Peer reviewed article now available: Gaps in the evidence on the impact of sustainability certification schemes and labels on greenhouse gas emissions
by ISEAL Alliance Team
The STAR4BBS project is looking at the effectiveness and robustness of voluntary certification schemes and labels (CSLs) and how they can support a transition to a circular bio-based economy in the EU.
Given the EU’s sustainability agenda, an important question to ask in terms of effectiveness and robustness is whether these CSLs contribute to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. In 2023, several project partners worked together to identify and map the academic evidence currently available on that question.
As we shared before, we found that the academic evidence base is very limited and we concluded that it is insufficient to determine with certainty whether sustainability CSLs used in the bioeconomy reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
This research is important because:
– It reveals that we do not know with certainty how effective the many sustainability CSLs applicable to the bioeconomy are at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, especially those focused beyond raw material production; and
– By highlighting knowledge gaps, it helps focus further primary research on this question.
Where are the knowledge gaps?
– Individual CSLs. The STAR4BBS project has identified over a hundred CSLs applicable to the bio-based sector (energy, food, and feed are outside the scope of the project). While not all these schemes target greenhouse gas emissions, only 16 CSLs were reported in the evidence base.
– Stage of value chain. The evidence available is strongly focused on organic agriculture, palm oil and forestry products. There is a dearth of information on six of the products that have historically formed a large part of sustainability certification literature – cocoa, bananas, tea, coffee, cotton and sugarcane. Only the production stage is well represented; disposal and the use phase are particularly poorly represented in the evidence base.
– Geographic gaps. Existing literature is dominated by evidence from South-East Asia and parts of Europe. There are clear gaps for South and East Africa, Central America, India, Russia and the Philippines.
– Gases gaps. There are few studies reporting on the contribution of individual greenhouse gases, even where the individual gases have been listed in the article.
– Process gaps. It remains unclear how CSLs are specifically targeting greenhouse gas emissions as a desired outcome, though they do focus on many important enabling conditions. While many CSLs have greenhouse gas calculators (such as RSPO, MSPO, Bonsucro), which they require certified entities to use to track and manage
emissions, the impacts of these are not available publicly and have not been captured in the literature.
Read our article recently published in the journal Sustainability, where you can find more information on the evidence currently available and the knowledge gaps we identified.
