Index

Executive Summary​ 4
1 Goal and Scope​ 5
1.1.​ Goal definition​ 6
1.1.1. Intended applications​ 6
1.1.2. Reason for carrying out the study and decision context​ 6
1.1.3. Target audience​ 6
1.1.4. Comparative studies to be disclosed to the public​ 7
1.1.5. Commissioner of the study and other influential actors​ 7
1.2 LCA Scope​ 8
1.2.1. Function, Functional unit and reference flow​ 8
1.2.2. Product system boundaries​ 8
1.2.3. Life Cycle Inventory modelling framework​ 10
1.2.4. Handling multifunctional processes/products​ 11
1.2.5. Life Cycle Inventory data requirements and quality​ 11
1.2.7. Special requirements for comparisons​ 11
1.2.8. Methodological procedures for Life Cycle Impact Assessment​ 12
1.2.9. Critical review​ 13
1.2.10 Results and report​ 13
2 Life Cycle Inventory Analysis​ 14
2.1. Product Systems and process description​ 14
2.2. Life Cycle Inventory Results​ 18
2.3. Life Cycle Inventory Analysis​ 21
2.3.1. Water consumption​ 21
2.3.2. Solid waste generation​ 23
2.3.3. Renewable and non-renewable resources​ 23
3 Life Cycle Impact Assessment​ 25
3.1. Life Cycle Impact Assessment​ 25
3.2. Comparative Analysis by Environmental Impact Category​ 27
3.1.1. Climate Change​ 27
3.1.2. Ozone Depletion​ 28
3.1.3. Resources Scarcity - Fossils​ 29
3.1.4. Land Use​ 30
3.1.5. Acidification​ 31
 3.1.6. Ecotoxicity​ 32
3.1.7 Eutrophication​ 33
3.1.8. Photochemical Ozone Formation​ 35
3.1.8. Human Health​ 36
3.3. Scenario Analysis​ 38
3.4. Hotspot Analysis​ 40
4 Interpretation​ 42
Executive Summary
Ver relatórios de mkensey
Fundação Ellen Macarthur
1. Goal and Scope
This chapter presents the goal and scope definition of the comparative
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of natural gas and eucalyptus wood chips
for hot air and steam production at Indaiatuba (SP-BR) Unilever site.

The goal and scope definition structure and procedure are based on
the ISO 140401, ISO 140442, and the International Reference Life Cycle
Data System (ILCD) Handbook - General guide for Life Cycle
Assessment - Detailed guidance3.

1
ISO 14040:2006. Environmental management — Life Cycle Assessment — Principles and
framework.
2
ISO 14044:2006. Environmental management — Life Cycle Assessment — Requirements and
guidelines.
3
EC-JRC-IES - European Commission - Joint Research Centre - Institute for Environment and
Sustainability: International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook - General
guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance. First edition March 2010. EUR 24708 EN.
Luxembourg. Publications Office of the European Union; 2010a.
1.1.​ Goal definition

1.1.1. Intended applications

Unilever intends to use the LCA results to compare the environmental

performance of two fuels: natural gas (actual) and eucalyptus wood
chips (potential) for the hot air and steam production process that
support the drying process and industrial plant at the Indaiatuba
(SP-BR) site.

The comparative analysis will support the decision from sustainability,

circular economy, supply chain, production system to strategic
perspectives, because the company will replace the current system
that uses natural gas as the fuel to a brand new one that uses biomass
from eucalyptus wood chips.

1.1.2. Reason for carrying out the study and decision context

The main reason for carrying out the study is to support the decision
making for changing the hot air and steam production system and
supply chain from natural gas to eucalyptus wood chips as the fuel.

The LCA results will be applied for the Unilever staff on marketing,
procurement, manufacturing, supply chain, quality, sustainability,
strategic, and environmental management departments. In other
words, the decision context includes managerial, directorial and C levels
of the company.

1.1.3. Target audience

The target audiences from Unilever are C-level, leaders of engineering,
quality, procurement, marketing, sustainability, environment, health,
and safety.

1.1.4. Comparative studies to be disclosed to the public

As a comparative LCA, if the information from this study will be

disclosed to the public, the results should be applied to a third part
(external) critical review.

1.1.5. Commissioner of the study and other influential actors

Name Role/Position Organization

Fabio Pollice Sponsor Unilever

Aldo Ometto LCA coordinator University of São Paulo

Diego Iritani LCA consultant Upcycle

Cinthia Rubio LCA consultant Upcycle

Carolina Singer Latin America Purchasing Unilever

Director

Marco Lazarini Purchasing Manager - Brazil Unilever

Iluska Lopes Engineering Director Unilever

Valéria Torrati Biomass Project Leader Unilever

Eduardo Valero Engineer Leader Unilever

Pedro Castellanos Biomass Project Manager Unilever

Bruna Negrini Lourençon EHS Manager Unilever

Matheus Rusca Eucalyptus Forest Manager COMBIO

Diego Vinicius Valentino Industrial Saler COMGAS

Paulo Scaf CEO COMBIO

Gustavo Marchezin CEO COMBIO

1.2 LCA Scope
1.2.2. Function, Functional unit, and reference flow

The function is the production of hot air and steam at the Indaiatuba
site, as described in section 1.2.1. For a prospective scenario (2022 year)
indicated by Unilever and according to the hot air, the slurry drying
process demands 20.7 Gcal of hot air per hour, while the steam
demand at the industrial plant is 2.1 Gcal per hour.

