Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Regenerative Cotton embedded in a regenerative landscape validated by MRV

Ask me Anything Session

20 April, 2:00 pm - 3:00 pm (IST): 

Ask me Anything: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Regenerative Cotton embedded in a regenerative landscape validated by MRV | Meeting-Join | Microsoft Teams

Stichting IDH (“IDH”) accelerates sustainable trade by building impact-oriented coalitions of front running companies, civil society, governments, knowledge institutions, and other stakeholders in several agri-commodity sectors. We convene the interests, strengths and knowledge of public and private partners in sustainability commodity programs that aim to mainstream international and domestic commodity markets. We jointly formulate strategic intervention plans with public and private partners, and we co-invest with partners in activities that generate public goods.

Under this mandate, IDH is implementing the Regenerative Production Landscape Collaborative (RPLC) in Madhya Pradesh, India. The initiative brings together brands, implementing partners, and local institutions to promote regenerative agriculture, strengthen farmer livelihoods, and build traceable, low-impact cotton supply chains. As part of this effort, IDH seeks to commission a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) study embedded in a regenerative landscape + MRV + procurement systems to quantify the environmental performance of regenerative cotton production systems and support data-driven decision-making across stakeholders.

Cotton production systems in central India are increasingly challenged by:

• High dependence on synthetic fertilizers and crop protection inputs
• Declining soil health and productivity risks
• Increasing water stress and climate variability
• Limited availability of credible, field-level environmental footprint data

Through RPLC, IDH and its partners (including global brands such as H&M and BESTSELLER) are supporting farmers to transition toward regenerative agricultural practices, including:

• Reduced synthetic input use
• Adoption of bio-inputs (produced at farm and Bio-Inputs resource center) and soil health restoration practices (Application of Bio-Char etc.)
• Improved water-use efficiency
• Diversified (intercropping, cover cropping etc.) and resilient cropping systems (Reduced tillage)

The program is supported by a Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) framework, designed to capture environmental and socio-economic outcomes at scale. The program is also building traceable cotton supply chains linked to global brands and integrating MRV systems to track environmental outcomes

However, to strengthen the business case for regenerative cotton. The LCA should also capture co-benefits which are critical to the RPLC landscape approach there is a need for a robust, scientifically credible LCA that:

• Quantifies environmental benefits
• Supports brand-level sustainability claims
• Aligns with global frameworks (SBTi, Textile Exchange)
• Enables comparison with conventional and organic cotton
• Strengthen the business case for regenerative cotton sourcing post discussion with few brands 

The results of this LCA study are intended to be used for:

• Internal program decision-making within RPLC
• Integration into brand-level Scope 3 greenhouse gas inventories
• Supporting sustainability disclosures (CSRD, SBTi, ESG reporting)
• Informing sustainable procurement strategies for regenerative cotton sourcing
• Supporting development of incentive mechanisms, including farmer premium structures

The primary audience includes:

• Participating brands
• IDH and RPLC partners
• Implementing partners
• External stakeholders (where applicable, subject to validation requirements)

Key Tasks: To conduct a comprehensive Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of regenerative cotton production systems under RPLC and compare them with conventional cotton systems.

3.1 Objectives

Quantify environmental impacts of cotton production across the value chain (farm to ginning stage)

1. Quantify environmental impacts of regenerative cotton production across the value chain
2. Compare regenerative vs conventional cotton systems
3. Estimate GHG emissions (Covering entire Scope 3), water footprint, and input intensity
4. Assess environmental co-benefits including soil health (SOC proxies), biodiversity indicators, and nutrient-use efficiency.
5. Generate evidence for business case development for regenerative cotton sourcing
6. Align outputs  with brand reporting requirements (e.g., CSRD, SBTi, Scope 3 accounting)
7. Support integration with RPLC MRV framework and traceability systems
8. Identify environmental hotspots and drivers of impact
9. Ensure use of multiple functional units, including per kg lint cotton, per hectare economic outcome, to enable balanced comparison across systems.
10. Measure and model terrain-influenced variations in greenhouse gas emissions using GIS-based spatial analysis

3.2 Scope of Work

The consultant will undertake the following tasks:

1. LCA Framework Design 

• Define goal and scope of LCA (cradle-to-gin)
• Establish functional unit (e.g., per kg lint cotton, per hectare)
• Define system boundaries (farm → aggregation → ginning → optional downstream)
  1. GHG emissions (CO₂e)
  2. Water use (blue/green water)
  3. Energy use
  4. Soil impacts (proxy indicators)
  5. Agrochemical intensity

