Alternative Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods for Biodiversity Footprinting Could Motivate Different Strategic Priorities: A Case Study for a Dutch Dairy Multinational
通过一家大型农业企业的案例，比较了两种生命周期影响评价方法（LC-IMPACT和ReCiPe2016）在生物多样性足迹上的差异，发现方法选择可能导致不同的企业战略重点，提示企业需谨慎处理方法不确定性。
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.