The argument rests on a simple but consequential observation. Biochar is not a single material but an enormously heterogeneous family of carbonaceous solids produced by heating biomass in the absence of oxygen. Its specific surface area, porosity, ash content, alkalinity, mineral composition, nutrient content and cation exchange capacity all swing dramatically depending on what biomass was used, how hot the pyrolysis ran, and whether the material was treated before or after charring. These physicochemical properties are the machinery behind every environmental effect biochar can produce, from sorbing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to liming acidic soils. Two biochars applied at the same rate of, say, two percent by weight, or twenty tonnes per hectare, can therefore deliver profoundly different amounts of the property that actually drives the outcome under study.

Ejileugha formalises this insight as the Principle of Functional Delivery, or PoFuD. The principle asserts that biochar effects in soil are governed by the type and amount of functional capacity delivered, not by the mass of material applied. In this framing, equal masses of two biochars simply do not represent equivalent treatments unless they deliver equivalent functional capacity. Functional capacity is defined operationally as the magnitude of a given property delivered per unit mass of biochar, using quantifiable proxies such as surface area, cation exchange capacity, ash content or alkalinity, because many of the ultimate functions themselves are difficult to measure directly. The proposal does not deny that biochar is heterogeneous; rather, it makes that heterogeneity analytically visible by separating the controlled functional input from everything else that arrives along with it.

The consequences of the mass-based habit are far-reaching. Because the dose is expressed as applied mass rather than delivered function, dose-response relationships become murky, and studies using identical application rates can legitimately report opposite results. In sorption experiments on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heavy metals, contrasting biochars are routinely compared at the same mass, which effectively under-doses the sorption capacity of the weaker material. Differences are then attributed generically to feedstock or pyrolysis conditions, even though the mechanistic explanations offered in such papers are usually assumptions rather than experimentally tested causes. Mass-based application, the paper contends, confounds material quantity with functional capacity, obscuring causal mechanisms and making results difficult to compare across sites, contaminants and regulatory contexts.

The mass-based convention appears to have been inherited uncritically from older practice with compost, manure and other solid organic amendments, materials whose variability, while real, is less extreme. Biochar research has implicitly recognised the importance of function for years; properties are characterised in tables and invoked in discussion sections to explain observed effects. But experimental design remains overwhelmingly mass-based, and even studies of engineered or functionalised biochars, modified with metals, nutrients or microbes, still compare treatments by mass rather than by the magnitude of the engineered function delivered. No general principle has previously articulated the explicit link between application and functional capacity, which is the gap PoFuD is designed to fill.

The operational framework that accompanies the principle is deliberately disciplined. First, the intended application objective must be clearly defined, whether containment, biodegradation, nutrient retention, pH control or vegetation establishment. Next, the dominant limiting process preventing the desired outcome is identified, for example low pH driving metal mobilisation, or poor soil structure restricting oxygen diffusion. That limiting process then dictates which target biochar property should be optimised and quantified, and the biochar is applied at a rate normalised to that property, converted to a per-unit-mass-of-soil basis for comparability. Crucially, only one functional capacity is standardised per experiment, aligned with the study hypothesis, a rule the paper calls the principle of capacity control. All co-delivered properties are measured and reported transparently but treated as contextual background rather than controlled variables, in line with the principle of co-delivery transparency.

This discipline matters because biochar properties are tightly coupled. Raising ash content to increase pH will simultaneously alter mineral sorption sites, dissolved organic carbon release, porosity, microbial colonisation and contaminant partitioning. Delivering an equivalent functional capacity with a different biochar may require a much larger mass, smuggling in a heavy load of co-delivered properties that can shift the outcome. The framework therefore demands that trade-offs be evaluated explicitly: whether collateral effects are detrimental, whether the benefits of the target property outweigh them, and whether co-delivered effects interact synergistically, additively or complementarily with the optimised function. The best biochar, the paper notes, may not be the one with the highest sorption or immobilisation figures, but the one that maximises net ecological recovery and long-term soil functionality.

