Biorefineries as a driver for sustainability: Key aspects, actual development and future prospects

Journal of Cleaner Production 418 (2023) 137925 Available online 19 July 2023 0959-6526/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bync/4.0/). Biorefineries as a driver for sustainability: Key aspects, actual development and future prospects Ana Arias * , Gumersindo Feijoo, María Teresa Moreira CRETUS, Department of Chemical Engineering, School of Engineering, University of Santiago de Compostela, 15782, Santiago de Compostela, Spain ARTICLE INFO Handling Editor: Tomas B. Ramos Keywords: Sustainability Certification schemes Sustainability criteria Standardization Indicators Biorefinery ABSTRACT The overexploitation of resources, the increase of the world population and the trend of consumption based on “use and throw away” is causing an increasing pressure on waste management. In this sense, it is necessary to promote sustainable practices in the valorization of waste streams as a strategy for the co-production of bioproducts and bioenergy. This approach can lead to more sustainable production chains, as lower environmental burdens are expected. However, even if a promising cascade production technology could be used, the technical and economic feasibility of biorefineries remains a challenge. This report aims to provide various insights on how to assess biorefineries from a sustainability perspective, including also available standards and guidelines that enable reliable, accurate and transparent sustainability assessments. It also shows where to focus for the inclusion of biorefineries in the value chain, for communicate/visualize their potential, and for the promotion of bio-based products from recovered resources. The outcomes and main conclusions of this report could be summarized as the importance and the need of assessing biorefinery scenarios under a sustainable perspective to have an increased market potential, considering the main aspects available on the international guidelines, certification schemes and voluntary standards. 1. Introduction Consumption patterns leading to uncontrolled generation of waste are becoming a major management environmental problem. This implies the need to develop new production models that use these wastes as raw materials for the manufacture of other goods. These “recovered or revalued” products could be considered suitable to enter the market value chain, from the multicriteria point of view based on environmental protection, economic profitability and social acceptance (Nizami et al., 2017). In this framework, the development of biorefineries is contemplated a key with a win-win approach. Lignocellulosic wastes are converted into valuable bioproducts, such as biofuels or bio-based chemicals, and in addition, the management of a huge amount of waste is avoided, favoring the circularity of resources and avoiding the impacts derived from end-of-life treatments or disposal (Sauer et al., 2014). On the other hand, the selection of one type of biorefinery or another will depend on the characteristics, resource availability in terms of the type of waste generated, the technology available and the demands of society in terms of bioproducts with market penetration potential (Nizami et al., 2017; Saha and Mukhopadhyay, 2020). In this sense, future biorefineries should be developed taking into account the integral use of biomass feedstock, to meet circular economy criteria on waste reduction, making full use of available resources and ensuring market opportunities for bioproducts, taking into account both demands and competition with their counterparts. Furthermore, as one of the main bottlenecks in the development of a biorefinery scheme is the technical and economic feasibility, the integration of mass and energy flows, together with the optimization of resource use, must be addressed. The main advantage of using bio-based waste materials is that it encourages the integrated use of resources, favoring circular economy strategies: recycling, reusing and remanufacturing, among others. Several reports have evaluated the use of food waste, lignocellulosic waste, municipal solid waste, paper waste and manure as the main bio-based resources to produce chemicals, biofuels and bioplastics, among others (Arias et al., 2022; Khatami et al., 2021; Lettner et al., 2018; Sepúlveda et al., 2021). Thinking about the main concepts of the circular bioeconomy with the use of waste feedstocks allows the development of a holistic approach in which environmental, social and economic pillars are evaluated (Ubando et al., 2020). The development of biorefineries has intensively increased in the last * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Arias). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Cleaner Production journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137925 Received 5 April 2023; Received in revised form 22 May 2023; Accepted 26 June 2023 Journal of Cleaner Production 418 (2023) 137925 2 decade given their potential to contribute to the circular economy through the comprehensive use of resources and the objective of extending their useful life (Parada et al., 2018). A large number of biorefineries have started to use waste streams to obtain high value-added products, instead of directly using virgin renewable materials, such as the case of dedicated energy crops (first-generation biofuels). On the other hand, the development of biorefineries could help to promote rural and regional development, a key factor when assessing the social pillar of sustainability, and to avoid the dependence on delocalized resources and goods in the global value chain (Muntoni, 2019; Parada et al., 2018). The potential for biorefineries is expected to grow in the coming years, as it is estimated that the demand for bioproducts could reach 113 Mt/year by 2050, expecting an annual growth rate of 15%. List of acronyms SCL Standardization, qualification, and labelling GHG Greenhouse gases LCA Life Cycle Assessment SDG Sustainable Development Goals CoC Chain Of Custody FSC Forest Stewardship RED Renewable Energy Directive LC Life Cycle GRI Global Reporting Initiative PEFC Programme for the Endorsement of Forest ISCC International Sustainability and Carbon Certifications RSB Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials ISO International Organization for Standardization PEF Product Environmental Footprint LCC Life Cycle Cost JRC Joint Research Center DPSIR Driving ForcesPressuresStagesImpactsResponses PSR Pressure-State-Response ESS Ecosystem Services Cascade ML Machine Learning AI Artificial Intelligence BBI Bio-Based Industries Initiative LCSA Integrated Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment RACER Relevant-Accepted-Credible-Easy to monitor-Robust EEA European Environment Agency ISPRA Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research Fig. 1. Feedstock used for multiproduct biorefineries in the European context (the numbers represent the amount of biorefineries per type of feedstock and country). Own elaboration by using the European Commission database (Parisi et al., 2020). A. Arias et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 418 (2023) 137925 3 Nonetheless, entrepreneurs and stakeholders need to be aware of the minimum size of biorefineries to ensure that they are economically sustainable and profitable. It has been reported that, approximately, 50⋅10 4 –70⋅10 4 t/year is the minimum production capacity to ensure the potentiality of biorefineries in the market, a threshold that could be reduced when waste streams are used as inputs (Muntoni, 2019). But, on the other hand, some authors have claimed that the development of small-scale biorefineries is as well beneficial to foster the economic, environmental and social welfare of the workers and citizens living in nearby neighborhoods. The reason behind this assertion within the economic pillar is that costs associated with transportation, processing and disposal are being avoided, which has a positive impact on profitability (reduced costs imply higher profits) (Ding and Grundmann, 2022). This is at the same time related to the environmental aspect, as emissions derived from the aforementioned activities are avoided, and finally, for the social pillar, the development of small local biorefineries will contribute to job creation and to incentivize farmers to be more sustainable in agricultural activities (i.e., increase crop yields, reduce the amount of fertilizers and pesticides, more sustainable use of water sources, etc.) (Solarte-Toro and Cardona Alzate, 2021). In this regard, how are these already commercial biorefineries being developed? Depending on the type of feedstock, the most used feedstocks for multiproduct biorefinery