
































02_ Foschi_EJSICE_rev


 
 

 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/7154 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

16 

Linking bioeconomy, circular economy, and 
sustainability: Trends, gaps and future 
orientation in the bio-based and 
biodegradable plastics industry 

Eleonora Foschi1, Selena Aureli2, Angelo Paletta3, 

 

1 University of Bologna, Department of Business Studies - Via Capo di Lucca 34, Bologna - Italy 
eleonora.foschi3@unibo.it 
 
2 University of Bologna, Department of Business Studies - Via Capo di Lucca 34, Bologna - Italy 
selena.aureli@unibo.it 
 

3 University of Bologna, Department of Business Studies - Via Capo di Lucca 34, Bologna - Italy 
angelo.paletta@unibo.it 
 
 
Received: 21/11/2022 
Accepted for publication: 20/07/2023 
Published: 28/07/2023 
 
 

Abstract 

Bio-based and biodegradable plastics (BBPs) are innovative materials, wholly or partially produced from biomass, with the 
potential to enhance the circulation of resources in the biological cycle of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s butterfly 
diagram. Although BBPs are generally considered more environmental-friendly than conventional plastics, robust scientific 
evidence is still missing. The lack of tools and metrics to assess the circularity and sustainability of the BBPs industry poses 
relevant challenges for its upscaling and contribution to climate neutrality goals in Europe. It also calls for adopting system 
and life cycle thinking, guided by multi-level and multi-dimensional examinations, which are used in this paper to build a 
comprehensive picture of trends, gaps and future orientations that may boost a sustainable circular bioeconomy in the sector. 
The value- chain based and multi-faceted SWOT analysis that emerged from the intersection of system and corporate data 
reveals the need to establish a combined circular bioeconomy strategy where incentives to integrated local supply chain, 
dedicated EPR schemes, eco-design guidelines, revised EoL standards, new clear labelling schemes and harmonised 
sustainability criteria should be prioritized and conjointly pursued to accelerate the transition towards a sustainable circular 
bioeconomy of the BBPs value chain. 

 

Keywords: Bioeconomy; Circular economy; Sustainability; Bio-based and biodegradable plastics 

 

1. Introduction 

The exploitation of fossil resources has defined recent decades. The oil demand moved from 2,720 million tons in 1975 to 
4,070 million tons in 2020 (Ibrahim et al. 2021). The gradual rise of a fossil-based society has contributed to a massive 
increase in global greenhouse gases (GHGs) (Center for International Environmental Law, 2018), accounting for 52.6 billion 



 
 

 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/7154 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

17 

tons in 2020 (Jones et al., 2023). The chemical and plastics industries are responsible for around 7% of global GHG 
emissions (World Economic Forum, 2016). Because of the demand for fuel as a raw material input in addition to energy, the 
chemical sector (including the production of ethylene, propylene, benzene, toluene, mixed xylenes, ammonia and methanol) 
was responsible for 935 million tons of GHGs in 2022, while 1.6 billion tons of GHG emissions were emitted in the same 
year in plastics production and conversion processes (OECD, 2023). 

Indeed, oil and derivates are a leading cause of global warming (Kweku et al., 2018), responsible for about one-quarter of 
the greenhouse effect (Gleckman, 1995). To meet the climate neutrality mission by 2050, EU countries are forced to decouple 
economic growth from oil extraction. In this regard, the so-called bioeconomy plays a pivotal role (Ronzon et al., 2022). 
Bioeconomy is “the economy where the basic building blocks for materials, chemicals and energy are derived from 
renewable biological resources” (McCormick and Kautto, 2013). Converting biomass (e.g. crops, wood, energy plants, 
agricultural and forestry residues, municipal, industrial, and food wastes) into high-value end-products, such as food, 
bioenergy, biofuels, biochemicals, bio-based plastics (Yang et al., 2021; Mougenot and Doussoulin, 2022), the bioeconomy 
model seeks to substitute fossil carbon with bio-based carbon and uptake biogenic CO2 (Leiplod and Petit-Boix, 2018). 

Although bioenergy and biofuels are the most advanced applications (Adamowicz, 2017; Nazari et al., 2021), an 
acceleration in R&D for innovative materials under the bio-based plastics umbrella has been recently noticed. Driven by the 
increasing awareness about marine littering (Gold et al., 2013), the legislative commitment toward circular economy (CE) 
(Foschi and Bonoli, 2019), the green purchasing trend (Filho et al., 2021; Moorthy et al., 2021) and the multiplying 
challenges affecting global supply chains (Arikan & Ozsoy, 2015), the production capacity of bio-based plastics is expected 
to increase from 2.12 million tonnes in 2022 to approximately 6.3 million tonnes in 2027 (European Bioplastics, 2022). 
However, while extant literature deeply scrutinises the influence of bioenergy and biofuels to climate neutrality, more is 
needed to know about bio-based plastics. Indeed, bio-based plastics refer to a large range of materials (see section 2.1.) that 
may provide reasonable solutions to many environmental concerns. First, bio-based plastics may contribute to 
decarbonization because of their lower carbon footprint compared to fossil-based counterparts (Boonniteewanich et al., 2014; 
Muhammad Shamsuddin, 2017; Philp, 2014; Piemonte, 2011; Spierling et al., 2018; Bishop et al., 2021). Second, when 
compostable, bio-based plastics may solve the challenges faced by waste recycling facilities with regard to food 
contamination and complex product design (Paletta et al., 2019). Finally, when biodegradable, bio-based plastics may 
represent a panacea for microplastic generation, ecotoxicity and marine pollution in general (Meereboer et al., 2020). Yet, it 
has to be noted that many issues are still open when considering the contribution of bio-based plastics to circularity and 
sustainability. As Bishop et al. (2021) pointed out, the lack of a holistic picture of the environmental impacts of bio-based 
plastic products makes LCA studies unreliable. As a result, Yan et al. (2021) highlight the risk of biased or misleading 
estimates of climate mitigation contribution. 

Others have questioned the impact of bio-based plastics on resource preservation, as their production is still primarily 
based on virgin feedstock, thus creating pressure on natural ecosystems and increasing competition for land usage (D’Adamo 
et al., 2020; Imbert, 2017). In addition, the one-to-one substitution trend from conventional to bio-based plastics observed 
among converters could undermine the expected environmental benefits if the design process does not consider the specific 
conditions of use and disposal. Indeed, these materials may not foster the loop closing if consumers are not well informed 
about the proper disposal pattern, dedicated waste infrastructures are not established, advanced biotechnological recycling 
technologies are not developed and more in general, when heterogeneity and fragmentation continue to characterize waste 
governance across Europe (Rosenboom et al., 2022). Although the above-mentioned critics highlight that tighter integration 
between bioeconomy and CE is necessary (D’Amato and Korhonen, 2021), many additional concerns related to carbon 
sequestration, biodiversity, biodegradability in soil and marine environments and toxicology still exist and compromise the 
overall reliability of these materials (Nessi et al., 2021; Arantzamendi et al., 2023). As pointed out by the European 
Commission (2018b) in the Bioeconomy Strategy “To be successful, the EU bioeconomy needs to have circularity and 
sustainability at its heart”. Translating this intent into the BBPs industry, the present work aims to investigate what hinders 
and enhances BBP materials' transition to a sustainable and circular bioeconomy. In line with Leipold and Petit-Boix (2018), 
this study mobilizes the business community and policymakers, addressing the following questions: 

 
RQ1. What legislative, economic, social and environmental trends may affect the circularity and sustainability of BBPs? 
RQ2. Which are the key strenghts and weaknesses detected by business players and able to accelerate and/or hamper the 

circularity and sustainability of BBPs? 
With the final objective of providing recommendations and future orientations for a more sustainable circular bioeconomy 

in the BBPs value chain. 