So, the functional unit is 20.7 Gcal of hot air produced per hour and 2.1
Gcal steam produced per hour.

The reference flow is based on the amount of Gcal/h of each fuel to

generate the function unit, indicated as 20.7 Gcal/h of hot air and 2.1
Gcal/h of steam, considering the energy system efficiency of natural gas
as 92,7% and for biomass 94,5%, the reference flows indicated by
Unilever are:

i)​ 8.6 t/h of eucalyptus wood chips per hour (corresponding to 24.1
Gcal/h);
ii)​ 2,854 Nm3/h, or 0.239 tons of natural gas per hour
(corresponding to 24.6 Gcal/h).

1.2.2. Product system and its boundaries

The system boundaries are based on cradle to gate of natural gas and
eucalyptus wood chips, from the elementary flows to the hot air and
steam production process. All processes of both product systems are
considered. All flows crossing the boundaries are exclusively elementary
flows and the reference product flow (hot air and steam). The
equipment construction processes and its supply chain (from raw
materials) are included for all processes of the foreground system,
excluding the equipment of hot air and steam production process in
the industry, due to missing data details of the new equipment for the
biomass from Uniliver.

The natural gas system is presented in Figure 1, and the eucalyptus

wood chips system is presented in Figure 2. Both product systems
include the elementary processes of the foreground system and
background system, as indicated in figures 1 and 2. The foreground
system and background system represent the Technosphere.

Figure 1: Product system of natural gas

 Figure 2: Product system of eucalyptus wood chips

1.2.3. Life Cycle Inventory modeling

In this study, we adopt the attributional Life Cycle Inventory (LCI)

modeling framework because the decision context is related directly to
the foreground product system. LCI modeling, data collection, and
treatment are based on ISO 140404, ISO 140445, International Reference
Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook - Specific guide for Life Cycle
6
Inventory data sets and Qualidata Guide7 – the Brazilian quality
guideline inventory standard.

4
ISO 14040:2006. Environmental management — Life Cycle Assessment — Principles and
framework.
5
ISO 14044:2006. Environmental management — Life Cycle Assessment — Requirements and
guidelines.
6
European Commission - Joint Research Centre - Institute for Environment and
Sustainability: International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook - Specific
guide for
Life Cycle Inventory data sets. First edition March 2010. EUR 24709 EN. Luxembourg.
Publications
Office of the European Union; 2010
7
Instituto Brasileiro de Informação em Ciência e Tecnologia. Guia Qualidata: requisitos de
qualidade de conjuntos de dados para o Banco Nacional de Inventários do Ciclo de Vida.
Elaborado por Thiago Oliveira Rodrigues, et al. – Brasília: Ibict, 2016. ISBN:
978-85-7013-119-5. Available on: <
http://acv.ibict.br/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Qualidata.pdf>
1.2.4. Handling multifunctional processes/products

It is not considered a multifunction process, as the product flows are

analyzed as combined products, and so, no allocation is needed.

1.2.5. Life Cycle Inventory data requirements and quality

The data of the foreground system of the eucalyptus production is

primary data from COMBIO (future eucalyptus wood chips supplier of
Unilever) because of the specific regional production conditions that
need to be modeled. The background system of the eucalyptus wood
chips processes are standards, and the data are secondary from
Ecoinvent 3.7.1.

Eucalyptus wood cultivation, wood chips production, and distribution

are representative of nowadays technologies used by local producers in
the State of Sao Paulo and are representative of 14 years of cultivation of
eucalyptus within two harvestings for each plantation (7 years
cultivation for each harvesting). For this case, data were collected
interviewing experts from COMBIO, because of the local visiting
restriction due to COVID-19 pandemy. It was considered the São Paulo
State overall data for land use change, due to COMBIO has not defined
yet the specific area where to produce the eucalyptus, but it will be in
an average of 100km distance from Indaiatuba, SP.

The natural gas system data, as technical standard processes data, is

secondary, from Ecoinvent 3.7.1 and treated according to the primary
parameters indicated by COMGAS (actual natural gas supplier of
Unilever), as distribution lines and product composition. According to
COMGAS, the natural gas used at the hot air and steam production at
Unilever Indaiatuba come from Bolivia (66%) and Bacia de Campos (RJ)
& Santos (SP) (34%).

Data from the hot air and steam production processes are calculated,
measured, and indicated by Unilever for a scenario of the 2022 year.

1.2.7. Special requirements for comparisons

For this comparison, the scope of both systems presents the same
parameters, as a functional unit, system border, cut off criteria,
inventory procedure, and life cycle impact assessment methods.