are agricultural, followed by forestry and residues (Fig. 1). The reason behind this is that most of the biofuels currently produced are first generation, so crops are harvested directly for energy issues, rather than for food production. Given the discussion between the food and biofuel sectors, and the need to ensure security of food supply to community needs, there is a need for a transition to second and third generation biofuels and bioproducts, using forests, waste streams and marine resources. On the other hand, instead of focusing only on the type of feedstock most used for biorefinery facilities, it is as well important to analyze the type of products obtained. As depicted in Fig. 2, the bio-based product that stands out is chemicals, followed by biofuels and the production of composites and fibers, with Germany being the region where a gross amount of biorefineries are producing them, followed by France and the Netherlands. Examples include Alberta Pacific Forest Industries, which uses wood as a feedstock to produce not only pulp, but biomethanol, heat and electricity, with a production capacity of 765 ktons of wood/ day. In terms of multiple bio-based feedstocks in the same production plant, Maabjerg Energy uses wood chips, manure, sewage sludge, municipal solid waste and straw as feedstocks to co-produce biomethane, bioethanol (approx. 80–103 m 3 /year), fertilizer, electricity and heat. Another example of this multiple production scheme is ZeaChem, which uses various cellulosic feedstocks (wood waste, wheat straw, corn stover) to produce bioethanol and ethyl acetate ester, with a production capacity of 10 tons/day (Cardona-Alzate et al., 2020). But, although biorefinery production schemes are already starting to develop into large-scale production capacities, there is still a long way to go. In fact, less than 2% of lignocellulosic waste is used as feedstock to produce value-added bioresources (Nguyen et al., 2021). So what is the main problem biorefineries face in not being able to quickly penetrate the value chain? In the search for integrated systems that favor a comprehensive assessment of the market penetration potential of biorefineries, along with the accurate evaluation of their degree of sustainability and circularity, the development of regulatory policies, as well as collaboration between policy makers, stakeholders and the social community, is essential. The integration of biorefineries into the market value chain implies the development of complex production schemes that guarantee the recovery or production of valuable products from biomass. Biorefineries are not at the same level of development as their conventional fossil-based counterparts, where the technology has been tested, optimized and validated. One of the main limitations when evaluating new biorefinery approaches is the lack of industrial-scale processes (Dragone et al., 2020; Mariana et al., 2021; Meramo-Hurtado and Gonz´ alez-Delgado, 2019). It is necessary to ensure the economic profitability of biorefineries to guarantee their success, seeking to ensure their viability in order to drive investment interests (Arias et al., 2023; Laude and Jonen, 2013; Prabha et al., 2022). In this sense, the identification of production capacity, market Fig. 2. Multiproduct biorefineries in Europe. (a) Chemicals (b) Composite and fibers (c) Liquid biofuels (d) Pulp & paper (e) Starch & sugar (f) Biomethane (the numbers represent the amount of biorefineries per type of feedstock and country). Own elaboration by using the European Commission database”. A. Arias et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 418 (2023) 137925 4 demands, technological bottlenecks, economic challenges and environmental impacts are key aspects to assess from an early stage of development, including also an estimation of the biorefinery prospects in the future market value chain (Crist´ obal et al., 2018; Tschulkow et al., 2020). In this sense, the development of comprehensive and multi-objective assessments in the field of sustainability and circularity could help on the way to biorefinery development. But, on the other hand, lack of data to perform the assessments and regulatory barriers could be an obstacle, hindering their penetration into the market value chain (Leibensperger et al., 2021; Singh et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2012). In this aspect it is also worth mentioning that most of the available research reports focus on conducting environmental and techno-economic assessments, rather than being aware of certification schemes, international standards, planetary boundaries, and if they did, separately, not as a comprehensive assessment of all approaches combined (Campbell-Johnston et al., 2020; D’Amato et al., 2020; Lange et al., 2021; Ncube et al., 2022; Rebolledo-Leiva et al., 2023; Salvador et al., 2022; Ubando et al., 2020; Zabaniotou, 2018). Given the importance of assessing the potential of biorefineries through all the above aspects, this report aims to provide the framework of methodologies and perspectives to address the gaps and bottlenecks that delay or hinder the development of biorefineries and to provide criteria to address their sustainability potential along the entire value chain: from feedstock extraction/processing to bioproduct use and disposal. 1.1. Biorefineries from a sustainability perspective When assessing a new biorefinery process it is important to focus on both sustainability, based on the triple bottom line of environment, society and economy, to categorize a production scheme as a sustainable process, but also on the technical aspects, from an early stage of design to a more developed one, in order to ensure the effectiveness on the production capacity. Indeed, the European Union has determined sustainability criteria for the use of biomass, seeking to ensure carbon savings and environmental protection: the reduction of GHG emissions, compared to fossil fuels, must be at least 35%, and the harvesting of biomass feedstocks must not take place on land previously used as carbon stock or in areas of high biodiversity (OECD Science, T. and I.P.P., 2019). Although the environmental pillar is usually covered, as the use of lignocellulosic feedstocks often leads to a reduction in pollutant emissions, economic viability is not always guaranteed (Ubando et al., 2020). For the social dimension, more difficulties arise due to lack of data and guidelines, while economic feasibility is often reduced to the development of a common cost-financial document, and the environmental issue is often focused on the category of global warming potential (Palmeros Parada et al., 2017). Environmental burdens are scored using life cycle assessment methodology, technical and economic characteristics are assessed by performing a techno-economic analysis, often coupled with a Monte Carlo study to address the uncertainty of the results, and social-LCA or socio-economic analysis to assess the social dimension. But, in fact, even if appropriate methodologies are used to assess the three pillars of sustainability, the lack of data could reduce the ability to develop them adequately. This reduced scope of sustainability assessment could provide “false” values when assessing the adaptation of a biorefinery to a sustainable practice. In this sense, future challenges for sustainability and circularity criteria and assessment should focus on the development of adequate and transparent guidelines that encompass all pillars within a comprehensive sustainability assessment (Palmeros Parada et al., 2017). Multi-criteria assessment is graded as a possible sustainability evaluation tool, as both bio-physical (i.e. mass-based balances), social (i.e. job creation, health and safety) and economic (i.e. associated costs and incomes) pillars are compiled in a system-wide assessment method (Palmeros Parada et al., 2017). The scores obtained could be used for decision-making on where to focus to provide a sustainable biorefinery approach (Parajuli et al., 2015). But this integration and scoring of the three pillars of sustainability to be used as a decision tool is still a debate because of three reasons: - The first one is the lack of common scoring methodology, because while the environmental and economic pillars could be assessed quantitatively, the social one is usually determined under a qualitative method. - The second reason is based on the fact that a huge amount of subjective interpretation can be made when evaluating the pillars, especially in the case of the social one. - Finally, the fact that there are no specific guidelines or formal recommendations for conducting sustainability assessments and, in fact, most of the time the criteria and indicators for assessing the sustainable