Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Bos, P.; Ritzen, L.; van Dam,
S.; Balkenende, R.; Bakker, C.
Bio-Based Plastics in Product Design:
The State of the Art and Challenges to
Overcome. Sustainability 2024,16,
3295. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su16083295
Academic Editors: Jose
Vicente Abellan-Nebot and
Carlos Vila-Pastor
Received: 23 February 2024
Revised: 28 March 2024
Accepted: 9 April 2024
Published: 15 April 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
sustainability
Article
Bio-Based Plastics in Product Design: The State of the Art and
Challenges to Overcome
Puck Bos * , Linda Ritzen , Sonja van Dam , Ruud Balkenende and Conny Bakker
Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, 2628 CE Delft, The Netherlands;
l.ritzen@tudelft.nl (L.R.); s.s.vandam@tudelft.nl (S.v.D.); a.r.balkenende@tudelft.nl (R.B.);
c.a.bakker@tudelft.nl (C.B.)
*Correspondence: p.bos@tudelft.nl
Abstract: Replacing fossil-based feedstock with renewable alternatives is a crucial step towards
a circular economy. The bio-based plastics currently on the market are predominantly used in
single-use applications, with remarkably limited uptake in durable products. This study explores the
current state of the art of bio-based plastic use in durable consumer products and the opportunities
and barriers encountered by product developers in adopting these materials. A design analysis of
60 durable products containing bio-based plastics, and 12 company interviews, identified the pursuit
of sustainability goals and targets as the primary driver for adopting bio-based plastics, despite
uncertainties regarding their reduced environmental impact. The lack of knowledge of bio-based
plastics and their properties contributes to the slow adoption of these materials. Furthermore, the
lack of recycling infrastructure, the limited availability of the plastics, and higher costs compared
to fossil-based alternatives, are significant barriers to adoption. Product developers face significant
challenges in designing with bio-based plastics, but opportunities exist; for example, for the use
of dedicated bio-based plastics with unique properties. When designing with bio-based plastics,
product developers must think beyond the physical product and consider sourcing and recovery,
which are not typically part of the conventional product design process.
Keywords: bio-based plastic; product design; circular economy; design analysis; sustainability
transition; environmental impact
1. Introduction
The use of plastics has become a necessity in modern life, and the production of
plastics made from fossil fuels continues to grow. In 2021, 90.2% of the 390.7 million tonnes
of plastics produced were based on fossil feedstock [
1
]. It is evident today that using fossil
raw materials is not sustainable. An alternative is bio-based plastic: plastics produced, at
least partially, from renewable biological resources [
2
,
3
]. In 2022, approximately 1% of all
plastic processed was bio-based, and their share is growing [
4
]. Today’s bio-based plastics
on the market offer opportunities for both single use applications, such as packaging, and
higher-value applications, including durable consumer products [
3
]. Durable is defined
here as products that can be used repeatedly or continuously for a year or longer, under
normal or average physical usage rates [
5
]. Today, bio-based plastics are mainly used
in single-use applications [
4
,
6
]. Moreover, the existing literature on the potential uses
of bio-based plastics primarily focuses on short-lived applications like packaging and
does not explore the potential of bio-based plastics in durable products. Governments and
companies have just begun to focus on the use of bio-based plastics in durable products. For
example, the European Union published the Communication for an EU policy framework
on biobased, biodegradable and compostable plastics, which states that priority should
be given to its use in long-lived products over short-lived products [
7
]. However, there is
currently no EU regulation in place on the use of bio-based plastics, only partial objectives
in the Directive on single-use plastics and the Directive on plastic bags [8].
Sustainability 2024,16, 3295. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16083295 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2024,16, 3295 2 of 18
The use of bio-based plastics could facilitate the shift towards a sustainable and cir-
cular economy, as they potentially have a lower environmental impact [
9
,
10
]. However,
their actual environmental impact is in dispute, due to inconsistent Life Cycle Assessment
(LCA) results. Poor data availability and the lack of a consistent methodology contribute to
a substantial disparity in findings, making it challenging with the current constraints to
draw well-founded and generalisable conclusions [
11
,
12
]. Nevertheless, bio-based plastics
have potential as they fit a circular economy well because the carbon absorbed during plant
growth can be stored in the plastic by reusing and recycling bio-based plastic products.
Eventually, the carbon is released back into the atmosphere through biodegradation or
incineration and can be reabsorbed by plants [
13
,
14
]. However, in order to ensure sustain-
ability and circularity, feedstock sourcing and product and material recovery options need
to be considered as well [
13
,
15
–
17
]. A circular economy cannot be realised without better
product design practice that incorporates all aspects of the product’s life.
Limited research has been conducted to explore why designers are not using bio-
based plastics on a larger scale in durable applications. Brockhaus et al. [
18
] examined
the behavioural challenges that 32 designers faced when considering the replacement of
fossil-based plastics with bio-based alternatives, but the designers in the study did not
develop and introduce a bio-based product to the market themselves. Similarly, Cardon
et al. [
19
] conducted interviews with 13 stakeholders in the bio-based plastic supply chain
to explore the opportunities and requirements for implementing bio-based plastics in
the future. However, this study included only four people involved in the design and
development process and is now 12 years old, which is a significant time for a quickly
evolving market. Therefore, the challenges designers face in the current market when using
these plastics are unknown. First, the aim of our study is to provide a recent overview of
bio-based plastic use in durable consumer products by answering the following research
question: 1. What is the current state of the art of bio-based plastic use in durable consumer
products? Second, we aim to provide insight into what product developers encounter when
using bio-based plastics by answering the following research question: 2. What are the
opportunities and barriers faced by product developers in the use of bio-based plastics for
durable consumer products? Answering these research questions provides new insights
into the use of bio-based plastics in durable applications and what challenges need to be
overcome to achieve more sustainable product designs.
We conducted a design analysis of 60 consumer products (e.g., toys, shoes and furniture)
made entirely or partially of bio-based plastics. In the design analysis, products were evaluated
against aspects related to product design like aesthetics, functionality, and sustainability. Next,
12 product developers involved in the creation of the analysed products were interviewed to
understand the opportunities and barriers they experienced. Understanding these issues will
help increase the sustainable utilisation of bio-based plastic, making the use of plastic more
sustainable in the future.
The scope of this research was limited to product design and development of durable
consumer products made of mass-produced, well-defined bio-based plastics. Natural
polymers like paper and biocomposites, i.e., fossil-based polymers with natural fibres,
are not considered in this paper. Also, it does not encompass aspects related to market
analysis, recovery infrastructure, or the broader environmental impact of bio-based plastics.
Conducting LCAs for individual products was not within the scope of this study. Sus-
tainability assessments of products through existing LCAs were omitted due to current
data limitations. Furthermore, the results represent the perception of product developers,
which is not necessarily factually accurate, but serves to provide insights into their incen-
tives and barriers when dealing with bio-based plastics. The products selected primarily
originated from the European market, leading to a focus on the Western and Northern
European context.
Sustainability 2024,16, 3295 3 of 18
2. Background
The subject matter of bio-based plastics can lead to confusion due to the presence of
multiple definitions and the differentiation of various types of bio-based plastics. We will
discuss this topic in more detail in Section 2.1, with an elaboration on the definitions used.
This is followed by an explanation of the theoretical framework for this study in Section 2.2.
2.1. Bio-Based Plastics
Bio-based plastics are plastics produced, at least partially, from renewable biological
resources [
2
,
3
]. Fossil-based and bio-based both refer to the sourcing of the feedstock
of the plastics (fossil or renewable). Biodegradability refers to the ability of a material
to degrade by the activity of naturally occurring micro-organisms [
20
] and can be an
end-of-life property of a plastic, but is not related to sourcing.
Bio-based plastics can be divided into two groups. The first group is called “drop-
ins”, with an identical chemical structure as their fossil-based equivalent (e.g., bio-PE,
bio-PET, and bio-PP), the second group is called “dedicated” plastics which have a new
chemical structure (e.g., PLA, PHA, and some PA grades) [
6
,
21
]. The definitions we use
are shown in Table 1. Drop-in polymers can be either based on processed renewable
biomass, usually by converting sugars to ethanol and subsequently ethene, or can be based
on bio-naphtha, bio-methane, or vegetable oils [
22
]. In drop-in bio-based plastics, the
renewable origin of the feedstock is directly traceable in products through the biogenic
carbon atoms present. Sometimes, renewable biomass is mixed with fossil-based feedstock
to make partially renewable polymers, which are sold as renewable through the so-called
biomass balance approach. In biomass balance bio-based plastics, the renewable part of
the feedstock is allocated to specific products through a certification system, but there is
no direct physical link between the certified renewable feedstock and the final bio-based
product [
23
]. Therefore, the amount of biogenic carbon atoms in the product does not
necessarily correspond with the amount stated on the certificate of a given product.