1. Baseline & Comparative System Definition 
   • Define both Regenerative cotton system (RPLC farms) and Conventional cotton system (control/baseline) 
   • Map differences in:
   • Input usage (fertilizers, pesticides)
   • Yield/productivity levels
   • Irrigation practices
   • Farm operations
   • Topography level variations 
   • Use primary data from RPLC farmers by sampling strategy across districts 

The comparison should account for different stages of regenerative adoption (early vs mature) and avoid bias arising from yield variations during transition periods

Representation across:

1. Rainfed vs irrigated
2. Small vs large farmers
3. Adoption stages

• Include representation of geographically remote and vulnerable clusters to capture last-mile access challenges and variability in input access
  1. FPOs / other farmers collectives, if any
  2. Implementing partners
• Integrate with with current programme structure such as the MRV datasets and Digital tools (e.g. Cool Farm Tool)
• Supplement with secondary datasets (e.g., Ecoinvent) where required

1. Impact Assessment 
   • Conduct LCA using recognized methodologies such as the ISO 14040 / 14044 for scientific credibility of the study and suitability for external communication 
   • The impact assessment must quantify: 
     1. Emissions reduction potential
     2. Disaggregate impacts to identify contribution of specific regenerative practices (e.g., bio-inputs, biochar, residue management, fertigation) to overall environmental performance
     3. Water savings
     4. Input reduction impacts
   • Identify key contributors to environmental impacts across life cycle stages
   • The interpretation must analyse:
     1. Farm-level vs post-harvest contributions
     2. Impact of inputs (crop duration, fertilizers, irrigation, energy usage) 

• Provide actionable recommendations for impact reduction through:
• Farm practices
• Program design inputs
• Policy recommendations
  • Include adoption-based scenarios (e.g., 25%, 50%, 75% adoption of regenerative practices), fertilizer reduction pathways, and bio-input substitution to assess scale-up potential and impact on yield and emissions.
  • Conduct sensitivity and scenario analysis that include:

1. Reduced fertilizer scenarios
2. Increased bio-input adoption
3. Water efficiency improvements
4. Quantify potential environmental gains under different adoption scenarios
5. Identify high-impact interventions for scaling – Transition cost
6. Support policy decision-making
1. Integration with Business Case 

• Translate LCA outputs into:
• Brand-relevant metrics (Scope 3, footprint reduction)
• Procurement insights (low-carbon cotton sourcing) 
  1. Farmer Premium Payout design (regen cotton vs conventional)
  2. Sustainable sourcing strategies - Cost-benefit narratives
  3. Risk-sharing models with other crops

1. Integration with RPLC MRV & Data Systems - Clearly define the protocol for integration between MRV datasets and LCA modelling, including validation approaches, treatment of primary vs secondary data, and reconciliation of modelled vs observed values

• Provide datasets in formats suitable for: 
  1. Dashboard integration
  2. Partner Reporting
  3. Year-on-year tracking
• Recommend methodology for periodic updates

1. Linkage to RPLC Landscape Approach

• The LCA must align with: 
  • Landscape-level outcomes (soil, water, biodiversity)
  • Farm + beyond-farm interventions (BRCs, watershed, etc.)
• Capture heterogeneity across districts / clusters
  • Different adoption levels of regenerative practices (based on the standards)
  • Different irrigation systems (rainfed vs irrigated)

Data Quality Requirements

The consultant shall ensure that all data used in the LCA adheres to internationally accepted data quality standards, including:

• Temporal representativeness: Data should reflect recent agricultural seasons
• Geographical representativeness: Data must be specific to Madhya Pradesh and RPLC intervention areas
• Technological representativeness: Reflect actual farming practices and technologies used
• Completeness: All relevant life cycle stages must be adequately covered

Deliverables

The deliverables of this assignment will be:

1. Inception Report (methodology, scope, workplan)
2. LCA Framework & Methodology Note
3. Life Cycle Inventory Dataset
4. Draft LCA Report
5. Final LCA Report (validated)
6. Hotspot & Recommendations Note
7. Business Case Brief (for brands)
8. Dashboard-ready dataset (MRV integration)
9. Presentation Deck
10. Critical Review Report

The procedure will be as follows:

1. Publishing the tender and/or inviting services providers to submit a proposal based on this ToR.
2. Evaluation of the proposals by the evaluation committee. The evaluation committee will evaluate the proposals based on the selection criteria as published in this ToR.
3. Decision on selection of the service provider.
4. Inception meeting with the selected service provider.