The perspective is candid about limitations. Isolating a single property in a material whose characteristics co-vary during pyrolysis is genuinely difficult, and not all functional capacities are readily quantifiable, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where analytical resources are constrained. Elemental ratios such as O/C and H/C can serve as proxies for carbonisation and aromaticity, but as dimensionless values they cannot easily be expressed per unit mass, limiting their use in functional dosing. Interlaboratory variability poses another challenge: a well-known comparison across twenty-two laboratories found poor reproducibility in biochar physicochemical characterisation, which could propagate uncertainty into reported functional capacities. Initiatives such as the European Biochar Certificate and the International Biochar Initiative have advanced standardised characterisation, and PoFuD aims to build on that foundation by standardising application itself. Soil texture, mineralogy, organic matter, baseline pH, redox conditions and climate will still modulate outcomes, but the author argues this is a strength rather than a weakness, because the framework separates what is controlled by the biochar from what is governed by the environment.

The paper also grapples with messy real-world cases. In soils co-contaminated with heavy metals and hydrocarbons, the properties ideal for sorbing organic pollutants are rarely those best suited to immobilising metals, so single-property optimisation may be insufficient. The proposed remedy is hierarchical functional prioritisation: rank objectives, optimise the primary target property, and treat the rest as co-delivered functions, as might be done at a mining site where metal immobilisation comes first, microbial recovery and hydrocarbon degradation second, and plant growth later. Where several properties contribute to one function, systematic biochar engineering should disentangle the dominant driver. And since maximum sorption capacity alone can mislead, because fine-particle biochars that sorb more also desorb more phenanthrene, ammonium and phosphorus, sorption-desorption behaviour and hysteresis may matter as much as capacity itself. Pairing biochar with compost or digestate, as demonstrated in work showing combined immobilisation and microbial degradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, offers another route to multi-functionality.

The broader stakes extend well into policy. Function-based standardisation would sharpen the translational value of biochar research, support risk assessment and regulatory evaluation, and give carbon-credit schemes and greenhouse gas mitigation programmes a defensible basis for comparing materials. The paper’s closing claim is bold but measured: biochar research has matured to the point where future progress depends less on inventing new biochars than on fixing the conceptual foundations of how they are applied. If the field adopts functional delivery as its dosing logic, the contradictory literature that has accumulated over decades may finally begin to converge, and the promise of biochar for soil remediation, biogeochemistry and climate mitigation could be tested on terms that actually reflect how the material works.

Subject of Research: Function-based standardisation of biochar soil application through the Principle of Functional Delivery

Article Title: Reframing biochar soil application from mass-based to function-based through the principle of functional delivery

Article References: Reframing biochar soil application from mass-based to function-based through the principle of functional delivery. (n.d.). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44378-026-00293-y

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s44378-026-00293-y

Keywords: biochar, soil amendment, functional delivery, standardisation, soil remediation, contaminant sorption, greenhouse gas mitigation, pyrolysis, cation exchange capacity, dose-response, soil biogeochemistry, carbon sequestration

Researchers Prosper Dzidzienyo, Saeed Rahimpour and Luana Dessbesell, writing in Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, have developed what they call a Traceability Degree Score, a systematic framework for grading individual pieces of product data on how reliably they can be captured, verified and exchanged along a supply chain. Rather than asking whether data exists, the framework asks whether each data element can be systematically linked to its point of origin, checked for accuracy and transmitted across supply chain partners in a digitally structured format. That distinction matters, because the authors’ analysis of a full textile lifecycle suggests that most of the data needed for passports currently sits in a grey zone: present in some form, but far from trustworthy or interoperable.

The framework rests on four indicators drawn from maturity-model theory, information quality research and supply chain traceability standards. The first is standardisation, which measures whether data are defined and reported in harmonised formats with persistent identifiers, so that a batch number means the same thing to a pulp mill in Finland and a retailer in Paris. The second is automation, assessing whether information is captured by sensors and enterprise systems rather than typed in by hand. The third is reliability, which captures whether measurements are accurate, consistent and independently verifiable. The fourth, blockchain readiness, is deliberately misnamed in the eyes of no one: it does not assume distributed ledgers are required, but instead evaluates whether data are structured, uniquely identifiable and linked to discrete lifecycle events, properties that any immutable, event-based traceability architecture would demand. Each data element is scored from one to five on every indicator, and the four scores are averaged into a single composite value.

