When it comes to packaging, many organisations tend to fall into an automatic division of responsibilities. Marketing handles design. Procurement handles materials. Logistics focuses on efficiency. Sustainability checks whether everything meets the requirements. Everyone has their own domain, their own KPIs, and their own budget.

But that is also where the problem starts.

Because in packaging, design and materials are not separate components. They shape each other. In fact, design largely determines how much material you need, how efficiently you can transport a product, and how much cost you structurally build into the system. Yet in practice, they are still often treated as two separate worlds.

The designer makes it look good. Procurement makes it cheaper.
But what if design is actually the key to reducing costs?

The misconception: design as a cost item

Design is often seen as something that adds cost. A new shape. A different finish. Extra details. More attention to appearance. That belongs to branding and marketing, and usually means extra investment.

Materials, on the other hand, are seen as a hard cost factor. How many grams per unit? What is the price per kilo? Can it be made thinner? Can it be cheaper?

But research in eco-design and product development has shown for years that 70 to 80 percent of both a product’s environmental impact and its cost structure is locked in during the design phase. Not in procurement. Not in the factory. Not on the shelf. In the design

At that stage, the following is decided:

• How thick the wall is
• What shape the packaging takes
• What shape the packaging takes
• How much air you are transporting
• 
• How much material you need in the first place

Material choice is not the starting point. It is the result of design decisions.

Shape as a hidden lever

A good example is Albert Heijn’s nut cup, where subtle ribs were added to the design. At first glance, this seems like an aesthetic choice. Ribs add tactility. Rhythm. A contemporary look that fits today’s preference for softer, more fluid shapes.

But those ribs do more than just look good. They increase the structural stiffness of the cup. This allows the wall to be made thinner without sacrificing strength. Less material per pack means a direct reduction in raw materials.

And when you are producing hundreds of thousands of units per year, using less material is not a minor detail. It means tonnes less plastic and therefore lower purchasing costs, creating structural savings.

The reason may be aesthetic. The effect is economic and sustainable. Design as cost saving, not as a cost item.

Transporting less air is also a design decision

Another example is the shift from round to square yoghurt buckets. At first glance, it looks like a minor change in shape. In reality, it is supply chain optimisation.Een ander voorbeeld is de overgang van ronde naar vierkante yoghurt-emmers. Op het eerste gezicht een kleine vormwijziging. In werkelijkheid een ketenoptimalisatie.

A round bucket always leaves unused space in a box or on a pallet. Square packaging fits together more efficiently. Less air between products means:

• More units per pallet
• Fewer transport movements
• Lower CO₂ emissions.
• Lower logistics costs

Here it becomes clear that form is not an aesthetic detail but a systems choice. Design influences transportation, storage, shelf arrangement and ultimately margin.

Yet these kinds of decisions are often driven not from design, but from operations. While it is precisely in the design phase that there is the most room for maneuver.

The organisation as a barrier

So why are design and material so often treated separately?

Omdat organisaties ook zo zijn ingericht.

• Marketing is judged on brand impact and visibility.
• Purchases are settled on price per kilo or per piece.
• Logistics is judged by efficiency and damage rates.
• Sustainability wordt afgerekend op compliance en doelstellingen.

Everyone optimizes his own part. No one optimizes the whole.

If purchasing looks only at price per pound, thinner material always seems better. If marketing looks only at appearance, extra material may be justified from brand perception. But rarely are form, material, logistics and costs brought together in one integral calculation.

And that’s where value remains.

The real win-win

When designers, engineers and buyers work together from the beginning, the question shifts. Not, “How do we make this as cheap as possible?” Nor, “How do we make this as beautiful as possible?” But, “How do we design this so that it both looks strong, and uses less material, and goes through the supply chain more efficiently?”

This is not an idealistic story, but it should be a business case.

Lightweighting door slimme geometrie is al jaren een strategie bij grote spelers als Coca-Cola. Door ribstructuren en bodemvormen te optimaliseren, zijn miljoenen kilo’s plastic bespaard zonder dat de fles zijn herkenbaarheid verloor.