The schedule below indicates the timelines for the selection of the service provider:

• ToR published: 13 April 2026
• Ask Me Anything session: 20 April – 14.00 - 15.00 hrs
• Deadline for submitted proposals*: 28 April 2026
• Selection of service provider: 08 May 2026
• Start of assignment: Post Contracting
• End of assignment: Successful completion of the above-mentioned deliverables

* Proposals submitted after the deadline will be returned and will not be considered in the tender procedure.

IDH is requesting the service providers to hand in a proposal of maximum 5 pages (excluding company biographies, CVs, sample work and references). The proposal must be handed in a MS Word or PowerPoint version next to a PDF submission to facilitate any copy-and-pasting of content that we may need during evaluation.  

• We are seeking consultants with the below mentioned criteria:
• The consultant/team should demonstrate:
  • Proven experience in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
  • Experience in agriculture and/or textile value chains
• Familiarity with:
  • ISO 14040/44 standards
  • GHG accounting and Scope 3 reporting
• Experience working with multi-stakeholder programs

The proposal must at least include:

Content:

1. A succinct, well-documented approach addressing the requirements set out in this ToR. We request that the proposal structure match the selection criteria as closely as possible
2. Maximum of three client references and a sample of previous work relevant to the deliverables in this ToR.
3. An overview of the project team, including the CVs of the project team members,
4. Budget (as per template in Annex 2)
5. Description of safeguarding approach (does the service provider have a safeguarding policy in place, and if not, are they able and committed to comply to and implement IDH’s safeguarding policy (to be found here); steps (to be) taken to identify risks in relation to safeguarding in the project at hand and description of approach to mitigate these safeguarding risks (if any),
6. Statement on Ground for exclusion (see Section 6 below).
7. Completed detail request form (Annex 3),
8. Copy of most recent (audited) financial accounts, if available,
9. Statement of acceptance draft contract (Annex 4).

Administrative:

The proposal must be submitted to secretariat@rplcollaborative.org  before 28 April 2026.

1. Applicants shall be excluded from participation in this tender procedure if:

• they are bankrupt or being wound up, are having their affairs administered by the courts, have entered into an arrangement with creditors, have suspended business activities, are subject of proceedings concerning those matters, or are in any analogous situation arising from a similar procedure provided for in national legislation or regulations;
• they or persons having powers of representation, decision-making or control over them have been convicted of an offence concerning their professional conduct by a judgment which has the force of res judicata;
• they have been guilty of grave professional misconduct proven by any means which the IDH can justify;
• they have not fulfilled obligations relating to the payment of social security contributions or the payment of taxes in accordance with the legal provisions of the country in which they are established, or with those of the Netherlands or those of the country where the contract is to be performed;
• they or persons having powers of representation, decision making of control over them have been the subject of a judgment which has the force of res judicata for fraud, corruption, involvement in a criminal organization, money laundering or any other illegal activity.
• Optionally: conflict of interest (see below).

Applicants must confirm in writing that they are not in one of the situations as listed above.

1. Applicants shall not make use of child labor or forced labor and/or practice discrimination and they shall respect the right to freedom of association and the right to organize and engage in collective bargaining, in accordance with the core conventions of the International Labor Organization (ILO).

Conflict of interest

Applicants shall not have a conflict of interest in submitting a tender application to IDH. Conflict of interest refers to any situation where an Applicant’s application may be compromised or not impartial and objective for reasons involving family, personal life, political or national affinity, economic interest or any other connection or shared interest with another person. Should the Applicant suspect any potential conflicts of interest on its part, it shall submit a written statement setting forth all conditions and circumstances of such potential conflict(s) of interest to IDH together with its application. A conflict of interest that cannot be solved effectively by less restrictive means constitutes an optional exclusion ground to an applicant, pursuant to article 2.87(1)(e) of the Dutch Procurement Act. Data Ownership and Usage : All data, models, and outputs developed under this assignment shall remain the property of IDH; The consultant shall not use or publish the data without prior written approval from IDH; All datasets must be delivered in editable and transferable formats

The assignment will be awarded to the Applicant with the most balanced tender as per the scoring weightage. The most advantageous tender is determined on the basis of the evaluation criteria of Price and Quality.

The evaluation criteria are compared and weighed according to the procedure below. This concerns a general outline of the scoring methodology and an explanation how the service provider can demonstrate compliance with the requirements.

Step 1 - Criterion Quality

Evaluation scores will be awarded for each of the components. The evaluation committee will score each component unanimously.

[IDH values quality highly, therefore a minimum grade of 3 must be scored by the Applicant on each component. If the Applicant scores a grade of 3 or less on one of the components will be excluded from the tender procedure and awarding the contract.]