As a comparative LCA, if the information from this study will be

disclosed to the public, the results should be applied to a third part
(external) critical review.

1.2.8. Methodological procedures for Life Cycle Impact Assessment

The methodological procedure for Life Cycle Impact Assessment is

according to ISO 140408, ISO 140449, International Reference Life Cycle
Data System Recommended Life Cycle Impact Assessment methods10 ,
and European Commission Joint Research Centre Technical Report11.

8
ISO 14040:2006. Environmental management — Life Cycle Assessment — Principles and
framework.
9
ISO 14044:2006. Environmental management — Life Cycle Assessment — Requirements and
guidelines.
10
European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Characterisation factors of the ILCD Recommended Life Cycle Impact Assessment methods.
Database and Supporting Information. First edition. February 2012. EUR 25167. Luxembourg.
Publications Office of the European Union; 2012. Available on:
https://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/uploads/LCIA-characterization-factors-of-the-ILCD.pdf

11
Fazio, S. Castellani, V. Sala, S., Schau, EM. Secchi, M. Zampori, L., Supporting information to
the characterisation factors of recommended EF Life Cycle Impact Assessment methods, EUR
28888 EN, European Commission, ISPRA, 2018, ISBN 978-92-79-76742-5,
doi:10.2760/671368, JRC109369. Available on:
https://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/permalink/supporting_Information_final.pdf
The Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) method used in this study is
ILCD 2.0 (2018), an actual, international best practice class and scientific
LCIA method. The midpoint environmental impacts categories from
ILCD 2.0 (2018) used in this study are:

-​ Climate change
-​ Ozone Depletion
-​ Resource Scarcity – Fossils
-​ Land Use
-​ Acidification
-​ Ecotoxicity
-​ Eutrophication
-​ Photochemical Ozone Formation
-​ Human health

1.2.9. Critical review

As a comparative LCA, if the information from this study will be

disclosed to the public, the results should be applied to external critical
review.

1.2.10. Results and report

This report follows all the requirements of ISO 1404012 and ISO 1404413.

12
ISO 14040:2006. Environmental management — Life Cycle Assessment — Principles and
framework.
13
ISO 14044:2006. Environmental management — Life Cycle Assessment — Requirements
and guidelines.
2. Life Cycle Inventory Analysis
This chapter presents the results of the life cycle inventory analysis of
the natural gas and the eucalyptus wood chips for hot air and steam
production at the Indaiatuba (SP-BR) Unilever site.

The life cycle inventory analysis structure and procedure are based on
the ISO 1404014, ISO 1404415 , and the International Reference Life Cycle
Data System (ILCD) Handbook - General guide for Life Cycle
Assessment - Detailed guidance16.

During Life Cycle Inventory data collection, we adopted the ILCD

guidelines and quality system to assure the required data quality and
regional representativeness.

2.1. Product Systems and process description

2.1.1. Hot air and steam production by natural gas

Natural gas production (offshore): exploration and production of oil and

gas. include combusted fuels for turbines

Distribution via pipeline: According to the natural gas supplier, 64% of

the natural gas come from Bolivia to Unilever site from a 1,851 km
distance; 36% of the natural gas comes from Bacia de Campos – RJ to
the Unilever site from a 600 km distance. The pipeline and equipment
supply chain are included.

14
ISO 14040:2006. Environmental management — Life Cycle Assessment — Principles and
framework.
15
ISO 14044:2006. Environmental management — Life Cycle Assessment — Requirements
and guidelines.
16
EC-JRC-IES - European Commission - Joint Research Centre - Institute for Environment and
Sustainability: International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook - General
guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance. First edition March 2010. EUR 24708 EN.
Luxembourg. Publications Office of the European Union; 2010a.
Hot air and steam production: We consider a standard technology for
hot air and steam production by natural gas. Include treatment by
cyclone for the emissions to air due to natural gas combustion. The hot
air is consumed in the drying tower, where hot air mixes with liquid
detergent. Due to a lack of data about liquid detergent during the
drying process, all emissions are allocated to the main product system.

Diesel, electricity, and other resources on the background system were

considered in this study.

Figure 3 shows the product system of hot air and steam production by
natural gas.

Figure 3: Product system of natural gas

2.1.2. Hot air and steam production by Eucalyptus wood chips

Raw materials production: supply chains for shed, diesel, trailer, metal,
plastics, water treatment, steel, ammonium nitrate and sulfate,
potassium nitrate, glyphosate, pesticide, limestone, and gypsum all
agricultural equipment, tractor, and other machinery.

Eucalyptus production: The lasts 14 years with two harvesting events,

with a productivity of 472 tons of wood chips per hectare. The final
moisture content of storage is 35%. The species mainly cultivated is E.
urograndis. Estimating 20-year land use change and derived CO2
emissions associated with crops, pasture, and forestry in Brazil and each
of its 27 states. the activity starts with establishing the eucalyptus
plantation in the first year, covers the maintenance during six years, and
the first harvesting in the seventh. The operations are starting from the
seedling cultivation in a greenhouse of the region and transport to the
field, liming pit opening, seedling planting; Transportation consider an
average distance from eucalyptus production until Unilever site of 100
kilometers. Wood chips transportation is made by lorry.