 
 

 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/7154 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

18 

Given that circularity depends on the system in which materials or products are distributed (European Environment 
Agency, 2017), the analysis was contextualized to European countries. System and life cycle thinking were adopted in line 
with sustainability and circularity principles. Moreover, multi-dimensional analysis was used to collect and intersect 
legislative, economic, social and environmental aspects, while multi-level examination (i.e. at system level and corporate 
level) supported the authors in identifying mutual impacts, moving from system dimension to business environment and vice-
versa. 

The paper is structured as follows: bio-based plastics value chain is reported in section 2, followed by research design and 
methodological framework (section 3). Findings from the system (section 4) and corporate (section 5) analysis are 
summarized in the discussion and conclusion sections. 

 

2. Background 

2.1 Plastics and bioplastics value chain 
 
The term plastics reflects a wide range of materials, but it commonly refers to conventional plastics that are petroleum-

based and degrade over hundreds of years. The term bioplastics, by contrast, still needs a valid and recognized definition. The 
term has been used to describe bio-based and/or biodegradable plastics, which has generated misunderstandings among 
scientists and consumers. Under this consideration, the European Commission started a massive informative campaign to 
recommend using specific terminology (Filho et al., 2021) that could reflect both sourcing and biodegradability properties. 

Bio-based plastics are mostly derived from renewable resources (Álvarez-Chávez et al., 2012; DiGregorio, 2009) where 
the bio-based plastics content is determined by CEN/TS 16137:2011 standard. Commercially available bio-based and 
potentially biodegradable polymers are polylactic acid (PLA), polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) and starch blends (see Figure 
1). As circularity, biodegradability is a system property (European Bioplastics, 2015) that flows from the environment in 
which the material degrades. Many factors influence the biodegradability of materials, including the type of microorganisms, 
the molecular polymers’ structure, and the product design (Molenveld and Zee, 2020). So, degradation in aquatic systems 
involves physical, chemical and biological processes and mainly depends on water temperature and polymer shape (Volova et 
al., 2010); biodegradation in the soil is determined by the presence of bacterial biomass (Adhikari et al., 2016) while 
experimental conditions influence biodegradation in industrial plants (Thakur et al., 2018). 

 
Figure I. Commercially available bioplastics 

 
Source: Authors’ elaboration 
 
However, not all bio-based plastics are biodegradable. Bio-based non-biodegradable plastics include bio-polyethene (bio-

PE), bio-polyethene terephthalate (bio-PET), and polytrimethylene terephthalate (PTT). Biodegradable plastics but fossil-
based, such as polybutylene adipate terephthalate (PBAT) and polycaprolactone (PCL), are also considered bioplastics, but 
the use of this terminology is discouraged (Pellis et al., 2021) since their production is still oil-dependent. 

In addition, renewability and biodegradability properties strongly affect the upstream and downstream sides of the existing 
plastics’ value chain. Depending on the surrounding conditions, both properties can have a completely different 
characterization. While fossil-based plastics are mainly made in petrochemical refineries—where oil is subject to distillation, 
cracking, polymerization and blending processes—bio-based plastics are manufactured through either chemical processes 
(hydrolysis, dehydration, etc.) or biotechnological processes (fermentation, extraction, etc.) in biorefineries (Ubando et al., 
2020). Based on the type of biomass used, bio-based plastics can be sourced from three different feedstocks: (i) 1st 



 
 

 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/7154 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

19 

generation, such as corn or sugar cane; (ii) 2nd generation, which can be either non-food crops (e.g., cellulose) or agro-
industrial waste; or (iii) 3rd generation, sourced from algal biomass, which has a higher yield than 1st and 2nd generation 
feedstock. Today, most bio-based plastics derive from crop-based feedstock (Philp, 2014), while the 2nd generation is 
available in small volumes, and the 3rd is still in early development. 

 
 
Figure 2. Upstream and downstream sides of plastics and bioplastics 

 
Source: Authors’ elaboration 
 
The end-of-life (EoL) opens the doors to a variety of waste management scenarios (See Figure 2), leading to first 

distinguishing controlled and uncontrolled environments. Industrial-scale facilities monitor and manage material recycling or 
energy recovery performances with the former. Meanwhile, the latter generally refers to an open environment, mainly soil 
and marine ecosystems (European Environmental Agency, 2018; Karan et al., 2019). Notwithstanding that existing ISO 
17556 and ASTM D5988 provide criteria for the biodegradability of plastics in soils only and a  standard for biodegradability 
in marine environments is under discussion (European Commission, 2022), recent studies bring into discussion the validity of 
these standards outside of laboratory conditions which on one side do not reflect what is commonly expected in a natural 
environment and, on the other, do not capture the extreme variation of natural conditions (Emadian et al., 2017; Briassoulis et 
al., 2017; Harrison et al., 2018; Di Bartolo et al., 2021). 

Although BBPs are mainly incinerated or landfilled today, mechanical, organic and chemical recycling are the preferred 
EoL options in controlled environments (Ramesh Kumar et al., 2020). Mechanical recycling is suitable for the management 
of the drop-ins (bio-PE, bio-PET, bio-PTT, etc.) since they have the same chemical composition as their fossil-based 
counterpart, which are widely present in Europe for the treatment of traditional plastic waste streams (Paletta et al., 2019). 
Organic recycling theoretically treats bio-waste streams with compostable and biodegradable plastics certified by the 
European EN 13432, EN 14995, or the international ISO 17088. Organic recycling infrastructures include anaerobic digesters 
and/or composting plants (Carlini et al., 2017). Another emerging scenario is chemical recycling, which is based on 
hydrolysis, alcoholysis, glycolysis, aminolysis and ammonolysis (Lamberti et al., 2020) and allows the extraction of high-
value chemicals/monomers from different biopolymers. However, chemical recycling infrastructures need to be well-
established in Europe, slowed down by the high costs of depolymerization (Di Bartolo et al., 2021). 