potential of a scenario are different depending on the sector and activity. These facts are even more debatable and significant when developing a sustainability assessment of a biorefinery process, as there are a larger number of stakeholders involved: primary sector (involved in the production of feedstock), secondary and tertiary sector (involved in the generation of waste streams that can be used as inputs in the biorefinery), policy makers and government, among others. In addition to the difficulty of developing accurate assessments, one of the main barriers in the commercialization of bio-based products is that the benefits are not large enough to offset the investment and operational costs. In addition, compliance and strict requirements assessed in policies and standards, as well as community demands and acceptance, hinder the penetration of new bio-based products into value chains and the market (Ubando et al., 2020). At this point of the debate, the development of congruent management policies, adequate guidelines and cooperative links between the parties involved, could help in addressing sustainability in an adequate manner. On the other hand, according to the IEA Bioenergy Task 42 reports, a series of principles have been developed that should be compiled, at least, to define a biorefinery process as sustainable, taking into account the socioeconomic and environmental pillars. These are “basic” principles and, at the same time, could be contemplated as guidelines to assess the sustainability potential of a biorefinery in a general way and as a tool to identify key points for decision making. The scope of each principle, as well as the dimension of the analysis, is different, aiming to be applied to specific assessment scenarios depending on their needs. The most general is “The System Principle” based on the overall assessment of biorefinery technology and process design, followed by the “The Consistency Principle” in which this analysis focuses more on resource management than on technology and process development. In order to identify, in a more concrete way, the sustainability potential, the use of “The Measurability Principle” is used to directly assess the sustainability potential of the biorefinery through the use of quantitative and qualitative indicators and criteria. The last two principles are more related to comparative assessments, while “The Independency Principle” assesses the environmental and socioeconomic performance of the technological procedure and the biorefinery pathway, “The Comparability Principle” is more based on the comparison between different feedstocks (Parajuli et al., 2015). Furthermore, it is important to keep in mind that the production process is not the only aspect to be evaluated when conducting a sustainability study, but all actors in the value chain. From the background point of view, primary and secondary producers of biorefinery feedstocks and inputs should promote sustainable practices. For example, in the case of the agricultural and forestry sector, minimizing the use of fertilizers, pest products, use of appropriate machinery, use of A. Arias et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 418 (2023) 137925 5 indigenous species, avoidance of genetically modified species, etc. Thus ensuring environmental protection (maintenance of biodiversity, avoidance of soil degradation and atmospheric emissions, efficient use of water resources and prevention of water pollution) (Levidow, 2015). From the foreground point of view, how consumers use the product, its quality and service capacity are equally important. Likewise, the production process should think about the residues that will entail the use of the bio-product by other facilities and/or community members. Sustainability actions should be promoted and ensured over the global value chain (collection - production - consumption - disposal or reuse). 1.2. Biorefineries: current state on the European Union under the Sustainable Development Goals The development of biorefineries in the European context is increasing, mainly due to the need to comply with legal and political requirements that promote the development of more circular actions in the production of goods and services. The link of biorefineries with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is strong, as some of the SDGs focus directly on the circular use of resources, government support for research and implementation of best practices in productive sectors, climate action, economic growth, well-being, and research and innovation practices. The degree of achievement and trends in each of the SDGs is different for each country in the European Union, and this is in addition related to sustainability actions and how each region works on improving circularity, environmental protection, economic growth and social welfare. In this sense, the European Commission provides a database to document European sustainable development, for each of the SDGs (Eurostat, 2023). The European Union, in 2021, achieves an SDG Index score of 71.4/100, being the SDGs 2 (No hunger), 13 (Climate Action), 14 (Life Below Water) and 15 (Life on Land) requiring the greatest efforts to go further in sustainable actions. The regions that achieved higher index score values compared to the European Union average score are the northern ones, with an average value of 80.6, while the southern and the central achieved lower scores, 68.3 and 68.0, respectively. On the other hand, in order to be aware on the current status on the degree of achievement according to each SDG, Table 1 shows the actual status of each country, denoted “Major challenges” in red, “Significant challenges” in orange, “Challenges remain” in yellow and “Goal achieved” in green. One of the SDGs most closely related to biorefinery production approaches is SDG 13, Climate Action, since protecting and maintaining the environment is one of the pillars of sustainability. As can be seen in Table 1, most of the regions that are part of the European Union have a very low achievement in the sub-targets identified for this SDG13. The rationale behind this is mainly based on the recurrent use of fossil fuels for the production of goods and services, leading to significant emissions and detrimental effects on the environment, the extensive use of resources, leading to their depletion, and the amount of waste produced, which is disposed of through unsustainable practices, instead of being reused and recycled, for example. The disposal of waste in landfills, one of the most common practices, carries a high environmental burden, but incineration could also be categorized as a low-value and detrimental procedure for waste management. On the other hand, seeking to be aware of what is the real strength and development of some issues more related to the sustainable use of resources, incentives to research development and the amount of waste and emissions by region, Fig. 3 is represented. The subfigures were created according to the European Commission database, using the topics more related to the sustainability approach. The consumption of raw materials is directly related to the efficient use of resources, if the integral use is developed, then the consumption of virgin materials is lower. In this sense, a more sustainable use of resources is being developed, which in turn could be related to the amount of waste generated and the circular use of materials in European regions. Table 1 Growth of development on achieving SDGs by the European countries (Source: European Commission database about the degree of achievement of SDGs (Eurostat, 2023). A. Arias et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 418 (2023) 137925 6 The connection between these three aspects is interesting (Fig. 3), as the regions with the highest consumption of raw materials are not the ones that produce the largest amount of waste. Given the scores obtained, the conclusion that could be derived from these interrelationships is that an extensive use of virgin materials does not imply that the production of goods and services is linear, or that it contributes to a greater amount of waste streams produced. The integration of circularity action plans, inferring an integrated use of resources, and the development of biorefinery facilities with the aim of “reusing” waste streams into raw material streams, helps to ensure that the regions with the highest demand for virgin materials are not the least sustainable. Even so, extensive consumption of virgin materials could lead to their depletion and associated environmental impacts (e.g., extensive use of forest resources could lead to deforestation, while increased consumption of agricultural raw materials could lead to soil degradation and erosion). It is therefore important to develop management and action plans to avoid impacts on the quality and health of the environment given the extensive use of resources. It is true that reducing the consumption of raw materials is not easy, as it is necessary to respond to society’s demands, but the implementation, management and development of adequate practices in the global value chain of production could be beneficial from the point of view of sustainability actions. This should be the main awareness of production facilities: to be efficient, to be consistent with material consumption and to be conscious of the impacts on society, economic issues and the environment. It is besides observed that, in general, those regions that are more aware of the development of more circular production actions are those that achieve a gross value in the environmental goods and services sectors. This probably derives from the enhancement of the development of more sustainable actions, in accordance with regional environmental and sustainability policies and regulations, and, of course, from the community members’ acceptance of the production and consumption of bio-based products derived from more sustainable production processes. 