Table 1. Overview of definitions related to bio-based plastics.
Bio-based plastic Plastics produced, at least partially, from renewable biological resources [2,3]
Biodegradable plastic Plastics that can be degraded by naturally occurring micro-organisms such as
bacteria, fungi, and algae [20]
Drop-in bio-based plastic Bio-based plastics with identical chemical structure and properties as their
fossil-based equivalent (e.g., bio-PE, bio-PET, and bio-PP) [6,21]
Dedicated bio-based plastic Bio-based plastics which have a new chemical structure and do not have an
identical fossil-based counterpart (e.g., PLA, PHA, and some PA grades) [6,21]
Resources for bio-based plastics are commonly divided into three categories: first,
second, and third generation feedstocks. First generation feedstocks are edible crops, second
generation feedstock are non-edible biomass or agricultural residues, and third generation
feedstocks are based on algae [
24
,
25
]. Most bio-based plastics are made from first or second
generation feedstocks. The use of first generation feedstock has been criticised as it may
compete directly or indirectly with food production [
26
] and needs large amounts of water
and fertilisers [
24
]. Second generation feedstock has potential because unavoidable waste is
used. However, it can also have drawbacks as the availability depends on food production
and the season [
24
]. New developments have led to third generation feedstocks, which
have the advantage that they do not require arable land and water for their cultivation [
25
].
Third generation feedstocks are still at an early stage of development and the potential
success of algal bio-based plastics in commercial use remains to be seen, as the costs and
technical understanding of the extraction and conversion of algae for plastic production
are uncertain and limited [
27
]. Each feedstock generation, therefore, seems to have its own
advantages and disadvantages.
Sustainability 2024,16, 3295 4 of 18
2.2. Product Innovation Process
We will now discuss the theoretical framework we used for the analysis of bio-based
plastic product development. A widely used model in product development is the Product
Innovation Process model by Roozenburg and Eekels [
28
]. This model visualises a common
process in industry and entails all activities necessary to develop a new product for a
market. It starts with an orientation phase where goals and strategies are formulated,
then ideas are generated and selected. Different concepts and approaches to solving the
identified problem or fulfil the defined need are developed. Once a promising concept
is selected, the design is refined in the development phase. It involves making design
choices, considering materials, and ensuring the design can be manufactured. Then, the
product is manufactured and put on the market. After use by the consumer, the product,
its parts and/or its materials should be recovered to ensure a circular economy. The
model emphasises the iterative and non-linear nature of the design process, where product
developers often cycle back and forth between stages as they refine and improve the design.
The use of the Product Innovation Process model provided a structured and recognised
framework for structuring the interview results (see Figure 1).
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3295 4 of 19
2.2. Product Innovation Process
We will now discuss the theoretical framework we used for the analysis of bio-based
plastic product development. A widely used model in product development is the Prod-
uct Innovation Process model by Roozenburg and Eekels [28]. This model visualises a
common process in industry and entails all activities necessary to develop a new product
for a market. It starts with an orientation phase where goals and strategies are formulated,
then ideas are generated and selected. Different concepts and approaches to solving the
identified problem or fulfil the defined need are developed. Once a promising concept is
selected, the design is refined in the development phase. It involves making design
choices, considering materials, and ensuring the design can be manufactured. Then, the
product is manufactured and put on the market. After use by the consumer, the product,
its parts and/or its materials should be recovered to ensure a circular economy. The model
emphasises the iterative and non-linear nature of the design process, where product de-
velopers often cycle back and forth between stages as they refine and improve the design.
The use of the Product Innovation Process model provided a structured and recog-
nised framework for structuring the interview results (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. The Product Innovation Process model by Roozenburg and Eekels with the recovery step
added [29]. The model shows all activities necessary to develop a new product for a market.
3. Method
Two methods were used to assess current practices: a design analysis of bio-based
plastic products, and interviews with people involved in the product development of
these products. Figure 2 shows the research process flow.
Figure 2. Research process flow chart showing principal steps.
3.1. Design Analysis
The design analysis followed the method as outlined in Bos et al. [30]. Desk research
was conducted to identify durable consumer products made entirely or partially from bio-
based plastics. This involved searching Google using keywords such as bio-based plastic’,
bio-based polymer’, and bioplastic’ along with product’ or design’. Additionally, the
online magazines Bioplastics Magazine [31] and Dezeen [32] and the website Bio-plastics
News [33] were used to find bio-based plastic products. The search was limited to
Figure 1. The Product Innovation Process model by Roozenburg and Eekels with the recovery step
added [29]. The model shows all activities necessary to develop a new product for a market.
3. Method
Two methods were used to assess current practices: a design analysis of bio-based
plastic products, and interviews with people involved in the product development of these
products. Figure 2shows the research process flow.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3295 4 of 19
2.2. Product Innovation Process
We will now discuss the theoretical framework we used for the analysis of bio-based
plastic product development. A widely used model in product development is the Prod-
uct Innovation Process model by Roozenburg and Eekels [28]. This model visualises a
common process in industry and entails all activities necessary to develop a new product
for a market. It starts with an orientation phase where goals and strategies are formulated,
then ideas are generated and selected. Different concepts and approaches to solving the
identified problem or fulfil the defined need are developed. Once a promising concept is
selected, the design is refined in the development phase. It involves making design
choices, considering materials, and ensuring the design can be manufactured. Then, the
product is manufactured and put on the market. After use by the consumer, the product,
its parts and/or its materials should be recovered to ensure a circular economy. The model
emphasises the iterative and non-linear nature of the design process, where product de-
velopers often cycle back and forth between stages as they refine and improve the design.
The use of the Product Innovation Process model provided a structured and recog-
nised framework for structuring the interview results (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. The Product Innovation Process model by Roozenburg and Eekels with the recovery step
added [29]. The model shows all activities necessary to develop a new product for a market.
3. Method
Two methods were used to assess current practices: a design analysis of bio-based
plastic products, and interviews with people involved in the product development of
these products. Figure 2 shows the research process flow.
Figure 2. Research process flow chart showing principal steps.
3.1. Design Analysis
The design analysis followed the method as outlined in Bos et al. [30]. Desk research
was conducted to identify durable consumer products made entirely or partially from bio-
based plastics. This involved searching Google using keywords such as bio-based plastic’,
bio-based polymer’, and bioplastic’ along with product’ or design’. Additionally, the
online magazines Bioplastics Magazine [31] and Dezeen [32] and the website Bio-plastics
News [33] were used to find bio-based plastic products. The search was limited to
Figure 2. Research process flow chart showing principal steps.
3.1. Design Analysis
The design analysis followed the method as outlined in Bos et al. [
30
]. Desk research
was conducted to identify durable consumer products made entirely or partially from bio-
based plastics. This involved searching Google using keywords such as ‘bio-based plastic’,
‘bio-based polymer’, and ‘bioplastic’ along with ‘product’ or ‘design’. Additionally, the
online magazines Bioplastics Magazine [
31
] and Dezeen [
32
] and the website Bio-plastics
News [
33
] were used to find bio-based plastic products. The search was limited to products
Sustainability 2024,16, 3295 5 of 18
available on the market in the past 10 years to ensure the relevance and applicability of
findings, considering the rapid developments in the field of bio-based plastics.
The study was based on observation and reflection by the authors, using information
and pictures available on secondary sources (e.g., websites and magazine articles). If a
brand produced a range of similar products, for example, different toys made from the same
material, one representative product was included. Furthermore, representative products
for similar products of different brands were selected. Products were only included if the
type of bio-based plastic was given. The product information, including details about the
bio-based plastic material, had to be available in English for them to be included. The results
were categorised according to the ‘Classification of Individual Consumption According to
Purpose’ (COICOP) [
5
]. This search resulted in a list of 60 products, which confirms that
the proportion of bio-based plastics in durable products is small. Nevertheless, this search
was not intended to be complete, but to be sufficiently broad to be able to investigate the
current use and the opportunities and barriers as perceived by designers.
