Biodiversity is becoming an increasingly important part of sustainability assessments, but accurately measuring biodiversity impacts within life cycle assessments (LCA) remains a major challenge.
A new report from the Renewable Carbon Initiative (RCI), supported by nova-Institute, provides a detailed comparison of nine leading approaches for assessing terrestrial biodiversity impacts in LCA. The study finds that while significant methodological progress has been made, no single existing method currently provides a complete picture of biodiversity across all dimensions and major drivers of biodiversity loss.
Titled “Biodiversity in Sustainability Assessments – in Particular Life-Cycle-Assessments (LCA)”, the report reviews methods developed or substantially advanced over the past decade. The approaches examined include ReCiPe2016, IMPACT World+, LC-IMPACT, Product Biodiversity Footprint, Biodiversity Impact Assessment+, BioMAPS, Global Extinction Potential, UNEP-GLAM and Biodiversity Value Increment.
Assessing Biodiversity Through Multiple Approaches
The RCI study compares the nine methods across several criteria, including their ability to address different levels of biodiversity, coverage of major biodiversity-loss drivers, data requirements, regionalisation, methodological characteristics and practical usability.
The assessment highlights a significant limitation in the current landscape: none of the reviewed methods covers all three dimensions of biodiversity — species diversity, genetic diversity and ecosystem diversity — while also addressing all five major drivers of biodiversity loss.
These drivers include:
- Land and sea-use change
- Climate change
- Pollution
- Direct exploitation of organisms
- Invasive alien species
According to the report, progress has been substantial, but important gaps remain in data availability, uncertainty management, impact-pathway modelling and interpretation of results.
Biodiversity Assessment Remains Complex
The difficulty of incorporating biodiversity into LCA stems partly from the complexity of biodiversity itself. Unlike some environmental indicators that can be represented through relatively established metrics, biodiversity involves multiple ecological levels and geographically specific impacts.
Dr. Matthias Stratmann, Head of Sustainability at nova-Institut GmbH, said that although biodiversity has long been recognised as a critical sustainability issue, the ability to account for it comprehensively in LCA remains limited.
He noted that the report is not intended to provide a single solution but instead identifies the models and tools currently considered the most advanced. This can help practitioners select suitable approaches while providing researchers with a foundation for further methodological development.
UNEP-GLAM and BioMAPS Highlighted for Risk Screening
For high-level biodiversity risk screening, the report identifies UNEP-GLAM and BioMAPS as particularly relevant emerging approaches.
BioMAPS was also incorporated into the European Environmental Footprint methodology, strengthening its relevance for broader environmental assessment frameworks.
However, the authors caution against relying exclusively on LCA-based biodiversity indicators. They recommend combining LCA methods with a wider assessment toolkit that can include certification schemes, field measurements and site-specific biodiversity evaluations.
This broader approach can provide additional context and help overcome some of the limitations associated with modelling biodiversity impacts at the product or system level.
Method Selection Can Influence Sustainability Priorities
An important finding of the report is that the choice of biodiversity assessment method can influence which environmental hotspots are identified.
Different methodologies may produce different results because they use varying datasets, impact pathways, geographical assumptions and modelling approaches. As a result, the method selected can potentially influence strategic decisions, including where companies allocate sustainability investments and resources.
The authors therefore recommend conducting sensitivity analyses using multiple assessment methods where appropriate.
The report also advises caution when communicating biodiversity-related LCA results to consumers. Given the current methodological uncertainties, such results should not yet be used as the sole basis for consumer-facing environmental claims.
Implications for the Bioeconomy and Textile Industry
The findings are particularly relevant to industries increasingly using LCA to evaluate renewable materials, bio-based products, recycled materials and circular production systems.
For the textile and fibre industries, biodiversity assessment can become important when evaluating raw materials such as agricultural fibres, bio-based feedstocks and other renewable resources. A comprehensive assessment may need to consider not only carbon emissions but also land use, ecosystem impacts, resource extraction and other biodiversity-related factors.
The report reinforces the need for companies to take a multi-dimensional approach to sustainability, rather than relying on a single environmental indicator or assessment methodology.
First Part of Two-Part RCI Report Series
The RCI publication is the first part of a two-part series examining biodiversity in the context of biomass production and the bioeconomy.
The second report is expected to be published in autumn 2026 and is expected to further expand the discussion around biodiversity assessment in bio-based systems.
Overall, the latest RCI report shows that biodiversity assessment within LCA is progressing, but remains an evolving field. Until methodologies become more comprehensive and uncertainties are reduced, organisations will need to combine LCA with complementary tools and use results carefully when making sustainability decisions.