1.3. Sustainability criteria and certification schemes The implementation of a standardized scheme that aims to assess the sustainability of a product or technology must take into account a number of aspects that are essential for its adequacy, reliability and applicability (Pelkmans et al., 2013). Some of the criteria that should be analyzed first when assessing the sustainability and suitability of a biorefinery include: - Ensuring food quality and availability (the use of food-related feedstock for the development of the biorefinery should not affect the population needs and demands for food products (Leong et al., 2021)). - Guarantee that the technology used is as efficient as possible, in order to foster the use of renewable and bio-based feedstock resources. - Provision of an integral use of both resources and products produced. - Implementation of best practices guidelines to protect the human well-being. - Be in line with circular actions. - Promote and analyze the market potential and be aware of all the value chain practices (both background and foreground). To give an example on how a prior analysis of the biorefinery aiming to be developed is essential to ensure its effectiveness: if a new biorefinery is going to be developed but the technology is not efficient in terms of production yield and energy requirements, what are the consequences? It will encounter low production capacity, a huge amount of feedstock required for the production of target product, intensive use of Fig. 3. Some indicators, based on the database of the European Commission, related with sustainability practices and actions in the European context. A. Arias et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 418 (2023) 137925 7 energy, more intense emissions per product manufactured, low incomes, which will translate into fewer jobs or lower worker salaries, among others. In this sense, the impact of the biorefinery on the pillars of environmental, social and economic sustainability will be negative: high emissions, high resource consumption, low productivity and, therefore, high production related costs and lower job creation, making the biorefinery approach analogous, or even worse, to conventional refinery facilities. In this regard, the use of criteria and indicators for the quality assessment of biorefinery quality in the economic value chain for the production of goods and services is essential. The requirements for the compilation with sustainability principles and criteria have been first developed by RED II (EC, 2018), collecting the necessary guidelines for compliance with criteria that reveal the transition from unsustainable use of resources to a circular bioeconomy and a sustainable biorefinery. The first two initiatives that embraced sustainability principles the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC, 1994) and the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (2004), for the forestry and agricultural commodity sectors, respectively. Following these two guidelines, the Renewable Energy Directive (RED 1, EC, 2009) has been established, mainly focused on the standardization of biofuels in the transport sector, but furthermore applicable to other productive activities. This Directive includes environmental as well as economic and social thresholds, for which one of the most developed and recognized methodologies for their scoring and assessment is the Life Cycle (LC) methodology. In the case of the corporate level, it is widely used in the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), CanopyStyle and Rainforest Alliance initiatives. Besides those aforementioned, there are other well-established standards for assessing the sustainability capacity of the biorefinery scenario under assessment, such as the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest (PEFC) and the International Sustainability and Carbon (ISCC) Certifications. From an environmental point of view, GHG emission scoring is one of the main impact categories that are fundamental when conducting a sustainability assessment. There are well-established protocols in the measurement of GHG emissions, such as the GHG Protocol tools, which grade all CO 2 emissions related to the biorefinery process, from feedstock extraction to processing and waste treatment, but the system boundaries depend on the scope of the assessment, and on the allocation selected. Taking this into account, not only the main production process must comply with sustainability principles, but also the extraction of raw materials must be categorized as sustainable practices. Thus, it is necessary to develop and implement sustainability documentation and labelling to provide stakeholders and community members with information on the origin of raw materials and the production chain of the obtained bio-based products (OECD Science, T. and I.P.P., 2019). In addition to the GHG protocol, the ISCC has developed a methodology for the calculation of total CO 2 emissions from the life cycle of biomass-based feedstocks. This includes emissions from the harvesting and extraction stages, carbon stock changes due to the cultivation of lignocellulosic biomass, emissions from the processing, transport and distribution of biofuels in the market value chain as well as emissions from the use of biofuels in transport. The reduction of GHG emissions is important when assessing the sustainability potential of biorefineries, as it refers to the carbon accumulation gained from the development of improved agricultural practices for CO 2 capture and storage. Other criteria such as biodiversity protection and ecosystem conservation (i.e. the use of non-binding schemes such as ISCC, Better Biomass or Sustainable Forest Management criteria to assess the environmental benefits/bottlenecks of the harvesting and extraction activities of the feedstock used in the biorefinery) should be contemplated, along with the assessment of the traceability of the products in the chain of custody (CoC). In fact, CoC is one of the essential requirements in the assessment of a biorefinery process and/or products, as it is necessary to identify the process chain of the bioproducts to have a thorough knowledge of all the stages necessary for their final distribution. In the field of social and economic performance, the use of national regulations is the most used “guideline” by biorefineries to demonstrate their compliance and commitment. The EU Working Time Directive and the International Labor Organization, together with the Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, are the most prominent. There is still no specific regulation or guideline on the assessment of the social and economic sustainability potential of biorefineries and, making difficult its development and implementation. To this end, although harmonization of sustainability schemes and guidelines across the three pillars is not easy, it is advisable. The harmonized criteria should be developed taking into account all sectors and actors in the value chain, in order to be equitable. It is true that the enormous degree of diversity of criteria among the different certification schemes and standards makes it difficult to achieve a harmonized scheme, where in addition the lack of data is a major bottleneck (Mai-Moulin et al., 2020). In the first attempt to harmonize sustainability assessments, the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) defines nine principles for assessing the sustainability of biomass-based processes and those are based on three typologies: GHG emissions, content of bio-based materials and traceability of bio-based products in the chain of custody. Likewise, the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB) is an initiative that includes 12 principles that not only focus on biomass but on biomaterials in general, in fact, it includes some requirements to foster sustainability actions, such as GHG emissions reduced by at least 10% compared to fossil-based counterpart products and a bio-based content of no less than 25% (Vis et al., 2016). 