Summary
This case study demonstrates that methodological choice in biodiversity footprinting substantially influences which environmental impacts are identified as priorities within agricultural supply chains. By comparing two widely used LCIA approaches applied to a Dutch dairy multinational, the authors highlight critical gaps in methodological standardisation that could lead corporations to adopt sub-optimal biodiversity strategies. The work underscores the need for further methodological development and transparent uncertainty quantification to ensure biodiversity assessment tools drive meaningful action.
UK applicability
The findings are relevant to UK dairy enterprises and food corporations developing biodiversity strategies, as methodological uncertainty in footprinting affects prioritisation of mitigation actions. UK-based dairy importers relying on international feed sourcing would face similar trade-offs between land use and water-related impacts identified in this Dutch case.
Key measures
Biodiversity footprints using LC-IMPACT and ReCiPe2016 LCIA methodologies; attribution of impacts to land use change, water use, and greenhouse gas emissions
Outcomes reported
The study compared two life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methodologies—LC-IMPACT and ReCiPe2016—for quantifying biodiversity footprints in a large dairy multinational. Results showed substantial methodological differences in impact attribution, with LC-IMPACT emphasising land use change from imported feeds and ReCiPe2016 highlighting water use and on-farm emissions.
Topic tags
Dig deeper with Pulse AI.
Pulse AI has read the whole catalogue. Ask about this record, its theme, or how the findings apply to UK farming and policy — every answer cites the underlying studies.