In architecture, we have known for centuries that clever construction can be stronger than solid material. In packaging, we still apply that principle too little consciously.

A half-gram reduction seems small. But at millions of units per year, it fundamentally changes the cost price. Design is then not a decorative layer, but a margin tool.

Design is not the finishing touch

Perhaps the most persistent misconception is that design is the final layer. The finishing touch after all the technical and logistical requirements have been established.

In reality, design is the moment where everything comes together: brand identity, materials, production, transportation, use and end-of-life. Those who reduce design to aesthetics leave much of its impact untapped.

Sustainable and cost-effective material choices are largely in the design. Not in a later round of optimization.

Those who see design and materials separately optimize partial problems.
Those who put them together optimize the system.

And that is exactly where the real win-win happens: less material, lower costs, stronger brand presence, and a more efficient supply chain.

Maybe it is time to stop treating design as a cost item, and start treating it as a strategic lever.

Het bericht How design and materials can drive profit together verscheen eerst op Now New Next.

Why are consumers suddenly paying more for a bar of chocolate? What makes a deodorant feel “luxury”? And why does being positioned as “premium” seem more important than ever for brands? In recent years, we have seen a clear shift in both the food and cosmetics industries: products that once sat on shelves as budget options are now being placed firmly in the premium segment. But what is really behind this premiumisation trend? Is the quality genuinely improving, or is it mainly the story around the product? And what does this mean for A-brands and for consumers who are used to lower prices?

This shift is no coincidence. Brands are responding to rising costs, the growth of private labels, and changing consumer expectations. But is premiumisation the future, or simply a temporary strategy to cope with economic pressure? What can we expect from the brands that are getting it right, and what challenges lie ahead for them?

From higher costs to higher prices

It is no secret that costs across the supply chain have risen sharply in recent years. From raw materials such as cocoa and grains to energy and labour costs. Take cocoa as an example: prices have increased by as much as 130% in recent years. This has serious consequences for brands that depend on these materials. For a brand like Tony’s Chocolonely, this means not only raising prices, but also building an even stronger premium image to justify those higher costs. But how do consumers respond to that? Are they really willing to pay more simply because a product is positioned as premium? Or is something else going on?

The economic pressure on brands is essentially twofold: on one hand, they need to protect their margins through higher prices; on the other, they still need to convince consumers of the added value of their products. This has led to the rise of premium sub-lines and even full rebrands of mass-market products, making them increasingly similar to A-brands. That raises an important question: can A-brands continue to differentiate themselves from private labels that are themselves moving upmarket? Or are we simply looking at higher prices across the board?

Private labels: strong competition

When we talk about premiumisation, we cannot ignore the rise of private labels. Where supermarket own brands used to be associated mainly with lower quality and lower prices, we are now seeing a different picture. Retailers such as Albert Heijn and Jumbo are launching more and more premium private-label ranges that compete directly with established A-brands. Jumbo’s, for example, has positioned itself clearly around quality and design. These products are not only more affordable, but also more attractively positioned through premium packaging and flavour. That changes the game. It creates direct pressure on A-brands, which are forced to reinvent themselves in order to stay relevant in this changed landscape of price and perceived quality.

But what can A-brands do to keep standing apart? How do they justify their higher prices against the growing number of premium private labels that increasingly adopt the look and feel of established brands?

Jumbo’s launches new line of chocolate bars

Food: premium and luxury, is there a difference?

In the food sector, premiumisation is especially visible in categories such as chocolate, snacks, and meal solutions. Brands like Lindt, Verkade, and Tony’s Chocolonely create premium products that go far beyond taste alone. They build around the story behind the product: sustainable cocoa farmers, fair trade, and a focus on quality. That makes consumers more willing to pay extra, because they are not just buying a product, but an experience and a story they relate to.