1.4. Certification programs In terms of assessing the sustainability potential of a product or process, the most widely recognized and used is the ISCC. The principles assessed are 4, but the number of criteria amounts to 92 (49 major and 43 minor requirements, all major should be met but only 60% of the minor are claimed (Gan and Cashore, 2013), covering all the aspects necessary to categorize a system as sustainable: the environmental pillar through the degree of conservation of biodiversity and carbon stocks and the application of Good Agricultural Practices, the social pillar with the consideration of human rights compliance, allowing for safe working conditions, and adequate training and traceability with the assessment of the chain of custody (Vis et al., 2016). The RSB (Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels) program states that the use of forestry and agricultural residues as feedstock for biorefinery facilities should not affect soil stability and organic content. Sustainable biorefinery programs must be mindful of how the extraction and use of feedstock impacts the quality of the environment, and the capacity of the facility must be based on the regenerative capacity of the environment. This program introduces 12 principles, encompassing 37 criteria, which could be used to assess the sustainability of feedstock and biofuel producers, where minimum requirements are mandatory. For example, in the case of biofuels, compared to fossil fuels, in order to be certified, biofuels must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50%. In addition to the most important schemes mentioned above, there are others recognized by the European Commission as voluntary schemes to guarantee the sustainability procedure of the production process stages that are part of the global value chain. A brief description of them is depicted in Table 2 (see Table 3). In addition to the established evaluation systems, intensive research and development activities have been carried out to evaluate its quality and to develop alternative sustainability assessment frameworks. The European STAR-Pro BIO project has evaluated the quality and effectiveness of certification systems for assessing the sustainability potential of bio-based products. It was based on the evaluation of 33 impact categories associated with the pillars of sustainability and circularity criteria: environmental (11 categories), social (14), economic (1) and circularity (6). These are both quantitative and qualitative indicators A. Arias et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 418 (2023) 137925 8 and have been selected based on EN 16751:2016 “Sustainability criteria for bio-based products”, NTA 8080–1 “Sustainability produced biomass for bioenergy and bio-based products” and ISO 13065:2015 “Sustainability criteria for bioenergy”. These criteria can be classified and integrated into a sustainability assessment tool (SAI) that encompasses 24 principles and 48 indicators, both qualitative and quantitative (20 for the environmental pillar, 12 for the product and system, 2 for the economic pillar and 14 for the social framework). The assessment of the quantitative indicators is mainly based on the use of LCA methodology, following the guidelines of the ISO 14040:2006, ISO 14044:2006, EN 16760, CEN/TR16957:2016 and the PEF (Product Environmental Footprint), for the environmental pillar and the LCC (Life Cycle Cost) methodology for the economic one. In the case of the social framework, the Handbook for Product Social Impact Assessment has been used in the project, which is based on a qualitative approach using scaling factors (Golaszewski et al., 2020). 1.5. Policy implications In terms of policies and regulations, these should take into account evolving supply chains and market trends and provide transparent guidelines on how sustainability is to be assessed (Pelkmans et al., 2013). Policy makers should focus on the development of more reliable, feasible and comprehensive certification schemes and methodological guidelines for determining ecosystem capacities (to assess threshold values for sustainable action) (Meyer and Priess, 2014). The creation of industry and stakeholder associations could be rate as an effective tool for the development of biorefineries and R&D of emerging technologies. An example of this is the industrial association EuropaBio (European Association for Bioindustries), embedded in the EU bioeconomy strategy and the European biotechnology community, which aims to incentivize cooperation between policy makers and stakeholders, social welfare through biotechnology development, investment in R&D activities, improved market penetration of biorefinery products and ensuring food safety when moving towards a bio-based and zero-waste economy (EuropaBio, 2022; European Commission, 2018). These are at the same time one of the main pillars of the Joint Research Center (JRC) Bioeconomy Observatory, which collects data and indicators to assess how bio-based facilities are developing from socioeconomic, technological, economic, legislative and scientific perspectives (Scarlat et al., 2015). On the other hand, the use of quotas is believing to be an effective tool to support the penetration of new emerging technologies in the sector and to promote the improvement of mature technologies to adapt them to sustainable and circular economy actions. The specification and clarification of these quotas is essential, as well as the defined objectives, which must be clear and specific for all stakeholders and community members. Policy instruments should be aware of the time needed to develop a biorefinery concept from scratch, being a long and somewhat uncertain process. In this sense, some risk should be put on the investment, to give a chance to emerging technologies that, in theory, could be more beneficial for the promotion of more sustainability procedures (Hellsmark and S¨ oderholm, 2017). Governments should focus on developing a specific and precise connection between uncertainty and investment risk. Some of the barriers to achieving real policies on bio-based products are public Table 2 Certification schemes (CS) recognized by the European Commission. Voluntary recognized schemes Purpose Sectors involved Main products Covers all value chain? Biomass Biofuels, Bioliquids sustainability voluntary scheme To assess the sustainability of agricultural and forestry biomass, residues, wastes and renewable energies. Energy, Food & Manufactured products Biofuels & biomass products Yes Better Biomass It certifies solid, liquid and gaseous biomass to demonstrate it sustainability to be used for energy, bioproducts and biofuels. Energy, Floriculture & Horticulture Biofuels & Agricultural products Yes Bonsucro EU To ensure the sustainability of sugarcane production and all its derived products Agriculture Sugar No. Only production and manufacturing ISCC International scheme focused on assess and propose sustainable solutions for all feedstocks and markets Agriculture, Energy, Floriculture & Horticulture and Manufactured products Biofuels, Food & Beverages, Cosmetics, Electricity Yes KZR INiG system Used for certifying the production of biofuels, bioliquids and raw materials under a sustainable approach. Energy Renewable energy biofuels Yes REDcert Certification of biomass (from energy crops, waste flows and residues) to produce bioenergy Energy, Floriculture & Horticulture and Manufactured products Biofuels No. Only production and manufacturing Red Tractor Farm Assurance Combinable Crops & Sugar Beet Scheme Focused on the assurance of food chain from farm to pack Agriculture Cereals, nuts, soy, sugar and vegetables No. Only production and manufacturing Roundtable of Sustainable Biofuels EU RED Principles & criteria to assess the sustainability issues to produce biofuels Energy Biofuels [aviation, ground transport and shipping biofuels] and bioenergy from biomass No. Only production, manufacturing and consumption Roundtable of Responsible Soy EU RED International scheme to ensure avoidance of deforestation and zero conversion soy production Agriculture Soy Yes Scottish Quality Farm Assured Combinable Crops To evaluate the suitability on the management of crops Agriculture, Food Crop