The products were analysed on the following aspects: Aesthetics, Functionality, Sus-
tainability, and Marketing and Communication. These aspects were formulated based on
the influence factors to the design process described by Ashby and Johnson and on the
first author’s five years of experience as an industrial designer in a commercial agency.
According to Ashby and Johnson [
34
], the design context is created by five dominant inputs;
industrial design, technology, economics, the environment and the market. We excluded
the input ‘economics’ due to the limited information available online about the product’s
viability beyond the selling price. The other inputs were considered while defining the
evaluation aspects explained in Table 2. We reinterpreted ‘industrial design’ as ‘aesthetics’
as we were unable to judge the quality of the product’s construction from the desk research,
but we were able to comment on its more superficial characteristics (colour, visible texture,
gloss, and shape).
Table 2. Evaluation aspects and how the products are analysed.
Aesthetics The extent to which the aesthetics of the product—the shape, colour, texture,
and gloss—appear to have been influenced by the use of bio-based plastics.
Functionality
The extent to which the performance (the ability to meet its function) and the
durability (the ability to resist degradation and damage over time) of the
product have, or have not, improved due to the use of bio-based plastics,
according to the manufacturer.
Sustainability
The documented choice of feedstock and the extent to which the recovery has
been considered in the design and business model. No Life Cycle Assessments
(LCAs) were conducted for the products analysed in this study due to the
unavailability of reliable information.
Marketing and Communication The marketing approach emphasising the added value of bio-based plastics.
The ‘Aesthetics’ aspect was evaluated based on the shape, colour, texture, and gloss of
the product. The ‘Functionality’ aspect was assessed based on performance and durability
compared to fossil-based equivalents, using product descriptions, material data sheets,
and product architecture. The ‘Sustainability’ aspect was evaluated based on the feedstock
generation and the end-of-life options mentioned in the available information, and to what
extent recovery at end-of-life was arranged by the producer. Conducting LCAs for all
products was beyond the scope of this study, but we did assess whether companies vali-
dated their sustainability claims through LCAs, and whether this information was publicly
available. Finally, for the ‘Marketing and communication’ aspect, we evaluated whether
bio-based was communicated on the product, in the product name, in the description, in
the marketing campaign, or on the packaging. The collected data were organised in a table,
and relevant additional information was recorded in brief notes.
Sustainability 2024,16, 3295 6 of 18
3.2. Interviews
Qualitative research through semi-structured interviews was conducted to uncover
the opportunities and barriers to the application of bio-based plastics in durable consumer
products and deepen the results of the design analysis. The companies behind the products
of the design analysis were approached for an interview. In total, 46 companies were
contacted via email and LinkedIn. Between March 2022 and November 2022, 12 companies
agreed to an interview, 11 replied that they could not participate, and the other 23 did not
respond after repeated requests. Contacting new companies was discontinued after 12
interviews as data saturation had been attained, meaning that additional interviews did
not provide new insights.
The participating companies were of different sizes and had products in different
product categories in their portfolio. Table 3gives an overview of the interview sample,
including the product category, the bio-based plastic used in the product, the professional
position of the interviewee(s), and the company’s size. To ensure anonymity, only the region
in which the company operated according to the United Nations Geographic Regions [
35
]
classification is shown. Applying the United Nations Geographic Regions, six of the
companies are based in Western Europe, five in Northern Europe, and one in East Asia.
This sample allowed different perspectives on the development of durable bio-based plastic
products.
Table 3. Overview of the interview sample (I# = interview number, used for quotes in the result
section).
I#
Interviewee(s) Position and Geographical Location
Western Europe (W-EU)
Northern Europe (N-EU)
East Asia (E-Asia)
Company Size
Small (<10)
Medium (10–100)
Large (>100)
Product Category
Bio-Based Plastic Type
Dedicated (D)
Traceable Drop-in (T)
Biomass Balance (B)
1 Product designer (W-EU) small Household appliances and
utensils PE (T)
2 Co-founder, creative director, product designer (W-EU) small Household appliances and
utensils PLA (D)
3 Founder, operational manager (E-Asia) small
Toys and sports,
Information and
communication
PLA (D)
4 Chief Executive Officer (CEO) (N-EU) large Household appliances and
utensils PA (D)
5 Head of Materials (N-EU) large Toys and sports PE (T)
6 Head of R&D (W-EU) large Stationary and drawing PHA
PLA
(D)
(D)
7 Production manager (N-EU) small Personal effects PE (T)
8 1. CEO, 2. Product engineer (W-EU) medium Toys and sports PE (T)
9 Material and innovation developer (N-EU) large Furniture PE (T)
10 Circular Sustainability Manager (N-EU) medium Household appliances and
utensils, Toys and sports
PE
TPE
(T)
(T)
11 Sustainability Leader (W-EU) large Household appliances and
utensils PP (B)
12 Group leader * (W-EU) large Personal effects PA (D)
* The interviewee works at a material supplier of a bio-based plastic product from the design analysis.
Two interviews were conducted in person at the respective company, and ten were
conducted online. The interviews lasted approximately one hour per interview. An
interview protocol was developed to structure the conversation. Before analysis, the
interviews were recorded, transcribed, and anonymised with the interviewees’ consent.
For each interview, the relevant text fragments were categorised according to the
process steps of the Product Innovation Process model (see Figure 1). Table 4shows the
process steps and topics covered by the categories. Thereafter, similar content from different
interviewees was clustered through open coding. In open coding, data are compared for
similarities and differences forming groups of similar data [
36
]. This process resulted in
opportunities and barriers linked to each process step in the Product Innovation Process
model. As Corbin and Strauss [
36
] suggest, a researcher might unintentionally place data
in an incorrect category, but through systematic comparisons, errors will eventually be
Sustainability 2024,16, 3295 7 of 18
identified, leading to the proper placement of data within the suitable category. In addition,
five interviews were also analysed by the second author. Any discrepancies were discussed,
revealing that there were only minor variations between the coding results. Therefore, it
was decided that the remaining seven interviews did not need to be analysed again.
Table 4. Process steps of the Product Innovation Process model (see Figure 1) and the corresponding
topics analysed in each step for the interview assessment.
Formulating goals and strategies Company vision, company drivers, laws and regulation.
Product designing and development Product aesthetics, material properties and quality, design and development
process, material choice.
Marketing planning Bio-based plastic market, marketing strategy, consumer perspective.
Production Production and certification processes, material and production price,
influence of plastic producer.
Recovery Recovery options and infrastructure, consumer influence on recovery.
4. Results
This chapter first presents the results of the design analysis in Section 4.1, then dis-
cusses the results of the semi-structured interviews in Section 4.2.
4.1. Results Design Analysis
During the design analysis, 60 products were identified. Table 5gives an overview
of the products, divided into product categories and the types of bio-based plastic used.
The umbrella name of the plastic is used, because in many cases it was not clear with the
commercially available data which grade and additives had been used. For elastomers, the
class name TPE is used, as the type of elastomer was not always stated. Bio-based plastics
containing products covered a wide variety of product categories, from small products
such as stationery items to furniture. Most of the products are in the categories ‘Recreation:
Toys and sports’, ‘Household appliances and utensils’, and ‘Clothing and Footwear’. In
most products, only one type of bio-based plastic is used. Drop-in plastic PE and dedicated
plastic PLA were the most commonly used.
Table 5. Number of partially or fully bio-based durable consumer products included in the design
analysis, per product category and bio-based plastics used. Companies involved in the production of
circled product categories were interviewed (see Table 3).
Type of Bio-Based Plastic
Total per Category CA EVA PA PE PHA PLA PP TPE
Category
1. Clothing and Footwear 11 4 2 5
2. Furniture 51
1 3
3. Household appliances and utensils 13 1
8
2
1
1
4. Information and communication 613
2
5. Personal effects 522
1
6. Recreation: Toys and sports 17 111
4
1
7. Stationary and drawing materials 31
2
Total 60 3 4 6 21 2 14 1 9
Table 6summarises the results of the design analysis per product category. The
analysis per product can be found in Supplementary Materials Table S1. Since not all
information was available online, some fields could not be filled out. Regarding the end-
of-life option recycling, it was sometimes unclear whether the product could be recycled,
although, in theory, the material was. These are not included in the table. This also applies
to packaging in the Marketing and Communication aspect, since it was not always clear
what the packing of a product looked like, so it could not be determined whether bio-based
was advertised on it.