But what really makes a product premium, and where is the boundary between premium and luxury? HelloFresh is a good example of premiumisation in the meal-kit category. The brand offers fresh, pre-portioned ingredients and recipes that consumers prepare at home. Its price point is higher than that of a traditional supermarket shop, but the added value lies in convenience, ingredient quality, and the experience of cooking with premium products. With HelloFresh, the exchange is clear: you pay for convenience, freshness, and an experience that goes beyond what you find in the supermarket, but it does not yet reach the level of luxury.

Then there is Wagyu beef, which has positioned itself as a luxury product in the meat industry through its unique origin and rich taste experience. The fact that it is often sold with exclusive preparation advice and labels that emphasise its exclusivity makes it easier for consumers to justify the premium price. It is a clear example of how premiumisation goes beyond product quality alone, and how branding and experience themselves can create a premium proposition.

Cosmetics: the premium revolution

In cosmetics, we see a similar shift. Brands such as Unilever and Procter & Gamble spent years fighting to keep products in the mass market, but consumers are now increasingly looking for quality and experience. They no longer want just a standard deodorant or face cream. They want products that not only work well, but also deliver a sense of luxury. Rituals, for example, has positioned itself as a lifestyle brand that turns everyday care into a luxury ritual. Not just through the product itself, but through the story around it: it is presented as a moment of self-care, which lifts it into the premium segment.

Other brands have also moved their products into premium territory by focusing on ingredients and packaging. Douglas Collection, the own line of the well-known perfumery chain, taps into the luxury trend for a broader audience. It uses high-quality formulas and technologies, while keeping its pricing below luxury brands such as Chanel or Dior. This masstige segment, luxury made accessible, is becoming increasingly attractive to consumers who are not only looking for the best price, but also for the best experience.

In another part of the market, The Ordinary has positioned itself as a premium player in skincare by focusing on effectiveness, transparency, and affordability. The brand offers science-led products with highly concentrated ingredients and has set itself apart from more traditional players by avoiding expensive packaging and marketing, and focusing instead on performance. That approach has earned it premium status, even though its prices are often lower than those of more established names.

The challenges of premiumisation

The challenges of premiumization

Premiumisation may sound like the ideal solution for brands that want to stand out, but it comes with risks. How far can you raise the price before consumers start questioning whether the added value is really worth it? The danger is that you lose people if the promise of quality is not delivered. Consumers are now well informed, and the question is no longer simply, “Does it taste good?” or “Does it work well?” but “Why should I pay more?”Premiumisatie klinkt als de ideale oplossing voor merken die zich willen onderscheiden, maar er zijn ook valkuilen. Hoe ver kan je gaan in het verhogen van de prijs voordat de consument zich afvraagt of de toegevoegde waarde het echt waard is? Het gevaar van premiumisatie is dat je de consument kunt verliezen als je de belofte van kwaliteit niet waarmaakt. De consument is inmiddels goed geïnformeerd, en de vraag is niet langer ‘Is het product lekker?’ of ‘Werkt het goed?’, maar ‘Waarom zou ik meer betalen?’

Brands also need to take ethical and sustainable choices far more seriously. Products that call themselves premium or luxury now need to prove why they deserve that label. Brands such as Tony’s Chocolonely make it clear that their premium status does not come only from packaging or price, but from the values they stand for. That is where the future of premium products lies: not just in expensive ingredients, but in an ethical story that consumers are willing to support.

At the same time, brands have to deal with saturation in the premium market. Where is the limit of premiumisation? Are consumers willing to keep paying more for products that were once seen as standard? The rise of private labels and the ongoing focus on value for money mean that A-brands need to invest more in experience and product innovation if they want to justify their premium positioning.