 
 
2.2 Bio-based and biodegradable plastics in the context of sustainable circular bioeconomy 
 
CE is a system where the value of products, materials and resources is maintained in the economy for as long as possible 

while waste generation is minimized (European Commission, 2018a). In other words, CE is an economic system where the 



 
 

 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/7154 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

20 

EoL concept is replaced with production, distribution and consumption processes that reduce, reuse, recycle, and recover 
materials in service of sustainable development. As less dependent on oil, bioeconomy is perceived as an opportunity to 
mitigate climate change while sustaining economic growth and human well-being (Phil et al., 2018). However, combining CE 
with bioeconomy has prompted reflections on the circular bioeconomy. Indeed, while CE and bioeconomy definitions are 
trending among practitioners and academics (Kirchherr et al., 2017), circular bioeconomy has yet to be fully explored in the 
literature. Even so, the residual research stream dealing with circular bioeconomy reveals conflicting opinions on the 
interlinkages between the two economic models: while some authors consider the bioeconomy to be “circular by nature” 
(Sheridan, 2016), others express concerns about the risks of following a linear business-as-usual approach (Bezama, 2016; 
Stegmann et al., 2020; Tan and Lamers, 2021). The most recognized definition comes from Stegmann et al. (2020), who 
defined the circular bioeconomy as “an economic model in which bioresources are used to make products with the highest 
possible added value in a sustainable way, with a cascaded use of materials and minimizing resource inputs and outputs to the 
natural environment”. In line with the biological cycle of Ellen Mac Arthur Foundation’s butterfly diagram, circular 
bioeconomy emphasizes the use of renewable resources, cascading the use of biomass and reintroducing biological nutrients 
in the biosphere (Ellen Mac Arthur Foundation, 2019; Karan et al., 2019). Applying this concept to bioplastics, only BBPS, 
and consequently, compostable plastics, have the potential to circulate and recirculate in that cycle. From this, we can surmise 
that BBPs are: 

 
H1. Circular when added value is created and retained in further production and consumption cycles. 
 
H2. Sustainable when natural resources are not depleted and environmental impacts are minimized. 

 
Unfortunately, the analysis along the value chain reveals the emergence of a take-use-dispose model characterized by 

virgin biomass supply in the upstream stage and immature EoL scenarios downstream. Since existing circularity and 
sustainability metrics are still at the infancy stage for these applications (Bishop et al., 2021; Chioatto and Sospiro, 2022; 
European Commission, 2018b; Yates and Barlow, 2013), results are often contradictory and, consequently, inconsistent. 
Moreover, the integration of economic, social and environmental impacts needs to orientate decisions towards a sustainable 
circular bioeconomy (Blum et al., 2020; Rosenboom et al., 2022). It follows that a major interplay between the circularity and 
sustainability of BBPs needs to be investigated. To do that, a better understanding of what sustainable circular bioeconomy 
pragmatically means in the BBPs industry is necessary. 

 

3. Method and materials 

3.1 Research design 
 

To scrutinize the circularity and sustainability of BBPs, the research design has been informed by a combination of life 
cycle and system thinking. Life cycle thinking is crucial in CE studies to assess the impacts of materials, products or services 
from raw materials supply to EoL and make evidence of closing, narrowing or slowing resource loops (Heiskanen, 2002). 
Instead, system thinking is commonly used in sustainability transition theories (Barbier and Burgess, 2017) to understand 
how different parts of the system where firms operate are interrelated and evolve over time. Multi-dimensional analysis 
contributed to examining system dynamics from multiple domains (Meadows, 2009). Coherently, multi-level investigation 
supported better identifying relationships between macro and micro levels. Macro-level analysis has been conducted through 
a literature analysis of legislative, economic, environmental, and socio-cultural trends characterizing BBPs. Micro-level 
analysis has been advanced through the realization of semi-structured interviews with the key players of the bio-based 
plastics industry, including EU material suppliers, converters, end-users and waste managers. 

 
3.2 Data collection and elaboration 
 
Precisely, a literature analysis was performed to reconstruct the legislative roadmap that framed the bio-based plastics 

industry and gathered qualitative and quantitative data on the market and community behaviours. Then, an empirical analysis 
was run to collect insights at the corporate level by directly engaging business players. In total, 40 key players operating in 
the European market were invited by e-mail to participate in the research. Specifically, the top five market players were 



 
 

 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/7154 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

21 

invited for each stage of the value chain. Per each company, the sustainability or product manager was interviewed. The 
interview protocol is reported in Appendix I. Each interview lasted for about one hour on average. Interviews were recorded, 
transcribed and manually coded. Two researchers always participated in the interviews and jointly performed the text analysis 
to increase reliability. 

Then, secondary data collected through a desk research of scientific papers, policy documents and research outcomes 
published by organizations outside of the traditional academic communication channels (i.e., the so-called grey literature), 
were intersected with the primary data obtained from interviews to get insights on the key elements driving a sustainable 
circular bioeconomy in BBPs value chain. 

 

4. System analysis: existing trends in the European bio-based biodegradable plastics industry 

4.1 Normative and legislative perspective 
 
The establishment of the EU Strategy for Bioeconomy in 2012—and its revisions in 2018—have served as a roadmap for 

European economies (Ronzon et al., 2022). Compared to the first version, the updated statement shows a better integration of 
environmental, economic and social aspects by promoting local bioeconomies and ensuring that the same legislative and 
financial efforts are applied to all sectors, including bio-based plastics (Ronzon and Sanjuán, 2020). This new approach has 
prompted European countries to build up their own orientations for a sustainable and competitive bioeconomy in Europe 
(Bracco et al., 2018; McCormick and Kautto, 2013). 

Concerning bio-based plastics, the key EU policy document is the Circular Economy Action Plan and its updated version 
published in 2020 that still allocates resources to these materials through a focus on sustainable sourcing and standardized 
labelling schemes (European Commission, 2021). As part of the Green New Deal, this intention is operationalized in a public 
consultation aimed at examining the sustainability of the feedstock as well as the role of biodegradability and compostability 
in specific environments. From the legislative point of view, the Directive 2015/720 (European Commission, 2015) has 
compelled a solid push for the BBPs market by introducing a progressive elimination of very lightweight plastic carrier bags 
and a transition to biodegradable and compostable single- use bags and long-life reusable bags (Foschi and Bonoli, 2019). 
Furthermore, the Directive 2018/851 allocates attentions to EPR schemes and their role to foster shared responsibility among 
packaging users, consumers and recyclers but their scope should be extended to industries (European Commission, 2018b). 

Almost simultaneously, the Directive on Single-Use Plastics (SUP) introduced market restrictions to reduce the 
consumption of certain categories of SUPs like straws, plates, cutlery, food containers, beverage containers and beverage 
cups (EU Directive 2019/904). Alongside the market-based instruments, legislators introduced a plastics tax in 2021 on non-
recyclable plastic packaging waste (European Commission, 2020) to accelerate reusable, recyclable and compostable plastic 
packaging, as promoted by the European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy (European Commission, 2015). The 
recent policy framework on bio-based, biodegradable and compostable plastics sets out the conditions that have to be met to 
ensure overall positive environmental outcomes from the production and use of these plastics, including a) supply of 
sustainable feedstock; b) use of bio-based plastics in long-lived products; c) use of plastics that biodegrade in open 
environments only wherein applications and contexts where the full biodegradability has proven under specific real, local 
conditions and timeframe; d) use of compostable plastics only in applications and contexts where a compatible waste 
collection and treatment system is in place (European Commission, 2022).  

