acid, is growing fast [5, 18]. Furthermore, the valorisation of food waste for the
production of bioethanol, biogas, hydrogen and biodiesel has attracted increasing
attention [20].
4.3 LCA Applied to Bio-Economy Value Chains:
Future Challenges
The assessment of the environmental preferability of the different pathways is one
of the pillars of the proposed conceptual framework. On such purpose, the use of
LCA, based on LCT approach, has had large diffusion both in the research and in
the legislative fields. LCA, indeed, has been widely used to compare different waste
management and treatment options [22, 23] and to assess the environmental performance of various bio-economy value chains [24, 25]. Furthermore, LCT is at the
core of the European policies on waste management [6] to support the identification
of the most environmentally sound options. One of the main advantages of this
approach is the accounting of the so-called burden shifting, namely the transfer of
environmental impacts between environmental compartments or supply chain
stages, which may happen when pushing for resource efficiency. However, despite
LCA broad acceptance and diffusion, past experiences have highlighted some
shortcomings, which may limit a clear quantitative understanding of the environmental aspects of bio-economy value chains [25]. These shortcomings encompass
both the product system modelling and the impact assessment side.
As mentioned previously, the interest for the valorisation of food waste and
by-products as a resource is quite recent, therefore inventory data on innovative
recovery processes are currently lacking. Besides, when considering circular system, setting the system boundaries may not be straightforward, influencing considerably the results of the study [26, 27]. Allocation of impacts can be another
issue when dealing with food waste valorisation. Indeed, the production of food
waste or by-product is, per definition, not the first target of the food system.
Therefore, all the steps of the food supply chain, from primary production to
consumption, can be considered multi-functional processes delivering food and
food waste or by-products. The approach used to partition the impacts between
co-products, namely, e.g., system expansion, bio-physical allocation or economic
allocation, can importantly influence the LCA results and consequent considerations on food waste [28], limiting, therefore, their comparability [25]. Furthermore,
if allocation of the impacts is performed, the allocation criteria can influence
importantly the environmental performance of a bio-based product. For example, a
by-product, which is commonly disposed has no economic value, whereas if it
starts to be valorised as resource it would probably acquire economic value. If
economic allocation is performed, the environmental burden of the by-product will
increase together with its commercial value, with the potential risk of reaching or
overcoming the environmental impacts of the virgin material, which is supposed to
56
S. Corrado and S. Sala
production of bioethanol, biogas, hydrogen and biodiesel has attracted increasing
attention [20].
4.3 LCA Applied to Bio-Economy Value Chains:
Future Challenges
The assessment of the environmental preferability of the different pathways is one
of the pillars of the proposed conceptual framework. On such purpose, the use of
LCA, based on LCT approach, has had large diffusion both in the research and in
the legislative fields. LCA, indeed, has been widely used to compare different waste
management and treatment options [22, 23] and to assess the environmental performance of various bio-economy value chains [24, 25]. Furthermore, LCT is at the
core of the European policies on waste management [6] to support the identification
of the most environmentally sound options. One of the main advantages of this
approach is the accounting of the so-called burden shifting, namely the transfer of
environmental impacts between environmental compartments or supply chain
stages, which may happen when pushing for resource efficiency. However, despite
LCA broad acceptance and diffusion, past experiences have highlighted some
shortcomings, which may limit a clear quantitative understanding of the environmental aspects of bio-economy value chains [25]. These shortcomings encompass
both the product system modelling and the impact assessment side.
As mentioned previously, the interest for the valorisation of food waste and
by-products as a resource is quite recent, therefore inventory data on innovative
recovery processes are currently lacking. Besides, when considering circular system, setting the system boundaries may not be straightforward, influencing considerably the results of the study [26, 27]. Allocation of impacts can be another
issue when dealing with food waste valorisation. Indeed, the production of food
waste or by-product is, per definition, not the first target of the food system.
Therefore, all the steps of the food supply chain, from primary production to
consumption, can be considered multi-functional processes delivering food and
food waste or by-products. The approach used to partition the impacts between
co-products, namely, e.g., system expansion, bio-physical allocation or economic
allocation, can importantly influence the LCA results and consequent considerations on food waste [28], limiting, therefore, their comparability [25]. Furthermore,
if allocation of the impacts is performed, the allocation criteria can influence
importantly the environmental performance of a bio-based product. For example, a
by-product, which is commonly disposed has no economic value, whereas if it
starts to be valorised as resource it would probably acquire economic value. If
economic allocation is performed, the environmental burden of the by-product will
increase together with its commercial value, with the potential risk of reaching or
overcoming the environmental impacts of the virgin material, which is supposed to
56
S. Corrado and S. Sala