Premiumisation as strategy

What we are seeing is that premiumisation is not only a response to rising costs, but a strategy that allows more and more brands to differentiate themselves. Consumers are willing to pay more for quality, experience, and ethical values. But premiumisation is not a one-size-fits-all solution. It requires brands to invest not only in the product itself, but also in the story around it. The challenge for the future is not just to claim premium status, but to keep delivering it in a way consumers understand and value.Wat we zien, is dat premiumisatie niet alleen een antwoord is op stijgende kosten, maar een strategie die steeds meer merken in staat stelt zich te onderscheiden. Consumenten zijn bereid meer te betalen voor kwaliteit, beleving en ethische waarden. Maar premiumisatie is geen one-size-fits-all oplossing. Het vergt dat merken niet alleen in hun product zelf investeren, maar ook in het verhaal eromheen. De uitdaging voor de toekomst is om die premiumstatus niet alleen te claimen, maar te blijven leveren, op een manier die de consument begrijpt en waardeert.

If the brands embracing this shift can continue to prove their value, they will not only survive in the years ahead, but thrive in a market that increasingly expects more than just a product. They need to do more than position themselves as premium. They need to prove that positioning again and again in everything they do. The future belongs to the brands that do not just promise premium, but actually deliver it.

Het bericht Premiumisation in practice: how brands are repositioning themselves verscheen eerst op Now New Next.

By 2027, checkouts must be able to scan QR codes. GS1 is driving this internationally. It may sound technical, but it affects everything we put on packaging and how we communicate with consumers, retailers, and regulators. So the question is not where the QR code should go, but what we want it to achieve.

The new system behind a familiar image

The classic barcode has one function: reading a number. The QR code now gaining ground is essentially a smart doorway. Behind that doorway sits a resolver that determines who gets sent where. A consumer sees product information or a recipe. A regulator sees compliance data. A retailer sees traceability. The code itself does not change. The logic behind it does the work.
Context plays an important role here. Phone language? Then you show the right language. Smartphone or desktop? Then you adapt the page accordingly. You can even add a login for parties who are allowed to see more. It feels personal, but it is simply following pre-set rules.

There is also a practical point. Barcodes could still be entered manually if the scanner failed. With QR codes, you need to organise a backup process. Retailers and software providers are working on this now. And yes, speed matters. Current barcodes are incredibly fast. QR codes will need to match that at the very least.

Transition phase: double parking on your label

Until 2027, we are in a transition period. Barcode and QR code on the same pack. GS1 advises placing the QR code to the right of the barcode, with enough white space for reliable scanning. That makes sense, but it does take up room. Designers and marketers may well sigh: wasn’t this supposed to become more compact? Unfortunately, not yet. First, checkout infrastructure needs to catch up.

What stays on-pack, and what can go digital?

Consumers still want to be able to read basic information directly in store. Ingredients, allergens, origin. At the same time, the EU is exploring more room for digital disclosure. Most likely, the core information will stay on-pack, while the rest moves online.

Design: less ballast, more choice

If the QR code takes over part of the information load, it creates space for calmer design and better brand communication. Stories, recipes, and videos can move online. A pancake mix pack no longer needs a long cooking text. A scan can take you straight to a short video.

But the code itself is also a design element. You need to keep it scannable, even on difficult surfaces and in poor lighting conditions. Integrate it into the design, do not make it aggressively visible, and test it properly. A good example is Autodrop, which has made its current barcode part of the artwork.

The reverse is also true: a badly placed QR code damages the experience and the brand. In cosmetics, we are already seeing claims and explanations move to QR. In food, there are clear opportunities to show origin and sustainability information without overloading the pack.

Value beyond the packaging

The real added value is not in what can be removed, but in what can be added. For consumers: nutrition tips, product comparisons, tutorials, community. For brands: direct contact, feedback, loyalty.

For retailers and producers, it is about speed and certainty: traceability, inventory management, recalls. One code that serves every party can shorten processes and reduce errors.

And then there is the data. Scan frequency and usage moments show when and why someone is looking something up. That helps with campaigns, assortment decisions, and innovation. Packaging becomes a starting point, not an end point.

Bottlenecks you want to tackle now

What if the QR code does not work at the checkout? Build in a backup. How fast is scanning during peak hours? Test with real hardware and real lighting. How do you guarantee accessibility for people who do not want to or cannot scan? Keep the essential information on the label and make the online layer an added benefit, not a requirement.