products N/A Trade Assurance Scheme for Combinable Crops Assurance framework for the trade of crops for food, feed and biofuels production Agricultural, Food and Energy trades N/A No. Only the trade of crops for goods and services Universal Feed Assurance Scheme Assurance framework for compile the safety requirements of feed destined to livestock Agricultural, Animal feed N/A No. Only production, manufacturing and trade. Sustainable Resources voluntary scheme To verify the sustainable production and use of forestry, agricultural, waste and residues coming from biomass resources Energy Power and heat generation Yes Sustainable Biomass Program (SBP) Voluntary scheme for certified biomass resources used for energy production Energy Forestry, Floriculture & Horticulture No. Only production Austrian Agricultural Certification Scheme [National] To control the agricultural feedstocks (vegetable oils, oilseeds and cereals) Energy Biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels No. Only production (grown and harvesting of feedstock) A. Arias et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 418 (2023) 137925 9 perception and acceptance (e.g. the use of food crops for biofuel production), uncertainties about the availability of eligible feedstocks in line with Circular Economy and zero waste frameworks, the adaptability of the production scheme and resource use with directives (e.g. Renewable Energy Directives) and the lack of financial schemes, loan guarantees and economic support for emerging technologies (OECD Science, T. and I.P.P., 2019). Besides, the development of biorefineries is expected to have a positive effect on the bioeconomy, both from a competitiveness point of view, as green chemistry and bio-based products are gaining positions in value chains. The transformation, or integration, of obsolete or productivity-reducing production schemes into biorefinery approaches could be considered a reindustrialization strategy, which has a positive effect on the economy, the environment and society, as new jobs are expected to be created. But in fact, in this effort of biorefineries to penetrate the market, policy development and adaptation is necessary and beneficial. Such policies should be based on the recognition of the quality of the resources and products obtained, the promotion of zero waste, the avoidance of landfill as waste disposal, the establishment of standards standing out innovation (such as ISO CEN 13432 for compost), and the creation of better and adapted regulation for bioproducts and bioprocesses (OECD Science, T. and I.P.P., 2019). The identified policy drivers for the development of lignocellulosic biorefineries are to support, both with policies and investments, the supply chains of lignocellulosic biomass as feedstock, thereby increasing the availability and capacity of companies and stakeholders to invest in new bio-based process schemes. Second generation installations using renewable energy where lignocellulosic materials are used to produce other high value-added bioproducts rather than for energy recovery are desirable. Finally, another driver for the development of biorefineries is the support of REACH European regulation, as it stimulates the use of bio-based chemicals that are more sustainable, more environmentally friendly and less harmful, criteria that should be taken into account when developing a biorefinery process approach (European Commission, 2021). 2. Results and discussion: how to implement sustainability on biorefineries 2.1. New targets for helping biorefineries market penetration The BioPreferred Program aims to promote the purchase and use of bio-based products, based on the premise that this increase should lead to a reduction on fossil-based resources and a reduction in environmental degradation. One of the main objectives of the program is a voluntary labelling that could be used for bio-based products, the socalled USDA Certified Biobased Product Label, which aims to provide the social community with information about the bio-based practices and content of one particular product. The label of the product could inform about the amount of bio-based percentage on the product, on the packaging and/or on both product and packaging materials. This biobased content of the product is calculated through the following equation: Bio −based content = ∑ n i=1 Mi⋅BCCi⋅OCCi ∑ n i=1 Mi⋅OCCi Eq. 1 where M i is the mass of the component, BCC i is the bio-based carbon content of the specific component (%) and OCC i is the organic C-content of the component (%). Furthermore, it should be noted that in order to assess the bio-based content all measurements must comply with the requirements of ASTM standard method D6866. On the other hand, the labelling has requirements on the amount of bio-based content depending on the type of Table 3 Proposed alignment between policies interest and sustainability approach. Own elaboration with information provided by (De Besi and McCormick, 2015; Ding and Grundmann, 2022; Kardung et al., 2021; Lühmann, 2020; Wo´ zniak et al., 2021). Alignment between policies interest and sustainability approach Adequate production strategies according to the policy needs. Documentation and monitoring of the production scheme to detect the possible bottlenecks and development of respond actions to improve them. Use of this data to allow the development of new policies more focused on biorefinery approaches. Encouragement of high level of R&D through government incentives Research of new production strategies with higher production yields and reduced impacts: energy efficiency, use of renewable resources, increase the quality of the bio-products, etc. Promotion of the bio-based products by the policies, politicians, and governments Advertising campaigns for bio-products focusing on their quality, suitability for use, and adequacy. Use of appropriate labeling for the consumer, focused on promoting its superior characteristics, in terms of sustainability properties, with respect to its fossil-based counterparts. Support by national policies National interest alignment to allow more efficient strategies to support economic and social development, and to protect the environment by the efficient use of available resources. Ensure food security and availability The support on biorefineries development should not put in danger the availability of food according to the community needs. The policies should bear in mind to stablish a limit vale on the use of food-based resources. Transparent policies and strategies, and establishment of cooperative alliances Transparent and supportive policies, European and regional strategies are essential for the development of biorefineries. Cooperation among industries, stakeholders and government through public/private partnerships, as the Bio-based Industries Consortium (BIC), are good tools to enhance cooperation and collaboration to assess R&D, investment tools and policy issues, looking for achieve more sustainable and competitive production strategies with reduced low carbon intensity Development of adequate legislation for biorefineries development Legislation could be labelled as a policy tool to define the goals and the integration of biorefineries into the value chain economy. Cooperation between stakeholders, community members, policy makers and entrepreneurs. One of the most recurrent highlights of European and national strategies is how the implication of community members and an adequate dialogue could enhance and improve the use of resources, aiming to be more conscious on the consumption of resources, which is crucial to go forward sustainability Development of management plan, actions strategies and recommendation guidelines on the sustainable use of resources The use of bio-based feedstocks for biorefinery development should not entail damage on the land and biodiversity. As an example: the use of forestry source as feedstock for biorefineries could entail a detrimental effect on environmental sustainability. The rationale behind this is that, if forest management and harvesting activities of the forest sector are not adequate, the amount of carbon sinks is going to be reduced given the felling of forest areas to use the wood as feedstock and, therefore, wood will not be categorized as a carbon neutral stock. A. Arias et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 418 (2023) 137925 16 De Besi, M., McCormick, K., 2015. Towards a bioeconomy in Europe: national, regional and industrial strategies, 2015 Sustain. Times 7, 10461–10478. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/SU70810461, 7, 10461–10478. Ding, Z., Grundmann, P., 2022. Development of biorefineries in the bioeconomy: a fuzzyset qualitative comparative analysis among european countries. Sustain. Times 14, 90. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU14010090/S1. Dragone, G., Kerssemakers, A.A.J., Driessen, J.L.S.P., Yamakawa, C.K., Brumano, L.P., Mussatto, S.I., 2020. Innovation and strategic orientations for the development of advanced biorefineries. Bioresour. Technol. 302, 122847 https://doi.org/10.1016/J. BIORTECH.2020.122847. D’Amato, D., Veijonaho, S., Toppinen, A., 2020. Towards sustainability? Forest-based, circular bioeconomy business models in Finnish SMEs. For. Pol. Econ. 110, 101848 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.12.004. EuropaBio, 2022. EuropaBio [WWW Document]. Eur. Comments Circ. Econ. Action Plan. URL. https://www.europabio.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2020_01_I_O _EuropaBio-Comments-on-the-Circular-Economy-Action-Plan.pdf, 12.1.22. European Commission, 2018. A sustainable Bioeconomy for Europe: strengthening the connection between economy, society and the environment 107. https://doi. org/10.2777/478385. European Commission, 2021. Studies on Support to Research and Innovation Policy in the Are of Bio-Based Products and Services. Eurostat, 2023. Sustainable development goals database [WWW Document]. URL. htt ps://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/sdi/database. Gan, J., Cashore, B., 2013. Opportunities and challenges for integrating bioenergy into sustainable forest management certification programs. J. Fr. 111, 11–16. https://doi. org/10.5849/JOF.11-092. Geissler, C.H., Maravelias, C.T., 2021. Economic, energetic, and environmental analysis of lignocellulosic biorefineries with carbon capture. Appl. Energy 302. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117539. Giwa, T., Akbari, M., Kumar, A., 2023. Techno-economic assessment of an integrated biorefinery producing bio-oil, ethanol, and hydrogen. Fuel 332. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.fuel.2022.126022. Golaszewski, J., Morone, P., Majer, S., Razza, F., Ladu, L., Grill, M., Ugarte, S., Van Iersel, S., Voogt, M., Crepy, M., Fedrigo, D., Merloni, E., 2020. Blueprint of Sustainability Certification Schemes for Bio-Based Products. Hellsmark, H., S¨ oderholm, P., 2017. Innovation policies for advanced biorefinery development: key considerations and lessons from Sweden. Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefining 11. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1732. Julio, A.A.V., Batlle, E.A.O., Trindade, A.B., Nebra, S.A., Reyes, A.M.M., Palacio, J.C.E., 2021. Energy, Exergy, Exergoeconomic, and Environmental Assessment of Different Technologies in the Production of Bio-Jet Fuel by Palm Oil Biorefineries, 243. Energy Conversion and Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114393. Kardung, M., Cingiz, K., Costenoble, O., Delahaye, R., Heijman, W., Lovri´ c, M., van Leeuwen, M., M’barek, R., van Meijl, H., Piotrowski, S., Ronzon, T., Sauer, J., Verhoog, D., Verkerk, P.J., Vrachioli, M., Wesseler, J.H.H., Zhu, B.X., 2021. Development of the circular bioeconomy: drivers and indicators. Sustain. Times 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010413. Khatami, K., Perez-Zabaleta, M., Owusu-Agyeman, I., Cetecioglu, Z., 2021. Waste to bioplastics: how close are we to sustainable polyhydroxyalkanoates production? Waste Manag. 119, 374–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WASMAN.2020.10.008. Khoo, H.H., Eufrasio-Espinosa, R.M., Koh, L.S.C., Sharratt, P.N., Isoni, V., 2019. Sustainability assessment of biorefinery production chains: a combined LCA-supply chain approach. J. Clean. Prod. 235, 1116–1137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2019.07.007. Lange, L., Connor, K.O., Arason, S., Bundgård-Jørgensen, U., Canalis, A., Carrez, D., Gallagher, J., Gøtke, N., Huyghe, C., Jarry, B., Llorente, P., Marinova, M., Martins, L. O., Mengal, P., Paiano, P., Panoutsou, C., Rodrigues, L., Stengel, D.B., van der Meer, Y., Vieira, H., 2021. Developing a sustainable and circular bio-based economy in EU: by partnering across sectors, upscaling and using new knowledge faster, and for the benefit of climate, environment & biodiversity, and people & business. In: Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fbioe.2020.619066. Laude, A., Jonen, C., 2013. Biomass and CCS: the influence of technical change. Energy Pol. 60 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.044. Leibensperger, C., Yang, P., Zhao, Q., Wei, S., Cai, X., 2021. The synergy between stakeholders for cellulosic biofuel development: perspectives, opportunities, and barriers. In: Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 137. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.rser.2020.110613. Leong, H., Chang, C., Khoo, K., Chew, K., Chia, S., Lim, J., Chang, J., Show, P., 2021. Waste biorefnery towards a sustainable circular bioeconomy: a solution to global issues. Biotechnol. Biofuels 14. Lettner, M., Solt, P., R¨ oßiger, B., Pufky-Heinrich, D., J¨ a¨ askel¨ ainen, A.-S., Schwarzbauer, P., Hesser, F., 2018. From wood to resin-identifying sustainability levers through hotspotting lignin valorisation pathways. Sustain. Times 10. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su10082745. Levidow, L., 2015. Eco-efficient biorefineries: techno-fix for resource constraints? ´ Economie Rural. https://doi.org/10.4000/economierurale.4729. Lühmann, M., 2020. Whose European bioeconomy? Relations of forces in the shaping of an updated EU bioeconomy strategy. Environ. Dev. 35 https://doi.org/10.1016/J. ENVDEV.2020.100547. Mai-Moulin, T., Hoefnagels, R., Sailer, K., Junginger, M., 2020. Sustainability Criteria and Certification for Lignocellulosic Biorefinery Systems: Harmonisation Possibilities and Tradeoffs (Utrecht, The Netherlands). Mariana, O.S., Camilo, S.T.J., Ariel, C.A.C., 2021. A comprehensive approach for biorefineries design based on experimental data, conceptual and optimization methodologies: the orange peel waste case. Bioresour. Technol. 325 https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.biortech.2021.124682. Mehta, N., Shah, K.J., Lin, Y.I., Sun, Y., Pan, S.Y., 2021. Advances in circular bioeconomy technologies: from agricultural wastewater to value-added resources. Environments - MDPI 8 (3). https://doi.org/10.3390/environments8030020. Meramo-Hurtado, S.I., Gonz´ alez-Delgado, ´ A.D., 2019. Biorefinery synthesis and design using sustainability parameters and hierarchical/3D multi-objective optimization. J. Clean. Prod. 240 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118134. Meramo-Hurtado, S.I., Sanchez-Tuiran, E., Ponce-Ortega, J.M., El-Halwagi, M.M., OjedaDelgado, K.A., 2020. Synthesis and sustainability evaluation of a lignocellulosic multifeedstock biorefinery considering technical performance indicators. ACS Omega 5, 9259–9275. https://doi.org/10.1021/ACSOMEGA.0C00114/ASSET/ IMAGES/MEDIUM/AO0C00114_M016 (GIF). Meyer, M.A., Priess, J.A., 2014. Indicators of bioenergy-related certification schemes – an analysis of the quality and comprehensiveness for assessing local/regional environmental impacts. Biomass Bioenergy 65, 151–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/ J.BIOMBIOE.2014.03.041. Moktadir, M.A., Dwivedi, A., Rahman, T., 2022. Antecedents for circular bioeconomy practices towards sustainability of supply chain. J. Clean. Prod. 348 https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131329. Morales, M.E., Lhuillery, S., Ghobakhloo, M., 2022. Circularity effect in the viability of bio-based industrial symbiosis: tackling extraordinary events in value chains. J. Clean. Prod. 348 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131387. Mossberg, J., S¨ oderholm, P., Frishammar, J., 2021. Challenges of sustainable industrial transformation: Swedish biorefinery development and incumbents in the emerging biofuels industry. Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefining 15. https://doi.org/10.1002/ bbb.2249. Muntoni, A., 2019. Waste biorefineries: opportunities and perspectives. Detritus. https:// doi.org/10.31025/2611-4135/2019.13791. Ncube, A., Sadondo, P., Makhanda, R., Mabika, C., Beinisch, N., Cocker, J., Gwenzi, W., Ulgiati, S., 2022. Circular bioeconomy potential and challenges within an African context: from theory to practice. J. Clean. Prod. 367 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2022.133068. Nguyen, L.T., Phan, D.P., Sarwar, A., Tran, M.H., Lee, O.K., Lee, E.Y., 2021. Valorization of industrial lignin to value-added chemicals by chemical depolymerization and biological conversion. Ind. Crop. Prod. 161 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. indcrop.2020.113219. Niemeijer, D., de Groot, R.S., 2008. A conceptual framework for selecting environmental indicator sets. Ecol. Indicat. 