Sustainability 2024,16, 3295 8 of 18
Table 6. Design analysis results per product category (detailed results in Supplementary Materials Table S1).
Aesthetics Functionality Sustainability Marketing and
Communication
Shape Colour
Performance
compared to
fossil-based
equivalent
Durability
compared to
fossil-based
equivalent
Feedstock
generation Recovery mentioned by company Bio-based communicated
in/on:
Similar to fossil-based equivalent product
Specific design for bio-based material
Similar to fossil-based equivalent product
Specific colours for bio-based material
(Potentially) less
Similar
Better
(Potentially) less
Similar
Better
1st
2nd
3rd
Reuse
Repair
Recycle
Biodegrade
Incinerate
Recovery arrangements from company
Product
Product name
Description
Campaign
Packaging
Category
1 10 1 8 3 10 1 11 6 4 1 6 3 2 2 3 5 2 5 11 8 3
2 5 3 2 1 4 1 4 4 1 1 4 3 5 3 1
3 12 1 5 8 1 12 2 11 8 5 5 1 13 2 10 13 6
11
4 6 4 2 5 1 1 5 3 3 3 5 2 4 4 6 3 4
5 5 5 5 1 4 2 3 1 1 1 1 5 2 1
6 17 9 8 15 2 1 16 11 6 6 1 13 3 4 4 1 10 17 6
15
7 2 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1
Total 57 3 36 24 2 54 4 6 54 0 38 21 1 20 4 33 17 7 11 13 35 60 29
35*
* This may be more in reality as the packaging information was found for 43 of the 60 products.
Regarding the category ‘Aesthetics’, in almost all cases (57/60), the shape of the
product was the same, or similar to, equivalent fossil-based products. In 24 products, the
colours that were used were specifically chosen for the bio-based design. Figure 3gives
examples of bio-based products and their fossil-based equivalent. While the shapes were
similar, the bio-based products often had a green or pastel colour. In addition, bio-based
products more often had a matte finish whereas fossil-based products had a gloss finish.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3295 9 of 19
Figure 3. Many bio-based plastic products (top) have similar designs, but different colours than
their fossil-based equivalents (boom). From left to right: Vaude Skarvan Biobased Pants vs. Vaude
Skarvan Pants, GastroMax Sloed turner BIO vs. GastroMax Sloed turner, Kartell Componibili Bio
vs. Kartell Componibili, Dantoy BIO Bobsled vs. Dantoy Bobsled, Light my Fire Spork BIO vs. Light
my Fire Spork.
Most products (54/60) appeared to have similar performance and durability com-
pared to equivalent products made of fossil-based plastic. There were no bio-based prod-
ucts in the design analysis in which a bio-based plastic with beer durability was used
than the fossil-based plastic normally used for similar products. For six products, the du-
rability appeared lower than fossil-based plastics typically used in equivalent products
because a less durable plastic was used. For example, IKEA TALRIKA PLA-based table-
ware was recalled because these products could break at elevated temperatures, poten-
tially causing burns [37]. Furthermore, products made of PHA could be less durable under
some circumstances since PHA is biodegradable in natural environments such as sewage,
soil, and seawater [38]. Four products boasted beer performance than their fossil-based
counterparts, according to the brand: the TPE in Scarpa’s GEA skiing boots was lighter
than fossil TPE [39], Fujitsu’s M440 ECO mouse had a soft touch feeling due to the cellu-
lose used [40], and Vaude’s Skarvan Biobased Pants and Trail Spacer 28 backpack were
lighter, with higher fibre strength and elasticity due to the bio-based PA used [41].
Regarding Sustainability’, we assessed feedstock generation and end-of-life treat-
ment. First and second generation feedstocks were primarily used, where the second gen-
eration feedstock was mainly castor oil or agricultural waste. One product used a small
amount of third generation feedstock: Vivobarefoot used 5% algae-based plastic for their
Ultra III Bloom shoe [42]. Ten companies did not mention any end-of-life option. Among
the companies that mentioned it, recycling was most frequently named as a recovery op-
tion (33/60). Biodegradation (17/60) was also mentioned, with certain companies explicitly
referring to home or industrial composting. Eleven companies made arrangements to en-
sure end-of-life was executed as intended. These were typically take-back programs
where consumers could return their product, and the company would repair or recycle it.
One of the companies, On Running, sells fully recyclable shoes through a subscription
service [43]. Ten companies cite a result of an LCA as evidence of their product’s sustain-
ability. Of these, six companies only disclosed the positive result without providing the
full LCA report. Two other companies mentioned the positive LCA result of the material,
but did not cover the entire product lifecycle, including lifespan and recovery. For two
Figure 3. Many bio-based plastic products (top) have similar designs, but different colours than their
fossil-based equivalents (bottom). From left to right: Vaude Skarvan Biobased Pants vs. Vaude Skarvan
Pants, GastroMax Slotted turner BIO vs. GastroMax Slotted turner, Kartell Componibili Bio vs. Kartell
Componibili, Dantoy BIO Bobsled vs. Dantoy Bobsled, Light my Fire Spork BIO vs. Light my Fire Spork.
Sustainability 2024,16, 3295 9 of 18
Most products (54/60) appeared to have similar performance and durability compared
to equivalent products made of fossil-based plastic. There were no bio-based products in
the design analysis in which a bio-based plastic with better durability was used than the
fossil-based plastic normally used for similar products. For six products, the durability
appeared lower than fossil-based plastics typically used in equivalent products because a less
durable plastic was used. For example, IKEA TALRIKA PLA-based tableware was recalled
because these products could break at elevated temperatures, potentially causing burns [
37
].
Furthermore, products made of PHA could be less durable under some circumstances since
PHA is biodegradable in natural environments such as sewage, soil, and seawater [
38
]. Four
products boasted better performance than their fossil-based counterparts, according to the
brand: the TPE in Scarpa’s GEA skiing boots was lighter than fossil TPE [
39
], Fujitsu’s M440
ECO mouse had a soft touch feeling due to the cellulose used [
40
], and Vaude’s Skarvan
Biobased Pants and Trail Spacer 28 backpack were lighter, with higher fibre strength and
elasticity due to the bio-based PA used [41].
Regarding ‘Sustainability’, we assessed feedstock generation and end-of-life treatment.
First and second generation feedstocks were primarily used, where the second generation
feedstock was mainly castor oil or agricultural waste. One product used a small amount of
third generation feedstock: Vivobarefoot used 5% algae-based plastic for their Ultra III Bloom
shoe [
42
]. Ten companies did not mention any end-of-life option. Among the companies that
mentioned it, recycling was most frequently named as a recovery option (33/60). Biodegradation
(17/60) was also mentioned, with certain companies explicitly referring to home or industrial
composting. Eleven companies made arrangements to ensure end-of-life was executed as
intended. These were typically take-back programs where consumers could return their product,
and the company would repair or recycle it. One of the companies, On Running, sells fully
recyclable shoes through a subscription service [
43
]. Ten companies cite a result of an LCA as
evidence of their product’s sustainability. Of these, six companies only disclosed the positive
result without providing the full LCA report. Two other companies mentioned the positive
LCA result of the material, but did not cover the entire product lifecycle, including lifespan
and recovery. For two products, more detailed LCA information was shared. One of these
companies used an alternative material for the calculations as no information was available for
the actual material used. The other company indicated the items included in their LCA but did
not provide exact values, so the LCA is not reproducible. In addition, only feedstock growth,
production and transport were included in the LCA and not the consumer and recovery phase.
In ‘Marketing and Communication’, bio-based content was regularly used in the
marketing campaign (28/60), as shown in the examples in Figure 4, and on the product’s
packaging (35/60). This included the use of various ‘bio’ certificates and labels. A refer-
ence to ‘bio’, ‘green’, or ‘eco’ was often in the name of the product (35/60), for example,
‘BioCover’, ‘Eco Rigs’, or ‘Sacco goes green’.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 3295 10 of 19
products, more detailed LCA information was shared. One of these companies used an
alternative material for the calculations as no information was available for the actual ma-
terial used. The other company indicated the items included in their LCA but did not
provide exact values, so the LCA is not reproducible. In addition, only feedstock growth,
production and transport were included in the LCA and not the consumer and recovery
phase.