A comprehensive overview of the normative aspects is summarized in the following Figure. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



 
 

 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/7154 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

22 

 
Figure 3. Relevant EU policies affecting the BBPs industry 
 
 

 
Source: Authors’ elaboration 

 
 
4.2 Economic perspective 
 
According to the statistics published by European Bioplastics (2022), the 2022 European bioplastics demand can be 

estimated at slightly more than 2.2 Mt, with a slight prevalence of bio-based and biodegradable compared to the non-
biodegradable ones. Indeed, bio-PE, BIO-PA and bio-PET and PTT contribute to 48% of the total share. Besides the 
competition with r-PET, only a few beverage companies such as Coca-Cola, Pepsi and Nestle have launched bio-based 
bottles to the market (Lamberti et al., 2020). Among the biodegradable fractions, PLA, PHA, and starch blends are the most 
demanding biopolymers, accounting for 52% of the total share in 2022 (European Bioplastics, 2022). Even if these blends are 
predicted to increase in the following years, one of the most challenging elements characterizing the market of biodegradable 
and compostable plastics is the limited availability of the materials due to the small production capacity and the difficulties of 
reaching economy-of-scale. Indeed, about 20 compounding sites are active in Europe, some of which have multiple value 
propositions. They are generally backwards-integrated on intermediates and even base chemicals, while some are downward-
integrated on manufacturing semi-finished and finished goods. Because of this situation, there are difficulties in collecting 
and sharing official data (Castellano, 2018). However, among the leading companies, only a small-scale PLA polymerization 
plant is located in Europe while the key player is NatureWorks LLC, with a manufacturing facility in Nebraska and a new site 
in Thailand, expected to be ready by 2024 (PlasticConsult for Assobioplastiche, 2020). The European output of thermoplastic 
starches (TPS) is estimated at over 200,000 tons in 2019, with the highest capacity detected by Novamont, recently acquired 
by Eni-Versalis, followed by minor Dutch and German companies (PlasticConsult for Assobioplastiche, 2019 and 2020). 
PHA is not commercially available in Europe, but nearly 50% of the global production (estimated to be less than 100,000 
tons) comes from Metabolix, Danimer Scientific and RWDC Industries, whose production sites are in USA and Singapore 
(Rosenboom, 2022). 
 

4.3 Social perspective 
 
About the circularity of BBPs, end-users and consumers play a crucial role in preserving the intrinsic value of BBPs, 

especially during consumption and disposal patterns. Driven by the increasing awareness about the impact of plastics in 
worldwide oceans, consumers’ attitudes toward the proper use of plastics are massively growing. Filho et al.’s (2021) survey 
of 16 European countries revealed that 74% of respondents segregate plastic waste and dispose of it properly in specific 
containers, per their country’s regulations. However, compostability and biodegradability properties are still confusing 



 
 

 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/7154 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

23 

(Lynch et al., 2017). Moreover, the distinction between conventional plastics and BBPs for consumer packaging largely 
challenges European and international consumers (Dilkes-Hoffman et al., 2019). 

Several studies have examined the general influence of consumers’ sociodemographic characteristics on the green 
purchasing trend (Reinders et al., 2017). The study by Klein et al. (2019) revealed that gender, age and education do not 
influence the purchase intention or bioplastic products; instead, values, attitudes, product experience and interest in 
information have the strongest impacts. Several previous studies have identified a clear link between consumer psychological 
traits such as attitudes, perceptions and motivations, and consumer acceptance of alternative plastics such as those that are 
bio-based or biodegradable (Fletcher et al., 2021, Barbir et al., 2021, Filho et al., 2022, Stasiškienė et al., 2022). 

 
4.4 Environmental perspective 
 
Although BBPs are perceived as more environmental-friendly compared with conventional plastics (European 

Commission, 2022), robust scientific evidence still needs to be included. Existing LCA studies need to be more 
comprehensive regarding methodology, data source and results, making comparability difficult. If cradle-to-gate studies laid 
down on the uptake of biogenic carbon through the feedstock, the GHG-emissions profile is acute when considering EoL, 
Comparative cradle-to-grave study analysed by Spierling et al. (2018) on eight bio-based and conventional plastics shows 
negative impact categories for the first compared with the second, mainly due to energy consumption during the waste 
management (Hottle et al., 2017). Moreover, EoL impacts are difficult to estimate because of the lack of traceability for 
compostable and biodegradable plastics today and, at the same time, the lack of estimation about biodegradability 
performance of different biopolymers in different environments first, and the impacts of biodegradation processes on the 
environment and human health then. Additionally, most of the studies are based on examining the global warming potential 
impact category, underestimating other relevant impacts such as land use, water use and biodiversity (Di Bartolo et al., 2021). 
 

5. Corporate analysis: strengths and weaknesses influencing the sustainability and circularity of the bio-based 
and biodegradable plastics value chain 

Data collected from the semi-structured interviews allowed the researchers to move from the system to the corporate level 
and identify strengths and weaknesses influencing the sustainability and circularity of the bio-based and biodegradable 
plastics value chain. Sustainability and circularity are values that have pushed firms to invest in the sector (see Table 1). 
However, challenges (see Table 2) remain predominant and must be addressed. Findings are categorized by a group of actors 
to let emerge their different perceptions in the value chain. 

 
Table 1. Strengths points emerged among the actors of the BBPs value chain 
 

Interviewees BBPs allow to.../are attractive because.... 
Material suppliers • “offering new solutions where renewability and biodegradability are value-

added (e.g. mulch films)” 
• “being recognized as innovative and green" 
• “increasing interest among our customers in offering green end-products” 
• “use of EU funds that are more oriented to BBPs” 
• “acquisition of existing non-efficient or obsolete petrochemical plants that are 

converted to the bio-chemistry” 
• “use of marginal land for crops that are low-water dependent” 
• “with certification it is possible to attest compostability” 
• “cooperation with different actors of the value chain that increase intangible 

capital” 
• “allow the use of 2nd generation feedstock by valorizing lignocellulosic waste 

streams” 
• “create multiple value along the entire value chain that can be demonstrated 

with the use of life cycle-based tools” 
• “increasing cooperation with organic waste treatment plants to solve technical 

challenges at the EoL” 



 
 

 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/7154 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

24 

Converters • “major inclination toward BBPs because it is the most eco-friendly solution” 
• “differentiate the product offer” 
• “with BBPs it is possible to provide tailored solutions, often associated with 

consulting or training service” 
• “entering new markets” 
• “no need of high investments in machinery due to the possibility of processing 

to process BBPs in the same machinery where conventional plastics are 
transformed” 

• “use of innovation labs to co-design and test new materials and applications” 
• “new collaborations with suppliers and new partners to manufacture high-

performance products” 
 

End users • “customers and society at large have a rising need for greener end-products” 
•  “proliferating interest toward compostable food packaging among brand 

owners” 
• “increasing interest toward eco-friendly and bio-based reusable goods” 
• “create partnerships with upstream players of the value chain to tailor and 

customize the solutions” 
• “increasing trend of green public purchasing” 

 
Waste managers • “strengthen the local closed-loop supply chain to reduce disposal costs” 