To test the approach, the researchers constructed a detailed case study of a man-made cellulosic textile, a fabric made from 80 percent certified renewable wood and 20 percent recycled textile waste, both sourced in Finland. This hybrid of bio-based and circular material streams was chosen precisely because it mirrors the sourcing complexity that passport regulation is meant to address. Drawing on EU regulatory texts, the CIRPASS project’s passport prototypes, stakeholder consultations and life cycle assessment literature, the team identified 336 individual primary data elements spread across ten lifecycle nodes, from forestry and pulping through fibre, yarn, fabric and garment production to distribution, consumer use and end-of-life.

The results are striking for how unevenly traceability is distributed. Half of all data elements scored at the moderate level, meaning they exist in structured form but lack the full automation, verification or interoperability that seamless passport integration requires. Only 20 percent achieved the highest maturity, being digitally standardised, automatically captured, externally verified and ready for distributed ledger transmission. A quarter showed limited traceability, hampered by manual entry or inconsistent templates, while the remainder were essentially untraceable, concentrated in the consumer-use and end-of-life phases. In other words, the single most important stage for circular decisions — what happens to a garment after the sale — is exactly where the data infrastructure is weakest.

The node-by-node comparison sharpens that picture. Distribution and retail scored highest, with a mean traceability degree of 4.30, closely followed by dissolving pulp production at 4.28 and textile recycling at 4.13. The authors attribute the retail result to the quiet success of existing logistics standards: GS1 identifiers, batch numbering and trade barcodes have been standardised for decades, so the data foundations there are already mature. Manufacturing nodes such as fibre production, fabric making, yarn spinning and garment assembly landed in an intermediate band between 3.78 and 3.89, reflecting partial digitisation within factories but limited data exchange between companies. Raw material sourcing scored 3.55, while consumer use collapsed to 2.00 and end-of-life managed only 3.13. No single node achieved uniformly high scores across all four indicators, a finding the researchers say confirms that traceability maturity cannot be reduced to digitalisation alone.

The study also exposes a structural tension at the heart of the EU’s circular economy agenda. Digital Product Passports are explicitly intended to enable downstream value retention — reuse, repair and recycling — yet the phases where those decisions are made are the ones with the poorest data readiness. Consumer behaviour, device heterogeneity and the absence of standardised reporting at the end of a product’s life mean the data trail simply frays out. The researchers note that harmonised data definitions alone are insufficient: many nodes scored well on standardisation while lagging badly on automation and blockchain readiness, showing that agreeing on what to record is a very different problem from being able to record it reliably at scale.

Methodologically, the framework fills a gap that previous approaches left open. Earlier efforts to prioritise passport data, including ranking systems based on importance, availability and sensitivity, largely captured stakeholder perceptions of what data matters. Industry 4.0 maturity models, meanwhile, assess whole organisations rather than individual data points. By scoring data elements themselves, the new approach converts qualitative regulatory demands — data must be verifiable, data must be machine-readable — into a consistent numerical index that can pinpoint exactly where along a supply chain investment is most needed. The authors stress that the framework is technologically neutral: blockchain readiness measures architectural compatibility, not adoption, and European regulations remain agnostic about implementation technology.

The researchers acknowledge limitations. The case scores were derived from secondary sources reflecting average industrial realities in a Finnish context, and values would shift across regions, technologies and firms; the point of the exercise is to demonstrate a reproducible method rather than to deliver fixed numbers. The assessment is also a snapshot in time, whereas passport requirements and data systems will both evolve rapidly, calling for longitudinal studies and operational pilots. Inter-rater reliability and automated scoring are flagged as priorities for future work, as is validation across other product categories — the framework operates at the level of generic data elements, making it directly applicable to batteries, electronics, construction materials and other sectors that the passport regulation will eventually touch.

