Biorefineries pp 519-539 | Cite as

Sustainability Evaluation

  • Heinz StichnotheEmail author
Part of the Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology book series (ABE, volume 166)


The long-term substitution of fossil resources can only be achieved through a bio-based economy, with biorefineries and bio-based products playing a major role. However, it is important to assess the implications of the transition to a bio-based economy. Life cycle-based sustainability assessment is probably the most suitable approach to quantify impacts and to identify trade-offs at multiple levels. The extended utilisation of biomass can cause land use change and affect food security of the most vulnerable people throughout the world. Although this is mainly a political issue and governments should be responsible, the responsibility is shifted to companies producing biofuels and other bio-based products. Organic wastes and lignocellulosic biomass are considered to be the preferred feedstock for the production of bio-based products. However, it is unlikely that a bio-based economy can rely only on organic wastes and lignocellulosic biomass.

It is crucial to identify potential problems related to socio-economic and environmental issues. Currently there are many approaches to the sustainability of bio-based products, both quantitative and qualitative. However, results of different calculation methods are not necessarily comparable and can cause confusion among decision-makers, stakeholders and the public.

Hence, a harmonised, globally agreed approach would be the best solution to secure sustainable biomass/biofuels/bio-based chemicals production and trade, and to avoid indirect effects (e.g. indirect land use change). However, there is still a long way to go.

Generally, the selection of suitable indicators that serve the purpose of sustainability assessment is very context-specific. Therefore, it is recommended to use a flexible and modular approach that can be adapted to various purposes. A conceptual model for the selection of sustainability indicators is provided that facilitates identifying suitable sustainability indicators based on relevance and significance in a given context.


