New study by the Renewable Carbon Initiative (RCI) analyzes key Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and carbon footprint standards and their impact on renewable carbon products
The Renewable Carbon Initiative (RCI) has published a comprehensive study that analyzes the requirements of life cycle assessment and carbon footprint standards in relation to renewable carbon sources – i.e. carbon from biomass, carbon capture or recycling. Conducted by the nova-Institute on behalf of RCI, the study provides a comparative assessment of how key sustainability frameworks make methodological decisions. Key similarities and differences are identified.
The life cycle assessment is widely regarded as the standard method for assessing the environmental impact of products and materials. However, its complexity and methodological variability pose challenges for policy implementation and industrial application. With the emergence of renewable carbon-based solutions as an important alternative to fossil-based materials, it is crucial to understand the requirements for existing LCA frameworks. This ensures fair and transparent sustainability assessments, especially for innovative solutions that compete with established systems. This is often the case for products from renewable carbon sources that compete with their fossil counterparts – for example, due to the more rigorous assessment of new solutions, methodological aspects that have not yet been considered or defined, different data quality and economies of scale.
A new study, published in three reports, examines these challenges: The first report (146 pages) assesses methodological choices that influence LCAs for renewable carbon products in existing LCA frameworks and guidelines. In particular, the study examines the similarities and differences in the methodological choices (for the elements shown in Figure 1) of the guidelines and the impact of these methodological aspects on the resulting LCA results. The frameworks were selected for their relevance and legitimacy in industry, academia and policy and include ISO 14040/44, ISO 14067, the GHG Protocol Product Standard, PACT’s Pathfinder Framework, Together for Sustainability’s (TfS) PCF guidance for the chemical industry, EPDs for the construction industry – ISO 14025 and EN 15804, the Renewable Energy Directive, the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) and the JRC’s plastics LCA methodology. One area with particularly wide methodological scope is recycling. For this reason, the second report (36 pages) focuses particularly on renewable carbon in recycling situations and the challenges for eco-balance and carbon footprint studies.
The third report, a non-technical summary (15 pages), highlights the most important findings from the project results and formulates key conclusions for political decision-makers.
Figure 1: Core elements of life cycle assessments for renewable carbon solutions
The study highlights both similarities and significant differences between the frameworks. While many of the frameworks evaluated are consistent in their methodological approach, there are critical differences in some areas:
Areas of consensus: Most frameworks agree on the methodology for assessing the impacts of biogenic carbon uptake and emissions (with the exception of PEF and RED). While the specific provisions on recycling differ, all frameworks analyzed allow for multiple options, leading to a considerable diversity of results.
deviation areas: On the other hand, the frameworks analyzed differ with regard to the regulations for processes with multiple outputs and the question of whether the avoided production of by-products can be credited (system expansion with substitution). The regulations range from vague requirements and strict specifications to a complete ban on substitution.
The study underlines that policy makers should recognize the documented methodological flexibility of LCA frameworks to ensure a level playing field between renewable and fossil carbon sources. While the frameworks analyzed have different degrees of flexibility, LCA results can vary widely even within the calculation results of the same framework. The mere application of a particular framework does not guarantee comparability of LCA results.
Biogenic carbon balances should allow -1/+1: Almost all frameworks require the -1/+1 approach for biogenic carbon balances, where biogenic CO2 removals are modeled as negative and biogenic CO2 emissions are modeled as positive greenhouse gas emissions. An exception is PEF and RED III, which use the 0/0 (or net zero) approach, in which all biogenic removals and emissions are counted as 0 towards greenhouse gas emissions, although a change from 0/0 to -1/+1 is being discussed in the EF Technical Advisory Board.
Need for clarification: The study identifies several methodological aspects that should be further discussed and clarified with the involvement of relevant stakeholders, e.g. from the LCA community, industry and policy makers (JRC). This applies in particular to mass balance and allocation and carbon capture and utilization (CCU).
The latest RCI study provides important insights into the current landscape of LCA and carbon footprint standards related to renewable carbon. This analysis provides a valuable resource for industry representatives, policy makers and LCA practitioners looking to grapple with the complexities of LCA in the context of renewable carbon.
As the transition to a circular carbon economy gathers pace, the results of this study can help shape future LCA methodologies and inform decisions across all sectors and policy areas.
For more information on the study and its conclusions, please visit this website or contact christopher.vomberg@nova-institut.de.
Read the entire press release now: