Three workshops were organised during 2013 and 2014 for Finnish bioenergy company representatives and bioenergy researchers. The participating companies’ business activities covered the whole supply chain from biomass cultivation to energy production. Table 1 shows the number and type of participants in each workshop.

Table 2 shows the data that was collected during the group discussions that were held in each workshop.

Workshop 1 concentrated on the general sustainability indicators of bioenergy systems and on identifying methods and tools by which sustainability can be managed. A depiction of a general three-stage bioenergy life cycle was used, and sustainability indicators, methods and tools were collected for each stage of this life cycle. The participants had different perceptions of the term “indicator”. Thus, the collected indicators included different sustainability aspects that were further classified into impact categories, criteria, indicators, decision-making questions about practical choices in the production chain, and observations of the production chain. The sustainability aspects were previously broadly classified into different levels of corporate responsibility for sustainability in [3]. The methods and tools were classified to characterise the different maturity levels of corporate responsibility for sustainability.

Workshop 2 concentrated on local sustainability questions in the operational environment of the Brazilian biobutanol case study. During Workshop 2, a description of a four-stage biobutanol life cycle and its operational environment, together with a list of ten relevant bioenergy sustainability themes were utilised as supporting material to facilitate the composition of lists of local sustainability questions for different stages of the life cycle. The ten themes were compiled using the data that were gathered in Workshop 1: acceptability, requirements from legislation, standardisation and certification systems, economic steering, raw materials, productive goods, production technology, resource consumption, ecological impacts, social impacts, and economic impacts. The themes covered the major sustainability themes that have been described in existing literature [3]. The sustainability questions were classified to characterise the maturity levels.

Workshop 3 discussed the different maturity levels of corporate responsibility for sustainability and examined how the local sustainability questions of the biobutanol case study from Workshop 2 could be divided into two maturity levels: efficiency measures and value creation measures. This dichotomy was based on the “two waves of sustainability” presented, for example, by Schumpeter [18], and applied within the business world. For example, Henkel’s [19] sustainability strategy consists of two layers: creating more value for stakeholders and reducing footprint. As such, this strategy incorporates both the efficiency and value creation measures of sustainability. Another example that supports this view is that of BASF, which also presented a twofold sustainability strategy in 2010: creating value, and thus, for example, accessing new markets and retaining customer relations while, at the same time reducing the risks related to legislative requirements, materials and reputation [20].

A theoretical case, in which biobutanol is produced from sugarcane in Brazil and imported to the EU market for use as a transportation fuel, was employed to gain contextspecific insights into the sustainability questions associated with bioenergy systems.

A systematic life cycle approach was used as a basis for the case study. The advantages of this approach were that the life cycle assessment is standardised [21] and commonly used in the assessment of potential environmental impacts [4]. Furthermore, a life cycle approach can be applied to social and economic impacts [21]. Social impacts can be linked to the conduct of companies in the supply chain [22], and economic impacts can be linked to the life cycle unit processes [23]. A life cycle approach provides a holistic view of the product system that enables the observation of trade-offs and helps avoid problem shifting between life cycle stages [24]. Figure 1 shows the biobutanol life cycle that was considered in Workshops 2 and 3.

Figure 1.

The biobutanol life cycle stages

Ethanol can be utilised as an alternative to fossil petrol in vehicles. However, due to the differences in fuel characteristics, the maximum share of ethanol with petrol is approximately 10% in non-flex-fuel vehicles. As such, higher biofuel shares in existing vehicles require alternative biofuel options. Biobutanol can be used in higher percentage in combination with petrol than ethanol. The Acetone-Butanol-Ethanol (ABE) fermentation is the most common butanol production process [25], which was described, for example, by Mariano et al. [26]. During ABE fermentation, bacteria produce acetone, butanol, and ethanol from starchy feedstock [27]. The feedstock used during the ABE fermentation is similar to that employed during the ethanol process; for example, corn [25] and sugarcane [26]. Brazil has significant experience in the production of ethanol from sugarcane and the use of bagasse combustion to generate the electricity and heat required during the ethanol production processes [26]. Figure 2 presents the process by which ABE is fermented from sugarcane based on the work of Wu et al. [25] and Efe et al. [28].

Figure 2.

Biobutanol production process (adapted from [25] and [28])

In the theoretical case study, a bioenergy company based in Europe is planning to invest in an ABE biobutanol plant that will have an annual production capacity of 100,000 tonnes of biobutanol. The plant will be located in Brazil, and the intended raw material of biobutanol is Brazilian sugarcane. Brazil is an attractive area in which to produce bioethanol, and the production costs in this region are approximately half those of the EU [29]. The sugarcane will be cultivated on land that the bioenergy company leases from local authorities. The land area is located in the tropical savannah of Cerrado. Sugarcane cultivation is rapidly expanding to the Cerrado area [30] due to governmental steering. At present, a few local cattle farmers utilise the land as pasture [30], and it is not actively utilised for agricultural purposes; as such, the soil will need to be prepared before sugarcane cultivation can commence. A labour force needs to be brought into the area, and the necessary supporting infrastructure will need to be constructed. By-products of sugarcane cultivation can be utilised to produce energy for pre-processing and the ABE process in a similar way to ethanol production processes [28]. Biobutanol will be fully refined in Brazil, transported by trucks to the coast and exported by tankers to the EU market. According to a preliminary life cycle assessment study, the fuel complies with the RED sustainability criteria. The European bioenergy company may, however, have quite different thoughts, activities and communication related to sustainability based on the level of maturity of its responsibility for sustainability. This study aims to characterise these different levels, especially the highest level at which the business contributes to solving macro-level sustainability challenges.

Economic feasibility studies represent a basic business procedure that is driven by common business economic or shareholder responsibility. Schumpeter [18] suggested that efficiency thinking represents a traditional business approach to sustainability. Companies could initiate efficiency measures for sustainability from a purely business-economic starting point; i.e., for cutting costs, with potential simultaneous positive impacts on decreasing the environmental loading. However, cost-cutting exercises could have a reverse effect on environmental protection because companies that are focused on cost reduction are less likely to adopt environmental values or policies [36].

Typically, a company actively takes into account more stakeholder groups as the corporate responsibility for sustainability grows in maturity [35]. For example, with regard to the supply chain stakeholders, the sustainability goals and objectives set by a company tend to extend beyond the company’s own activities to the whole supply chain as the corporate responsibility for sustainability grows in maturity [38].

Compliance with legislative requirements is the prerequisite for business continuity and for reaching higher maturity levels [14]. However, Papagiannakis et al. [39] found that business activities that are merely aimed at complying with legislation delay the transition towards sustainability. In addition, different stakeholder or interest groups have different requirements and expectations. Literature suggests that bioenergy systems tend to fail if the concerns of stakeholders have not been taken into consideration within an informed decision-making process, since stakeholder participation provides information about the sustainability impacts of the system; for example, the risks and values to different stakeholders [9].

Requirements, for example, regulations, are commonly used in economic system modelling [40]. Requirements could represent the rules, criteria, orders, and requests that different stakeholders have specifically issued. A company could either take a reactive or proactive stance to requirements. A proactive approach to stakeholder requirements could increase as the corporate responsibility for sustainability grows in maturity [41]. Stakeholder expectations are not (yet) issued and could thus be more difficult for companies to detect. As such, they always require a proactive approach.

It is worth considering, whether higher overall maturity in sustainability matters leads to more proactivity with regard to requirements or vice versa. Buysse and Verbeke [41] found that stronger environmental proactivity is likely to lead to more sensitivity to stakeholder requirements and more pressure from stakeholders might lead to a more proactive environmental strategy.

More mature companies might deliberately seek win-win situations through the simultaneous reduction of footprint and costs; i.e., through eco-efficiency measures. Ketola [42], however, stated that companies rarely take responsibility for the environment, society or culture, unless economic benefits are expected. Dyllick and Muff [15] suggested that more mature companies set targets and consciously attempt to create value for several stakeholders.

The sustainability goals and objectives set by a company tend to change from being cost-, efficiency- and regulatory compliance-oriented to more widely environment- and society-oriented as the corporate responsibility for sustainability grows in maturity [18]. Here, the company perspective shifts from short-term profits to long-term license to operate [18], or respectively, from short-term to long-term sustainability concerns [15] as the corporate responsibility for sustainability grows in maturity. The shift begins when stakeholder requirements are addressed more proactively.

The question as to whether value creation is directed towards material and monetary or immaterial value, could define whether the sustainability conception of the company is weak or strong, respectively.

Figure 3 describes the shift in the perspectives of sustainability management [15] so that as corporate responsibility for sustainability matures towards the creative, intrinsic corporate responsibility level driven by strong intrinsic motivation, business and productbased sustainability management converts to sustainability-based business and product management.

The sustainability-oriented business recognises the boundaries of sustainable business and applies the ideology of strong sustainability. As stated in the introduction, Dyllick and Muff [15] and Whiteman et al. [16] highlighted the disconnect between business operations and macro-level sustainability challenges represents a major deficiency in the corporate responsibility for sustainability. The need to connect business operations with local sustainability challenges could be further extended to incorporate micro, meso, macro and planetary levels [35].

The planetary boundaries first described by Rockström et al. in 2009 [43] and further developed by Steffen et al. in 2015 [44] represent the universally recognised global environmental sustainability challenges and set the safe limits for sustainable human activities on planet Earth. The planetary boundaries can be further translated into local context by defining the local environmental ceiling [45]. The boundaries of a sustainable and just business could be extended from the environmental ceiling to human needs, both general and locally specific, that determine the minimum social foundation for well-being [45]. In Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), the limits of safe and just human activities are referred to as areas of protection [46] or as safeguard subjects [47], and they commonly include the following five categories: natural environment quality [46], natural resources [46], man-made environment [46], human health [46], and human dignity and well-being [22]. Figure 4 depicts the limits of the operational environment of a sustainable business, which is defined by the sustainability principles: to ensure the well-being of humans within the local environmental ceiling and planetary boundaries [45].

Figure 4.

Boundaries of sustainable business, sustainable business occurs within the boundaries set by the environmental limits and social foundation (adapted from [34], [35], [43]–[45], [48], [49])

Rockström et al. [43] and Steffen et al. [44] described how population growth and increases in the standard of living are common factors that contribute to the challenges that emerge when attempting to operate within the planetary boundaries. Such macrolevel developments could be a business interest within the development of long-term strategies. At the macro level, the analysis of Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Ecological (PESTE) factors is a common business practice [50]. Operations at the local level contribute to global sustainable or unsustainable development.

From an anthropocentric perspective, the social foundation of sustainable human operations is firmly grounded in human needs. Well known need theories include Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and Max-Neef’s matrix of needs [49]. The minimum level in the fulfilment of needs, the social foundation, should be achieved. This is marked in the colour green in the middle sphere of Figure 4. Material needs include the requirements for food, water and shelter; moral needs include needs the requirements for truth and justice; and social needs include requirements for respect and belonging [49]. Human needs create a local demand for products and services. It is common for businesses that follow responsible business practices to identify the stakeholders that have subjective needs and interests that translate into requirements at different levels of the business operational environment [41].

Economic feasibility studies and calculations can be considered to represent valid methods by which profitable biobutanol business in the local societal and environmental conditions can be achieved. Figure 5 presents a summary of sustainability questions and themes for which the economic feasibility could be calculated to ensure profitability. The sustainability questions in Figure 5 include all the applicable sustainability questions that were generated during Workshop 2 and divided according to the themes. The extra themes come from the discussions that took place in the other workshops.

Figure 5.

Sustainability questions and themes related to the objective of profitability of biobutanol business and the method of economic feasibility studies and calculations

Legislation and economic steering were emphasised in the economic feasibility studies. This emphasis implies that the profitability of biobutanol business could depend on legislative steering and political goals. Thus, in addition to the responsibility for sustainability, the economic feasibility could be shifted to societal legislative systems. The other sustainability questions concentrate on technical aspects of the production process. The maturity level of economic feasibility studies is relevant in all stages of product maturity from planning investments to expanding an existing business. The answers to the sustainability questions consist of highly quantitative information and numerical indicators.

A further method by which the business economy can be improved is through the application of different efficiency measures that, from a business perspective, primarily lead to cost savings and secondarily to other environmental and societal benefits. Thus, the business economy is seen as the endpoint of the impact pathway of the efficiency measures. Figure 6 presents the themes of efficiency measures, efficiency objectives and a selection of methods and tools that could be utilised to improve efficiency as a means of cutting costs.

Figure 6.

Efficiency themes, objectives to cut costs, methods and tools

Efficiency measures could be most relevant at the product maturity stage, in which the bioenergy operations are already running. Efficiency measures could improve economic and environmental performance, and this level of maturity includes environmental assessment methods.

Sustainability questions originating purely from business economic efficiency objectives and footprint reduction objectives that lead to win-win situations for the business economy and different stakeholders were difficult to distinguish. However, the questions could be answered from either a business economic or eco-efficiency perspective. To define the cost-cutting objectives, information about the current situation needs to be collected. For example, a simple numerical answer is required to answer the question about how much land the delivery and storage of biobutanol require. The sustainability questions could also be drivers for taking efficiency measures; for example, understanding the extent to which sugarcane cultivation competes with food production for land area would provide insights into the business economic risk related to the demand and valuation of land area.

Cost-cutting opportunities can be identified from a variety of different perspectives. For example, the sustainability questions about water in the cultivation life cycle stage included questions about whether irrigation is necessary, which water resources are used for irrigation, whether surface water or groundwater use can be reduced, and whether the water resources are temporally or spatially distributed. The water costs could be eliminated if precipitation provides enough irrigation water; if not, costs could potentially be decreased by comparing water sources. The temporal and spatial distribution of water could put a continuous water supply at risk, which could lead to production disruptions at any stage of the life cycle and represent a financial risk if not taken into consideration. Whether the objectives are reached can best be verified through quantitative data and numerical indicators; however, the calculations also require background data about process optimisation and the principles of environmental efficiency.

Figure 7 shows two different stances, reactive and proactive, to legislative requirements, examples of subject areas of legislative requirements, and a selection of methods and tools that could be utilised in the management of the requirements.

Figure 7.

Stances to legislative requirements, their objectives, methods and tools

Both reactive and proactive stances to legislative requirements were discussed during the workshops. This study did not address the question as to whether a reactive approach in some sub-areas of sustainability, such as legislative or stakeholder requirements, would be sufficient while other areas required a proactive approach.

To some extent, the workshop participants seemed to emphasise the role of political targets and legislative steering in the promotion of the sustainability of bioenergy systems and bioenergy business; i.e., shifting the responsibility for sustainability to societal systems instead of taking intrinsically motivated responsibility for sustainability. They mentioned taxes and subsidies as important steering instruments at the energy system level and sustainability criteria at the level of improving existing bioenergy chains. Furthermore, the workshop participants emphasised the aspect of lobbying and influencing legislation to avoid unwanted requirements and impacts on the industry. Many organisations, however, lack sufficient resources.

Although the workshop participants seemed to shift the responsibility for sustainability to legislative systems to some extent, an alternative perspective arose. The workshop participants did not perceive stringent legislation as favourable because it restricts business opportunities and opportunities for creativity, the latter of which is particularly important at the level of sustainability excellence. The same notion applies to the quantity of legislation. The workshop participants considered “extensive bureaucracy”, “over regulation” and the “jungle of regulations” as burdensome, even suppressing, for the bioenergy business. Some participants were also concerned about the limited scope of the current sustainability criteria that possibly leads to sub-optimisation instead of holistic optimisation. However, over regulation could lead to problematic conflicting legislative requirements. Conflicts in the requirements of different interest groups are, of course, inevitable. Furthermore, local conditions in EU countries, national interpretations of the EU-level directives, and national differences in the level of compliance monitoring, were considered to represent EU-level challenges.

No business can avoid the burden of verification of legislative compliance; legislation is essential at any stage of product maturity. It requires ensuring constant compliance with the current legislative requirements and following their development. The sustainability questions concentrated on achieving sustainability through compliance with legislation (Does sugarcane comply with sustainability criteria?), identifying legislative risks from developing legislation (Is the EU planning distribution targets for biofuels for 2020?) and risks from non-compliance to business (Are the local authorities authorised to lease the land?). The impact of legislation on biobutanol operations can be significant in the multitude of regulated operations. Figure 7 shows a minor part of all applicable legislation. To distinguish all legislation-related sustainability questions, an extensive review of legislation would be necessary. For example, the questions depicted the large variety of monitoring requirements set by, for example, the environmental permit. The answers to the sustainability questions would require both quantitative and qualitative indicators.

Figure 8 shows the two stances, reactive and proactive, to customer requirements, examples of the subject areas of customer requirements, and a selection of methods and tools that could be utilised. Customers are used as an example of a stakeholder group.

Figure 8.

Stances to customer requirements, their objectives, methods and tools

Sustainability questions related to the maturity level of responding to enquiries from stakeholders showed a large variety (see appendix). Stakeholder requirements could be relevant at all stages of product maturity. The level is closely linked to the level of creating value for multiple stakeholders, although company activity at this level depends on the activity of enquiries by stakeholders. For example, the requirements of non-human stakeholders could be included only at the more mature level of creating value for multiple stakeholders.

Compliance with standard requirements could serve as a tool to encourage compliance with customer requirements and expectations (e.g., fuel quality standards) and proactively enhance acceptance among a wider stakeholder base (e.g., ISO 26000 Guidance on Social Responsibility). Voluntary standards could be used quite similarly to legislation since they include requirements and criteria, such as the sustainability criteria outlined in the ISO 13065. The workshop participants advocated for a verification of the suitability of certificates for legislative purposes. Company representatives recognised the need to influence standards respectively as they would influence legislation. The workshop participants mentioned the possibility that demonstrating compliance with legislation could be sufficient for some stakeholders, such as customers and nongovernmental organisations. However, the possibility that exceeding the legislative requirements and standards may benefit sales was acknowledged.

The profitability and acceptability orientations were somewhat easier to characterise than the more mature levels. Because solely profitability- and acceptability-related activities are part of everyday business operations, retaining these well-known activities in the model of the maturity of corporate responsibility for sustainability could help companies initiate more advanced sustainability activities on common, solid ground.

The level of value creation for multiple stakeholders in the maturity model (Figure 3) was intertwined with the level of efficiency measures in the profitability orientation and the level of responding to stakeholder enquiries in the acceptability orientation. The division of sustainability questions originating purely from business economic efficiency targets and footprint reduction targets leading to win-win situations for the company economy and different stakeholders was ambiguous. Furthermore, the stage of creating value for multiple stakeholders could include the proactive stance to stakeholder requirements. The extent to which it was difficult to distinguish the levels may also indicate that as the bioenergy operators’ maturity in corporate responsibility for sustainability grows, the profitability and acceptability orientations tend to converge, as suggested in the maturity model (Figure 3).

When the stakeholders are considered broadly to include non-human stakeholders, and the bioenergy operator proactively considers stakeholder expectations, i.e., requirements that the stakeholders have not yet stated (or have yet to conceive) in relation to the bioenergy system, the division between the profitability-acceptability orientation and the sustainability orientation becomes blurred. Fundamentally, there would be no better way to proactively approach those stakeholder expectations than to aim at safe and just bioenergy operations within the limits set by the environmental boundaries and social foundation for human health, dignity and well-being. Therefore, such an approach would be necessary at all stages of product maturity.

A further link could be found at the level of legislative requirements. In areas of stricter legislation, certain legislative requirements represent sustainability-as-usual for the bioenergy business. However, in areas of less strict legislation, more depends on the willingness of the business operator to create value for multiple stakeholders; for example, by setting environmental quality standards. Legislative sustainability criteria could contribute to the mindset and ability of the bioenergy business to operate at the highest maturity levels of corporate responsibility for sustainability.

Although linking the sustainability questions from Workshop 2 with underlying sustainability objectives and methods was not straightforward, intentions of value creation to multiple stakeholders could be distinguished. Although the impact pathway and value network are complicated, at a minimum, they include the common areas of protection, natural environment quality, natural resources, man-made environment, human health, and human dignity and well-being as endpoints together with the business economy. The difference between value creation for multiple stakeholders and profitability-oriented efficiency measures is that the primary endpoint is not merely business economy. Figure 9 presents examples of stakeholder groups, measures of value creation for the stakeholders, and a selection of methods and tools that could be utilised at this level.

Figure 9.

Multiple stakeholders, objectives that lead to value creation, methods and tools

The sustainability questions often considered the negative value creation of the bioenergy operations; i.e., negative impacts to the environment and decreasing the opportunities for stakeholders. These questions could be as relevant as those of positive value creation in determining the extent to which the operations are acceptable, if a reduction in a certain value is inevitable. The level, thus, includes both value creation and value retention. One challenge associated with approaching sustainability from the stakeholders’ perspective is that the subjective values of stakeholders (both human and non-human) could be in conflict. Therefore, creating value for a stakeholder could lead to the deprivation of another stakeholder: win-win situations between the bioenergy business and a stakeholder could transpire to be win-win-lose situations when other stakeholders are considered. Measuring the value that can be either quantitative or qualitative and perceived differently by different stakeholders is a methodological challenge.

The following paragraphs present answers to some sustainability questions at the value creation level. Machado et al. [51] concluded that the presence of sugarcane ethanol (butanol) production processes tend to improve local development as measured by illiteracy rate, Human Development Index, Theil Index (income inequality), percentage of poor people, connection to the grid and sewer system, child mortality, and life expectancy. Thus, bioenergy business operators could have a positive impact on these sustainability aspects in the long term. To answer the question as to whether additional education of employees is necessary, Herreras Martinez et al. [52] concluded in their study on the scenarios of sugarcane-ethanol production in Northeast Brazil that sugarcane operations are a significant local employer. Thus, in the event new major regional sugarcane operations are created, the additional education of a potentially low-qualified labour force by initiating or boosting educational programs, for example, is likely to be necessary.

When investigating the water consumption associated with sugarcane cultivation, Filoso et al. [30] found that land use changes in the Cerrado region could increase evapotranspiration rates and, thereby, potentially increase the groundwater consumption for irrigation of sugarcane. This would result in groundwater scarcity, which could be a significant risk for the sustainability of Cerrado-based biobutanol business and cause value retention. The question as to whether biodiversity decreases due to the sugarcane cultivation is related to either the level of legislative compliance or value creation. When investigating this, Filoso et al. [30] concluded that the expansion of sugarcane cultivation to regions of Cerrado threatens the biodiversity and ecosystems in the area, which has already lost over half of its natural vegetation over the course of the past 20 years [30]. Legally, further land use change is possible, though the Brazilian Forest Code regulates the agricultural expansion by protecting 35% of native vegetation in private properties [30]. From the perspective of planetary boundaries, the loss of biodiversity is a high risk [43]. Literature (see e.g., [30]) further confirms the importance of the questions on the potential deterioration of water quality due to sugarcane butanol production processes. Thus, business operators should be aware of the effects of, for example, their pesticide and fertiliser loading [30]. When investigating whether land use change from pastureland to sugarcane cropland decreases or increases carbon stock in Cerrado, Mello et al. [53] concluded that the carbon stock is lower in Cerrado sugarcane cropland than pastureland or natural vegetation.

In summary, bioenergy companies’ conception of the quantity of components of the bioenergy system expands as their maturity of corporate responsibility for sustainability develops. In the sustainability orientation, the sustainability challenges of the whole bioenergy system, both the bioenergy production chain and the operational environment, are studied in parallel. The following list provides a high-level overview of the extent of systemic thinking that the bioenergy operators need to possess, and the systemic components that the bioenergy operators need to explore to be able to operate at the most mature level of corporate responsibility of sustainability. The components may interact through direct and indirect material and energy inputs and outputs, monetary flows, and information exchange and human capital flows, of which the indirect flows would require system expansion:

• Identification of life cycle stages and operators and description of the unit processes;

• Description of the operational environment at each life cycle stage;

• Acquisition of a general understanding of the planetary boundaries and human needs;

• Identification of the factors in the operational environment that have the potential to contribute to global sustainable development in the areas of the planetary boundaries;

• Identification of how the bioenergy system (operators and processes) contributes to the factors in the operational environment that have the potential to contribute to the global sustainable development in the areas of the planetary boundaries;

• Identification of the challenges and opportunities inherent in the ecosystem and society conditions in the operational environment that contribute to fulfilling local human needs;

• Identification of how the bioenergy system (operators and processes) contributes to the challenges and opportunities that arise within the ecosystem and society conditions the operational environment that contribute to fulfilling local human needs;

• Identification of stakeholders, their requirements and expectations;

• Identification of the impacts bioenergy processes or the conduct of bioenergy operators have on different stakeholders, identified, for example, through indicators;

• Identification of the impacts different stakeholders have on the bioenergy processes or the conduct of bioenergy operators.

Formulating the contributions to sustainability that are outlined above in the form of questions could help bioenergy operators to identify sustainability issues because asking questions might be easier than forming statements. The questions might further encourage operators to identify solutions and the information required to identify the sustainable answer. Finding suitable methods and tools to answer the sustainability questions is important. Questions about the factors that contribute to planetary boundaries or human needs could require the collection of background information, for example, indicator values, and the questions about the opportunities for bioenergy services to contribute to these questions could require deeper analysis, knowledge and wisdom to answer. As discussed in the workshops, the bioenergy systems should operate in symbiosis with the operational environment.

The following examples represent information about the Brazilian contribution to planetary boundaries in the context of the case study. A factor that contributes to the global sustainable development in the subject areas of the planetary boundaries, namely climate change and biodiversity, is land use change. Land use change in tropical forests can release significant amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, thus influencing the climate [54]. Between 2005 and 2009, Brazil, however, decreased the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest by 36% of its historical levels [54] and 70% during the past decade [55]. The Cerrado area is classified as one of the most threatened ecosystems in the world [30]. The area has lost over half of its natural vegetation over the course of the past 20 years [30]. Agricultural expansion, in particular, poses a significant threat to the area and its biodiversity [30].

Furthermore, the challenges and opportunities that are inherent in the ecosystems and the social conditions that impact the fulfilment of human needs in the Brazilian operational environment can be identified. The UN has estimated that the population will grow from 195 million in 2010 to 231 million in 2050 [56]. The Brazilian constitutional right to electricity cannot be guaranteed [57]. The rural electrification program aims to improve access to electricity in the rural areas [58]. Furthermore, the risk of power failures is relatively high at 20% [56]. The failures occur among various social groups, as well as industries, for different reasons [57]. On hot summer days, the energy consumption of cooling devices sharply increases electricity consumption [59]. Bioenergy operators could, thus, consider whether they are able to contribute to increasing the reliability of the distribution of electricity. As a factor that influences quality of life, child labour has decreased in Brazil [60]. The majority of child labour that is in use in Brazil is employed agriculture [60]. Because children do not need to do adults’ work, i.e. child labour should be avoided, the biofuel producer needs to be aware of the risk of contributing to an increase in child labour and the opportunity to decrease child labour.

As providers of ecosystem services, bioenergy systems are in an interesting position as a link between the environmental boundaries and human needs [6]. The fulfilment of human needs, and consequently the well-being of humans, depends on ecosystem services [61]. Thus, the purpose of a bioenergy product, service and business can be founded on fulfilling the basic human need for a tolerable living temperature, and fulfilling additional human needs through electricity and mobility. In modern societies, electricity, heating, cooling and transportation are standard services. Thus, the extent to which businesses can demonstrate maturity in corporate responsibility for sustainability through the creative provision of such services could be somewhat limited. Businesses that operate at a higher maturity level of corporate responsibility for sustainability should, however, recognise that bioenergy systems may also add value to local communities by simultaneously fulfilling higher human needs; for example, needs for activity and participation [49].

Gasparatos et al. [7] stated that, although biofuels provide ecosystem services, they also compromise other ecosystem services. A commonly cited example is that of food. These trade-offs between ecosystem services are relevant in the assessment of the sustainability of bioenergy systems because the principle of sustainable development assumes that bioenergy operations should not deprive current and future generations of the possibility to fulfil their needs [62]. Another interesting question for mature bioenergy business could be the justification of bioenergy in the energy mix in comparison to other renewable or non-renewable energy forms since alternative energy options could similarly compromise ecosystem services.

The above-listed approach suggests the inclusion of stakeholder requirements and expectations at the level of sustainability orientation, although literature also examines the contrary scenario. Sustainability can be considered a normative concept [63], which would advocate for the inclusion of a normative element in the approach. Furthermore, Arias-Maldonado [37] discussed how the concept of open sustainability comprises several subjective conceptions of sustainability that require democratic and open communications. Buchholz et al. [9] suggested a failure of bioenergy systems in the case of the deficient participation of stakeholders. Arias-Maldonado [37] compared closed sustainability with strong sustainability with regard to, for example, the nonsubstitutability of natural capital and the insistence on systemic transformation. Thus, a slight controversy to the ideology of strong sustainability exists in the inclusion of stakeholder requirements. However, as discussed above, the sustainability orientation could possibly be characterised as a specific area of the profitability-acceptability orientation. In such a case the broad inclusion of stakeholders and their non-stated expectations is crucial within the approach. The identification of sustainability challenges and opportunities in the Brazilian context could help bioenergy business operators to formulate their value propositions [64], which is also related to the ideology of value creation.

The sustainability questions at the more mature levels of corporate responsibility for sustainability had a system expansion perspective, i.e., the indirect consequences of measures directly linked to the bioenergy operations were considered. For example, “Does sugarcane cultivation force other land uses into more highly biodiverse land areas?”. The questions reached an ethical level, and included considerations of the acceptability of biofuel use in road transportation and its possible rebound effects (favouring cars due to the green image of biofuels) as well as the acceptability of biobutanol due to toxicity-induced health effects during production, for example.

The tools or methods that could be employed at the highest maturity level remained quite vague, and the discussion primarily concerned extensive sustainability issues. A combination of several different methods and tools from the other maturity levels would be necessary. Applying system analytical perspectives to the sustainability of the bioenergy system should serve as a starting point, and parts of the bioenergy system could be studied using a variety of methods to produce, for example, indicators.

Considering the sustainability questions especially in their own well-defined core processes might be of primary interest for bioenergy operators. However, at different stages of the bioenergy chain, the extent of sustainability impacts and the power to change the impacts varies from operator to operator. The question remains; In practice, who is responsible for the sustainability of the bioenergy chain. Is it sufficient for the bioenergy operators to try to improve the state of the sustainability of their own core processes? Do small improvements make a difference in the context of the whole system? Or should operators define and concentrate on the major leverage points [9] of the whole system?

Sustainability improvements require interactions between the various operators that exist in the supply chain and these have yet to be examined in detail. Furthermore, the roles of different operators and differences in their relevant local sustainability questions could be of interest.

The workshop discussions motivated the question as to whether sustainability could be seen as a source of competitive advantage for businesses or whether true sustainability requires tighter cooperation between competing companies to solve shared sustainability challenges and problems. In that case, businesses with mature responsibility for sustainability would seek cooperation with competitors, which blurs the concept of business, capitalism, and competition. However, as biofuel business operators with a conventional profitability or acceptability orientation to sustainability would use, for example, their verified improvements in efficiency in their competition against rivals, a sustainability-oriented business operator could use knowledge about the extent to which the bioenergy business compromises human and planetary systems less than alternative services.