8, 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. ECOLIND.2006.11.012. Nizami, A.S., Rehan, M., Waqas, M., Naqvi, M., Ouda, O.K.M., Shahzad, K., Miandad, R., Khan, M.Z., Syamsiro, M., Ismail, I.M.I., Pant, D., 2017. Waste biorefineries: enabling circular economies in developing countries. Bioresour. Technol. 241, 1101–1117. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2017.05.097. Ocampo Batlle, E.A., Escobar Palacio, J.C., Silva Lora, E.E., Da Costa Bortoni, E., Horta Nogueira, L.A., Carrillo Caballero, G.E., Vitoriano Julio, A.A., Escorcia, Y.C., 2021. Energy, economic, and environmental assessment of the integrated production of palm oil biodiesel and sugarcane ethanol. J. Clean. Prod. 311, 127638 https://doi. org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2021.127638. OECD Science, T. and I.P.P., 2019. Working Party on Biotechnology, Nanotechnology and Converging Technologies OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers Draft BNCT Project Report on “Emerging Technologies and the Brain” (PWB 20152016). Orive, M., Cebri´ an, M., Amayra, J., Zufía, J., Bald, C., 2021. Techno-economic assessment of a biorefinery plant for extracted olive pomace valorization. Process Saf. Environ. Protect. 147 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2021.01.012. Otto, M., Berndes, G., Fritsche, U., 2011. The bioenergy and water nexus. Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefining 5, 343–346. https://doi.org/10.1002/BBB.316. Palacios-Bereche, M.C., Palacios-Bereche, R., Nebra, S.A., 2020. Comparison through energy, exergy and economic analyses of two alternatives for the energy exploitation of vinasse. Energy 197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117231. Palmeros Parada, M., Osseweijer, P., Posada Duque, J.A., 2017. Sustainable biorefineries, an analysis of practices for incorporating sustainability in biorefinery design. Ind. Crop. Prod. 106, 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INDCROP.2016.08.052. Parada, M.P., Asveld, L., Osseweijer, P., Posada, J.A., 2018. Setting the design space of biorefineries through sustainability values, a practical approach. Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefining 12. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1819. Parajuli, R., Dalgaard, T., Jørgensen, U., Adamsen, A.P.S., Knudsen, M.T., Birkved, M., Gylling, M., Schjørring, J.K., 2015. Biorefining in the prevailing energy and materials crisis: a review of sustainable pathways for biorefinery value chains and sustainability assessment methodologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.11.041. Parisi, C., Baldoni, E., M’barek, R., 2020. Bio-based Industry and Biorefineries. European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC). Pelkmans, L., Goovaerts, L., Stupak, I., Smith, C., Sheng Goh, C., Junginger, M., Chum, H., Goss Eng, A., Cowie, A., Englund, O., Joudrey, J., Dahlman, L., 2013. Monitoring Sustainability Certification of Bioenergy-Short Summary Strategic Intertask Study. commissioned by IEA Bioenergy. Prabha, S., Vijay, A.K., Paul, R.R., George, B., 2022. Cyanobacterial biorefinery: towards economic feasibility through the maximum valorization of biomass. Sci. Total Environ. 814 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152795. Rebolledo-Leiva, R., Moreira, M.T., Gonz´ alez-García, S., 2023. Progress of social assessment in the framework of bioeconomy under a life cycle perspective. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 175 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113162. A. Arias et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 418 (2023) 137925 17 Sacramento-Rivero, J.C., 2012. A methodology for evaluating the sustainability of biorefineries: framework and indicators. Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefining 6, 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/BBB.335. Saha, R., Mukhopadhyay, M., 2020. Evaluation of the refinery efficiency and indicators for sustainability and economic performance. In: Biorefinery Production Technologies for Chemicals and Energy. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp. 67–75. https:// doi.org/10.1002/9781119593065.CH4. Salvador, R., Barros, M.V., Donner, M., P, P.B.-S., undefined, 2022. How to Advance Regional Circular Bioeconomy Systems? Identifying Barriers, Challenges, Drivers, and Opportunities. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 2022. https://www.sci encedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352550922001130. Santiba˜ nez-Aguilar, J.E., Gonz´ alez-Campos, J.B., Ponce-Ortega, J.M., SernaGonz´ alez, M., El-Halwagi, M.M., 2015. Supply chains and optimization for biorefineries. Comput. Aided Chem. Eng. 36 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-44463472-6.00019-7. Sauer, M., Steiger, M., Mattanovich, D., Marx, H., 2014. Biorefineries—concepts for sustainability. In: Bioprocessing of Renewable Resources to Commodity Bioproducts. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp. 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118845394.CH1. Scarlat, N., Dallemand, J.F., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Nita, V., 2015. The role of biomass and bioenergy in a future bioeconomy: policies and facts. Environ. Dev. 15, 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVDEV.2015.03.006. Sepúlveda, L., Contreras, E., Cerro, D., Quintul´ en, L., 2021. Technical feasibility of natural antioxidant recovery from the mixture of the inedible fractions of vegetables produced in a wholesale market. http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tcyt. https://doi. org/10.1080/19476337.2021.1915878, 19, 418–428. Silva, C.A.M., Prunescu, R.M., Gernaey, K.V., Sin, G., Diaz-Chavez, R.A., 2017. Biorefinery sustainability analysis. Lect. Notes Energy 57, 161–200. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-319-48288-0_7. Singh, A., Christensen, T., Panoutsou, C., 2021. Policy review for biomass value chains in the European bioeconomy. Global Trans. 3 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. glt.2020.11.003. Smolker, R., Tokar, B., Petermann, A., Hernandez, E., Thomas, T., 2008. The Real Cost of Agrofuels: Impacts on Food, Forests, Peoples and the Climate. Global Forest Coalition, Global Justice Ecology Project and Institute for Social Ecology. Solarte-Toro, J.C., Cardona Alzate, C.A., 2021. Biorefineries as the base for accomplishing the sustainable development goals (SDGs) and the transition to bioeconomy: technical aspects, challenges and perspectives. Bioresour. Technol. 340 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2021.125626. Stougie, L., Tsalidis, G.A., van der Kooi, H.J., Korevaar, G., 2018. Environmental and exergetic sustainability assessment of power generation from biomass. Renewable Energy 128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.06.046. Svarstad, H., Petersen, L.K., Rothman, D., Siepel, H., W¨ atzold, F., 2008. Discursive biases of the environmental research framework DPSIR. Land Use Pol. 25, 116–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2007.03.005. Tschulkow, M., Compernolle, T., Van den Bosch, S., Van Aelst, J., Storms, I., Van Dael, M., Van den Bossche, G., Sels, B., Van Passel, S., 2020. Integrated technoeconomic assessment of a biorefinery process: the high-end valorization of the lignocellulosic fraction in wood streams. J. Clean. Prod. 266 https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122022. Ubando, A.T., Felix, C.B., Chen, W.H., 2020. Biorefineries in circular bioeconomy: a comprehensive review. Bioresour. Technol. 299, 122585 https://doi.org/10.1016/J. BIORTECH.2019.122585. Vis, M., Pfau, S., Esweg, J., 2016. Bio-based Sustainability Schemes. Wo´ zniak, E., Tyczewska, A., Twardowski, T., 2021. Bioeconomy development factors in the European Union and Poland. Nat. Biotechnol. 60, 2–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/ J.NBT.2020.07.004. Yılmaz Balaman, S ¸., Wright, D.G., Scott, J., Matopoulos, A., 2018. Network design and technology management for waste to energy production: an integrated optimization framework under the principles of circular economy. Energy 143. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.energy.2017.11.058. Zabaniotou, A., 2018. Redesigning a bioenergy sector in EU in the transition to circular waste-based Bioeconomy-A multidisciplinary review. J. Clean. Prod. 177 https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.172. Zhang, Y., Bao, X., Ren, G., Cai, X., Li, J., 2012. Analysing the status, obstacles and recommendations for WCOs of restaurants as biodiesel feedstocks in China from supply chain’ perspectives. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 60 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. resconrec.2011.11.014. A. Arias et al.