This transition requires investment. Packaging processes, artwork, checkout systems, IT. International alignment through GS1 is crucial. Without a standard, fragmentation becomes a real risk, and that makes things slower and more expensive for everyone.

An opportunity, not a formality

The shift from barcode to QR is not a cosmetic update. It is a system change that affects design, data, and supply chain processes. Anyone who sees the QR code as just another mandatory icon is missing the point. Anyone who uses it as an entry point to service and storytelling gains space on-pack and strengthens the relationship with the customer.

Start making the decisions now that you will have to make anyway later. That way, you will be ready for 2027, avoid rushed work, and get the most value out of every scan.

Het bericht From bars to pixels: what do we do with that new space? verscheen eerst op Now New Next.

That one headline stayed with me: the UN plastics summit has failed. Again.

It feels like watching a huge oil tanker that needs to change course, but instead keeps moving steadily straight ahead. Everyone knows it has to turn, but we prefer to look the other way, towards our familiar and seemingly safe shore. But that shore will not stay safe for much longer either. In the meantime, countries keep choosing their own short-term interests, while the long term keeps moving closer.

And it makes me wonder: if we leave this entirely to governments and legislation, will we simply be too late?

Legislation is coming, but not always in time

There is one thing we do know for certain: packaging rules in the EU will change significantly in the coming years. From 2030, the PPWR will impose requirements around recycled content and recyclable design. By 2040, that bar will rise further. Those are firm commitments.

Beyond Europe, though, things become more difficult. The failed UN summit shows just how hard it is to reach global agreement. At the same time, the economy keeps growing, especially outside Europe, and demand for packaging is only increasing. More people, more prosperity, more products, and therefore more packaging.

That makes the challenge bigger, not smaller. In the packaging world, we can already see how global growth is tightening material flows. The more demand rises, the more pressure builds on raw materials and recycled content.

Scarcity will not wait until 2030

For some materials, that scarcity is already here. Food-grade rPET is a good example: demand is structurally higher than supply. If you join the queue too late, you either end up with lower quality or pay a much higher price.

And it is not just PET. High-quality, consistent PP and HDPE are also becoming increasingly sought after, especially for applications where food safety, odour, and colour are critical. If you wait until 2029 because “that is when PPWR really starts to matter”, there is every chance that what you want simply will not be available anymore. Because others got there first. And if there is anything left, are you prepared to pay top price for it?

That is why I often say to clients: sit down with recyclers and suppliers now. Develop together, test together. Make sure that in a few years’ time you are not dependent on whatever happens to be left over.

the cost of waiting

We often assume that making packaging more sustainable only adds cost. But in practice, the opposite can be true. Companies that switch early to recyclable designs and recycled materials often save later on redesign costs, production line changes, and materials that are harder to source.

On top of that, EPR fees also play a role. The less recyclable your packaging, the higher the bill. Designing according to Design for Recycling guidelines can genuinely become part of the business model.

What design can already do now

I see more and more clearly that most environmental impact is already determined in the design phase. That is also the point where you influence costs, material flows, and processing options

And there are plenty of practical examples of steps we are already taking with brands today: choosing mono-material instead of combinations that cannot be separated, making labels and sleeves easier to remove, reducing material, standardising caps and pumps. Sometimes these changes sound small, but together they make the difference between packaging that ends up in the recycling stream and packaging that ends up as waste.

A bigger context, smaller steps

At the same time, I also see just how complex the wider system is: global growth, geopolitical interests, slow negotiations. The bigger the scale, the slower the process.

That is exactly why the greatest speed can be found within brands and manufacturers themselves. You do not have to wait for the UN or for lawmakers to flip a switch. You can already choose materials and designs that last longer, are easier to process, and fit the world we actually want to build.

And yes, that sometimes means making choices that are more complicated in the short term. But in the long term, they do not just bring environmental benefits, they also create strategic advantages. Especially in markets where requirements are changing faster than your supply chain can adapt.

