Testing environmental and social indicators for biorefineries: bioethanol and biochemical production

  • Clara Valente
  • Andreas Brekke
  • Ingunn Saur Modahl



The article aims to test indicators for assessing the environmental and social impacts of biorefineries. Testing environmental and social impact categories and indicators, and selecting the most suitable ones, will simultaneously contribute to the further development of social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) methodologies while assessing several dimensions of sustainability at biorefineries.


The work applies two methodologies, environmental LCA (E-LCA) and social LCA (S-LCA), to two hypothetical production processes of second-generation bioethanol and biochemical in two alternative locations (Norway and the USA). Five impact categories were chosen for the E-LCA. The S-LCA was performed in two stages: a generic assessment (top-down approach) using the social hotspot database (SHDB 2013) to screen for potential social issues in the stakeholder group Worker in Norway and the USA and a specific assessment (bottom-up approach) for collecting data and confirming or refuting the SHDB results in the Norwegian case only.

Results and discussion

Bioethanol produced in the Norwegian biorefinery would perform relatively well in relation to climate change targets, with emissions of approximately 11 g CO2-eq/MJ. The same production process located in the USA would produce emissions of approximately 29 g CO2-eq/MJ. Other biorefinery products are difficult to compare because of a lack of clear alternatives. Bioethanol and biochemicals produced in the hypothetical USA production process have higher burdens than those from the Norwegian production process in all environmental categories assessed. For both production processes, the main social risks were in the category Health and safety followed by Labor rights and decent work. More detailed investigations in an existing Norwegian biorefinery value chain confirmed some of the risk issues but discarded others, demonstrating the necessity of providing specific data and results for the social dimension.


E-LCA and S-LCA make it possible to highlight the main environmental and social challenges when producing biochemicals. The SHDB has potential as a social screening tool although social indicators are not yet well established. Hence, specific assessment is necessary for validating the results in the social dimension. S-LCA is still in its infancy and needs to be applied in order to develop the best practice. The two methodologies addressed bioethanol and biochemical production performance in two different dimensions (environmental and social), and their combination makes it possible to achieve results that integrate the product-oriented approach with the more location-specific approach.


Biochemicals Biorefinery S-LCA Social hotspots Sustainability 



The work is partly funded by a project sponsored by the Norwegian Research Council and Borregaard Industries Ltd. called “New Norwegian Biorefinery,” aimed at developing a new process for bioethanol production. We are grateful for the financial support and even more the access to interesting information and people.

Supplementary material

11367_2017_1331_MOESM1_ESM.docx (35 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 34 kb)