• “closed collaboration with materials suppliers to test compostability and 
biodegradability performance and provide feedbacks to converters on product 
eco-design” 

• “creation of networks working on specific waste streams” 
 

Source: Authors’ elaboration 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2. Weakness points emerged among the actors of the BBPs’ value chain 
 

Interviewees BBPs are hampered by … 
Material suppliers • “small production capacity and difficulties in reaching economies of scale” 

• “difficulties in investing in other countries because of the lack of harmonized 
policy and orientations across Europe” 

• “difficulties in supplying a high volume of bio-waste to experiment with 2nd 
generation feedstock and so, minimize the purchasing costs of virgin feedstock, 
reduce the land occupation and decrease competition with food” 

• “need to make very large investments in R&D” 
• “high transportation costs of raw materials to the biorefineries and emissions to 

transportation” 
• “high production costs” 
• “lack of knowledge among stakeholders about the implications of 

biodegradability properties” 
• “lack of skilled workforce” 
• “need for more clusters focusing on bioplastics that allow dialogue between 

different subjects like institutions, companies, universities, and research 
centers” 

• “necessity to make policymakers aware of the lower total cost of ownership, i.e. 
the cost for the system related to BBPs vs. fossil-based plastics” 

 



 
 

 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/7154 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

25 

Converters • “discontinued materials supply” 
• “increasing competition because of the higher demand for bioplastics from 

high-value industry (e.g., medical, cosmetic)” 
• “challenging export because of different legislation and waste governance.” 
• “agitation derived by the measures imposed by the SUPs Directive” 
• “investment on compostable tableware that is now banned by the SUPs 

Directive” 
• “insufficient performance of BBPs for certain applications” 
• “continuous need for higher R&D capabilities to improve BBPs’ performance” 
• “high testing costs for EoL performances” 

End users • “lack of efficient labelling scheme for better communication to the consumer” 
• “high testing costs for contamination and health security issues (especially in 

the food sector)” 
• “effort in understanding the different EoL scenarios in place in exporting 

countries (e.g., home composting is different from industrial composting)” 
• “hostile disposition among consumers toward BBPs because of the food 

competition, the land occupation and the use of virgin feedstock” 
• “customers' skepticism and/or preference for other materials, like paper, wood, 

algae, etc.” 
• “increasing customer orientation toward reusable applications” 
• “efforts in communicating the properties of the end-products and implications 

on consumption and disposal patterns” 
 

Waste managers • “lack of harmonized waste treatment that is municipality- and country- 
oriented” 

• “lack of adequate waste management plants to treat BBPs” 
• “inefficiencies of lab-scale compostability tests 
• “difficulties of composting rigid products in composting plants” 

Source: Authors’ elaboration 
 

 

6. Discussions and concluding remarks 

Key interesting findings emerge from the analysis of trends detected at system level with the perceptions collected ‘from 
the bottom’ by interviewing value chain actors (Table 3). Several elements contribute to the uptake of BBPs; opportunities 
emerge from legislative/EU policy, economic trends, socio-cultural changes and environmental aspects. However, the same 
domains also embedd challenges that migh hinder the diffusion of BBPs that really contribute to circularity and sustainability.  

A key element seems necessary to foster BBPs: collaboration along the value chian. Results reveal that despite being 
recognized as innovative and green when using BBPs, material suppliers understand the potential to collaborate along the 
value chain to use alternative biological feedstock, with the resulting valorization of local economy and rural areas. However, 
no attention is currently paid to waste collection and valorization. Looking at the conversion stage, value is generally 
captured in biowaste bags, food packaging and agricultural mulch films and collaboration is basically fostered to improve 
technical and mechanical performances. Nevertheless, increasing interest is detected among end-users and brand owners 
intensively for using BBPs in durable products. Actors operating in waste management call for collaboration to test 
compostability and biodegradability performance in real other than lab conditions, thus trying to reduce the cost of 
uncompostable waste in composting facilities. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 



 
 

 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/7154 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

26 

Table 3. Value-chain based and multi-faceted SWOT analysis 
 
 Legislative perspective Economic perspective Social  

perspective 
Environmental 
perspective 

S Identification of end-
products where BBPs 
may create added value 

Exploitation of local and 
integrated supply chain 
based on the valorization 
of agro-industrial waste 

Increasing awareness 
about marine plastic 
pollution 

Compostability and 
biodegradability for 
specific applications 

W Lack of clear policy 
orientations 

High price of bio-based 
plastics compared with 
the conventional ones 

Lack of clear labeling 
scheme for BBPs and 
relative disposal patter 

Dependence of 
biodegradability and 
compostability 
performances from 
applications and contexts 

O Introduction of EPR 
scheme to manage 
compostable plastic 
applications across 
Europe 

Public funds for new 
integrated biorefineries 

Increasing green 
purchasing trends 

Renovation and/or 
introduction of new 
standards and eco-design 
guidelines assessing 
compostability, 
biodegradability, and 
more in general 
circularity 

T Market bans on end-
products made of BBPs 

Introduction of the 
plastic tax 

Skepticism behaviors 
and confusion among 
consumers 

Lack of clear criteria to 
perform LCA analysis 

 
Source: Authors’ elaboration 
 
More broadly, results reveal the urgency to develop a combined CBE strategy to capture and retain multiple values from 

biological resources. Specifically, dedicated roadmaps should be established for each end-product, including BBPs.  
From the legislative point of view, well-defined waste governance with a dedicated EPR scheme would facilitate better 

value retention from bio-based, biodegradable, compostable but also mechanically recyclable plastics. 
From the social point of view, end-users and consumers should be better informed about the proper disposal of bioplastics, 

especially when compostable. Harmonised labelling schemes facilitating consumers' choices and robust, informative 
campaigns stimulating demands are envisaged. To reduce scepticism among end-users, customized solutions that match the 
local conditions should be pursued case-by-case, especially for applications involving biodegradation in open environments. 

From an economic point of view, it is essential to develop an integrated and local supply chain to address the limited 
production capacity and, consequently, the high costs of raw materials supply. When the supply chain is based on symbiotic 
exchanges of residues among local farmers, it can also push the identification of valuable resource streams to valorize into 
2nd generation feedstock while reducing the demand for pesticides, land and water to cultivate virgin biomass, thus 
contributing to more circularity and sustainability. The need to increase production capacity can be stimulated by investing in 
brownfield sites, thus providing an additional boost to the local economy and reducing the risk of land availability 
exacerbation. 

From the environmental point of view, since the key issues are detected at the EoL, new eco-design guidelines and EoL 
standards need to be provided and/or revised. It is possible by enforcing formulations that tailor the degradation timescale 
according to the products' purpose and expected life. Eco-design guidelines can support identifying the correct application 
that, in line with circularity goals, can regulate the conversion processes. At the same time, the tendency to use BBPs in 
durable products creates boundary conditions for a user-centric chain where lifetime extension strategies, like reuse, repair 
and refurbishment, can be exploited. Standardised eco-design and strict EoL measurement criteria may support the 
establishment of a harmonized LCA methodology for these materials, thus stimulating comparability and benchmarking. 