Hot air and steam productionWe consider a standard technology for

hot air and steam production by biomass. Include treatment by cyclone
for the emissions to air due to biomass combustion. The hot air is
consumed in the drying tower, where hot air mixes with liquid
detergent. Due to a lack of data about liquid detergent during the
drying process, all emissions are allocated to the main product system.

Figure 4 shows the product system of hot air and steam production by
wood chips.
 Figure 2: Product system of eucalyptus wood chips.

2.2. Life Cycle Inventory Analysis

2.2.1. Life Cycle Inventory Results

Table 1 and Table 2 shows the life cycle inventory results of natural gas
and biomass product system, respectively. The LCI was calculated
according to the functional unit (the production of 20.7 Gcal of hot air
per hour and 2.1 Gcal of steam per hour) and to the reference flow (8.6
tons of wood chips per hour and 0.239 tons of natural gas).

Table 1 – Main elementary flows of the natural gas product system.

Input Quantity Unit

Natural Gas 3,055.15 m³ In ground
Water 373.10 m³ In water
Gravel 21.94 kg In ground
Hard Coal 18.40 Kg In ground
Crude Oil 14.54 Kg In ground
Iron 12.34 Kg In ground
Sand 8.10 Kg In ground
Calcite 6.00 Kg In ground
Shale 4.95 Kg In ground
Brown Coal 4.40 Kg In ground
Barium 2.19 Kg In ground
Energy (from hydropower) 89.85 MJ In water
Energy (from biomass) 11.70 MJ Biotic
Energy (from wind) 8.39 MJ In air​
Output Quantity Unit

Carbon Dioxide (fossil) 6,240.62 kg Emission to air

Radon-222 2981.00 kBq Emission to air
Noble Gases 746.42 kBq Emission to air
Water 372.00 m³ Emission to water
Dissolved solids 129.73 kg Emission to water
Waste Natural Gas 144.79 MJ Waste
Chloride 105.82 kg Emission to water
Table 2 – Main elementary flows of the biomass product system.

Input Quantity Unit

Water 6,751.00 m³ In ground
Water 291.00 m³ In water
Land 242.50 m².a Land
Carbon Dioxide 131.25 kg In air
Gravel 130.25 kg In ground
Crude Oil 74.11 Kg In ground
Calcite 23.44 Kg In ground
Hard Coal 19.58 Kg In ground
Shale 14.92 kg In ground
Natural Gas 12.21 Kg In ground
Sylvite 7.73 kg In ground
Bauxite 7.04 kg In ground
Iron 5.02 Kg In ground
Granite 4.64 Kg In ground
Sand 4.58 Kg In ground
Brown Coal 3.63 Kg In ground
Clay 1.98 Kg In ground
Sodium Chloride 1.74 Kg In ground
Phosphorus 1.51 kg In ground
Energy (from biomass) 51.36 MJ Biotic
Energy (from hydropower) 36.78 MJ In water
Energy (from wind) 6.56 MJ In air
Output Quantity Unit

Carbon Dioxide (biogenic) 12,448 kg Emission to air

Radon-222 2,233.95 kBq Emission to air
Noble Gases 584.36 kBq Emission to air
Water 294.57 m³ Emission to water
Carbon Dioxide (fossil) 278.73 kg Emission to air
Wood Ashes 200.00 kg Waste
Heat 235.25 MJ Emission to air
Also, table 3 and table 4 show the product and the intermediary flows
required to deliver the functional unit.

Table 3 – Product flows of the natural gas product system.

Product Amount Unit

Hot air 2,39E+05 kg
Natural Gas 2.186 kg
natural gas, high pressure 1.848 m3
Natural Gas 1.399 kg
natural gas, high pressure 1.027 m3
drying, natural gas 968 m3
natural gas, unprocessed, at extraction 878 m3
Natural Gas 787 kg
Sweet gas, burned in gas turbine 288 MJ
sweetening, natural gas 182 m3
electricity, high voltage 142 MJ
electricity, medium voltage 141 MJ
electricity, high voltage 91 MJ
sour gas, burned in gas turbine 62 MJ
electricity, high voltage 48 MJ
diesel, burned in diesel-electric generating set, 10MW 39 MJ
onshore well, oil/gas 0,00315 m
methanol 0,00097 kg
ethylene glycol 0,00061 kg
onshore natural gas field infrastructure 6,64E-07 Item(s)
Table 4 – Product flows of the biomass product system.