  1. Arbeids- og sosialdepartementet (2005) Lov Om Arbeidsmiljø, Arbeidstid Og Stillingsvern Mv. (arbeidsmiljøloven). Kapittel 10 (in Norwegian)Google Scholar
  2. Arcese G, Lucchetti MC, Massa I, Valente C (2016) State of the art in S-LCA: integrating literature review and automatic text analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1082-0
  3. Benoit-Norris C, Cavan DA, Norris G (2012) Identifying social impacts in product supply chains: overview and application of the social hotspot database. Sustainability 4(12):1946–1965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blok K, Huijbregts M, Patel M et al (2013) Handbook on a novel methodology for the sustainability impact assessment of new technologies. Prosuite, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  5. Bright RM, Strømman AH (2009) Life cycle assessment of second generation bioethanols produced from Scandinavian boreal forest resources. J Ind Ecol 13(4):514–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. CML (1992) Centre for Environmental Studies (CML), University of Leiden, 1992. Interpretation by PRé Consultants. Accessed Mar 2017
  7. Cultri CN, Saavedra YMB, Ometto A (2010) Indicadores Sociais Como Subsídios Para a Avaliação Social Do Ciclo de Vida: Uma Revisão Da Literatura. In: Encontro Nacional De Engenharia De Produção, 30., 2010, São Carlos. AnaisGoogle Scholar
  8. Demirbas A (2009) Political, economic and environmental impacts of biofuels: a review. Appl Energy 86:108–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dreyer L, Hauschild M, Schierbeck J (2006) A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):88–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ekener E, Hansson J, Gustavsson M (2016) Addressing positive impacts in social LCA—discussing current and new approaches exemplified by the case of vehicle fuels. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1058-0
  11. Ekener-Petersen E, Höglund J, Finnveden G (2014) Screening potential social impacts of fossil fuels and biofuels for vehicles. Energ Policy 73:416–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Environdec (2012) PCR for “Basic organic chemicals”, PCR 2011:17, CPC 341, version 1.1, published 28.June 2012. Expired 3.November 2014, being updated. Planned publication date: 15 April 2016. Accessed Apr 2016
  13. European commission (2012) Innovating for sustainable growth: a bioeconomy for Europe. Strategy for “innovating for sustainable growth: a bioeconomy for Europe”. Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. Accessed Aug 2016
  14. European Union (2014) Communication from the commission to the European Parliament and the Council. European Energy Security Strategy/* COM/2014/0330 final. EUR-Lex. European Union law. Accessed Apr 2016
  15. Fontes J (2016) Handbook for product social impact assessment. Roundtable for product social metrics. Sustainability consultant at PRé Sustainability version 3-0 January 2016Google Scholar
  16. Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N et al (2003) Implementation of life cycle impact assessment methods. Final report ecoinvent 2000, Swiss Centre for LCI. Duebendorf, CH, Accessed Mar 2017
  17. Glavič P, Lukman R (2007) Review of sustainability terms and their definitions. J Clean Prod 15(18):1875–1885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. GSCP (2016) The Global Social Compliance Programme (GSCP). Accessed Aug 2016
  19. Guinée JB, Huppes G, Heijungs R, van der Voet E (2009) Research strategy, programmes and exemplary projects on life cycle sustainability analysis (LCSA). Technical Report of CALCAS Project. Institute of Environmental Sciences, Leiden University (CML). Accessed Dec 2015
  20. Gyllensten KG (2015) Personal communication. Borregaard, Sarpsborg.Google Scholar
  21. Heijungs R, Guinée JB, Huppes G, Lamkreijer RM, Udo de Haes HA, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Ansems AMM, Eggels PG, van Duin R, de Goede HP (1992) Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Products. Guide (Part 1) and Backgrounds (Part 2), prepared by CML, TNO and B&G. Leiden October 1992Google Scholar
  22. Hutchins MJ, Robinson SL, Dornfeld D (2013) Understanding life cycle social impacts in manufacturing: a processed-based approach. J Manuf Syst 32(4):536–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. ILO (2016a) Main statistic annual-unemployment. Accessed Aug 2016
  24. ILO (2016b) Ratifications of all conventions and protocols by country. NORMLEX Information System on International Labour Standards.,P10015_CONVENTION_TYPE_CODE:1,U. Accessed Apr 2016
  25. ILO (2016c) Occupational safety and health in chemical industries. International labour standards. Available at: Accessed Apr 2016
  26. IPCC (2013) Climate change 2013. The physical science basis. Working Group I contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Accessed Mar 2017