To sum up, our study shows that although BBPs are generally considered more environmental-friendly than conventional 
plastics, robust scientific evidence on their impacts compared to fossil-based plastics is still missing. The lack of tools and 
metrics to assess the circularity and sustainability of BBPs industry poses relevant challenges for its upscaling and 
contribution to climate neutrality goals in Europe. It calls for the adoption of system and life cycle thinking, guided by multi-
level (system and corporate) and multi-dimensional (legislative, social, economic and environmental) analysis, which led 



 
 

 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/7154 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

27 

researchers to build a comprehensive picture of trends, gaps and future orientations that may boost a sustainable circular 
bioeconomy in the sector.  

To the authors’ knowledge, the paper is the first to discuss the value of BBPs in the broader sustainable circular 
bioeconomy model. Specifically, the paper makes several contributions to the bioplastics discourse. From the research point 
of view, it identifies the key area of investigation that needs to be explored in further research agenda. Specifically, 4x4 
significant topics have been identified for theoretical underpinnings. Managerial implications include a list of 
recommendations for EU policymakers for an integrated circular bioeconomy strategy aimed at (i) adding value to BBPs 
through alternative raw materials supply, (ii) retaining value through reuse and recycling, (iii) ensuring lower environmental 
impacts through cross-sector collaboration and well-functioning waste governance. 
 

Data availability statement 

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to their confidential 
nature but are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. 
 

References 

Adamowicz, M., 2017. Biogospodarka – Koncepcja, Zastosowanie I Perspektywy. Probl. Agric. Econ. 350, 29–49. 
https://doi.org/10.5604/00441600.1232987 

Adhikari, D., Mukai, M., Kubota, K., Kai, T., Kaneko, N., Araki, K.S., Kubo, M., 2016. Degradation of Bioplastics in Soil 
and Their Degradation Effects on Environmental Microorganisms. J. Agric. Chem. Environ. 05, 23–34. 
https://doi.org/10.4236/jacen.2016.51003 

Álvarez-Chávez, C.R., Edwards, S., Moure-Eraso, R., Geiser, K., 2012. Sustainability of bio-based plastics: General 
comparative analysis and recommendations for improvement. J. Clean. Prod. 23, 47–56. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.003 

Arantzamendi, L., Andrés, M., Basurko, O. C., & Suárez, M. J., 2023. Circular and lower impact mussel and seaweed 
aquaculture by a shift towards bio‐based ropes. Reviews in Aquaculture. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12816 

Arikan, E. B., & Ozsoy, H. D. 2015. A Review: Investigation of Bioplastics. J. Civ. Eng. Archit. 9, 188–192. 
https://doi.org/10.17265/1934-7359/2015.02.007 

Barbir, J., Leal Filho, W., Salvia, A.L., Fendt, M.T.C., Babaganov, R., Albertini, M.C., Bonoli, A., Lackner, M., Müller de 
Quevedo, D., 2021 Assessing the Levels of Awareness among European Citizens about the Direct and Indirect Impacts of 
Plastics on Human Health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 18, 3116. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18063116  

Barbier, E. B., & Burgess, J. C. 2017. The Sustainable Development Goals and the systems approach to sustainability. 
Economics, 11(1), 20170028. 

Bezama, A., 2016. Let us discuss how cascading can help implement the circular economy and the bio-economy strategies. 
Waste Manag. Res. 34, 593–594. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X16657973 

Bishop, G., Styles, D., Lens, P.N.L., 2021. Environmental performance comparison of bioplastics and petrochemical 
plastics: A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) methodological decisions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 168, 105451. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105451 

Blum, N.U., Haupt, M., Bening, C.R., 2020. Why “Circular” doesn’t always mean “Sustainable.” Resour. Conserv. 
Recycl. 162, 105042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105042 

Boonniteewanich, J., Pitivut, S., Tongjoy, S., Lapnonkawow, S., Suttiruengwong, S., 2014. Evaluation of carbon footprint 
of bioplastic straw compared to petroleum based straw products. Energy Procedia 56, 518–524. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.07.187 

Bracco, S., Calicioglu, O., Juan, M.G.S., Flammini, A., 2018. Assessing the contribution of bioeconomy to the total 
economy: A review of national frameworks. Sustain. Switz. 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061698 

Briassoulis, D., & Degli Innocenti, F., 2017. Standards for soil biodegradable plastics. Soil degradable bioplastics for a 
sustainable modern agriculture, 139-168. 

Castellano, M. 2018. La bioeconomia in Italia: confronti territoriali e potenzialità di sviluppo. Volume 8-Numero 5-
Settembre 2018, 156. 



 
 

 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/7154 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

28 

Carlini, M., Mosconi, E.M., Castellucci, S., Villarini, M., Colantoni, A., 2017. An economical evaluation of anaerobic 
digestion plants fed with organic agro-industrial waste. Energies 10, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10081165 

Center for International Environmental Law, 2018. Impact Reportin 2018. Available at: https://www.ciel.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/11/CIELImpactReport2018.pdf 

Chioatto, E., Sospiro, P., 2022. Transition from waste management to circular economy: the European Union roadmap. 
Environ. Dev. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021- 02050-3 

D’Adamo, I., Falcone, P.M., Imbert, E., Morone, P., 2020. Survey data for assessing the socio- economic performance of 
End of Life options of a bio-based product based on expert knowledge. Data Brief 32, 106199. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2020.106199 

D’Amato, D., Korhonen, J., 2021. Integrating the green economy, circular economy and bioeconomy in a strategic 
sustainability framework. Ecol. Econ. 188, 107143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107143 

Di Bartolo, A., Infurna, G., & Dintcheva, N. T., 2021. A review of bioplastics and their adoption in the circular economy. 
Polymers, 13(8), 1229. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13081229 

DiGregorio, B.E., 2009. Biobased Performance Bioplastic: Mirel. Chem. Biol. 16, 1–2. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chembiol.2009.01.001 

Dilkes-Hoffman, L., Ashworth, P., Laycock, B., Pratt, S., Lant, P., 2019. Public attitudes towards bioplastics – knowledge, 
perception and end-of-life management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 151, 104479. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104479 

Ellen Mac Arthur Foundation, 2019. What Is a Circular Economy? Available online at: 
https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/concept 
Emadian, S. M., Onay, T. T., & Demirel, B., 2017. Biodegradation of bioplastics in natural environments. Waste 

management, 59, 526-536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.10.006 
European Bioplastics, 2015. EN13432 Certified Bioplastics Performance in Industrial Composting 5. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011736 
European Bioplastics, 2022. Bioplastics market development update 2022. Available online: https://docs.european-

bioplastics.org/publications/market_data/2022/Report_Bioplastics_Market_Data_2022_short_version.pdf 
European Commission. 2015. An EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy. COM (2015) 614. Available online: 

https://www.eea.europa.eu/policy-documents/com-2015-0614-final 
European Commission, 2018a. A sustainable Bioeconomy for Europe: strengthening the connection between economy, 

society and the environment. https://doi.org/10.2777/478385 
European Commission, 2018b. Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 

amending Directive 2008/98/EC on waste. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32018L0851 

