Without targeted policy, biobased materials and recycling will lag behind fossil-based alternatives. Both recyclates and bioplastics are currently insufficiently rewarded by legislation and market systems. This is evident from recent signals from the recycling and biotechnology sectors.
According to the trade association HollandBIO Biobased materials are barely gaining traction. Biodegradable plastics like PLA or PHA are technically suitable for packaging, agricultural applications, and medical devices, but in practice, they are rarely used on a large scale. There's no level playing field: bioplastics often fall outside existing collection and processing systems and are therefore ineligible for existing circular subsidies or schemes.
Recycled materials are also struggling. In practice, new plastics are cheaper and easier to process than recycled materials. Manufacturers therefore often opt for virgin plastic, even though recyclates have a lower environmental impact. Without price incentives or mandates, recyclates' market share is at risk of stagnating or even declining. Purchasing policies and environmental impact are still not sufficiently factored into the price comparison.
Both recycled and biobased plastics are thus hit twice. They are more expensive than virgin plastic, but receive no policy compensation or market advantage in return. According to HollandBIO, it's time to reassess the policy. Biotech materials can play a key role in making sectors like packaging, agriculture, and textiles more sustainable, provided that legislation and regulations allow for innovation and scaling up.
Both the recycling sector and representatives of the biobased industry emphasize that the circular economy can only succeed if alternatives to fossil-based plastics are not structurally disadvantaged. This requires a combination of price incentives, supportive policies, and investments in infrastructure. Only then can recycled and biobased materials truly compete with virgin plastic and take a full place in the circular chain.