Bio-based product Bioeconomy Biorefinery Food security LCA 


  1. 1.
    Weiss M, Haufe J, Carus M, Brandão M, Bringezu S, Hermann B, Patel MK (2012) A review of the environmental impacts of biobased materials. J Ind Ecol 16:S169–S181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Azapagic A, Stichnothe H (2011) Sustainability assessment of biofuels. In: Azapagic A, Perdan S (eds) Sustainable development in practice: case studies for engineers and scientists. Wiley-Blackwell, Ames, pp 142–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ekman A, Börjesson P (2011) Environmental assessment of propionic acid produced in an agricultural biomass-based biorefinery system. J Clean Prod 19:1257–1265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Adom F, Dunn JB, Han J, Sather N (2014) Life-cycle fossil energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of bioderived chemicals and their conventional counterparts. Environ Sci Technol 48:14624–14631CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lammens TM, Franssen MCR, Scott EL, Sanders JPM (2012) Availability of protein-derived amino acids as feedstock for the production of bio-based chemicals. Biomass Bioenergy 44:168–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lammens TM, Potting J, Sanders JPM, De Boer IJM (2011) Environmental comparison of biobased chemicals from glutamic acid with their petrochemical equivalents. Environ Sci Technol 45:8521–8528CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lin Z, Nikolakis V, Ierapetritou MG (2015) Life cycle assessment of biobased p-xylene production. Ind Eng Chem Res 54(8): 2366–2378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    OECD (2010) Towards the development of OECD best practices for assessing the sustainability of bio-based products. OECD.
  9. 9.
    Heijungs R, Huppes G, Guinée JB (2010) Life cycle assessment and sustainability analysis of products, materials and technologies. Toward a scientific framework for sustainability life cycle analysis. Polym Degrad Stab 95:422–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Deborah O’Connell JR, Hatfield-Dodds S, Braid A, Cowie A, Littleboy A, Wiedmann T, Clark M (2013) Designing for action: principles of effective sustainability measurement. World Economic Forum.
  11. 11.
    Development WCoEa (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: our common future. UNGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Keller H, Rettenmaier N, Reinhardt GA (2015) Integrated life cycle sustainability assessment – a practical approach applied to biorefineries. Appl Energy 154:1072–1081. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.095 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Iles A, Mulvihill MJ (2012) Collaboration across disciplines for sustainability: green chemistry as an emerging multistakeholder community. Environ Sci Technol 46:5643–5649CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bell G, Schuck S, Jungmeier G, Wellisch M, Felby C, Jorgensen H, Stichnothe H, Clancy M, De Bari I, Kimura S, van Ree R, de Jong Ed, Annevelink B, Kwant K, Torr K, Spaeth J (2014) IEA bioenergy Task 42 biorefining: sustainable and synergetic processing of biomass into marketable food & feed ingredients, chemicals, materials and energy (fuels, power, heat). IEA Task 42, Wageningen, p 63Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jungmeier Gea (2013) Biofuel-driven biorefineries. IEA Bioenergy Task 42Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Klopffer W (2003) Life-cycle based methods for sustainable product development. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:157–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    14040 I (2006) Life cycle assessment - principles and framework. Environmental ManagementGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    14044 I (2006) Life cycle assessment – requirements and guidelines. Environmental ManagementGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kloepffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kloepffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products (with comments by Helias A. Udo de Haes, p. 95). Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pelletier N, Maas R, Goralczyk M, Wolf M-A (2014) Conceptual basis for development of the European Sustainability Footprint. Environ Dev 9:12–23. doi: 10.1016/j.envdev.2013.12.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cramer J (2007) Testing framework for sustainable biomassGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    European Parliament and Council (2009) Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/ECGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hermann B, Carus M, Patel M, Blok K (2011) Current policies affecting the market penetration of biomaterials*. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 5:708–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Richard TL (2010) Challenges in scaling up biofuels infrastructure. Science 329(5993):793–796CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Posen ID, Griffin WM, Matthews HS, Azevedo IL (2014) Changing the renewable fuel standard to a renewable material standard: bioethylene case study. Environ Sci Technol 49:93–102CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pelkmans L (2013) Monitoring sustainability certification of bioenergy. IEA Bioenergy, DublinGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Scarlat N, Dallemand J-F (2011) Recent developments of biofuels/bioenergy sustainability certification: a global overview. Energy Policy 39:1630–1646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Maes D, Van Dael M, Vanheusden B, Goovaerts L, Reumerman P, Márquez Luzardo N, Van Passel S (2015) Assessment of the sustainability guidelines of EU Renewable Energy Directive: the case of biorefineries. J Clean Prod 88:61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Government TGF (2012) Biorefineries Roadmap, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fargione J et al (2008) Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319:1235–1238CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kline KL, Oladosu GA, Dale VH, McBride AC (2011) Scientific analysis is essential to assess biofuel policy effects: in response to the paper by Kim and Dale on “Indirect land-use change for biofuels: testing predictions and improving analytical methodologies”. Biomass Bioenergy 35:4488–4491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton RA, Dong F, Elobeid A, Fabiosa J, Tokgoz S, Hayes D, Yu TH (2008) Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319:1238–1240CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stichnothe H, Schuchardt F (2011) Life cycle assessment of two palm oil production systems. Biomass Bioenergy 35:3976–3984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Warner E, Inman D, Kunstman B et al (2013) Modeling biofuel expansion effects on land use change dynamics. Environ Res Lett 8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tonini D, Hamelin L, Wenzel H, Astrup T (2012) Bioenergy production from perennial energy crops: a consequential LCA of 12 bioenergy scenarios including land use changes. Environ Sci Technol 46:13521–13530CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Styles D, Gibbons J, Williams AP, Dauber J, Stichnothe H, Urban B, Chadwick DR, Jones DL (2015) Consequential life cycle assessment of biogas, biofuel and biomass energy options within an arable crop rotation. GCB Bioenergy 7 (6):1305-1320. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12246 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    FAO (2005) The right to food - voluntary guidelines. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Finkbeiner M, Schau EM, Lehmann A, Traverso M (2010) Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 2:3309–3322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Parajuli R, Dalgaard T, Jørgensen U, Adamsen APS, Knudsen MT, Birkved M, Gylling M, Schjørring JK (2015) Biorefining in the prevailing energy and materials crisis: a review of sustainable pathways for biorefinery value chains and sustainability assessment methodologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 43:244–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sheldon RA, Sanders JPM, Marinas A (2015) Sustainability metrics of chemicals from renewable biomass. Catal Today 239:1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Thünen-Institute of Agricultural TechnologyBraunschweigGermany

Personalised recommendations