In Marketing and Communication’, bio-based content was regularly used in the mar-
keting campaign (28/60), as shown in the examples in Figure 4, and on the product’s pack-
aging (35/60). This included the use of various bio’ certificates and labels. A reference to
bio’, green’, or eco’ was often in the name of the product (35/60), for example, BioCover’,
Eco Rigs’, or Sacco goes green’.
Figure 4. Bio-based content was regularly used in the marketing campaign of products, as shown in
these examples (from left to right: Reebok, Vivobarefoot, Be O Lifestyle, LEGO).
The findings presented provide an overview of the current state of the art in com-
mercially available bio-based plastic products. However, the results do not offer extensive
insights into the underlying reasons for the observed paerns. Therefore, interviews were
conducted to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges and possibili-
ties faced by product developers.
4.2. Results of Semi-Structured Interviews
Opportunities for and barriers to using bio-based plastics were derived from the in-
terview data. Table 7 presents an overview of all opportunities and barriers, divided into
product innovation phases according to the adapted Product Innovation Model (Figure 2).
The n’ is the number of interviewees who mentioned each opportunity or barrier, n’-
values of 3 or higher are included in the table. In cases where notable results were men-
tioned by less interviewees, these were also included in the table. Detailed descriptions of
all barriers and opportunities and relevant quotes can be found in the Supplementary Ma-
terials.
Figure 4. Bio-based content was regularly used in the marketing campaign of products, as shown in
these examples (from left to right: Reebok, Vivobarefoot, Be O Lifestyle, LEGO).
Sustainability 2024,16, 3295 10 of 18
The findings presented provide an overview of the current state of the art in commer-
cially available bio-based plastic products. However, the results do not offer extensive
insights into the underlying reasons for the observed patterns. Therefore, interviews were
conducted to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges and possibilities
faced by product developers.
4.2. Results of Semi-Structured Interviews
Opportunities for and barriers to using bio-based plastics were derived from the
interview data. Table 7presents an overview of all opportunities and barriers, divided into
product innovation phases according to the adapted Product Innovation Model (Figure 2).
The ‘n’ is the number of interviewees who mentioned each opportunity or barrier, ‘n’-values
of 3 or higher are included in the table. In cases where notable results were mentioned by
less interviewees, these were also included in the table. Detailed descriptions of all barriers
and opportunities and relevant quotes can be found in the Supplementary Materials.
Table 7. Perceived opportunities and barriers found during semi-structured interviews with people
involved in the development of bio-based plastic products, grouped per product innovation phase
according to the adapted Product Innovation Model.
Formulating goals and strategies
Opportunities n
1.1 Companies have a vision to be more sustainable and see bio-based plastics as a way to accomplish this. 10
1.2 Companies see using bio-based plastics as a start to transition away from fossil resources. 5
1.3
Companies see bio-based plastics as a means to sustainable sourcing in applications where recycled plastics
are not permitted (e.g., food contact). 3
Barriers
1.4 Laws and regulations are lacking (e.g., regarding the differentiation between plastics or the end-of-life
arrangements). Companies are waiting for rules, which slows development. 6
Product designing and development
Opportunities n
2.1 Use the product’s aesthetics (mainly colour) to communicate bio-based plastic use. 6
2.2 More and higher quality bio-based plastics are emerging on the market. 3
2.3 Drop-in plastics can be exchanged with fossil-based plastics without the need for additional research. 3
2.4 Dedicated bio-based plastics can offer unique advanced properties. 2
Barriers
2.5 Product developers question whether bio-based plastics are truly a sustainable material choice. 9
2.6 Many unknowns concerning new plastics ask for expensive and time-consuming R&D. 7
2.7 Biodegradable plastics are avoided in durable products due to the concern that they will decompose in the
use phase. 7
2.8 The choice of available bio-based plastics is limited. 4
Marketing planning
Opportunities n
3.1 The market for bio-based plastics is growing. 9
3.2 Emphasising the sustainability of bio-based plastics in the marketing strategy. 5
Barriers
3.3 Consumers lack understanding about bio-based plastics and their difference from fossil-based plastics. 10
3.4 Consumers are not willing to pay more for bio-based plastic products. 5
3.5 Marketing bio-based plastics as sustainable and safe can backfire and harm the company’s reputation. 4
Sustainability 2024,16, 3295 11 of 18
Table 7. Cont.
Production
Opportunities n
4.1
Biomass balance enables companies to continue using familiar production and certification processes while
gradually shifting to bio-based materials. 3
Barriers
4.2 Bio-based plastics are more expensive than fossil-based ones. 9
4.3 Only a few bio-based plastics producers dominate the market. 9
4.4 Using new plastics brings challenges to the production process. 4
Recovery
Opportunities n
5.1 Bio-based plastics have a lower carbon footprint compared to fossil-based plastics. 4
Barriers
5.2 Consumers are uncertain about how to dispose of bio-based plastic products after use. 6
5.3 Infrastructure for recycling new types of plastics is lacking. 6
The following section will describe the main opportunities and barriers listed in Table 7.
The pursuit of sustainability goals and targets was identified as the primary driver among
the interviewed companies in adopting bio-based plastics (opportunity 1.1). One of the
sustainability benefits mentioned was the lower carbon footprint compared to fossil-based
plastics (opportunity 5.1). The growing market of bio-based plastics (opportunity 3.1),
combined with consumer interest in sustainability, led them to invest in new (durable)
products made with bio-based plastics. The interviewees also saw some major risks and
barriers to the widespread implementation or upscaling of bio-based plastics for durable
products. As many are related, we have combined them into four overarching topics: (1) gap
in engineering and sustainability knowledge, (2) lack of end-of-life infrastructure and
regulations, (3) high costs and limited availability, and (4) marketing value and challenges.
4.2.1. Gap in Engineering and Sustainability Knowledge
All interviewees mentioned a lack of information regarding bio-based plastics. Nine
of twelve interviewees expressed doubts about the overall sustainability (barrier 2.5), for
instance, regarding recycling of bio-based plastics: “We have 60% bio-based PP and 40% wood
fibre in those products [cutlery]. So when it comes to carbon footprint [
. . .
] I think it is a good thing.
But [
. . .
] I would guess that it is not recyclable.” (I.7). Other issues discussed included the
environmental impact of transportation, competition with food production, land use, and
the fact that bio-based plastics do not solve the waste problem since they generate the same
amount of waste as fossil-based plastics.
In addition, there seemed to be a lack of knowledge about the material properties and
processing conditions of bio-based plastics, for example regarding biodegradability. Some
companies, for instance, avoided using biodegradable plastics in durable products because
they were concerned that the plastic might decompose during the use phase (barrier 2.7):
“Biodegradable you do not want either, because then the [household utensils we produce] will fall
apart after 5 years” (I.2). Uncertainties around dedicated bio-based plastics led to a strong
preference among interviewees for drop-in plastics. Some companies emphasised the benefits
of continuing to use known processes in the biomass balance approach (opportunity 4.1). Only
two interviewees mentioned that dedicated bio-based plastics can offer unique, advanced
properties that can be used in a product (opportunity 2.4). The design analysis also revealed
that the unique properties of bio-based plastics are not being utilised to their full extent.
4.2.2. Lack of End-of-Life Infrastructure and Regulations
The interviewees noted a lack of recycling infrastructure for dedicated bio-based
plastics (barrier 5.3). Therefore, some interviewees preferred drop-in plastics that can be
Sustainability 2024,16, 3295 12 of 18
recycled in existing recycling streams: “We want [our household utensils] to remain recyclable.
[
. . .
] So where possible, it should just be drop-in replacement for a PP, an ABS, and materials
like that. And PLA as a replacement for ABS in electronics is not a sustainable option, in our
opinion. Because that PLA can technically be recycled, but we currently know that it is not” (I.11).
Furthermore, other recovery pathways, such as industrial composting, are not universally
available, making it less likely for companies to consider it as an end-of-life option when
selling products internationally.
