Best practices for comparative LCA of bio-based alternatives to fossil-based products

Abstract Purpose Substituting fossil-based products with bio-based alternatives is crucial for a sustainable bioeconomy. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies can provide valuable guidance on when and how the substitution is environmentally sound. However, careful consideration of technical, regulatory, and economic conditions is needed when performing such LCA studies. The present work aims to identify the best practices for conducting a comparative LCA of bio-based products intended to substitute fossil alternatives in five sectors: construction, packaging, textiles, chemicals, and woodworking. Methods The study is based on two literature reviews, one focusing on the identification of the key challenges in the substitution, and the other reviewing several comparative LCA studies to assess to what extent those challenges were accounted for in the analysis. The findings are used to derive recommendations for multiple stakeholders, primarily for LCA practitioners. Results and discussion Our analysis shows that while some types of bio-based products exhibit the same technical characteristics as their fossil-based counterparts, others present technical differences as well as differences in durability, and availability. Moreover, bio-based materials frequently require compensatory measures to achieve the same technical performance, such as exterior coatings in packaging. Overlooking those challenges in the comparative LCA can lead to biased comparisons. Conclusions A thorough accounting of the specific contextual conditions is needed in LCA studies comparing bio-based products versus fossil-based counterparts. Specific recommendations for best LCA practice are provided, by ISO phase, e.g., a clear functional equivalence specification and ensuring that the system boundaries include all activities needed to compensate for differences in functionality. Further quantitative and qualitative research on how following these recommendations can influence the adoption of bio-based products over fossil counterparts is recommended as well.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
Published
2026-08-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-026-02681-6
Primary Topic
Bioeconomy and Sustainability Development
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Best practices for comparative LCA of bio-based alternatives to fossil-based products

Fabio Sporchia, Massimo Pizzol, Ewa Katarzyna Lagodzka
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
Bioeconomy and Sustainability Development
article

Best practices for comparative LCA of bio-based alternatives to fossil-based products

Fabio Sporchia, Massimo Pizzol, Ewa Katarzyna Lagodzka
article en

Abstract

Abstract Purpose Substituting fossil-based products with bio-based alternatives is crucial for a sustainable bioeconomy. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies can provide valuable guidance on when and how the substitution is environmentally sound. However, careful consideration of technical, regulatory, and economic conditions is needed when performing such LCA studies. The present work aims to identify the best practices for conducting a comparative LCA of bio-based products intended to substitute fossil alternatives in five sectors: construction, packaging, textiles, chemicals, and woodworking. Methods The study is based on two literature reviews, one focusing on the identification of the key challenges in the substitution, and the other reviewing several comparative LCA studies to assess to what extent those challenges were accounted for in the analysis. The findings are used to derive recommendations for multiple stakeholders, primarily for LCA practitioners. Results and discussion Our analysis shows that while some types of bio-based products exhibit the same technical characteristics as their fossil-based counterparts, others present technical differences as well as differences in durability, and availability. Moreover, bio-based materials frequently require compensatory measures to achieve the same technical performance, such as exterior coatings in packaging. Overlooking those challenges in the comparative LCA can lead to biased comparisons. Conclusions A thorough accounting of the specific contextual conditions is needed in LCA studies comparing bio-based products versus fossil-based counterparts. Specific recommendations for best LCA practice are provided, by ISO phase, e.g., a clear functional equivalence specification and ensuring that the system boundaries include all activities needed to compensate for differences in functionality. Further quantitative and qualitative research on how following these recommendations can influence the adoption of bio-based products over fossil counterparts is recommended as well.

The International Journal of Life Cycle AssessmentVol. 31(9)
Aalborg University (DK)
Aalborg Universitet
Responsible consumption and production
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Bioeconomy and Sustainability Development
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.