Product Amount Unit

Hot air 2,39E+05 kg
Eucalyptus wood chips 8.600 kg
Area 182 m2
Diesel, burned in agricultural machinery 167 MJ
Planting tree 20 Item(s)
Diesel, low-sulfur 19 kg
Lime 18 kg
Potassium fertiliser, as K2O 7 kg
ammonium sulfate, as N 6 kg
phosphate fertiliser, as P2O5 3 kg
tractor, 4-wheel, agricultural 0,88932 kg
diesel 0,69162 kg
lubricating oil 0,49105 kg
glyphosate 0,32828 kg
pesticide, unspecified 0,31886 kg
agricultural machinery, unspecified 0,26824 kg
agricultural trailer 0,06326 kg
Water, irrigation 0,06067 m3
water pump operation, electric 0,02848 MJ
harvesting, forestry harvester 0,02074 d
water pump operation, diesel 0,01627 MJ
wood chipping, forwarder with terrain chipper, in forest 0,01568 d
skidding, skidder 0,01497 d
irrigation 0,01095 m3
agricultural machinery, tillage 0,00708 kg
shed 0,00201 m2
extrusion, plastic pipes 0,00065 kg
injection moulding 0,0006 kg
polypropylene, granulate 0,0006 kg
polyethylene, low density, granulate 0,00049 kg
polyethylene, high density, granulate 0,00016 kg
shed, large, wood, non-insulated, fire-unprotected 7,32E-05 m2
garage, wood, non-insulated, fire-protected 6,92E-05 m2
metal working, average for steel product manufacturing 6,60E-05 kg
brass 3,76E-05 kg
steel, low-alloyed 2,73E-05 kg
cast iron 1,09E-06 kg
nylon 6-6 1,88E-07 kg

2.2.2. Water consumption

Regarding the water consumption, we considered water inputs from

the irrigation and natural consumption from the soil, according to
Ferraz et al. (2019), which consider 435 liters of water for each kilo of
biomass produced.

From the biomass product life cycle perspective, 96% of the water
consumption occurs on eucalyptus production; 0,1% of the water comes
from irrigation. Figure 4 shows the distribution of water consumption of
biomass product systems. The water consumption of the biomass
product system is 7,046.46 m³, while the natural gas product system
consumption is 373.1 m ³.
Figure 4. Water consumption percentage of biomass product system.​

Figure 3 shows the comparative results for the water consumption for
both product systems.

Figure 3. Water consumption relative results.

The biomass product system requires 20 times more water than the
natural gas product system.

2.2.3. Solid waste generation

In a comparative analysis, both product system generates low volume

of solid waste. The biomass product system produces 0.2 tons of solid
waste at biomass burning (wood ashes).

2.2.4. Renewable and non-renewable resources

Figure 5 and Figure 6 show the ratio of renewable and non-renewable

resources of natural gas and biomass product systems.

Figure 5. Ratio of renewable and non-renewable resources of natural gas product

system.

Figure 6. The ratio of renewable and non-renewable resources of the biomass product
system.
3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment
This chapter presents the Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) of the
comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of natural gas and eucalyptus
wood chips for hot air and steam production at Indaiatuba (SP-BR)
Unilever site.

The LCIA structure and procedure are based on the ISO 1404017, ISO
1404418 , and the International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD)
Handbook - General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed
guidance19.

3.1. Life Cycle Impact Results

Table 5 shows the main results of this LCA study: the environmental
impact potentials of biomass and natural gas product systems by
environmental impact categories.

Table 5. Life Cycle Impact Results of Biomass and Natural Gas product systems by
categories.

Indicator Biomass Natural Gas Unit

Climate Change 3.52 e+2 8.14 e+3 kg CO2-Eq

Ozone Layer Depletion 6.26 e-5 4.62 e-4 kg CFC-11-Eq
Resources (fossils) 4.19 e+3 1.09 e+5 MJ
Resources (land use) 2.13 e+4 4.79 e+2 points
Acidification 3.71 e+0 4.80 e+0 mol H+-Eq
Freshwater Ecotoxicity -7.38 e+3 2.72 e+3 CTU
Freshwater Eutrophication 3.85 e-2 2.98 e-1 kg P-Eq
Marine Eutrophication 2.94 e+0 8.35 e-1 kg N-Eq

17
ISO 14040:2006. Environmental management — Life Cycle Assessment — Principles and
framework.
18
ISO 14044:2006. Environmental management — Life Cycle Assessment — Requirements
and guidelines.
19
EC-JRC-IES - European Commission - Joint Research Centre - Institute for Environment and
Sustainability: International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook - General
guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance. First edition March 2010. EUR 24708 EN.
Luxembourg. Publications Office of the European Union; 2010a.
Terrestrial Eutrophication 1.74 e+1 8.78 e+0 mol N-Eq
Photochemical Ozone 4.11 e+0 4.72 e+0 kg NMVOC-Eq
Creation
Human Health 4.19 e-6 1.28 e-5 CTUh
Carcinogenic
Human Health -5.36 e-5 1.20 e-4 CTUh
Non-Carcinogenic
Human Health Respiratory 2.20 e-5 1.48 e-5 disease
Effects (inorganics) incidence
In general, the biomass product system presents a better
environmental performance on global environmental impact
assessment categories, while the natural gas product system presents a
better performance on regional/local ones.