Still, the message for industry and policymakers is clear. As passport implementation accelerates, the readiness of product data is not a binary yes or no but a measurable, multi-dimensional capability that currently varies wildly across the lifecycle of even a well-documented textile. With only one in five data elements in the case study achieving full traceability maturity, and with the circular economy’s most critical decision points sitting at the bottom of the maturity curve, the gap between regulatory intent and operational data reality is wide. Diagnostic tools like the Traceability Degree Score offer a way to map that gap precisely — and, the authors argue, a way to close it with targeted investment rather than hopeful assumptions.

Subject of Research: A traceability assessment framework for primary data elements in textile digital product passports

Article Title: A framework for evaluating the traceability of primary data elements for textile digital product passports

Article References: Dzidzienyo, P., Rahimpour, S., & Dessbesell, L. (2026). A framework for evaluating the traceability of primary data elements for textile digital product passports. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 32, Article 101514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2026.101514

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1016/j.indic.2026.101514

Keywords: digital product passports, textile supply chains, traceability, EU regulation, ESPR, circular economy, data quality, blockchain readiness, standardisation, automation, man-made cellulosic textiles, sustainability indicators

The stakes are higher than corporate paperwork suggests. Battery material purchasers on the open market increasingly compare products using reported ESG data, and downstream manufacturers such as car companies are making procurement decisions based on sustainability disclosures. A review of reports from 90 corporate entities cited in the study found that sustainability disclosures lack completeness, consistency and comparability, with wide variations in reporting practices. Meanwhile, greenwashing has come under formal scrutiny in Australia through an investigation by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, raising the reputational cost of vague or inflated claims. If the data underpinning these decisions is not comparable, the entire traceability apparatus built around responsibly produced battery minerals starts to wobble.

The research team used qualitative content analysis to extract information from eight voluntary mechanisms, including certification schemes such as the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA), Certification of Raw Minerals (CERA), Towards Sustainable Mining (TSM), the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI) and the Responsible Mining Index (RMI), alongside the OECD Due Diligence Guidance on Stakeholder Engagement. They also examined three Australian federal legislative instruments: the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007, the National Pollutant Inventory measure, and the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Each mechanism was assessed against a common set of criteria covering ESG categories addressed, data types required, methodological specifications, whether reporting occurred at site or corporate level, and transparency provisions.

The findings show partial alignment with significant fragmentation underneath. Several topics, including energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, labour practices and community engagement, appeared consistently across mechanisms. Yet the depth and specificity of requirements varied enormously, particularly regarding methodology, data quality and verification expectations. Variance was especially pronounced for water, air quality, climate change, energy, waste, and habitats and mine closure indicators. Even when multiple mechanisms addressed the same category, detailed analysis revealed significant differences in how results were derived and how much information was needed to satisfy reporting expectations.

Some schemes clearly went further than others. IRMA, for example, features highly detailed descriptions and criteria for meeting individual reporting categories, specifies the frequency at which reporting should be updated, and mandates assurance requirements, with surveillance audits conducted 12 to 18 months after initial audits and re-audits every three years. It also requires public reporting of information on company websites. By contrast, GRI’s requirements for evidence supporting reported information are less prominent, and several schemes lacked any mention of public reporting or clarity about what should be disclosed publicly. Compliance grading added another layer of complexity: TSM uses levels from C to AAA, while IRMA scores a percentage based on assurance requirements met, which complicates downstream comparison across standards.

Verification and governance practices diverged just as sharply. The researchers evaluated data quality principles, informed by ISEAL credibility guidelines and prior research linking independent third-party verification to reporting credibility. Only one regulatory instrument, the NGER scheme, required third-party auditing of reported greenhouse gas accounting information. Among voluntary mechanisms, internal and third-party auditing were more prevalent but not uniformly required. DJSI requires third-party verification every four years but not for all information, TSM requires it only for some disclosures, and RMI demands public disclosure of certain data without requiring independent verification of it. On governance, IRMA, TSM, GRI and RMI were all developed under multi-stakeholder governance involving indigenous groups, worker organisations, industry, financial institutions and researchers, while CERA was developed with a limited group of consultants and universities. Only IRMA and CERA specified grievance mechanisms outright, with TSM requiring them for workers.