European Commission, 2022. EU policy framework on biobased, biodegradable and compostable plastics. Available 
online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022DC0682 

European Environment Agency, 2017. Circular by design - Products in the circular economy . Available online: 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/circular-by-design 

European Environmental Agency, 2018. The circular economy and the bioeconomy. Available online: 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/circular-economy-and-bioeconomy  

European Environment Agency, 2020. Bio-waste in Europe — turning challenges into opportunities. Bio-waste in Europe-
turning challenges into opportunities. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/bio-waste-in-europe 

EU Directive 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the reduction of the impact of 
certain plastic products on the environment, 2019. Official Journal of the European Union. Available from: 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/904/oj 

Filho, W.L., Salvia, A.L., Bonoli, A., Saari, U.A., Voronova, V., Klõga, M., Kumbhar, S.S., Olszewski, K., De Quevedo, 
D.M., Barbir, J., 2021. An assessment of attitudes towards plastics and bioplastics in Europe. Sci. Total Environ. 755, 
142732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142732 

Filho, W.L., Barbir, J., Abubakar, I.R., Paço, A., Stasiskiene, Z., Hornbogen, M., Christin Fendt, M.T., Voronova, V., 
Klõga, M., 2022. Consumer attitudes and concerns with bioplastics use: An international study. PLoS One 17, e0266918. 
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266918   



 
 

 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/7154 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

29 

Fletcher, C.A., Niemenoja, K., Hunt, R., Adams, J., Dempsey, A., Banks, C.E., 2021. Addressing Stakeholder Concerns 
Regarding the Effective Use of Bio-Based and Biodegradable Plastics. Resources 10, 95. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/resources10100095  

Foschi, E., Bonoli, A., 2019. The Commitment of Packaging Industry in the Framework of the European Strategy for 
Plastics in a Circular Economy. Adm. Sci. 9, 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci9010018 

Gleckman, H., 1995. Transnational Corporations. Strategic Responses to ‘Sustainable Development.’ Green Glob. Yearb. 
Int. Co-Oper. Environ. Dev. 1995 1995, 93–106.  

Gold, B.M., Mika, K., Horowitz, C., Herzog, M., Leitner, L., 2013. Pritzker Environmental Law and Policy Briefs. 
Harrison, J. P., Boardman, C., O'Callaghan, K., Delort, A. M., & Song, J., 2018. Biodegradability standards for carrier 

bags and plastic films in aquatic environments: a critical review. Royal Society open science, 5(5), 171792. 
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.171792 

Heiskanen, E., 2002. The institutional logic of life cycle thinking. J. Clean. Prod., Integrating greener product development 
perspectives 10, 427–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959- 6526(02)00014-8 

Hottle, T.A., Bilec, M.M. and Landis, A.E., 2017. Biopolymer production and end of life comparisons using life cycle 
assessment. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 122, pp.295- 306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.03.002 

Ibrahim, I. A., Ötvös, T., Gilmanova, A., Rocca, E., Ghanem, C., & Wanat, M. 2021. International energy agency. Kluwer 
Law International BV. 

Imbert, E., 2017. Food waste valorization options: Opportunities from the bioeconomy. Open Agric. 2, 195–204. 
https://doi.org/10.1515/opag-2017-0020 

Jones, M. W., Peters, G. P., Gasser, T., Andrew, R. M., Schwingshackl, C., Gütschow, J., ... & Le Quéré, C., 2023. 
National contributions to climate change due to historical emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide since 
1850. Scientific Data, 10(1), 155. 

Karan, H., Funk, C., Grabert, M., Oey, M., Hankamer, B., 2019. Green Bioplastics as Part of a Circular Bioeconomy. 
Trends Plant Sci. 24, 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2018.11.010 

Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., Hekkert, M., 2017. Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resour. 
Conserv. Recycl. 127, 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005 

Klein, F., Emberger-Klein, A., Menrad, K., Möhring, W., Blesin, J.-M., 2019. Influencing factors for the purchase 
intention of consumers choosing bioplastic products in Germany. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 19, 33–43. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2019.01.004 

Kweku, D., Bismark, O., Maxwell, A., Desmond, K., Danso, K., Oti-Mensah, E., Quachie, A., Adormaa, B., 2018. 
Greenhouse Effect: Greenhouse Gases and Their Impact on Global Warming. J. Sci. Res. Rep. 17, 1–9. 
https://doi.org/10.9734/jsrr/2017/39630 

Lamberti, F.M., Román-Ramírez, L.A., Wood, J., 2020. Recycling of Bioplastics: Routes and Benefits. J. Polym. Environ. 
28, 2551–2571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-020-01795-8  

Leipold, S., & Petit-Boix, A., 2018. The circular economy and the bio-based sector. Perspectives of European and German 
stakeholders. Journal of cleaner production, 201, 1125-1137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.019 

Lynch, D.H.J., Klaassen, P., Broerse, J.E.W., 2017. Unraveling Dutch citizens’ perceptions on the bio-based economy: 
The case of bioplastics, bio-jetfuels and small-scale bio-refineries. Ind. Crops Prod., Challenges in Building a Sustainable 
Biobased Economy 106, 130–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.10.035 

McCormick, K., Kautto, N., 2013. The Bioeconomy in Europe: An Overview. Sustain. Switz. 5, 2589–2608. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/su5062589 

Meadows, D.H., 2009. Thinking in systems: a primer. Earthscan, London. 
Merchan, A. L., Fischöder, T., Hee, J., Lehnertz, M. S., Osterthun, O., Pielsticker, S., ... & Palkovits, R. (2022). Chemical 

recycling of bioplastics: technical opportunities to preserve chemical functionality as path towards a circular economy. Green 
Chemistry, 24(24), 9428-9449. 

Meereboer, K.W., Misra, M., Mohanty, A.K., 2020. Review of recent advances in the biodegradability of 
polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) bioplastics and their composites. Green Chem. 22, 5519–5558. 
https://doi.org/10.1039/d0gc01647k 

Molenveld, K., Zee, M. Van Der, 2020. Bio-Based and Biodegradable Plastics, Bio-Based and Biodegradable Plastics. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/books978-3-03936-969-0 



 
 

 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/7154 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

30 

Moorthy, K., Kamarudin, A.A., Xin, L., Hui, L.M., Way, L.T., Fang, P.S., Carmen, W., 2021. Green packaging purchase 
behaviour: a study on Malaysian consumers. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 23, 15391–15412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-
01302-6 

Mostaghimi, K., Behnamian, J., 2022. Waste minimization towards waste management and cleaner production strategies: a 
literature review. Environ. Dev. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02599-7 

Mougenot, B., Doussoulin, J.-P., 2022. Conceptual evolution of the bioeconomy: a bibliometric analysis. Environ. Dev. 
Sustain. 24, 1031–1047. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021- 01481-2 

Muhammad Shamsuddin, I., 2017. Bioplastics as Better Alternative to Petroplastics and Their Role in National 
Sustainability: A Review. Adv. Biosci. Bioeng. 5, 63. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.abb.20170504.13 