An invitation

So, should you wait for rules that may come too late? I think it is better to start now with what you will have to do anyway. Because that puts you ahead of scarcity, makes your design more future-proof, and gives you time to learn and improve.

Begin klein, maar begin. Want vijf voor twaalf is voor producenten vaak al te laat.

Het bericht Should we wait for rules that may come too late?Moeten we wachten op regels die misschien te laat komen? verscheen eerst op Now New Next.

I still turn that salad tray around while standing in front of the supermarket shelf. “Eco-friendly”, “planet positive”. Two logos. But what do they actually mean? And that is coming from someone who, as a packaging designer, reviews LCA analyses every week and practically knows the recycling infrastructure by heart. If even I do not fully understand it, what about everyone else who is just grabbing a quick lunch from the shelf?

As it turns out, I am not the only one. European research shows that fewer than a third of consumers understand what common recycling symbols really mean. It is no surprise, then, that trust in green claims is eroding. And that is exactly where two new sets of rules come in.

That confusion is precisely what the Green Claims Directive was designed to address. While the Dutch ACM guidelines have already been nudging us since 2023 to be “specific and factual”, Brussels is now tightening the screws for real: every environmental claim will need to be approved by an independent auditor before publication, and vague language will be thrown out without hesitation. By 2027, this will be law across the EU. The penalty for misleading claims can reach up to four percent of annual turnover. That is no longer a communication slip-up, but a boardroom-level risk.

So what is the point of claims?

More and more often, I hear the same question from brand owners: “Is a claim even still worth it if we first have to pay for an expensive LCA and audit, without knowing whether it will actually make any difference to consumers?” At the same time, we know that consumers, especially my generation, expect transparency. Saying nothing feels like staying silent. Making a vague claim feels like lying. So what does work?Vanuit merkeigenaren krijg ik steeds vaker dezelfde vraag: “Heeft een claim nog wel zin als we eerst een dure LCA en audit moeten betalen, zonder dat we weten of het de consument uberhaubt iets doet?” Tegelijkertijd weten we dat consumenten – vooral mijn generatie – transparantie eisen. Geen claim voelt als zwijgen. Een vage claim voelt als liegen. Dus wat dan wél?

Why I am still optimistic

Research from McKinsey and NIQ shows that products with hard, verifiable claims have grown faster in recent years than their competitors. It is not the wording that does the work, but the measurable performance behind it. Brands that are willing to communicate one concrete fact, such as “70% recycled content” or certified label marks, earn both trust and sales. Claim inflation fades. Clarity remains.Onderzoek van McKinsey & NIQ laat zien dat producten met harde, verifieerbare claims de afgelopen jaren sneller groeiden dan hun concurrenten. Niet de woorden doen het werk, maar de meetbare prestatie erachter. Merken die één concreet feit durven te communiceren (“70 % recycled content” of gecertificeerde keurmerklogo’s) oogsten vertrouwen én verkoop. Claim-inflatie dooft, helderheid blijft.

What I focus on as a designer

• Measure first, then sketch. Only when the full substantiation is accurate can you communicate it.
• One claim at a time. A calmer label with one strong claim and a QR code linking to the raw data is better than five green icons without explanation. Clients do not benefit from a label jungle.
• Build visual hierarchy. A claim is your first layer of communication. Under that sits the evidence, and for the part of your audience that is genuinely curious, you offer deeper information.Een claim is je eerste communicatiemiddel. Daaronder zit je bewijs en voor dat deel van je klanten dat écht nieuwsgierig is, bied je de verdieping aan.
• Choose your battles. Reserve LCA budget for your high-volume SKUs, and leave niche products claim-free if the capacity simply is not there.

So where are we heading?

Claims are not disappearing. They are becoming sharper and more selective.Brands that dare to focus on one measurable truth, and share it without any fluff, will build a level of credibility that no marketing budget can buy.

In a market where everyone is shouting “green”, silence becomes the new signal. But only if that silence is backed by data.