The interviewees also indicated that the lack of regulations on, for example, com-
posting or recycling of dedicated bio-based plastics is a significant barrier to adopting
bio-based plastics (barrier 1.4). Companies are waiting for rules and standards, which
slows development. The drive for sustainable solutions that include bio-based plastics is
currently mainly within industry.
4.2.3. High Costs and Limited Availability
A prevailing barrier to the development of bio-based plastic products was the dom-
inance of a few bio-based plastic producers in the market (barrier 4.3). This results, for
example, in limited availability of materials and higher prices compared to fossil-based
alternatives (barrier 4.2): “You really have to pay more, count on a factor of two, sometimes even
significantly higher” (I.5). In addition to the fact that bio-based plastics are expensive, the
companies report high research and development costs for changing to new materials,
which also increase the product price (barrier 2.6). The interviewees expressed that con-
sumers were reluctant to purchase bio-based plastic products due to these higher prices
(barrier 3.4): “You ask them: would you buy a bio-based product which costs 20% more than the
normal one? Everybody says yes when they fill in the questionnaire, but then when you do the
shopper study, no way” (I.4).
Another consequence of the dominance of a few plastic producers is the fact that a limited
number of different materials are manufactured. The design analysis confirmed that only a
few bio-based plastic types, often from the same supplier, were used. During the interviews,
four companies indicated that there is little choice in available bio-based plastics (barrier 2.8),
making it challenging to select the suitable plastic for their application or to choose a particular
feedstock generation. However, three interviewees indicated that they see more and higher
quality materials emerging on the market (opportunity 2.2), presenting an opportunity for
selection but requiring companies to be informed and updated to remain competitive.
4.2.4. Marketing Value and Challenges
According to the interviewees, consumers lack a general understanding of what bio-based
plastics are (barrier 3.3). This may, for instance, lead to consumers being uncertain about how to
properly dispose of bio-based plastic products after use (barrier 5.2): “Many people still think that
if you are dealing with bioplastic; it disappears when you throw it into nature” (I.1).
It is, however, precisely this consumer belief in the benign nature and sustainability of
bio-based plastics that has led many companies to emphasise sustainability in marketing
strategies (opportunity 3.2). As we saw in the design analysis, companies often used colour
to distinguish bio-based products from fossil-based ones and to justify the price difference
to consumers (opportunity 2.1), although this distinction was primarily for marketing
purposes rather than functionality. One interviewee shifted the focus of their marketing
message from sustainability to safety, as they found that consumers were more receptive to
the message that 100% bio-based toys were safer than fossil-based toys.
However, four interviewees also mentioned that marketing bio-based plastics as sus-
tainable and safe can backfire and ultimately harm the company’s reputation (barrier 3.5). It
might be tempting for companies to seek or even cross the limits of what can be considered
the ‘truth’, as the consumer market is easily persuaded to believe a sustainability claim: “That
is a bit the boundaries marketing always seek, because you do not want to do greenwashing, but you do
want to have a sharp claim” (I.11).
Sustainability 2024,16, 3295 13 of 18
5. Discussion
This discussion focuses on aspects that product developers can influence, such as
material selection and knowledge acquisition; therefore, topics like material availability
and costs have been excluded. Among the relevant topics from a product development
perspective, we identified three main points of attention, namely (1) sustainability and
circularity, (2) innovation, and (3) role of product development.
5.1. Sustainability and Circularity
One of the primary advantages of bio-based plastics is their sustainability potential.
However, uncertainties surrounding their actual environmental impact were identified
as an important barrier to their widespread adoption. The International Union of Pure
and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) states that bio-based plastics with the same properties
compared to fossil-based ones cannot be considered better in terms of environmental impact
unless a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) indicates so [
44
]. LCA studies have so far given
widely varying outcomes regarding the sustainability benefits of bio-based plastics. Factors
that seem to have the most influence on the LCA outcome are the type of biomass used and
its production location [
45
]. Reasons for the varying outcomes are the lack of a consistent
methodology [
11
,
12
] and poor data availability for chemical conversion processes [
11
]. In
addition, a good result for the LCA of a material does not necessarily result in a better
score for the LCA of a product, as factors such as longevity and recovery should also be
included. Only a few companies in the design analysis claimed the completion of an LCA.
However, as detailed data were not made publicly accessible, it was not possible to verify
their results.
Despite the lack of LCA evidence, most companies consider bio-based plastics to be
a sustainable alternative. Assumptions such as that bio-based plastics are inherently safe
for humans and nature are propagated in marketing, spreading misconceptions amongst
consumers. The literature confirms that consumers have an incorrect image of bio-based
plastics. Kymäläinen et al. [
46
] conducted research with 44 Finnish consumers and found
that 31 believed that bio-based toys such as LEGO were safer for children, despite being
made of a drop-in bio-based plastic. In a recent literature review, Findrik and Meixner [
47
]
confirm consumers’ lack of knowledge of bio-based plastics, notably about their end-of-life
characteristics (consumers assume that bio-based plastics are biodegradable) and environ-
mental impact (consumers assume that bio-based plastics are sustainable). This may lead
to misinterpretations among consumers regarding, for example, proper waste disposal [
48
].
Misleading marketing claims, intentional or unintentional, may also result in scepticism
towards genuinely sustainable products, which can hinder their development [
49
]. The gov-
ernment can play a critical role by creating standards to counter misleading claims [
50
,
51
]
and providing more guidance to consumers through clear, uniform labelling [14,52].
5.2. Innovation
In addition to the uncertainties surrounding the environmental impact of bio-based
plastics, product developers are hampered by unknown material properties and processing
conditions, and variations in plastic compounds. One possible explanation is that, until
recently, the development of bio-based plastics has focused on packaging applications [
53
].
Therefore, material producers and suppliers may have primarily promoted and marketed
the utilisation of bio-based plastics for packaging, paying less attention to their potential
applications in durable products. On the other hand, the interviews did reveal that product
developers saw the market for bio-based plastics growing, with more and higher quality
bio-based plastics emerging on the market.
The design analysis and the interviews evidenced a lack of incentives to explore the
unique properties of dedicated bio-based plastics. It raises questions about whether bio-
based plastics are being used to their full potential. The interviews revealed risk aversion
and a wait-and-see attitude among companies, who showed a preference for using drop-
in plastics due to their familiarity and the ability to maintain existing processes, thus
Sustainability 2024,16, 3295 14 of 18
keeping research and development costs low. This creates a chicken-and-egg scenario for
dedicated bio-based plastics where their market must grow before, for example, a recycling
infrastructure can be set up, or prices can come down. Furthermore, companies are cautious
with dedicated bio-based plastics because they are rapidly evolving, and there is a risk that
a choice will soon become outdated. The lack of clear rules and uncertain prospects further
strengthens their risk aversion, making it more likely that companies will choose to wait
rather than take the risk of making a bad investment.
Several interviewed companies saw the biomass balance approach as a potential
transition pathway towards an increased market share of bio-based plastics. However,
implementing certification systems, such as the biomass balance approach, may create
more confusion and distrust towards bio-based plastics because of the inability to track its
sourcing and the risk of accidental or intentional misuse, like double counting of credits [
54
].
Taking a biomass balance approach allows companies to continue their current practices
while claiming the benefits of bio-based content that might be present at an aggregated
level but cannot be traced in their products. This approach also stops product developers
getting on a learning curve regarding designing and producing with bio-based plastics.
5.3. Role of Product Development
All of this puts product developers in a difficult position. The lack of clarity on the
sustainability of bio-based plastics makes it challenging to make informed choices. Lack of
familiarity with the properties and processing conditions of bio-based plastics, misconceptions
about their durability, and the lack of a recycling infrastructure for dedicated bio-based plastics,
may make them hesitant to apply these materials in durable consumer products.
On the other hand, product developers can use their skills to create unique products
that do justice to the properties of bio-based plastics. And they are in a potentially strategic
position to steer consumers towards correct ways of disposing and to educate them about
the properties of bio-based plastics. Alternative ways, other than just using green and pastel
colours, will have to be sought to communicate renewable content and educate the consumer.
If a company is serious about its ambitions to move away from fossil-based plastics,
it should allow its research and product development departments time and leeway to
explore and pilot a variety of bio-based plastics, and it should be reticent about adopting a
mass-balance approach. However, we recognise that providing this space and time is costly
and not without risk.
