombaert-Valot I, Perrier B, et al. Biodiesel M, de Souza D. Life cycle assessment of bioethanol production from cattle manure. J
from microalgae - life cycle assessment and recommendations for potential im- Clean Prod 2017;162:1021–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.141.
provements. Renew Energy 2014;71:525–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene. [88] Ekener E, Hansson J, Larsson A, Peck P. Developing Life Cycle Sustainability
2014.06.009. Assessment methodology by applying values-based sustainability weighting - tested
[77] Rocha MH, Capaz RS, Lora EES, Nogueira LAH, Leme MMV, Renó MLG, et al. Life on biomass based and fossil transportation fuels. J Clean Prod 2018;181:337–51.
cycle assessment (LCA) for biofuels in Brazilian conditions: a meta-analysis. Renew https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.211.
Sustain Energy Rev 2014;37:435–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.05.036. [89] Brito M, Martins F. Life cycle assessment of butanol production. Fuel
[78] Yang Y, Zhang B, Cheng J, Pu S. Socio-economic impacts of algae-derived biodiesel 2017;208:476–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.07.050.
industrial development in China: an input-output analysis. Algal Res 2015;9:74–81. [90] Guerrero AB, Muñoz E. Life cycle assessment of second generation ethanol derived
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2015.02.010. from banana agricultural waste: environmental impacts and energy balance. J Clean
[79] Mukhopadhyay K, Thomassin PJ. Macroeconomic effects of the ethanol biofuel Prod 2018;174:710–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.298.
sector in Canada. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:2822–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [91] Prapaspongsa T, Musikavong C, Gheewala SH. Life cycle assessment of palm bio-
biombioe.2011.03.021. diesel production in Thailand: impacts from modelling choices, co-product utilisa-
[80] Ribeiro BE, Quintanilla MA. Transitions in biofuel technologies: an appraisal of the tion, improvement technologies, and land use change. J Clean Prod
social impacts of cellulosic ethanol using the Delphi method. Technol Forecast Soc 2017;153:435–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.130.
Chang 2015;92:53–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.11.006. [92] Levasseur A, Bahn O, Beloin-Saint-Pierre D, Marinova M, Vaillancourt K. Assessing
[81] Lechon Y, Cabal H, Sáez R. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions impacts of the butanol from integrated forest biorefinery: a combined techno-economic and life
adoption of the EU Directive on biofuels in Spain. Effect of the import of raw ma- cycle approach. Appl Energy 2017;198:440–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
terials and land use changes. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:2374–84. https://doi.org/ apenergy.2017.04.040.
10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.01.036. [93] International Standards Organization. EN ISO 14040:2006 - environmental man-
[82] Lindorfer J, Fazeni K, Steinmüller H. Life cycle analysis and soil organic carbon agement - life cycle assessment - principles and framework. 2007.
balance as methods for assessing the ecological sustainability of 2nd generation [94] RSB. RSB. Principles and criteria. Reference code RSB-STD-01-001 (version 3.0).
biofuel feedstock. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 2014;5:95–105. https://doi.org/ Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials; 2017.
10.1016/j.seta.2013.12.003. [95] RSB. RSB. Standard for advanced fuels. Reference code RSB-STD-01-010 (version
[83] Collotta M, Champagne P, Mabee W, Tomasoni G, Alberti M, Busi L, et al. 2.1). Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials; 2018.
Environmental assessment of Co-location alternatives for a microalgae cultivation [96] RSB. RSB GHG Calculation Methodology. Reference code RSB-STD-01-003-01
plant: a case study in the city of kingston (Canada). Energy Procedia (version 2.3). Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials; 2017.
2016;95:29–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.09.007. [97] Shapouri H, Duffield J a, Wang M. The energy balance of corn ethanol: an update.
[84] Collotta M, Busi L, Champagne P, Romagnoli F, Tomasoni G, Mabee W, et al. Energy Policy 2002;35:1414–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.02.007.
Comparative LCA of three alternative technologies for lipid extraction in biodiesel [98] Sheehan J, Aden a, Paustian K, Killian K, Brenner J, Walsh M, et al. Energy and
from microalgae production. Energy Procedia 2017;113. https://doi.org/10.1016/ environmental aspects of using corn stover for fuel ethanol. J Ind Ecol
j.egypro.2017.04.061. 2003;7:117–46. https://doi.org/10.1162/108819803323059433.
[85] Collotta M, Champagne P, Mabee W, Tomasoni G, Leite GB, Busi L, et al. [99] Mcaloon A, Taylor F, Yee W. Determining the cost of producing ethanol from corn
Comparative LCA of flocculation for the harvesting of microalgae for biofuels starch and lignocellulosic feedstocks. Natl Renew Energy Lab 2000;2008:44. NREL/
production. Procedia CIRP 2017;61:756–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir. TP-580-28893.
2016.11.146. [100] Ekener E, Hansson J, Gustavsson M. Addressing positive impacts in social
[86] Collotta M, Champagne P, Mabee W, Tomasoni G. Wastewater and waste CO2 for LCA—discussing current and new approaches exemplified by the case of vehicle
sustainable biofuels from microalgae. Algal Res 2018;29. https://doi.org/10.1016/ fuels. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2016:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-
j.algal.2017.11.013. 1058-0.
[87] de Azevedo A, Fornasier F, da Silva Szarblewski M, de Souza Schneider RDC, Hoeltz
18