The study situates this fragmentation in a longer history. Sustainability reporting in mining predates the Global Reporting Initiative, founded in 1997, and stretches back at least as far as Western Mining Corporation’s 1994/95 Environmental Progress Report, developed partly using North American guidelines from 1993. Australia has had mandatory corporate environmental reporting since 1998. Yet despite three decades of evolution, ESG frameworks have not reached a level of standardisation that enables meaningful performance comparison. The International Council on Mining and Metals released a draft Consolidated Mining Standard in October 2024, merging its Mining Principles with the CopperMark, Towards Sustainable Mining and the World Gold Council standards, but the authors caution that whether consolidation solves equivalency, comparability and data quality issues remains to be seen, particularly with implementation due in 2026 and uptake uncertain.

Regulatory pressure is building from multiple directions simultaneously. The European Union’s Battery Regulation will directly affect Australian battery material producers, while the proposed Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism and the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s climate-related financial disclosure requirements signal a broader shift from voluntary towards mandatory ESG reporting. In Australia, comprehensive ESG disclosure has not yet been mandated beyond modern slavery and greenhouse gas reporting for larger companies, but a government position statement announcing an ‘Extended External Reporting regime’ hints at a future framework. Product-level platforms such as the Global Battery Alliance’s Battery Passport and the London Metal Exchange have responded to traceability demands by mandating specific reporting requirements, though their material scope remains limited.

The researchers sketch two divergent futures. In the consolidation trajectory, the proliferation of standards observed over 30 years reverses, driven by developments such as the International Sustainability Standards Board, which is working to consolidate SASB standards, TCFD recommendations, the Integrated Reporting Framework and the CDSB Framework. Industry-led consolidation is also visible in the international spread of Towards Sustainable Mining, adopted by the Minerals Council of Australia among others, and in the Copper Mark’s adaptation into Molybdenum, Nickel and Zinc Marks in 2022. However, the Consolidated Mining Standard has drawn pushback, with an open letter signed by more than 35 community groups, unions and NGOs advocating for alternatives such as IRMA, which they viewed as developed through an equal governance model, revealing tension between industry and broader stakeholders. In the proliferation trajectory, new standards emerge focused on specific concerns like modern slavery or individual commodities, potentially fragmenting along geographic lines between the USA, China and Europe, though interoperability could improve through blockchain-supported data systems and the United Nations Transparency Protocol, whose test pilots are now underway in Canada, Australia and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

For Australian producers, the immediate reality is a choice between expensive workarounds. Larger companies are building bespoke concordance matrices that align reporting criteria across multiple standards, an approach that demands sizable internal sustainability teams or costly external consultants. Smaller producers, or projects still in the scoping phase, often find that investment exceeds the perceived value. Some companies adopt a single strong standard such as IRMA in the hope that it satisfies others, though the scheme’s rigour can create hesitation among producers wary of unfavourable findings. The study’s authors do not pretend to have an exhaustive picture, acknowledging that the landscape is evolving rapidly and their analysis reflects a specific moment in the FBI CRC project. But their central conclusion is clear: the current landscape exhibits moderate overlap without full standardisation, and this fragmentation risks undermining comparability and stakeholder confidence. They recommend that all stakeholders in battery material supply chains articulate the future they want when advocating for change, because whether the sector consolidates or proliferates, the credibility of every green claim attached to a battery mineral depends on it.

Subject of Research: Comparative analysis of voluntary and regulatory ESG reporting mechanisms for Australian battery mineral producers

Article Title: Battery minerals: a changing context for ESG reporting

Article References: Langdon, R., Berry, F., Lara, H. B., Giurco, D., Northey, S., Severiano, B. M., & Li, W. (2026). Battery minerals: a changing context for ESG reporting. BMC Environmental Science, 3(1), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s44329-026-00046-w

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s44329-026-00046-w

Keywords: ESG reporting, battery minerals, lithium, nickel, cobalt, mining sustainability, IRMA, greenwashing, supply chain traceability, Battery Passport, Australia, standardisation