Regulation and standardisation could be of help here by, for example, (financially)
stimulating sustainable material choices and making the choice for a bio-based plastic a
less risky option. Additionally, scientists can help by further researching the added value of
dedicated bio-based plastics for products and the circular economy. Future research should
also explore how the unique properties of these plastics can be exploited in product design
while considering the optimal circular economy pathways. Furthermore, it is evident that
more research is required to determine the environmental impact of production, use, and
end-of-life of bio-based plastics across the value chain to enable product developers to
employ them in a sustainable manner. With the availability of such knowledge, product
developers can design with bio-based plastics while considering the entire value chain
(e.g., sourcing and end-of-life) and communicating this to the consumer.
Some limitations of this study should be noted. The desk review was limited by the
information that was publicly available on websites and newsletters. Since the products
were found through their producer’s marketing channels, products could only be found
if they mentioned the bio-based aspect in their marketing, which could have skewed the
results of this research. As the search was conducted in English, the results were mainly
from Western countries. Geographical conclusions can therefore not be drawn. A total of
12 companies were interviewed. In almost all cases, only one person per company was
interviewed. This may not reflect all the vantage points within the company, but it does
provide meaningful insights into the opportunities and barriers faced by individuals.
Sustainability 2024,16, 3295 15 of 18
6. Conclusions
This research set out to explore the current state of the art of bio-based plastic use
in durable consumer products and to identify the opportunities and barriers product
developers perceived when designing with these plastics. The research involved two
methods: a design analysis of 60 products to analyse the current use of bio-based plastics
in durable applications and semi-structured interviews with employees from 12 companies
involved in the development of the analysed products. The interviews gave insights
into the barriers encountered when working with bio-based plastics and identified the
opportunities perceived by the interviewees.
Product developers are seeking sustainable solutions for the ever-growing plastic use,
including bio-based alternatives. The market of bio-based plastics in durable applications
is still small and immature. There are a number of start-ups, and in large companies,
bio-based plastics are generally used in a small proportion of their product portfolio.
Because the market is still in its early stages, we see a need for better education and
knowledge dissemination for designers, companies, and consumers, as misconceptions and
lack of information hinder the adoption and sustainability potential of bio-based plastics.
Currently, it is not clear to what extent the use of bio-based plastics in durable products
is genuinely sustainable or circular. Unfortunately, environmental impact assessment
with LCA to substantiate claims is lacking transparent information. More research to
resolve uncertainties surrounding the sustainability of bio-based plastics is required. The
development of better standards and regulations can provide clarity and support the
transition to a more sustainable and circular economy.
Although designing with bio-based plastics poses significant challenges for product
developers, there are steps they can take to strive to create more sustainable product designs
using bio-based plastics. We have the following recommendations based on this research:
•
When using bio-based plastics, carbon is stored in the product. Aim for carbon seques-
tration by applying circular principles such as product life extension and recycling
before incineration or biodegradation.
•
Explore and pilot the use of drop-in and dedicated bio-based plastics and get on a learning
curve. Dedicated bio-based plastics with unique properties (e.g., biodegradability) offer
many opportunities for the future. The market is young and promising, with new
bio-based plastics and applications being developed in increasing pace.
•
Ensure proper consumer information, for instance on correct disposal, and prevent
misleading claims about safety or sustainability.
•
Be critical of LCAs, but do not let it be a reason for inaction. The available data do
teach us that we need to carefully consider the biomass type and location, and the
intended recovery of the product, and this is a valuable starting point.
Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at:
https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su16083295/s1, Description of interview results. Table
S1: Design analysis results based on information available on corporate websites and reports, and
interviews and articles in magazines. Refs [55–57] are cited in Supplementary Materials.
Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, P.B., S.v.D., R.B. and C.B.; methodology, P.B., S.v.D., R.B.
and C.B.; validation, P.B. and L.R.; formal analysis, P.B. and L.R.; investigation, P.B.; resources, P.B.;
data curation, P.B.; writing—original draft preparation, P.B.; writing—review and editing, P.B., L.R.,
S.v.D., R.B. and C.B.; visualisation, P.B.; supervision, S.v.D., R.B. and C.B.; project administration, P.B.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Delft
University of Technology (2669, 21 December 2022).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Sustainability 2024,16, 3295 16 of 18
Data Availability Statement: The datasets presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Abbreviations
CA Cellulose Acetate
EVA Ethylene-vinyl acetate
PA Polyamide
PE Polyethylene
PEF Polyethylene furanoate
PET Polyethylene terephthalate
PHA Polyhydroxyalkanoates
PLA Polylactic acid
PP Polypropylene
TPE Thermoplastic elastomers
References
1. Plastics Europe. Plastics—The Facts 2022; Plastics Europe: Brussels, Belgium, 2022.
2.
Reddy, M.M.; Vivekanandhan, S.; Misra, M.; Bhatia, S.K.; Mohanty, A.K. Progress in Polymer Science Biobased Plastics and
Bionanocomposites: Current Status and Future Opportunities. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2013,38, 1653–1689. [CrossRef]
3. Zhu, Y.; Romain, C.; Williams, C.K. Sustainable Polymers from Renewable Resources. Nature 2016,540, 354–362. [CrossRef]
4.
Skoczinski, P.; Carus, M.; Tweddle, G.; Ruiz, P.; de Guzman, D.; Ravenstijn, J.; Käb, H.; Hark, N.; Dammer, L.; Raschka, A.
Bio-Based Building Blocks and Polymers—Global Capacities, Production and Trends 2022–2027; nova-Institute GmbH (Ed.): Hürth,
Germany, 2023. [CrossRef]
5.
United Nations. UNSD Classification of Individual Consumption According to Purpose (COICOP) 2018; United Nations: New York,
NY, USA, 2018.
6.
IfBB—Institute for Bioplastics and Biocomposites. Biopolymers—Facts and Statistics 2021; IfBB—Institute for Bioplastics and
Biocomposites: Hanover, Germany, 2021.
7.
European Commission. Communication—EU Policy Framework on Biobased, Biodegradable and Compostable Plastics; European
Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2022.
8.
European Commission Biobased, Biodegradable and Compostable Plastics. Available online: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/
topics/plastics/biobased-biodegradable-and-compostable- plastics_en (accessed on 19 April 2023).
9. Kakadellis, S.; Rosetto, G. Achieving a Circular Bioeconomy for Plastics. Science 2021,373, 49–50. [CrossRef]
10.
Mohanty, A.K.; Misra, M.; Drzal, L.T. Sustainable Bio-Composites from Renewable Resources: Opportunities and Challenges in
the Green Materials World. J. Polym. Environ. 2002,10, 19–26. [CrossRef]
11.
Bishop, G.; Styles, D.; Lens, P.N.L. Environmental Performance Comparison of Bioplastics and Petrochemical Plastics: A Review
of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Methodological Decisions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021,168, 105451. [CrossRef]
12.
Walker, S.; Rothman, R. Life Cycle Assessment of Bio-Based and Fossil-Based Plastic: A Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020,261, 121158.
[CrossRef]
13.
Spierling, S.; Röttger, C.; Venkatachalam, V.; Mudersbach, M.; Herrmann, C.; Endres, H.J. Bio-Based Plastics—A Building Block
for the Circular Economy? Procedia CIRP 2018,69, 573–578. [CrossRef]
14.
Wojnowska-Baryła, I.; Kulikowska, D.; Bernat, K. Effect of Bio-Based Products on Waste Management. Sustainability 2020,12, 2088.
[CrossRef]
15.
Bakker, C.; Balkenende, R. A Renewed Recognition of the Materiality of Design in a Circular Economy: The Case of Bio-Based
Plastics. In Material Experiences 2: Expanding Territories of Materials and Design; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021;
pp. 193–206. ISBN 9780128192443.
16.
Venkatachalam, V.; Spierling, S.; Horn, R.; Endres, H.J. LCA and Eco-Design: Consequential and Attributional Approaches for
Bio-Based Plastics. Proc. Procedia CIRP 2018,69, 579–584. [CrossRef]
17.
Álvarez-chávez, C.R.; Edwards, S.; Moure-eraso, R.; Geiser, K. Sustainability of Bio-Based Plastics: General Comparative Analysis
and Recommendations for Improvement. J. Clean. Prod. 2012,23, 47–56. [CrossRef]
18.
