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.