The proposal will be assessed based on the following selection criteria:

Proposal overall

• Max Grading: 5
• Criteria: The extent to which the proposal demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the assignment and meets the requirements outlined in Section 3 of this ToR. This includes:
• Clear articulation of objectives and outcomes.
• Evidence that the proposed approach can deliver all required deliverables within the timeframe.
• A coherent and feasible solution that addresses both technical and practical dimensions of the assignment.

Design and Development process

• Max Grading: 5
• Criteria: The extent to which the Applicant presents a clear, structured, and feasible methodology for delivering the assignment. This includes:
• A well-defined process for design, consultation, and development of outputs.
• Demonstration of how IDH will be engaged and consulted at key stages.
• Clarity on the inputs required from IDH (human resources, digital assets, other support) and assurance that these are proportionate and not overly demanding.

Track record

• Max Grading: 5
• Criteria: The extent to which the Applicant demonstrates relevant expertise and proven experience to deliver the assignment. This includes:
• Evidence of delivering similar assignments in sustainability, ESG, agriculture, or cotton commodity).
• Qualifications, relevant experience, and time allocation of the proposed project team.
• Clear description of team roles and responsibilities.
• Relevant experience in the non-profit or development sector will be considered an advantage.

The evaluation committee will unanimously score each component by assigning scores from 1 to the maximum grading, with the maximum grading representing optimal performance on the component and 1 representing extremely poor performance on the respective component.

Step 2 - Criterion price

The Applicant shall follow the Budget template (attached as Annex 2 to these Terms of Reference).

Please note that a combined price in Euros (excluding VAT) is to be presented. This is to be broken down by team member rate and hours.

Given the non-for-profit nature of IDH, we encourage Applicant to clearly mention if the budget might be positively impacted by partial pro-bono work or reduced rate as a contribution to the successful delivery of the assignment.

The criterion of assessment is “the best price for the proposed level of quality” with a maximum grading of 5.

Step 3 - Weighting

The final score will be weighted 75% on Quality and 25% on Price.

If scores of service providers are equal, priority will be based on the total scores that were given for the Criterion Quality. The assignment will be awarded to the service provider that has received the highest score for the Criterion Quality. If the evaluation of the Criterion Quality does not lead to a distinction, the score for the component “Proposal overall” will be decisive. If this does not lead to a distinction, the ranking will be determined by the drawing of lots.

Award

Once IDH has decided to which Applicant it intends to award the assignment, a written notification thereof is sent to all Applicants participating in the tender procedure.

The Applicant is contracted via a letter of assignment, following IDH’s template (Annex 4).

Please note: the payment schedule set out in the letter of assignment template may be amended, subject to unilateral decision of IDH.

All participants will ensure that all its contacts with IDH, with regards to the tender, during the tender procedure take place exclusively in writing by e-mail to team member at sethia@idhtrade.org  or vikramjeetsharma@idhtrade.org The participants is thus explicitly prohibited, to prevent discrimination of the other participants and to ensure the diligence of the procedure, to have any contact whatsoever regarding the tender with any other persons of IDH than the person stated in the first sentence of this paragraph.

The documents provided by or on behalf of IDH will be handled confidentiality. The Applicants will also impose a duty of confidentiality on any parties that it engages. Any breach of the duty of confidentiality by the Applicant or its engaged third parties will give IDH grounds for exclusion of the Applicant, without requiring any prior written or verbal warning.

All information, documents and other requested or provided data submitted by the Applicant will be handled with due care and confidentiality by IDH. The provided information will after evaluation by IDH be filed as confidential. The provided information will not be returned to the Applicant.

1. No remuneration
2. Disclaimer

IDH respects the effort and time that participants are expected to put into this tender procedure. However, IDH has to use its financial means as economically as possible. Therefore, IDH will not remunerate participants for their interest and/or participation in the tender procedure. 

IDH reserves the right to update, change, extend, postpone, withdraw, or suspend the ToR, this tender procedure, or any decision regarding the selection or contract award. IDH is not obliged in this tender procedure to make a contract award decision or to conclude a contract with a participant.

Participants in the tender procedure cannot claim compensation from IDH, any affiliated persons or entities, in any way, in case any of the aforementioned situations occur.

By handing in a proposal, participants accept all terms and reservations made in this ToR, and subsequent information and documentation in this tender procedure.

Annex 1: Budget Template

Annex 2: Detail Request Form

Annex 3: Letter of Assignment

Annex 4: IDH General Terms and Conditions for Services

Annex 5: Statement of acceptance