Brockhaus, S.; Petersen, M.; Kersten, W. A Crossroads for Bioplastics: Exploring Product Developers’ Challenges to Move beyond
Petroleum-Based Plastics. J. Clean. Prod. 2016,127, 84–95. [CrossRef]
19.
Cardon, L.; Lin, J.W.; de Groote, M.; Ragaert, K.; Kopecká, J.; Koster, R. Challenges for Bio-Based Products in Sustainable Value
Chains. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 2011,10, 1077–1080. [CrossRef]
20. ASTM D883-22; Standard Terminology Relating to Plastics. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2022.
Sustainability 2024,16, 3295 17 of 18
21.
Carus, M.; Dammer, L.; Puente, Á.; Raschka, A.; Arendt, O. ; nova-Institut GmbH. Bio-Based Drop-in, Smart Drop-in and Dedicated
Chemicals; nova-Institut GmbH: Hürth, Germany, 2017.
22.
Jeswani, H.K.; Krüger, C.; Kicherer, A.; Antony, F.; Azapagic, A. A Methodology for Integrating the Biomass Balance Approach
into Life Cycle Assessment with an Application in the Chemicals Sector. Sci. Total Environ. 2019,687, 380–391. [CrossRef]
23.
Kindler, A.; Zelder, O. Biotechnological and Chemical Production of Monomers from Renewable Raw Materials. In Advances in
Polymer Science, vol 293; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 1–33. [CrossRef]
24.
Lambert, S.; Wagner, M. Environmental Performance of Bio-Based and Biodegradable Plastics: The Road Ahead. Chem. Soc. Rev.
2017,46, 6855–6871. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25.
Sheldon, R.A.; Norton, M. Green Chemistry and the Plastic Pollution Challenge: Towards a Circular Economy. Green Chem. 2020,
22, 6310–6322. [CrossRef]
26.
Lenk, F.; Bröring, S.; Herzog, P.; Leker, J. On the Usage of Agricultural Raw Materials—Energy or Food? An Assessment from an
Economics Perspective. Biotechnol. J. 2007,2, 1497–1504. [CrossRef]
27.
Zanchetta, E.; Damergi, E.; Patel, B.; Borgmeyer, T.; Pick, H.; Pulgarin, A.; Ludwig, C. Algal Cellulose, Production and Potential
Use in Plastics: Challenges and Opportunities. Algal Res. 2021,56, 102288. [CrossRef]
28. Roozenburg, N.F.M.; Eekels, J. Product Design: Fundamentals and Methods; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1995.
29.
Balkenende, R.; Bakker, C. Designing for a Circular Economy: Make, Use and Recover Products. In Sustainable Fashion in a Circular
Economy; Niinimäki, K., Ed.; Aalto University: Espoo, Finland, 2018; pp. 76–95. ISBN 978-952-60-0090-9.
30.
Bos, P.; Bakker, C.; Balkenende, R.; Sprecher, B. Bio-Based Plastics in Durable Applications: The Future of Sustainable Product
Design? A Design Review. In Proceedings of the DRS2022, Bilbao, Spain, 25 June–3 July 2022. [CrossRef]
31. Bioplastics Magazine. Available online: www.bioplasticsmagazine.com (accessed on 26 July 2021).
32. Dezeen. Available online: www.dezeen.com (accessed on 26 July 2021).
33. Bioplastics News. Available online: https://bioplasticsnews.com (accessed on 26 July 2021).
34.
Ashby, M.; Johnson, K. What Influences Product Design? In Materials and Design: The Art and Science of Material Selection in Product
Design; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 8–27.
35.
UNSD Standard Country or Area Codes for Statistical Use (M49). Available online: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/
m49/ (accessed on 2 August 2023).
36.
Corbin, J.M.; Strauss, A. Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria. Qual. Sociol. 1990,13, 3–21.
[CrossRef]
37.
IKEA. IKEA Recalls HEROISK and TALRIKA Bowls, Plates, and Mugs. Available online: https://edu.nl/t7aqm (accessed on 19
November 2021).
38. Lee, S.Y. Bacterial Polyhydroxyalkanoates. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 1995,49, 1–14. [CrossRef]
39. Scarpa GEA. Available online: https://us.scarpa.com/gea-1 (accessed on 22 March 2022).
40.
Fujitsu Fujitsu Introduces the World’s First Biodegradable Computer Mouse. Available online: https://edu.nl/vb63f (accessed
on 24 March 2023).
41.
Vaude Skarvan Biobased Pants—Trekking Pants Made of Biobased Polyamide PA 6.10. Available online: https://edu.nl/ard4m
(accessed on 22 March 2022).
42. Vivobarefoot BIO: WEAR MORE PLANTS. Available online: https://edu.nl/9ch84 (accessed on 11 November 2021).
43.
On Running CyclonTM. Available online: https://www.on-running.com/en-nl/collection/cyclon (accessed on 28 March 2023).
44.
Vert, M.; Doi, Y.; Hellwich, K.-H.; Hess, M.; Hodge, P.; Kubisa, P.; Rinaudo, M.; Schué, F. Terminology for Biorelated Polymers and
Applications (IUPAC Recommendations 2012). Trends Biomater. Artif. Organs 2012,25, 161–171. [CrossRef]
45.
Muñoz, I.; Flury, K.; Jungbluth, N.; Rigarlsford, G.; Canals, L.M.; King, H. Life Cycle Assessment of Bio-Based Ethanol Produced
from Different Agricultural Feedstocks. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2014,19, 109–119. [CrossRef]
46.
Kymäläinen, T.; Vehmas, K.; Kangas, H.; Majaniemi, S.; Vainio-Kaila, T. Consumer Perspectives on Bio-Based Products and
Brands—A Regional Finnish Social Study with Future Consumers. Sustainability 2022,14, 3665. [CrossRef]
47.
Findrik, E.; Meixner, O. Drivers and Barriers for Consumers Purchasing Bioplastics—A Systematic Literature Review. J. Clean.
Prod. 2023,410, 137311. [CrossRef]
48.
Anderson, G.; Shenkar, N. Potential Effects of Biodegradable Single-Use Items in the Sea: Polylactic Acid (PLA) and Solitary
Ascidians. Environ. Pollut. 2021,268, 115364. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
49.
Nandakumar, A.; Chuah, J.A.; Sudesh, K. Bioplastics: A Boon or Bane? Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021,147, 111237. [CrossRef]
50.
Klein, F.; Emberger-Klein, A.; Menrad, K.; Möhring, W.; Blesin, J.M. Influencing Factors for the Purchase Intention of Consumers
Choosing Bioplastic Products in Germany. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2019,19, 33–43. [CrossRef]
51.
Moshood, T.D.; Nawanir, G.; Mahmud, F.; Mohamad, F.; Ahmad, M.H.; Ghani, A.A. Expanding Policy for Biodegradable Plastic
Products and Market Dynamics of Bio-Based Plastics: Challenges and Opportunities. Sustainability 2021,13, 6170. [CrossRef]
52.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the Future of Plastics & Catalysing Action; Ellen MacArthur
Foundation: Cowes, UK, 2016.
53.
Van den Oever, M.; Molenveld, K. Replacing Fossil Based Plastic Performance Products by Bio-Based Plastic Products—Technical
Feasibility. N. Biotechnol. 2017,37, 48–59. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024,16, 3295 18 of 18
54.
Krüger, C.; Kicherer, A.; Kormann, C.; Raupp, N. Biomass Balance: An Innovative and Complementary Method for Using
Biomass as Feedstock in the Chemical Industry. In Designing Sustainable Technologies, Products and Policies; Shah, P., Bansal, A.,
Singh, R.K., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 101–107. ISBN 9783319669809.
55. Barr, S. Environmental action in the home: Investigating the “value-action” gap. Geography 2006,91, 43–54. [CrossRef]
56.
Simon-Kucher & Partners. Global Sustainability Study 2021—Consumers are Key Players for a Sustainable Future; Simon-Kucher &
Partners: Bonn, Germany, 2021.
57.
Young, W.; Hwang, K.; McDonald, S.; Oates, C.J. Sustainable consumption: Green consumer behaviour when purchasing products.
Sustain. Dev. 2010,18, 20–31. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