Emmilie Kuks is Sustainable Packaging Specialist at www.nownewnext.nl and writes monthly on a current topic within packaging

Het bericht Beyond Buzzwords: how packaging claims are entering the transparency era verscheen eerst op Now New Next.

Sometimes it feels like we are in a split.
On the one hand, the message is clear: we must reduce the use of new fossil resources. They are finite, polluting, and do not fit into a future that is circular and climate neutral. On the other hand, we see that the current system is not yet set up for the alternatives we desperately need – in addition to reuse and recycling.

Biobased packaging is the prime example.

As a sustainability partner within NowNewNext, I work daily with brands and manufacturers on sustainable product and packaging issues. And what strikes me: more and more companies have biobased materials in their sights as an alternative. Not necessarily for all applications, but where it really makes sense – think of applications that wear out in nature, or where the chance of litter is high.

And yet, scaling up fails to happen. Not because the will is lacking, but because practice is working against it.

Waiting for a perfect system is the biggest risk

Let’s face it: biobased is often still more expensive right now. This is not because of the material itself, but because of the lack of volume. Production is small-scale, off-take is limited, and so the price is higher than fossil alternatives. The system is simply not yet mature.

On top of that comes the recycling issue. Biobased packaging is still hardly collected or processed separately. The current system is geared to the dominant material of the past decades: fossil plastic. And so biobased alternatives automatically fall outside of that – with the result that they are either unjustly incinerated, or seen as “polluting” existing recycling streams. But as long as the volume is not there, the recycling is not there. The classic chicken-and-egg story, but in reverse.

That combination makes it difficult for companies to make the move. Logical. But also frustrating. Because as long as we do what we did, we get what we had.

What we learned from PHA

In the Next PHAse consortium, in which we collaborate with Paques Biomaterials and Happy Cups, we are diving deep into the possibilities of PHA – a biobased and biodegradable material produced from organic waste streams. Ideal for applications where the material will inevitably end up in nature.

What we learned? That technology is going to work. That chain cooperation is crucial. And that the biggest bottleneck is not in the material, but in the system around it.

Support is limited. Processors are still wait-and-see. And policy … do not connect well. PHA is just one example, but the lessons apply more broadly: to any biobased material still trying to gain a foothold.

Biobased ≠ Biodegradable (and that’s important)

In between, an important point of confusion that I often hear: biobased does not automatically mean that something is biodegradable, and vice versa. Biobased says something about the origin (from renewable resources), biodegradable about the end-of-life cycle (degradable in nature or under specific conditions).

Why is that important? Because legislation, processing systems and communication towards consumers are still often mixed up here. This leads to misunderstandings and, in the worst case, incorrect processing choices or misleading claims.

Policy lags, but can also accelerate

It is unfortunate that in the current European PPWR (Packaging & Packaging Waste Regulation) biobased materials are still largely treated the same as fossil plastics. Yet they are fundamentally different materials – in origin, behavior and impact. The government can make a difference by stimulating the purchase of biobased.

The Dutch government rightly states that we want to be completely circular and fossil-free by 2050. But without clear incentives we are not going to achieve that.

For instance, there is still an unexploited opportunity in the Verpact tariff differentiation model, in which biobased is currently not rewarded because it does not yet fit into the current system – while this lowering of the threshold might actually make it fit into the system. But then we have to first dare to have an “in-between time,” in which we are going to grow to a volume that is worth it for recyclers to focus on.

We need pioneers, as well as direction

The move to biobased requires not only ideals, but clear guidelines, a fair distribution of costs and a system that facilitates rather than hinders new solutions.

What is needed for that? Three things: Clear and consistent policy that does not lump biobased materials in with fossil alternatives. Financial incentives for application and scale-up. And a handful of pioneers who believe in it and want to scale up.

In short: it’s time to make room for choices that are sustainable. Practical, scalable, future-proof. Because we only become future-proof when we dare to choose what matters tomorrow. Not just what fits best today.

Het bericht How biobased is trapped in a fossil system verscheen eerst op Now New Next.