Privacy Policy
Skip to main content
FocusNews

Mapping on the impact of certification schemes and labels to GHG emissions reductions

By 26 Feb. 2024No Comments

Do sustainability certification schemes and labels, used in the bioeconomy, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions?  As part of our project, ISEAL and Evidensia asked this question in a recent systematic mapping study.  The mapping covered all value chains in the bioeconomy, except biofuel and bioenergy products, and sought to find where there were significant knowledge gaps in this field.

 

The evidence base
We found that the academic evidence base is very limited, with a significant lack of representation from the full breadth of certifications and labels, most sectors and products, most parts of the life cycle, and many geographies.  The mapping’s evidence is dominated by evidence from South-East Asia and parts of Europe, with a strong focus on organic agriculture, palm oil and forestry products.  The mapping is also dominated by research on the production of feedstocks, with little included on products in the manufacturing stage and onwards.

 

Evidence gaps

There is a lack of literature in academic journals on the impact of relevant CSLs and labels on GHG emissions in six of the products that have historically formed a large part of the sustainability certification literature: cocoa, bananas, tea, coffee, cotton, sugarcane.  Comparing the spread of studies in the current evidence base with the geographic representation of studies in the Evidensia library, it is clear that there are evidence gaps for South and East Africa, Central America, India, Russia and the Philippines.  Are you working in any of these areas or with any of these products?

 

It was also unclear from the review, specifically how schemes target GHG emissions as an outcome of interest, though they do focus on many important enabling conditions.  While many schemes have GHG calculators (RSPO, MSPO, Bonsucro) that they require certified entities to use to track and manage emissions, the impact of these are not available publicly and have not been captured in the literature.  Are you producing evidence on a new tool or relevant approach?

 

Implications
Determining whether certifications and labels used in the bioeconomy reduce GHG emissions is a complex and content-dependent question.  There is insufficient robust evidence across the value chain, sectors and geographic regions in the current evidence base to definitively answer this question without further primary research.  Let us know if you are working on this field and what you have found!

 

Although GHG emissions are being incorporated as a key concern for some schemes and labels, schemes could work to better clarify their causal pathways of change on GHG emissions, and links to their standards.  Investing in more impacts’ research and making this available to the public and academic community would go a long way in enabling evidence-informed decision-making, and schemes and labels’ adoption.  The field would also benefit heavily from the data schemes begin to produce on their own processes and tools, and from their own reporting on it.   If you are a scheme or label, let us know if you are working on new ways to capture your impact!