Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs)

A Life cycle assessment, (or analysis), is a multi-step evaluation process to detail the environmental effects of a product throughout its entire life. This is typically from ‘cradle-to-grave’, but in the case of materials, which are subsequently formed into a customer’s product, this is more likely to be ‘cradle-to-gate’. By revealing the environmental impacts, it enables a producer and/or their customers, to compare with other products and to identify focus areas for reduced impact.

In order to undertake a meaningful LCA, a product needs to have a constant, fully defined process, with measurable inputs and outputs. Performing an analysis on a product or process that is still subject to change can be futile, as each new change will require repeating what can be an expensive and lengthy LCA process.

It should not be assumed that biomaterials are inherently more sustainable. There is currently a lack of public LCAs in the biomaterial space. This speaks to the immaturity of biomaterial development; for most innovators it is still too early to perform such an analysis. Several things need to be in place for an LCA process to make sense:

• Has the innovator locked down the entire production process in a scalable system?
  
• Does the innovator have a way to accurately measure all inputs and outputs?
  
• Does the innovator have the funds and personnel to undertake an LCA?
  

How biomaterial startups are approaching LCAs

We are starting to see LCAs being published by some of the more established biomaterial startups. By ‘established’, we mean the companies in the table below were founded on average 11 years ago; still extremely young by industry standards. Most have published impact data of some kind only after 10 or more years into their innovation journey.

As our table below shows, initial impact data is being presented in various forms. From PDFs or blogs on company websites, to papers published in general or more scientific journals.

Earlier stage innovators may be attempting to track some impact data internally which they may or may not be prepared to share with brand partners.

Reasons why an innovator may want to wait to share impact data:

• They are still iterating on the process or are changing inputs and outputs
• They may not be able to easily track or measure data
• The team is too small / resources are too tight to implement a study
• They know the data will keep changing from bench to pilot to commercial

Innovators understand the importance of conducting an LCA, and often begin working early on to identify what data to track, but usually will wait to share findings until further on in their development journey. Since initial data may bear no relation to the final scaled process, innovators may be concerned they will be unfairly judged if compared with products that reached commercial scale decades ago and have had the benefit of decades of efficiency improvements.

Case Study: MycoWorks LCA

Of the initial LCAs published, some are problematic in multiple dimensions - we would caution brands to do further fact-checking. One recent example is the LCA published last year by MycoWorks.

• Includes qualitative not quantitative assessments
• Questionable validity of data sources
• Questionable validity of peer review
• Subjective and unmeasurable claims
• Out of date, inaccurate, or factually incorrect data re competitors