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews: Sciencedirect

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews: Sciencedirect

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109358

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

Critical indicators of sustainability for biofuels: An analysis through a life T

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

studies most often considered ethanol or biodiesel products, although

Ribeiro and Quintanilla 2015 [80]

Guerrero and Muñoz 2018 [90]

Prapaspongsa et al., 2017 [91]

de Azevedo et al., 2017 [87]

Brito and Martins 2017 [89]

Levasseur et al., 2017 [92]

Lindorfer et al., 2014 [82]

Ekener et al., 2018 [88]

represented. Some studies presented new primary data, while others

Some of the studies focused exclusively on environmental (LCA), eco-

used to present the analysis. Fig. 2 shows a subdivision of the studies

3. Results and discussion

✓ As expected when reviewing LCSA studies, no two analyses ex-

were conducted in the same geographic region. Table 1 describes a list

achieve RSB certification is significant and presents a challenge that

common functional units were units of fuel (or energy) produced or

based on the units of fuel combusted. A number of studies used geo-

functional unit heavily influences system boundaries, as discussed fur-

variable, and the ability of these studies to provide critical information

pertaining to environmental, economic, and social sustainability is as-

sessed and discussed. Based on the 60 studies selected, an initial as-

sessment of the ability of LCSA to inform the RSB framework is dis-

cussed, and the practical implications of the study – including policy

recommendations – are summarized in the final section below.

3.1. Current challenges in biofuel sustainability associated with the RSB

LCSA can provide scientifically-rigorous data describing the en-

production system, but the overview of the 60 LCSA studies provided in

As a scientific method, LCSA is malleable and can (and should) be

adapted to each unique circumstance, and ISO standards make it very

Production of 14 million litres of biodiesel

From a policy perspective, this creates a massive challenge: even a

Processing of 1000 kg of cattle manure

‘standardized’ approach to life cycle analysis provides great latitude for

sustainability of a biofuel system, it relies on the application of life cycle

science to inform the P&C framework. This is overt in some components

n/s – included but not specified.

dividual proponents must use a lifecycle approach to calculate green-

house gas emissions related to their project, as per Principle 3 [94,95];

the analysis, including system boundaries and functional units [96].

impacts, and specifies use of data from databases including EcoInvent,

n/s – included but not specified; n/i – not included.

ethical concerns or by practical limitations. In the RSB standard, criteria

and employment programs. These types of activities are not typically

3.4. LCSA as a tool to inform the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials

include those related to GHG emissions (Principle 3), water manage-

ment (Principle 9), air pollution and the depletion of non-renewable

particularly those under Principle 11 which incorporates indicators

related to the use of technology, inputs and management of waste, long-

term performance of the system, and good risk management. In fact, no

LCSA study considered in this work provided direct measurements of

these indicators. While this may simply be a reflection of a lack of in-

product sustainability, and the importance of waste management to life

Production of 14 million litres of biodiesel

artifact of the study approach, which focused on the outputs of quan-

Processing of 1000 kg of cattle manure

titative analysis rather than qualitative assessment.

a strength of the LCSA approach is the scientific rigor which is applied