Nazari, M.T., Mazutti, J., Basso, L.G., Colla, L.M., Brandli, L., 2021. Biofuels and their connections with the sustainable 
development goals: a bibliometric and systematic review. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 23, 11139–11156. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01110-4 

Nessi, S., Sinkko, T., Bulgheroni, C., Garcia-Gutierrez, P., Giuntoli, J., Konti, A., ... & Ardente, F. (2021). Life Cycle 
Assessment (LCA) of alternative feedstocks for plastics production. Publications Office of the European Union 

OECD (2023), "Global Plastics Outlook: Greenhouse gas emissions from plastics lifecycle - projections", OECD 
Environment Statistics (database), https://doi.org/10.1787/e39547a0-en 

Paletta, A., Leal Filho, W., Balogun, A.L., Foschi, E., Bonoli, A., 2019. Barriers and challenges to plastics valorisation in 
the context of a circular economy: Case studies from Italy. J. Clean. Prod. 241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118149 

Pellis, A., Malinconico, M., Guarneri, A., Gardossi, L., 2021. Renewable polymers and plastics: Performance beyond the 
green. New Biotechnol. 60, 146–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2020.10.003 

Philp, J., 2014. OECD policies for bioplastics in the context of a bioeconomy, 2013. Ind. Biotechnol. 10, 19–21. 
https://doi.org/10.1089/ind.2013.1612 

Philp, J., 2018. The bioeconomy, the challenge of the century for policy makers. New biotechnology, 40, 11-19. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2017.04.004 

Piemonte, V., 2011. Bioplastic Wastes: The Best Final Disposition for Energy Saving. J. Polym. Environ. 19, 988–994. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-011-0343-z 

Plastic and Climate: The Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet, n.d. . Cent. Int. Environ. Law. Available online: 
https://www.ciel.org/plasticandclimate/ 

PlasticConsult, 2019. La filiera dei polimeri compostabili. Dati 2018 – evoluzioni attese. Paper presented at the Annual 
Assobioplastic Conference, Rome, 2019 

Plastic Consult, 2020. La filiera dei polimeri compostabili. Dati 2019. Paper presented at the Annual Assobioplastic 
Conference, Rome, 2019 

RameshKumar, S., Shaiju, P., & O'Connor, K. E., 2020. Bio-based and biodegradable polymers- State-of-the-art, 
challenges and emerging trends. Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry, 21, 75-81. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsc.2019.12.005 

Reinders, M.J., Onwezen, M.C., Meeusen, M.J.G., 2017. Can bio-based attributes upgrade a brand? How partial and full 
use of bio-based materials affects the purchase intention of brands. J. Clean. Prod. 162, 1169–1179. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.126 

Ronzon, T., Iost, S., Philippidis, G., 2022. Has the European Union entered a bioeconomy transition? Combining an 
output-based approach with a shift-share analysis. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 24, 8195–8217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-
021-01780-8 

Ronzon, T., Sanjuán, A.I., 2020. Friends or foes? A compatibility assessment of bioeconomy- related Sustainable 
Development Goals for European policy coherence. J. Clean. Prod. 254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119832 

Rosenboom, J.-G., Langer, R., Traverso, G., 2022. Bioplastics for a circular economy. Nat. Rev. Mater. 7, 117–137. 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-021-00407-8 

Sheridan, K., 2016. Making the Bioeconomy Circular: The Biobased Industries’ Next Goal? Ind. Biotechnol. 12, 339–340. 
https://doi.org/10.1089/ind.2016.29057.ksh 

Shevchenko, T., Ranjbari, M., Shams Esfandabadi, Z., Danko, Y., & Bliumska-Danko, K., 2022. Promising developments 
in bio-based products as alternatives to conventional plastics to enable circular economy in Ukraine. Recycling, 7(2), 20. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling7020020 



 
 

 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/7154 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

31 

Spierling, S., Knüpffer, E., Behnsen, H., Mudersbach, M., Krieg, H., Springer, S., ... & Endres, H. J., 2018. Bio-based 
plastics-A review of environmental, social and economic impact assessments. Journal of Cleaner Production, 185, 476-491. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.014 

Stasiškienė, K., Barbir, J., Draudvilienė, L., Chong, Z.K., Kuchta, K., Voronova, V., Filho, W.L., 2022. Challenges and 
Strategies for Bio-Based and Biodegradable Plastic Waste Management in Europe. Sustainability, 14(24) 16476, 
https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416476 

Stegmann, P., Londo, M., Junginger, M., 2020. The circular bioeconomy: Its elements and role in European bioeconomy 
clusters. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. X 6, 100029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcrx.2019.100029 

Stephenson, P. J., & Damerell, A., 2022. Bioeconomy and Circular Economy Approaches Need to Enhance the Focus on 
Biodiversity to Achieve Sustainability. Sustainability, 14(17), 10643. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710643 

Tan, E.C. and Lamers, P., 2021. Circular bioeconomy concepts—a perspective. Frontiers in Sustainability, 2, p.701509. 
https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2021.701509 

Thakur, S., Chaudhary, J., Sharma, B., Verma, A., Tamulevicius, S., Thakur, V.K., 2018. Sustainability of bioplastics: 
Opportunities and challenges. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 13, 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsc.2018.04.013 

Ubando, A.T., Felix, C.B., Chen, W.H., 2020. Biorefineries in circular bioeconomy: A comprehensive review. Bioresour. 
Technol. 299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122585 

Volova, T.G., Boyandin, A.N., Vasiliev, A.D., Karpov, V.A., Prudnikova, S. V., Mishukova, O. V., Boyarskikh, U.A., 
Filipenko, M.L., Rudnev, V.P., Bá Xuân, B., Vit Dũng, V., Gitelson, I.I., 2010. Biodegradation of polyhydroxyalkanoates 
(PHAs) in tropical coastal waters and identification of PHA-degrading bacteria. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 95, 2350–2359. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2010.08.023 

Yang, L., Wang, X. C., Dai, M., Chen, B., Qiao, Y., Deng, H., ... & Wang, Y., 2021. Shifting from fossil-based economy 
to bio-based economy: Status quo, challenges, and prospects. Energy, 228, 120533. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.120533 

Yates, M.R., Barlow, C.Y., 2013. Life cycle assessments of biodegradable, commercial biopolymers—A critical review. 
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 78, 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.06.010 

World Economic Forum, 2016. The New Plastics Economy. Rethinking the future of plastics. Available online: 
https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_New_Plastics_Economy.pdf 

 

Appendix 

1. PRESENTATION QUESTIONS 
A. Please provide a brief description of the company: what is its business? what type of plastic resins (in general) does it 

use? 
 
2. QUESTIONS ON HOW, WHEN, WHY IS A MATURE DECISION THE INTRODUCTION OF BIOBASED MATERIALS 
B. Do you use compostable biopolymers according to the norm EN 13432: 2002? Do you use compostable biopolymers 

from renewable sources? 
C. When and why did you introduce bio-based plastics in your product/ process/product line? (interviews were prompted 

to indicate opportunities detected, main motivations, customer requests, etc) 
D. What were the problems or obstacles that generated doubts about the technical feasibility and/or economic feasibility of 

starting using bioplastics? How have these issues been overcome? 


