Sustainability criteria and the bio-based materials sector in the Netherlands

Abstract

Fossil fuels will run out in the foreseeable future. Out entire economic system is build upon fossil fuels and building up another base for this economic system is challenging. The only alternative for making materials that normally are derived from fossil fuels is the Bio-Based Economy. Materials in this way get made from biomass, such as sugar cane, sugar beet, and soy, and are called Bio-Based Materials. The switch between producing chemicals and products from fossil resources to producing them from biomass resources has to be done in a sustainable way. In order to achieve this, sustainability criteria for the production of these Bio-Based Materials (BBM) are developed at the moment. It is not known, however, how sustainability criteria influence the development of the BBM sector. The objective of this research is to understand how companies, at different stages of the supply chain of a BBM, are influenced by sustainability criteria. Therefore, the main research question in this paper is ’How do sustainability criteria in the bio-based materials sector influence companies across the supply chain?’. Three main factors were deemed important to shed light on this question, namely sustainability criteria themselves, mechanisms through which these criteria diffuse through society to the companies, and the responses companies eventually have on these. The factors were formulated into four research questions. The research questions were answered through describing the societal context in which these companies operate and asking the companies themselves how they deal with this context. Concerning the first factor, it was found that natural resource efficiency, greenhouse gas balance and GMO usage were sustainability criteria that could be institutionalized in the BBM sector. Natural resource efficiency dictates the efficient use of resources such as fossil fuels, primary energy, forests, and animals. Greenhouse gas balance is linked to climate change and dictates that greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced as much as possible. GMO usage might not be a sustainability criteria on itself, but seems to be treated this way by companies. Social sustainability criteria didn’t seem to be common. Concerning the second and third factor, companies addressed mostly legislative sustainability criteria linked to biomass when they were a biomass producer inside Europe. Other companies addressed sustainability criteria that were either connected to the company culture or when they were asked by customers. In the discussion, these elements, natural resource efficiency, greenhouse gas balance and LCA, usage of GMO, social sustainability criteria, and legislation and customer pressure were further explored. First, natural resource efficiency was discussed on general and specific level. Generally speaking it is of utmost importance that the shift from abiotic resource depletion to biotic resource depletion or impacts is limited as much as possible. Furthermore, the efforts on European level to establish a market that considers natural resource efficiency are noteworthy. Specifically, it was found that a focus on biodegradability was present at the companies. This biodegradability or industrial compostability focus is not necessarily sustainable. Either recycling pathways need to be setup for these kind of plastics or the plastics should be used in specific situations where they are sustainable. The companies in this study addressed this nicely by either working on recollection, recycling pathways or on specific business cases where it makes sense to use the product. Second, there was a focus on greenhouse gas balance and the usage of LCA in order to prove the greenhouse gas balance. Whether greenhouse gas balance makes as much sense to focus on for Bio-Based Materials (BBM) as for biofuels or bioenergy is debatable. The fact that LCAs are used in the sector is useful. Policies can be set to include targets for BBM. A reformation of the Renewable Energy Directive to include BBM is one of the advices from this report. The Netherlands have a similar mechanism (SDE+) in place which should also be extended to BBM. Third, there was a focus on not using GMOs in production. Although this might be necessary from the companies standpoint, it helps the institutionalization of not using GMOs in the BBM sector. This might affect future development in a negative way. The Netherlands is preparing to enter this debate and companies are advised to do the same. Fourth, Social sustainability criteria are only moderately taken into account by the sector. The Netherlands has a leading role in developing and stimulating certification systems for BBM with its own NTA 8080/81. The certification need for biomass can be circumvented, however, by using locally produced biomass. Fifth, legislation in the Netherlands concerning environmental and social sustainability criteria is advanced. Companies take these into account. Through customer demand, other sustainability criteria are also taken into account by companies. The government should take this more into account than it has in the past and use it towards the benefit of sustainable development and market formation. Several suggestions were made at the end of this work. The findings in this report point out that the Netherlands has a strong focus on sustainability in the BBM sector. The development of criteria and support of certification is noteworthy, but these do not equal actual sustainable development yet. This is especially the case when considering the end-of-life phase of BBM. Extra efforts are needed to stimulate the market and sustainability at the same time. This report ended with some recommendations and identified opportunities.