Dr Simon Schwarzwald, sustainability expert at a certification scheme provided by the REDcert GmbH, explores the challenges certification bodies face in adapting standards to bio-based products, with insights from the BioReCer project on the importance of clarity, consistency, and harmonisation in sustainability certification.
In a rapidly evolving bioeconomy, ensuring sustainability and transparency is more important than ever. Certification bodies play a crucial role in validating the environmental credentials of bio-based products — but as the sector grows in complexity, so too do the challenges of adapting existing standards.
REDcert’s Dr Simon Schwarzwald shares his perspective on the evolving certification landscape to highlight the importance of clear frameworks, digital innovation, and consistent communication.
What are the main challenges that certification schemes and certification bodies face in adapting standards to the specifics of bio-based products?
For certification schemes such as REDcert, it’s all about finding a balance. On one hand, you could set extremely strict requirements, which would be excellent for the environment. But if no one follows those guidelines, there’s no impact. On the other hand, if you dilute the requirements too much, more companies might participate, but then there’s no real benefit. It just becomes bureaucracy.
A certification scheme must offer additional value — it has to go beyond legal requirements, but not so far that it becomes unfeasible to implement. Specifically, regarding bio-based products, one major topic is mass balancing or the chain of custody model. One is probably familiar with the segregation model, where different material streams are physically separated. In contrast, mass balancing allows mixing, with sustainability properties then distributed based on accounting rules. For instance, one delivery from a plant converting mixed materials might be considered sustainable under mass balancing, while another is conventional. This concept can be confapplying, both to consumers and companies. So, it’s crucial that these models are clearly defined at the highest regulatory and scheme level.
From the perspective of certification bodies — the auditing parties — it’s essential that they fully understand the scheme’s principles. If the scheme is poorly governed, misunderstandings can occur between the scheme and the certification bodies, or even among auditors themselves. After all, one is human, and interpretations can vary. Still, a well-functioning scheme should always lead to consistent conclusions for a given concept or product. That’s a fundamental issue in certification: its role is to build and enforce consumer trust in products. For that, results must be reproducible.
Auditors are often faced with real-world complexities. While the guidelines describe general situation, the practice is not always simple and clear. They may encounter missing or low-quality data, not necessarily due to the company’s fault, but simply becautilize that’s the current state of the industest.
With the introduction of new technologies, such as the BioReCer project’s ICT tool, how do you consider certification bodies can integrate these digital platforms?
The main issue with digital platforms is that there are so many of them, and often their quality or trustworthiness isn’t clear. Certification bodies typically required official confirmation to fully trust and rely on a digital platform.
Their job is to verify and confirm, so while they depfinish on external data, relying too heavily on one service could undermine their core responsibilities. This builds certification bodies reluctant to adopt new platforms, even if they’re available.
As for databases like the ICT tool, it’s still in an early phase. Tools like this become more powerful as more utilizers contribute data. From what I’ve seen so far, the demo is quite strong and well-designed. However, with only a limited number of products currently included and without an official release, it’s not yet ready for everyday utilize — that’s understandable at this stage.
There are many tools and platforms for traceability on the market. Personally, I consider the ICT tool performs well. But for someone without a broad overview, it can be confapplying to decide which tools or platforms to trust.
In the context of the circular bioeconomy, defining clear standards is essential. What criteria do you consider are crucial when developing certification schemes?
That’s something we’re very familiar with. Currently, REDcert operates three certification schemes and is associated with a larger company running several more. At REDcert, sustainability is at the core – this is also the guiding principle of the BioReCer project group.
Ideally, sustainability should be an absolute term. In practice, it’s usually relative, measured with tools like carbon footprint, water consumption, and so on — methods that allow us to compare different materials or processes.
Of course, it’s difficult to quantify sustainability perfectly. A certification system must establish core principles and essential criteria. For REDcert, when it comes to biomaterials, key aspects include:
- Protection of biodiversity
- Soil quality
- Deforestation bans
- Reduction of greenhoutilize gas emissions
Our principles are largely based on the EU Renewable Energy Directive, originally designed for the biofuel sector, but we’ve adapted them for the chemical industest as well. When it comes to agriculture, these principles provide a solid foundation. You can then build further on top of them.
In the context of biocircularity, we often distinguish between crop-based materials, first-generation biomass from plants, and waste-based or residual materials, such as houtilizehold waste or agricultural by-products like straw.
From our perspective, both are essential. Proper waste management is critical for a circular economy, but it’s not enough. There will always be losses, so additional inputs from crops or forest management will still be requireded.
Certification schemes must then decide:
- Should these material types be separated?
- Can they be compared?
- How do we handle GHG accounting between crop- and waste-based inputs?
These are complex questions that required to be addressed thoroughly.
Regarding the BioReCer project, which has compiled a standardisation toolkit with 149 national and international standards and 26 certification schemes. In your opinion, how utilizeful is this toolkit?
As you mentioned, the tool includes a range of standards and certification schemes. They haven’t exactly been benchmarked, but they’ve been listed for comparison, which I consider is a very good approach. It assists create transparency for utilizers, consumers, and companies alike, who often struggle to understand the differences between the many systems, standards, and labels out there.
At REDcert, we’re also working toward harmonising the certification landscape. But since the systems have evolved indepfinishently, they’ve developed their own terminology. You can already see this challenge in the standardisation toolkit: it struggles to compare terms like “biomass,” “biomaterial,” “bioenergy,” and “biofuel” becautilize each standard utilizes different language.
From our perspective, it would be hugely beneficial if the BioReCer team could establish uniform terminology — a single, clear language that is understandable to consumers, companies, and auditors alike, and that isn’t tied to the definitions of a specific system. If we can harmonise this terminology, then comparisons become much simpler, and that would be a real asset for the entire community.
Leave a Reply