First published: 14.02.2024 Last modified: 06.06.2024 Life Cycle Analysis Protein ingredient (Public) Alternative for animal analogs Direct Product Solution  Overview NOSH's protein, derived from non-GMO fungi, is designed for various food applications, offering a sustainable and nutritious alternative to traditional and other plant-based proteins. Its versatility allows it to be used in meat, seafood, dairy analogues, sauces, and pet food, providing a clean label, single-ingredient solution. The protein is rich in fiber and essential nutrients, catering to the growing demand for healthy and environmentally friendly food options. NOSH emphasizes minimal processing to retain the natural goodness of their product, aligning with consumer preferences for less processed foods. This innovative approach supports sustainability and circular economy principles, aiming to significantly reduce environmental impact. This impact analysis is specific to NOSH's alternative protein that is currently. It covers protein production through various stages, systematically evaluates environmental impacts from raw material sourcing to end-of-life, including avoided production from alternatives, land use changes, cutting and packaging, cold storage at 4.5 degrees, transportation to customers, storage at the customer using electricity, packaging waste, and disposal or recycling. Recommendations may focus on reducing carbon footprint, improving energy efficiency, optimizing logistics, and enhancing packaging sustainability. The report aims to inform stakeholders of the environmental performance and guide decision-making towards more sustainable practices. Analysis Parameters Meeting international standards These analysis parameters are grounded in Lifecycle Assessment methods used in academic research and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14,000 series. They ensure a defined and structured approach to the analysis and outline the potential for comparability between two different solutions along with transparency for the reader. The functional unit is a quantification of the product or service that is being analyzed. It forms the center piece of the analysis, and it is used to analyze the proposed climate solution along with the comparative elements of the incumbent technology. The system boundary specifies what is included and what is omitted in the analysis. The product lifetime is essential to estimate potential use-phase as well as end-of-life emissions. Functional Unit Kg of protein ingredient (Public) The functional unit of this report is the market use of one kilogram of Nosh's protein (in wet mass). The reference flow(s) for the use of Nosh's alternative protein is one kilogram of beef protein. Goal and scope The goal of the LCA is to estimate the environmental impacts associated with 1 kg of final product, conducting a gate-to-grave analysis and a hotspot identification; thus, not only to calculate the impacts but to analyze where the main impacts are coming from in the value chain. The findings from this study will aid decision-making. By highlighting carbon emission hotspots, NOSH can concentrate its efforts on them to decarbonize the value chain of its solution. The intended audience of this study is NOSH and its strategic stakeholders, including impact investors and key clients. System Boundary The system boundary includes the downstream processes of the wet mass protein production, thus the market activity. These processes include the cold storage of the protein before being transported to the customer, until its end-of-life, meaning leftovers that are thrown away. The various data points take into account the best available technology information based on emission factors primarily sourced from the most recent version of the Ecoinvent database. The data has been collected for Germany, Poland and Italy, which is the country/area/region where the raw materials are being source from and the production plant is located. The client(s) are located in Germany, for this the amount of kilometers from the production plant to the client location is accounted. This report only models the emissions from the market use of the protein and not its production. This is done in a separate report that is built into this report. This data is assumed to be representative and valid for the entire duration of the production projections covered in this report. Regular updates to the LCA may be necessary to ensure its continued accuracy and relevance. Lifetime Non-Disclosure. Executive Summary Key revelations Protein production is the largest source of emissions in the company's emissions profile. A cleaner energy mix, or renewable energies should be used to lower the emissions from the production. Additionally, infrastructure emissions from the new facility in Germany should be considered in the future. Land use change is another important discussion point. As NOSH's product requires less land than beef per kg of product, it should be discussed how this advantage can be used to mitigate the company's crbon impacts, through reforestation measures. Insights to Impact Strategy NOSH's impact strategy is centered around sustainable innovation in the food industry. The company aims to develop superior functional ingredients and nutritional proteins by leveraging microbial biodiversity and novel fermentation technologies. Their focus on clean label, non-GMO products at industry cost levels reflects a commitment to environmental sustainability and health. This approach not only addresses the growing demand for alternative proteins but also aligns with global efforts to reduce the environmental footprint of food production. Offering Projections Non-Disclosure. Potential Challenges Potential challenges for NOSH could include technical hurdles in optimizing fermentation processes for scale, ensuring the functional and nutritional qualities of their plant-based proteins match or exceed those of animal-derived counterparts, and the economic challenge of achieving cost-competitiveness with traditional food sources. Additionally, NOSH faces climate challenges in scaling up its sustainable protein production, including optimizing energy use in fermentation processes, managing water resources efficiently, and minimizing waste generation. Balancing the environmental impact of raw material sourcing, especially non-GMO fungi, poses another challenge, as does ensuring the overall lifecycle of the product contributes positively to climate goals. Furthermore, transitioning to renewable energy sources for production facilities and addressing transportation emissions are critical for reducing the carbon footprint. Collaborating with stakeholders to improve sustainability in the supply chain and investing in innovations that reduce environmental impact are essential strategies for NOSH to overcome these challenges. Possible Rebounds The production of NOSH's alternative protein could introduce rebound effects, where increased efficiency and affordability lead to higher consumption rates, potentially negating some environmental benefits. This phenomenon suggests that more accessible alternative proteins might not always result in decreased demand for traditional animal proteins, but instead could expand total protein consumption. The environmental savings from reduced meat production could be offset by the resources required for scaling up alternative protein production. Additionally, if not managed sustainably, the energy and inputs for producing fungi-based proteins could introduce new environmental pressures. Mitigating these effects requires careful consideration of production methods, energy sources, and consumer behavior to ensure that the shift towards alternative proteins contributes positively to sustainability goals. Policymakers and companies must work together to develop strategies that encourage responsible consumption and support the sustainable growth of the alternative protein sector. Climate Value Proposition NOSH's climate value proposition likely involves leveraging sustainable production methods to minimize environmental impact, focusing on reducing carbon emissions, conserving water, and promoting biodiversity through the use of alternative, plant-based proteins. This approach not only aims to offer eco-friendly food solutions but also addresses the broader challenge of climate change by providing more sustainable food options. The main effects occur mostly as downstream scope 3 effects, as this report models the emissions of the protein after its production. Annual Cumulative Reaching the ClimatePoint Return on Impact Annual Emissions This bar chart represents the impact per year. The red bars represent the generated emissions, while the green bars represent the avoided emissions reflected on an annual basis. In the below table, the benchmark (yellow) conveys the incumbent scenario of what 'would have been', if the solution had not been in place. Thus, the 'Avoided' = the 'Benchmark' - the 'Generated.' NOSH's climate impact profile is modeled through 2030. The avoided emissions reflect the substitution of conventional beef with NOSH's protein ingredient according to a 1:1 weight substitution. Meanwhile, the generated emissions are mostly due to production electricity which NOSH aims to reduce and mitigate as they scale the technology in the marketplace. Annual Emissions This bar chart represents the impact per year. The red bars represent the generated emissions, while the green bars represent the avoided emissions reflected on an annual basis. In the below table, the benchmark (yellow) conveys the incumbent scenario of what 'would have been', if the solution had not been in place. Thus, the 'Avoided' = the 'Benchmark' - the 'Generated.' NOSH's climate impact profile is modeled through 2030. The avoided emissions reflect the substitution of conventional beef with NOSH's protein ingredient according to a 1:1 weight substitution. Meanwhile, the generated emissions are mostly due to production electricity which NOSH aims to reduce and mitigate as they scale the technology in the marketplace. Cumulative Emissions This area chart represents the impact over the lifetime of the solution. The orange area reflects the total anticipated generated emissions, while the green area reflects the total cumulative avoided emissions. In the below table, the benchmark (yellow) conveys the incumbent scenario of what 'would have been' if the solution had not been in place. Thus, the 'Avoided' = the 'Benchmark' - the 'Generated.' NOSH's climate impact profile is modeled through 2030. The avoided emissions reflect the substitution of conventional beef with NOSH's protein ingredient according to a 1:1 weight substitution. Meanwhile, the generated emissions are mostly due to production electricity which NOSH aims to reduce and mitigate as they scale the technology in the marketplace. Reaching the ClimatePoint This line chart represents the time at which the offering has reached 'The ClimatePoint.' This temporal alignment indicates that the technology or practices implemented by the solution have successfully reduced emissions by 50% compared to the incumbent technology. This is a pivotal indicator of the company's commitment to advancing sustainable solutions and meeting or even exceeding global climate change mitigation goals. When this intersection occurs before 2030, the technology is aligned to the Paris Accord. With the current emission profile, NOSH is expected to reach the 'ClimatePoint' by 2024. This is indicated by the green line being above the orange line. Because this occurs before 2030, this technology represents a 1.5 degree C solution aligned with the Paris Accord. Return on Carbon This line chart represents the ratio of avoided tons CO2eq to generated tons CO2eq amortized over the lifetime of the company. An offering with a horizontal line indicates a company that projects a consistent quantified impact over time. NOSH has a positive and consistent ammortised return on impact. For every ton of generated emissions, Nosh avoids about 4 tons of CO2eq with respect to conventional beef. Process Overview Understanding your emission profile This process summary depicts an overview of the most significant emission factors that take place throughout your lifecycle activity. By viewing these intensities alongside each other, you can gauge their relative importance with respect to positive and negative extremes. Each process item listed on the horizontal axis will be described further in the Scope Allocation Analysis where readers can dive into the details behind each of the data points. While this model represents the complete overview, we make sure that each factor is supported by a sound methodology. Building your impact foundation Some process items may remain blank because the ClimatePoint team has considered them to be out of project scope, insignificant, or without enough information to analyse. These gaps should eventually be completed as you aim for your emission profile to approach higher levels of accuracy. Because of this presentation, you can understand which additional data is necessary to complete your entire impact profile and accommodate the dynamic growth and scalability of your company. ClimatePoint is here to help you navigate this pathway and optimize your impact strategy. Scope Allocation Analysis  Connecting academia with business The scope allocation analysis is our strategy to bridge the LCA emission assessment to the world of corporate GHG reporting. When our team approaches a new technology, we start with the most significant aspects that outline both your generated emissions and your avoided emission impact. The following process items represent these key factors backed by a defined methodology approach. This format permits the technology to be strategically aligned with our global climate targets, challenged for verification, and refined with evolution and growth. As the climate solution matures, we can easily update or add process items making this a truly dynamic report. This ClimatePoint approach integrates impact foundations outlined by the international community. Your most significant climate impact To help you interpret the key climate aspects of your technology, we assign each process item two labels to serve as high level indicators. A 'Score' that is 'Aligned' indicates that there is a quantifiable reduction in emissions relative to the incumbent process. If a process is assigned 'Potential,' there is an opportunity for additional alignment, but more verification is required to prove this benefit. 'Negative' means that the process results in additional emissions over the equivalent process while a 'Rebound' identifies additional emissions that would have otherwise been generated by the incumbent technology. The 'Priority' label rates these with relative significance to qualitatively distinguish importance and attention hierarchy. # Process item Scope Score Priority 1 Protein production (Nosh biomass) Multiple Scopes Aligned High Company Claim NOSH's product, Nosh biomass, is a versatile solution in the alternative protein market. It can be used as a single-ingredient product for meat and seafood analogues, or as a functional ingredient in various food products, offering binding, thickening, texturizing and emulsifying properties. The product is more digestible and complete than many plant-based proteins, providing high nutritional value and a superior sensorial experience. It supports sustainable and responsible production practices, with a high yield efficiency and prebiotic fiber content. Utilising natural microbial biodiversity, we specialise in producing both technical-functional ingredients and nutritional protein. Our approach involves pioneering proprietary fermentation techniques alongside advanced downstream processing technologies. Nosh's protein production is likely to have significantly lower emissions compared to conventional beef. The fermentation-based production of alternative proteins typically requires less water, land, and energy, and emits fewer greenhouse gases than traditional animal farming. While specific comparative figures between Nosh's products and conventional beef aren't provided, alternative protein sources like those developed by Nosh are generally considered more sustainable and environmentally friendly. Benchmarks (Directly induced (DI)) There are two benchmarks:
Qualitative Overview Score: Aligned As the production of Nosh protein leads to less emissions than of conventional beef, this process is marked with an aligned impact score. Priority: High This process has a high priority as it remains crucial to track and monitor the emissions. Recommendation To minimise emissions associated with protein production, the focus should be placed on refining fermentation processes to enhance efficiency and reduce energy requirements. Additionally, harnessing renewable energy sources for operational needs can significantly reduce carbon footprints. Adopting carbon capture solutions offers a promising approach to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions further. Streamlining downstream processing is essential to minimise waste and enhance overall environmental sustainability efforts. By tracking and monitoring these strategies comprehensively, potential avoided emissions could be claimed while maintaining efficient and sustainable protein production practices. Comparing Nosh's protein emissions to black bean protein emissions involves considering the efficiency of production methods and resource usage. Generally, plant-based proteins like black beans have low emissions due to minimal processing and natural growth processes. Nosh's fermentation-based production might have higher initial energy use but offers scalability and potentially lower impacts with renewable energy and optimized processes. Both are likely more sustainable than animal-based proteins, but specific emissions data would depend on detailed life cycle assessments comparing energy, water, and land use. Nosh should focus on renewable energy integration and fermentation process optimization to reduce emissions, aiming for sustainability levels comparable to plant-based proteins like black beans. A targeted life cycle assessment can guide improvements, ensuring low environmental impact across their production chain. Methodology The emissions associated with protein production, including those from raw material sourcing, transportation, heat, electricity, equipment, and waste, have been thoroughly calculated and documented in the linked report for this process. This process involves assessing the emissions generated by infrastructure, farm equipment, and other resources utilised in the production of beef and black beans. It encompasses calculating emissions associated with the operational lifespan of these components per kilogram of beef or black beans. User account login required to view quantification analysis. 2 Land use change (emissions) Scope 3 Upstream Aligned Medium Company Claim By refraining from the utilisation of additional land commonly employed for protein production, NOSH's protein source demands less land utilisation. This results in lowered emissions from land use change, as fewer hectares are allocated for agricultural purposes. Through this approach, NOSH seeks to mitigate environmental impact within the food production sector. Benchmarks This process has two benchmarks:
Qualitative Overview Score: Aligned As Nosh's product requires less land per kg of product than the benchmarks, this process is marked with an aligned impact score. Priority: Medium As Nosh is moving towards using agricultural side streams as raw material inputs, monitoring and tracking the land use of these sidestreams is very important to verify the positive impacts of their product. Recommendation Leveraging the lower space requirement of sugar beets compared to beef production, it's recommended to explore and expand sugar beet cultivation as a sustainable crop alternative, maximizing yield per hectare and focusing on sustainable farming practices. Additionally, considering sugar beets for bioenergy or as a raw material in bioproducts could further optimize land use and contribute to a more sustainable agricultural sector. Methodology To calculate the land use emissions for NOSH in comparison to beef or black beans per unit weight, a detailed methodology is employed. This involves quantifying emissions originating from the land needed to produce 1 kg of each product, accounting for factors such as beef herds or black bean cultivation and beet sugar cultivation for NOSH. The assessment encompasses evaluating emissions associated with land preparation for beet sugar, black beans, and feed production for beef throughout an agricultural cycle, whether annual or perennial. Additionally, protein content comparisons are factored in to adjust land requirements based on protein yield per kilogram of NOSH versus beef or black beans. This enables a recalculation of land use differences. User account login required to view quantification analysis. 3 Land use (area) Scope 3 Downstream Aligned Medium Company Claim By refraining from the utilisation of additional land commonly employed for protein production, NOSH's protein source demands less land utilisation. This results in lowered emissions from land use change, as fewer hectares are allocated for agricultural purposes. Through this approach, NOSH seeks to mitigate environmental impact within the food production sector. Benchmarks (Enabled (E)) This process has two benchmarks:
Qualitative Overview Score: Aligned As Nosh's product requires less land per kg of product than the benchmarks, this process is marked with an aligned impact score. Priority: Medium As Nosh is moving towards using agricultural side streams as raw material inputs, monitoring and tracking the land use of these sidestreams is very important to verify the positive impacts of their product. Recommendation Leveraging the lower space requirement of sugar beets compared to beef production, it's recommended to explore and expand sugar beet cultivation as a sustainable crop alternative, maximizing yield per hectare and focusing on sustainable farming practices. Additionally, considering sugar beets for bioenergy or as a raw material in bioproducts could further optimize land use and contribute to a more sustainable agricultural sector. Methodology To calculate the land use for NOSH and beef or black bean per weight comparison, the methodology involves quantifying the land required to produce 1 kg of each, including beef herds or black beans and beet sugar cultivation for NOSH. This includes converting land use into hectares per kilogram and calculating the land use difference. Protein content comparisons adjust the land requirements based on the protein yield per kilogram of NOSH versus beef or black beans. This leads to recalculated land use differences and potential carbon capture, highlighting the environmental benefits of alternative protein sources over conventional beef in terms of land efficiency. User account login required to view quantification analysis. 4 Land use change (reforestation) Scope 3 Downstream Aligned High Company Claim By refraining from the utilisation of additional land commonly employed for protein production, NOSH's protein source demands less land utilisation. This results in lowered emissions from land use change, as fewer hectares are allocated for agricultural purposes. Through this approach, NOSH seeks to mitigate environmental impact within the food production sector. Benchmarks (Directly induced (DI)) This process has two reference points:
Qualitative Overview Score: Aligned As less land is being occupied through Nosh's protein, this process is assigned an aligned impact score. Priority: High This process has a high priority as it is one of the main points of impact from Nosh. Recommendation Leveraging the lower space requirement of sugar beets compared to beef production, it's recommended to explore and expand sugar beet cultivation as a sustainable crop alternative, maximizing yield per hectare and focusing on sustainable farming practices. Additionally, considering sugar beets for bioenergy or as a raw material in bioproducts could further optimize land use and contribute to a more sustainable agricultural sector. Methodology To calculate the land use for NOSH and beef per weight comparison, the methodology involves quantifying the land required for producing 1 kg of each, including for beef herds and beet sugar cultivation for NOSH. This includes converting land use into hectares per kilogram and calculating the land use difference, which could be available for reforestation. For carbon capture potential, the average CO2 capture by a commercial forest per hectare per year is applied to the available land difference. Protein content comparisons adjust land requirements based on the protein yield per kilogram of NOSH versus beef or black beans, leading to recalculated land use differences and potential carbon capture, highlighting the environmental benefits of alternative protein sources over conventional beef in terms of land efficiency and CO2 sequestration potential. User account login required to view quantification analysis. 5 Cutting/Packaging Scope 3 Downstream Rebound Medium Company Claim Packaging:
Additional Components for Transportation:
Benchmarks (Directly induced (DI)) This process has two benchmarks: 1. Cutting/packaging of conventional beef (weight comparison). 2. Cutting/packaging (protein content comparison). Qualitative Overview Score: Rebound The impact score for this process is rebound, as the more product is produced, the more packaging is required. Priority: Medium The emissions of this process are not expected to be very large, which is why this process is assigned a medium impact score. Recommendation To reduce emissions from this process, Nosh should consider using alternative materials to minimise plastic usage and reduce waste. Optimising the size of vacuum packs and exploring options to eliminate additional packaging components like paper and cardboard can further decrease environmental impact. Expanding the use of reusable E2 crates for transportation and optimizing transportation methods to maximise efficiency will contribute to reducing overall packaging waste and emissions. Engaging with suppliers to prioritise recyclable or reusable materials can help in claiming additional avoided emissions. Methodology To calculate the weight of a plastic bag made from polypropylene, first determine the bag's dimensions and thickness in centimeters, then calculate the volume considering both sides. Multiply the volume by the density of polypropylene to find the bag's weight. For packaging larger quantities, adjust the weight calculation based on the product's weight. Similarly, for reusable plastic crates made from High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE), calculate the amount of material based on the crate's dimensions and the total weight of the product it can contain, ensuring an efficient and environmentally conscious packaging solution. User account login required to view quantification analysis. 6 Cold storage (4.5 degrees) Scope 3 Downstream Rebound Low Company Claim The cold storage facilities maintain an optimal average temperature of 4.5 degrees Celsius, ensuring that the products are preserved in peak condition until they reach their destination. A strategically timed logistics plan means that products are stored for the minimal necessary duration, with an estimated 6 hours from storage to delivery to the customer. This swift transition minimizes the time products spend in transit, reducing the risk of spoilage and ensuring they arrive fresh. Benchmarks (Directly induced (DI)) This process has two benchmarks:
Qualitative Overview Score: Rebound As both the incumbent and new technologies require additional energy for the storage, this process is marked with a rebound impact score. Priority: Low Due to the comparably low electricity requirement of this process is the priority low. Recommendation To reduce emissions from cold storage of products, it's advisable to upgrade to energy-efficient refrigeration systems that utilize green technologies. Implementing smart cooling solutions with automated temperature controls can optimize energy use and reduce waste. Investing in insulation and thermal barriers enhances the storage environment, minimizing the energy required for cooling. Lastly, exploring renewable energy sources for cold storage operations can significantly lower the carbon footprint associated with maintaining product freshness. Methodology To calculate the electricity consumption of a commercial fridge per kg of product over 6 hours, divide the fridge's daily consumption by the total hours in a day to find the hourly rate. Multiply this hourly rate by the amount of hours the product is cooled to find the consumption over the entire time for the entire storage capacity. Finally, divide this figure by the storage capacity to determine the electricity consumption per kg of product over the 6 hours. User account login required to view quantification analysis. 7 Transport to customer Scope 3 Downstream Rebound Medium Company Claim Leveraging strategic logistics from our production facility in Corana, Italy, to our main customer base in Rheda-Wiedenbrück, Germany, we prioritize environmental sustainability and efficiency in our temperature-controlled truck transport. Benchmarks (Enabled (E)) This process has two benchmarks:
Qualitative Overview Score: Rebound As the transport distance for Nosh's product is larger than for the incumbent products, this process is marked with a rebound impact score. Priority: Medium Priority of this process is low. Recommendation To lessen emissions from transportation, prioritize the use of vehicles powered by alternative fuels or electric engines, enhancing fuel efficiency and reducing reliance on fossil fuels. Opt for logistics optimization software to streamline routes and improve load efficiency, minimizing unnecessary travel. Consider modal shifts in transportation, such as from road to rail or sea, which offer lower emission alternatives for long distances. Engage in collaborative shipping strategies, sharing transport space with other companies, to maximize vehicle utilization and decrease the overall number of trips needed. Methodology To calculate the transport emissions from Corana, Italy, to Rheda-Wiedenbrück, first determine the weight of the material being transported in metric tons. Then, calculate the total distance of the transport route in kilometers. Multiply the transport distance by the weight of the material to obtain the emissions in metric ton-kilometers (mtonkm). This method provides a straightforward measure of the environmental impact of transporting goods over a specified distance. User account login required to view quantification analysis. 8 Storage by customer (electricity) Scope 3 Downstream Rebound Medium Company Claim It has been mentioned by Nosh that at the customer facility there is additional storage required, which is also at around 6 hours. The protein is stored before further processing at a temperature of 2-7 degrees. Benchmarks (Directly induced (DI)) This process has two benchmarks:
Qualitative Overview Score: Rebound As for both the new and incumbent technology additional emissions are generated, this process is marked with a rebound impact score. Priority: Medium Expected emissions are not too high, which is why this process is marked with a medium priority. Recommendation To reduce emissions from cold storage of products, it's advisable to upgrade to energy-efficient refrigeration systems that utilize green technologies. Implementing smart cooling solutions with automated temperature controls can optimize energy use and reduce waste. Investing in insulation and thermal barriers enhances the storage environment, minimizing the energy required for cooling. Lastly, exploring renewable energy sources for cold storage operations can significantly lower the carbon footprint associated with maintaining product freshness. Methodology To calculate commercial fridge electricity consumption per kg of product over a 6-hour period, divide the fridge's daily electricity consumption by 24 to find the hourly rate, then multiply by the hours of cooling time. Finally, divide the consumption time by the fridge's total storage capacity to determine the energy used per kg of product stored for the required time. User account login required to view quantification analysis. 9 Packaging waste Scope 3 Downstream Rebound Medium Company Claim Waste generated in protein production through fungi fermentation includes unused substrate residues, biomass residues, and waste from downstream processing steps like filtration and purification. Efforts to minimize waste focus on optimizing fermentation conditions and choosing substrates efficiently consumed by fungi. Sustainable practices aim to reduce the environmental impact of waste produced during fungal protein production. Benchmarks (Directly induced (DI)) One benchmark:
Qualitative Overview Score: Rebound This process is marked with a rebound impact score as the incumbent technology most likely produces more packaging waste than Nosh's product. However additional research is required to validate. Priority: Medium The priority of this process is medium, as there are potentially considerable emissions to be expected from the process. Recommendation Adopt eco-friendly packaging materials such as biodegradable or recyclable options to minimize environmental impact. Implement a take-back or recycling program to ensure packaging is properly disposed of or reused. Explore innovative packaging reduction techniques, like concentrated formulas or refillable containers, to decrease the volume of packaging required and associated emissions. Methodology To accurately estimate the emissions resulting from the waste generated in the production of plant-based meat substitutes, a systematic approach is essential. Initially, all waste types, including both packaging materials and processing residuals, must be identified. Following this, the exact quantities of these wastes should be measured, usually through a detailed waste audit. Understanding the composition of the waste is crucial, particularly in determining its potential for greenhouse gas emissions during decomposition. Applying specific emission factors to each waste category factors that can be sourced from reputable environmental research allows for the calculation of emissions. These calculated emissions for each waste type are then aggregated to determine the total emissions footprint of the waste generated. Through this methodical process, it becomes possible not only to quantify the environmental impact of the waste but also to identify significant opportunities for reducing emissions in the production process. User account login required to view quantification analysis. 10 End-of-Life Scope 3 Downstream Potential Low Company Claim Nosh commits to sustainability and environmental responsibility, especially through composting the protein they produce. By ensuring that all residual waste from our protein processing is composted, we significantly reduce our environmental footprint. This composting process transforms waste into nutrient-rich soil, contributing to a circular economy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with traditional waste disposal methods. Benchmarks (Directly induced (DI)) One benchmark:
Qualitative Overview Score: Potential There is a potential for alignment, as the compostation of Nosh's protein is expected to emit less emissions than the incumbent product(s). Priority: Low The priority of this process is low, as the overall emissions from this are expected to be low. Recommendation Strategies include recycling or composting protein waste, utilizing waste-to-energy technologies, and developing circular economy models where waste is repurposed for new products. Innovations in packaging can also reduce spoilage. Additionally, educating consumers and businesses on the importance of reducing food waste can play a crucial role. Transitioning towards more sustainable production and consumption practices overall helps in reducing the environmental impact of food waste. Methodology To calculate CO2 emissions from composting plant-based protein, first sum the CO2 emissions from the input materials per kg of product. Then, the emissions released during composting are estimated. This approach provides an estimate of the environmental impact of composting the protein, reflecting the sustainability aspect of its lifecycle. This process is currently qualitative as further end-of-life data is required to quantify the emissions associated with this process effectively. User account login required to view quantification analysis. Impact Aggregation Functional unit profile This graph represents the aggregation of all the aforementioned emission factors with respect to the defined functional unit. By selecting a benchmark, the corresponding avoided emissions will also be displayed on the graph. If there are several benchmarks, the graph will display the benchmark specific avoided emissions. This enables you to see the difference in the emission profile that this climate solution has to the incumbent technology. There is also an effect filter to identify which impact factors only occur once and which recur multiple times, usually throughout the lifetime use of the product or service. You can click the process labels in the legend to hide and show different elements to reveal further insights. Projections Forecasting your impact As we seek to mitigate emissions across entire industry sectors, identifying our most strategic opportunities requires an examination of future scenarios and corresponding scalability. This section represents the aggregated impacts applied to the modeled growth forecast. Use the filters to navigate respective scopes and perspectives to visualize the nuances of these aggregations. You can even select different 'Scenarios' and 'Benchmarks' to understand the implications of different pathways and audience outlooks. Different lifecycle stages Some lifecycle activities, such as 'production,' reveal all of the embodied emissions that result from bringing the product or service to market. Meanwhile, 'Market' represents emission factors that occur after the technology is deployed. Think of this for products and services that continue to have an impact even after they are sold to the end consumer. 'End-of-life' activities may also be applicable to modeling if, for example, additional emissions are generated with waste processing. This Life Cycle Analysis represents aggregations of all stages. ClimatePoint Funding the Future ClimatePoint AS Universitetsgata 12, 0157 Oslo |