  27. Jørgensen A, Bocq A, Nazarkina L, Hauschild M (2007) Methodologies for social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):96–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kemppainen AJ, Shonnard DR (2005) Comparative life-cycle assessments for biomass-to-ethanol production from different regional feedstocks. Biotechnol Prog 21(4):1075–1084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lagarde V, Macombe M (2013) Designing the social life cycle of products from the systematic competitive model. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(1):172–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lehmann A, Zschieschang E, Traverso M, Finkbeiner M, Schebek L (2013) Social aspects for sustainability assessment of Technologies—challenges for social life cycle assessment (SLCA). Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(8):1581–1592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Macombe C, Leskinen P, Feschet P, Antikainen R (2013) Social life cycle assessment of biodiesel production at three levels: a literature review and development needs. J Clean Prod 52:205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Markevičius A, Katinas V, Perednis E, Tamašauskienė M (2010) Trends and sustainability criteria of the production and use of liquid biofuels. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 14(9): 3226–3231Google Scholar
  33. Modahl IS, Soldal E (2016) The 2015 LCA of products from the wood-based biorefinery at Borregaard, Sarpsborg. Results for cellulose, ethanols, lignosulfonates, vanillin, sodium hypochlorite, sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid. Ostfold Research, OR 11.15, April 2016.
  34. Modahl IS, Vold BI (2011) The 2010 LCA of cellulose, ethanol, lignin and vanillin from Borregaard, Sarpsborg. Ostfold Research, OR 32.10, February 2011Google Scholar
  35. Modahl IS, Brekke A Raadal HL (2009) Life cycle assessment of cellulose, ethanol, lignin and vanillin from Borregaard, Sarpsborg—phase II. Ostfold Research, OR 17.09, June 2009. Norwegian version: OR 08.09Google Scholar
  36. Modahl IS, Vold BI, Barnholt T, Rødsrud G (2011) Environmental impacts of ethanol from a Norwegian wood-based biorefinery. Oral presentation and poster presentation at the Life Cycle Management 2011 conference, Dahlem Cube, Berlin, 28–31 August 2011. Download paper here (look for Wednesday/LCM in the chemical sector):
  37. Modahl IS, Askham C, Lyng KA, Brekke A (2012) Weighting of environmental trade-offs in CCS—an LCA case study of electricity from a fossil gas power plant with post-combustion CO2 capture, transport and storage. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(7):932–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Modahl IS, Brekke A, Valente C (2015a) Environmental assessment of chemical products from a Norwegian biorefinery. J Clean Prod 94:247–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Modahl IS, Brekke A, Valente C, Soldal E (2015b) Environmental assessment of chemical products from a Norwegian wood-based biorefinery. Oral presentation on the Global Cleaner Production and Sustainable Consumption Conference GCPC 2015, Sitges, 1–4.November 2015,
  40. OECD (2009) The bioeconomy of 2030. Designing a policy agenda. . Accessed Aug 2016
  41. OECD/IEA (2010) Sustainable production of second-generation biofuels. Accessed Apr 2016
  42. PRé Consultants (2013) version 3.00 implementation of CML (2013) Centre for Environmental Studies (CML), University of Leiden, 2013 (version 4.2).Google Scholar
  43. Sala S, Farioli F, Zamagni A (2012) Life cycle sustainability assessment in the context of sustainability science progress (part 2). Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(9):1686–1697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schebek L, Mrani O (2014) Environmental and sustainability assessment of biorefineries. In: Waldron KW (ed) Institute of Food Research, UK, pp 67–88Google Scholar
  45. SHDB (2013) Social hotspot database. Supporting documentation.
  46. SHDB (2015) Social Hotspots Database home page.
  47. Star-COLIBRI TEAM (2011) European Biorefinery Joint Strategic Research Roadmap Star-colibri Strategic Targets for 2020—collaboration initiative on biorefineries. Star-COLIBRIGoogle Scholar
  48. The International EPD® system (2000) Product-specific requirements, chemical products. PCR PSR 2000:5, Version 1.0. The Swedish Environmental Management CouncilGoogle Scholar
  49. UNEP/SETAC (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. United Nations Environmental ProgrammGoogle Scholar
  50. Valente C, Modahl IS, Askham C (2013) Method development for life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) of New Norwegian Biorefinery. OR 39.13Google Scholar
  51. Weidema BP (2016) The social footprint—a practical approach to comprehensive and consistent social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1172-z
  52. Weidema BP, Bauer CH, Hischier R, Mutel CH, Nemecek T, Reinhard J, Vadenbo CO, Wernet G (2013) The ecoinvent database: overview and methodology, data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3.
  53. Wu M, Wang M, Huo H (2006) Fuel-cycle assessment of selected bioethanol production pathways in the United States. Technical report. Center for Transportation Research, Energy Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory, USAGoogle Scholar
  54. Zah R, Böni H, Gauch M, Hischier R, Lehmann M, Wager P (2007) Life cycle assessment of energy products: environmental assessment of biofuels-executive summary. Technical report. Empa Technology and Society Lab, Switzerland, St. GallenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Clara Valente
    • 1
  • Andreas Brekke
    • 1
  • Ingunn Saur Modahl
    • 1
  1. 1.Ostfold ResearchKråkerøyNorway

Personalised recommendations