Alternative Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods for Biodiversity Footprinting Could Motivate Different Strategic Priorities: A Case Study for a Dutch Dairy Multinational

Abstract

The private sector is increasingly engaged in formulating biodiversity strategies that aim to achieve net‐positive outcomes. Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methodologies are a leading approach for quantifying ‘biodiversity footprints’, providing baselines for biodiversity mitigation strategies. However, differences between existing LCIA methods remain understudied in this context. Using a large agricultural organisation case study, we compared biodiversity footprints from two LCIA methodologies: LC‐IMPACT and ReCiPe2016. Results varied considerably, with LC‐IMPACT attributing the largest impacts to international land use change from imported livestock feeds and ReCiPe2016 highlighting the impacts from imported feeds related to other pathways, such as water use, alongside on‐farm GHG emissions. These differences suggest that using different methodologies could lead to substantially different corporate biodiversity strategies and sub‐optimal prioritisation. To design effective biodiversity strategies, corporations must address uncertainties in biodiversity footprinting methods, and further research is needed to ensure these methodologies drive effective action to combat global biodiversity loss.