The Renewable Carbon Initiative’s comprehensive report reveals both consensus and divergence in Life Cycle Assessment frameworks, offering crucial insights for industry stakeholders and policymakers in the transition to a circular carbon economy

The Renewable Carbon Initiative (RCI) has released a pivotal study that sheds light on the methodological provisions of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and carbon footprint standards for renewable carbon sources, such as biomass, carbon capture, and recycling. Conducted by nova-Institute on behalf of RCI, the study compares how major sustainability frameworks address key methodological choices, highlighting both areas of agreement and divergence.

LCA is a recognised tool for evaluating the environmental impacts of products and materials. However, its complexity and variability can create challenges, particularly when assessing emerging renewable carbon-based alternatives to fossil-based materials. These renewable solutions face increased scrutiny due to a lack of established methodologies, varying data quality, and differences in economies of scale.

The study is divided into three reports: the first, a detailed analysis of 146 pages, examines the impact of methodological choices on LCA outcomes for renewable carbon-containing products. It reviews the most relevant frameworks, including ISO 14040/44, ISO 14067, GHG Protocol Product Standard, and the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF), among others. The second report, focusing on renewable carbon in recycling contexts, identifies the challenges of LCA and carbon footprint assessments in this area. The third report, a non-technical summary, consolidates the study’s key findings and presents recommendations for policymakers.

One of the major takeaways is that while many frameworks align on key aspects, such as how biogenic carbon uptake and emissions are assessed, significant differences persist. These differences often relate to processes with multiple outputs and whether the avoided production of co-products can be credited. The study found varying rules around system expansion and substitution, with some frameworks allowing it, others setting strict guidelines, and some even prohibiting it entirely. This flexibility has important implications for the comparability of LCA results across different systems.

Another critical finding is the biogenic carbon accounting approach. Nearly all frameworks adopt the -1/+1 model, where biogenic CO2 uptake and emissions are treated as negative and positive GHG emissions, respectively. However, the PEF and renewable energy directive (RED III) employ the 0/0 model, a point of contention that may evolve in future discussions.

The study also underscores the need for further clarification on several methodological issues, particularly around mass balance, attribution, and carbon capture and utilisation (CCU). Engaging relevant stakeholders from LCA communities, industry, and policymakers is crucial to resolving these ambiguities and ensuring consistency across assessments.

As the world transitions to a more circular carbon economy, these findings provide valuable guidance for industry stakeholders, policymakers, and LCA practitioners navigating the evolving landscape of sustainability assessments.