Considering the Unilever sustainability strategy, the biomass product

system takes advantage: it has the potential of reduction on climate
change (up to 95%), ozone depletion (up to 87%), and resource scarcity
on fossil fuels (up to 97%).

Therefore, Unilever should pay attention to the regional environmental

impacts, due to the biomass product system could enhance
environmental impacts on acidification (up to 37%), eutrophication
(from 23 up to 86%) and photochemical ozone creation (up to 51%). Also,
the biomass product system increases the environmental impact on
land use (up to 98%).

Figure 7 shows an overview of the comparative LCIA results of both

product systems.

Figure 7. Comparative life cycle impact assessment of biomass and natural gas
product systems.
3.2. Comparative Analysis by Environmental
Impact Category
3.1.1. Climate Change

The climate change impact category measures the potential of global

warming by the accountability of emissions to air in CO2 eq. The ILCD
midpoint methodology considers the IPCC 2007 report for 100 years
modelling.

The biomass product system can reduce the climate change impact by
95.7%, mainly due to the use of biogenic fuel to produce hot air and
steam (Figure 8). In this case, most of the carbon emissions are not
considered as climate change impact since it is a biogenic source, it is
renewable.

However, there are some climate change contribution for this product
system due to the following processes: wood chips transportation via
lorry (42.3%); non-biogenic emissions in biomass burning (33.8%); diesel
combustion in agricultural machinery (27.5%); N2O gas emissions from
fertilizer application (15.6%), Global Warming Gas (GHG) emissions in the
fertilizer supply chain (10.3%) and in other processes (4.9%).

Figure 8. Comparative analysis for climate change – natural gas versus biomass
product system, and contribution of biomass product system impact by process.

Changing the fuel source from natural gas to biomass significantly

reduces the climate change potential impact. The new scenario
highlights a new hotspot for improvements: the GHG emissions from
wood chips transportation by lorry. For this, two issues should be
addressed: the distance from eucalyptus forest to Unilever site in
Indaiatuba, SP (see section 3.4 for an in-depth analysis); and the change
of diesel for this transportation.

3.1.2. Ozone Depletion

The ozone depletion impact category measures the potential of

depletion of the ozone layer by the accountability of substances that
contribute to ozone layer depletion. The ILCD midpoint methodology
considers the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) data sets.

The results of the LCIA show that the biomass product system also
presents a better performance to reduce the ozone depletion impact
up to 86.4% (Figure 9). Most of the remaining environmental impacts
are related to wood chips transport by lorry (52.2%), diesel combustion
in agricultural machinery (30.6%), emissions in the fertilizer supply chain
(10.7%) and emissions in other processes (6.5%).

Figure 9. Comparative analysis for ozone depletion – natural gas versus biomass
product system, and contribution of biomass product system impact by process.

In general, are the key process generating impact in this category,

mainly due to methane emissions20 in transport and agricultural
machinery use. In order to reduce this environmental impact, Unilever
should address a new sources of energy for these processes.

20
Emissions of methane, bromotrifluoro – Halon 1301.
3.1.3. Resources Scarcity - Fossils

The resources depletion of fossils impact category represents a

midpoint impact assessment of fossils scarcity, measured in MJ (net
calorific value). The ILCD methodology considers the World Energy
Council recommendations to calculate the environmental impact in
this category.

Figure 10. Comparative analysis for resource scarcity, fossils – natural gas versus
biomass product system, and contribution of biomass product system impact by
process.

As showed in Figure 10, the same pattern is noted: to reduce resource

scarcity, Unilever should investigate new sources of fuels as an
alternative to diesel.

3.1.4. Land Use

The land use impact category measures how intensive a process is in ,
and ILCD adopts the methodology developed by Mila I Canals et al.
(2007) and UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. In summary, the land use
category considers elementary flows for land occupation and
transformation.

As expected, the results show intensive use of land for the biomass
product system compared to natural gas (a potential impact up to 50
times higher), as shown in Figure 11. A major part of this potential
impact is related to eucalyptus production.

Figure 11. Comparative analysis for land use – natural gas versus biomass product
system, and contribution of biomass product system impact by process.

According
to ILCD

environmental impact methodology,

biodiversity is not considered in this assessment. Although, it is
expected some improvements in terms of biodiversity: first, from
eucalyptus forest land use, especially if there is a land transformation
from pasture; second, from legal compliance, which requires the
preservation or restoration of agricultural areas – a minimum of 20% of
total area have to be a native forest.

Regarding land use, Unilever could work close with suppliers to

improve the quality of land use to promote a regenerative supply chain,
resulting in positive impacts on biodiversity and climate change.

3.1.5. Acidification

Acidification measures the potential to contribute to acid rain, and it is

mainly caused by air emissions of NH3, NO2 and SOx. The ILCD
methodology considers Seppalla et al. (2006) and Posch et al. (2008) to
calculate the potential of acidification.

Figure 12 shows the comparison of the acidification potential of natural

gas and biomass product systems. The results show a reduction of up
to 33% for biomass product systems.

Figure 12. Comparative analysis for acidification – natural gas versus biomass product
system, and contribution of biomass product system impact by process.
The contribution analysis shows that fertilizer application is the hotspot
in this category, representing 41% of the total impact, followed by wood
chips transport by lorry (27.3%), agricultural machinery use (13.6%) and
hot air and steam production in Unilever site (8.1%). The main flow
which generates impact in this category is nitrogen oxides.

In order to obtain better results, Unilever could evaluate non-traditional

ways of forest management and natural fertilizers and alternative fuels
to diesel.

3.1.6. Ecotoxicity

The ILCD methodology considers the USETox™ factors, representing

the toxic effect on aquatic freshwater species in the water column.
Impacts on other ecosystems, including sediments, are not reflected in
current general practice.

The biomass product systems positively impact ecotoxicity due to their

ability to remove copper and zinc from the soil during the eucalyptus
growing (Figure 13). Note that this study does not consider the
end-of-life of wood chip ashes after the hot air production – which
means that the potential impact in ecotoxicity could change according
to the use of ashes.

Figure 13. Comparative analysis for ecotoxicity – natural gas versus biomass product
system.
3.1.7 Eutrophication

Eutrophication means the excessive richness of nutrients in a lake or

other body of water, frequently due to runoff from land, which causes a
dense growth of plant life and death of the animal from lack of oxygen.
The ILCD methodology has three subcategories of eutrophication:
terrestrial, freshwater, and marine. The main flows that contribute to
this category are Nitrogen and Phosphor.

In general, the biomass product system has a larger impact than the
natural gas product system, mainly due to fertilizers and the emissions
of wood chip transport. Figure 14, figure 15 and figure 16 show the result
in each subcategory.

Figure 14. Comparative analysis for terrestrial eutrophication – natural gas versus
biomass product system, and contribution of biomass product system impact by
process.
Figure 15. Comparative analysis for freshwater eutrophication – natural gas versus
biomass product system, and contribution of biomass product system impact by
process.

Figure 16. Comparative analysis for marine eutrophication – natural gas versus
biomass product system, and contribution of biomass product system impact by
process.
3.1.8. Photochemical Ozone Formation

Ozone at low atmosphere is toxic to human life, and some emissions

could contribute to its formation by photochemical reactions. The key
element in this category is Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs),
especially the non-methane VOCs. The ILCD methodology considers
ReCiPe 2008 data sets to calculate the impact of photochemical ozone
formation.

The biomass product system presents a lower potential impact for

photochemical ozone formation, up to 14% less than the natural gas
product system (Figure 17). While in the natural gas product system, the
environmental impacts occur during production, the biomass product
system presents relevant emissions during fertilizer application (68.8%),
wood chips transport by lorry (14.5%), hot air production (9.8%), and the
agricultural machine uses (8.3%).
 Figure 17. Comparative analysis for photochemical ozone formation – natural gas
versus biomass product system, and contribution of biomass product system impact
by process.

3.1.8. Human Health

The human health category measures the potential impact of

emissions on human health. The ILCD methodology has three
subcategories based on USEtox, as shown below: carcinogenic and
non-carcinogenic, which the key metric is CTUh21, and respiratory
effects, measured in disease incidence.

In terms of carcinogens, the biomass product system has a lower

potential impact, reducing up to 68.4% compared to the natural gas
product system (Figure 18). The remaining impact occurs due to
emission in wood chips transport by lorry (29.3%), fertilizer application
(29.2%), agricultural machinery use (19.7%), and fertilizer supply chain

21
CTUh = comparattive toxic units in humans, the estimated increase in morbidity in
the total human population, per unit mass of a chemical emitted.
(17.8%). The emitted key elements are chromium, formaldehyde, arsenic
and mercury.

Figure 18. Comparative analysis for human health - carcinogenic – natural gas versus
biomass product system, and contribution of biomass product system impact by the
process.

In terms of non-carcinogens, the biomass product system has a positive

impact, mainly due to eucalyptus growing, which captures zinc from
soil (Figure 19). Note that this study does not consider the end-of-life of
wood ashes, which could change the environmental impact for this
category.

Figure 19. Comparative analysis for human health – non-carcinogenic – natural gas
versus biomass product system, and contribution of biomass product system impact
by the process.
In terms of respiratory effects, inorganics, the biomass product system
increases the natural gas product system (Figure 20). The hotspot is the
wood chips transport by lorry, representing 68.1% of the potential
impact on the biomass product system. Other relevant emissions occur
in the fertilizer supply chain (10%), fertilizer application (9.5%) and
agricultural machinery use (8%)

Figure 20. Comparative analysis for human health – respiratory effects, inorganics –
natural gas versus biomass product system, and biomass product system impact by
process.
3.3. Scenario Analysis
The baseline scenario considered in this study is 100 kilometers
between Unilever site and eucalyptus production. In order to
understand the contribution in each environmental category, we
considered two alternative scenarios: 50 and 150 kilometers of distance,
the same conditions as the baseline scenario. Figure 21 shows the
comparative analysis.

Figure 21. Scenario analysis for three distances: 50, 100 (baseline), and 150 kilometers to
transport wood chips.
As expected, the 50 km scenario has the best performance and the 150
km has the worst. Note that some categories present major variations,
such as human health respiratory effects (33%), resources scarcity fossils
(27%), ozone depletion (26%) and climate change (21%).

Another additional analysis was conducted considering forest

management practices. The baseline is the current practices adopted
according to the Brazilian legal issues: 20% of the total area must be a
native forest. The second scenario is modeled considering 40% of the
total area as native forest, preserved. The results show a reduction of 11%
on climate change impacts, and compared to natural gas, the
reduction moves from 95.7 to 96.2% (Figure 22).

Note that we consider only land use change according to BR LUC

methodology.

Figure 22. Scenario analysis for forest management practices: 20 and 40% of native
forest preserved.
3.4. Hotspot Analysis
Figure 23 shows the results of hotspot analysis to the biomass product
system, highlighting the top 3 processes which contribute by
environmental category.

The results show that wood chips transport figure as a first or second
top contributor in all categories, so it must have in Unilever’s action
program. Note that the distance between the Unilever site and the
eucalyptus forest influences all environmental categories, as shown in
section 3.3. Other relevant processes are the fertilizer application during
eucalyptus forest maintenance, the agricultural machinery use and the
fertilizers supply chain.

Figure 23. The hotspot analysis for the biomass product system.
1st

2nd

3rd
4. Interpretation
This chapter presents the interpretation of the comparative Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) of natural gas and eucalyptus wood chips for hot air
and steam production at the Indaiatuba (SP-BR) Unilever site.

The interpretation structure and procedure are based on the ISO 14040
22
, ISO 1404423 , and the International Reference Life Cycle Data System
(ILCD) Handbook - General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed
guidance24.

The main goal of this study was to compare the environmental

performance of two fuels: natural gas (actual) and eucalyptus wood
chips (potential) for the hot air and steam production process that
support the drying process and industrial plant at the Indaiatuba
(SP-BR) site.

Regarding the life cycle inventory analysis, the key points are:

●​ The biomass product system requires a larger amount of water

from the environment, which means 4,049.63 m³ of water, while
natural gas requires just 376.20 m³.
●​ The biomass product system has 93% of its flows as renewables,
while the natural gas product system has just 3%.

The results show that the eucalyptus wood chips product system
presents a better environmental performance in global categories, such
as climate change, ozone depletion, resource scarcity – fossils. Also, it

22
ISO 14040:2006. Environmental management — Life Cycle Assessment — Principles and
framework.
23
ISO 14044:2006. Environmental management — Life Cycle Assessment — Requirements
and guidelines.
24
EC-JRC-IES - European Commission - Joint Research Centre - Institute for Environment and
Sustainability: International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook - General
guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance. First edition March 2010. EUR 24708 EN.
Luxembourg. Publications Office of the European Union; 2010a.
has a lower environmental impact in ecotoxicity, human health
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic, and photochemical ozone
creation.

Considering Unilever’s sustainability strategy and its material issues,

including global warming, the biomass product system reduces the
environmental impact drastically.

However, this study shows that some issues deserve attention:

1.​ The biomass product system still contributes to global warming

with a 352 kg CO2 equivalent per hour25.
2.​ The potential of environmental impact in eutrophication, land
use, human health – respiratory effects will increase.
3.​ The results in this report could change depending on the
distance from eucalyptus production to the Unilever site, as
shown in section 3.3.

The comparative analysis presented here supports the decision from

sustainability, circular economy, and strategic perspectives since the
company will replace the current system that uses natural gas for a
brand new that uses biomass from eucalyptus wood chips. The new
fuel system will improve de environmental performance in the major
environmental categories.

The limitations of this study include:

●​ This study does not assess the impact on biodiversity in both

product systems.
●​ Due to the lack of data and unknown end-of-life treatment for
wood ashes, this flow was not considered in this study.

Considering the LCA results, we recommend:

25
Considering the functional unit and specification detailed in section 1.2.1.
●​ Although the biomass product system is more regenerative and
renewable than natural gas, it requires more than ten times the
amount of water. Thus, we recommend in-depth research in loco
to measure water use and consumption, including the water
availability in the region and forest management practices to
improve water retention in the hydrographic basin.
●​ Develop research about biodiversity impact in the São Paulo
region considering the area of eucalyptus production.
●​ Develop a circular economy program to address the hotspots
such as transportation and fertilizer application, moving from
traditional and linear supply chains to circular and regenerative
ones, investing in transport based on non-fossil fuels, and
regenerative and organic agricultural practices.
●​ Conduct a cradle-to-cradle Life Cycle Assessment of products
related to the use of hot air and steam in Unilever to understand
the whole picture and how the fuel change contributes to the
environmental impacts.