Document [original]

sustainability

Article

Bio-Based Products in the Automotive Industry:

The Need for Ecolabels, Standards, and Regulations

Simone Wurster * and Luana Ladu

Department of Innovation Economics, Technische Universität Berlin (TU Berlin), 10623 Berlin, Germany;

[email protected]

*Correspondence: [email protected]

Received: 29 November 2019; Accepted: 11 February 2020; Published: 21 February 2020





Abstract:

At the Hanover Fair in April 2018, the Bioconcept-Car was presented as a model for the

future of sustainable mobility. Likewise, a car made of cellulose nanofiber was presented at the Tokyo

Motor Show in 2019. Various additional automotive applications for bio-based materials have been

developed, some of which are already in use in cars. However, supportive measures for stimulating

their market acceptance are needed. Based on a mix of research methods, this article describes how

ecolabels, sustainability standards, and regulations might support the market uptake of bio-based car

components. In addition, comparison with three other types of bio-based products are provided. The

article ends with suggestions for future market development activities.

Keywords: sustainability; bio-based products; automotive industry; ecolabels; cars

1. Introduction

1.1. Rationale for this Article

At the Hanover Fair in April 2018, the Bioconcept-Car was presented as a model of the future

of sustainable mobility. The Bioconcept-Car is a race car, in which various traditional components

are replaced with ones made of bio composite materials and which has been successfully tested in

races. Converted for racing and powered by a low-emission rapeseed biodiesel, this Volkswagen

(VW) combines innovative approaches to lightweight construction in the mobility sector based on

resource-saving materials, such as natural fiber reinforced composites, bio-based resins, and bio-based

plastics (see [

]). Likewise, a car made of cellulose nanofiber (CNF) was presented at Tokyo Motor

Show in 2019, which was created at the Kyoto university. Currently, a number of automakers are

investigating CNFs feasibility for mass production [

]. Various additional automotive applications

for bio-based materials have been identified, some of which are already in use in cars. However,

supportive measures are needed to stimulate the development of the market for these components.

This article analyzes possible instruments to support their market uptakes.

1.2. Novelty of this Research

By building consumers’ awareness on environmental issues and by influencing consumers’

behavior, ecolabels can be used to stimulate market development. This is particularly the case of

ISO 14024 Type I environmental label (e.g., the EU Ecolabel), which provides consumers with third

party verified information on environmental related attributes of the products, which cannot be easily

evaluated by the consumers.

By providing access to this information, ecolabels aim at supporting consumers in taking

well-informed purchasing decisions thus increasing the market of more environmentally responsible

products. There is no research on ecolabels regarding cars and car components yet. The authors of [

]

Sustainability 2020,12, 1623; doi:10.3390/su12041623 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020,12, 1623 2 of 22

in reference to other sectors show this gap specifically. With a specific focus on Europe, this article

describes how ecolabels, sustainability standards, and regulation might support the market uptake

of bio-based car components. Emphasis is put on bio-based solutions for the interior of cars, doors,

and similar components. In addition, comparisons with three other sectors of bio-based products,

insulation material, food packages, and mulch film are provided. In this context, we will also show that

the need for bio-based products regarding the introduction of new ecolabels is different. With regards

to insulation materials, for example, the interviewees referred to established labels and suggested

extensions and updates instead of the introduction of new labels.

The research was conducted within the European project STAR-ProBio (see in particular [

]

with regards to research on ecolabels, standards, and regulations). The content was updated and

supplemented by additional findings of the German project ConCirMy (Configurator for the Circular

Economy), funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Core Research Elements

2.1.1. Bio-based Automotive Applications

In 2010, an average car consisted of approximately 150 kg of plastic and plastic composites and

approximately 1160 kg of iron and steel. Plastics are used, for example, for the interior, seating,

bumpers, exterior, electrical components, etc. Moreover, natural and synthetic rubber is used in car

tires (see [

]). A number of automotive applications for bio-based materials have been identified,

partly already in use. According to [

], the term bio-based product refers to products wholly or partly

derived from biomass. Examples for bio-based automotive applications include bio resins, fiber-based

solutions for the interior parts, composite materials, and organic sheets (see, e.g., [

]). Bio-based

polyurethanes have started to replace fossil-based foams while bio-based polyamides also have the

potential to replace petrochemical alternatives (see, e.g., [6], p. 30 and related sources).

This article discusses three automotive applications in particular: (a) Side doors with interior

cladding of composite materials using natural fibers such as flax, hemp, linen, and a bio-based resin;

(b) mirror covers and turn signal covers made of bio-based polyamides; and (c) car interiors made of

Polypropylene combined with natural fibers. An advantage of the interior parts is that their functional

requirements are lower compared to exterior ones. A new field of application for bio-based materials

in the automobile industry are tires, which the newly launched ConCirMy project aims to analyze. Car

tires with a high share of bio-based content are already being developed.

2.1.2. Ecolabels

The international standards organization ISO defines a label as a “tag, brand, mark, pictorial or

other descriptive matter, written, printed, stenciled, marked, embossed or impressed on, or attached to

the packaging or container of a finished manufactured product” (ISO 21371:2018 (en), 3.1, [

]). Labelling

can address many aspects of sustainability, including, for example, environmental sustainability, social

sustainability, social and animal welfare, as well as safety and health.

An important category of labels are ecolabels, defined as “seals of approval given to products

that are deemed to have fewer impacts on the environment than functionally or competitively similar

products” [

]. They address the growing global concern for environmental protection. ISO distinguishes

between three types of ecolabels: Type I: Environmental labels according to ISO 14024 (classic ecolabel,

based on multicriteria sets covering the entire life cycle of a product and requiring thresholds); Type II:

Environmental claims according to ISO 14021 (self-declared certification); and Type III: Environmental

Product Declarations (EPDs) of the environmental quality of a product according to ISO 14025 (see [

])

(single criterion based on LCA, but that does not provide thresholds).

Sustainability 2020,12, 1623 3 of 22

According to [

], ecolabels have diverse positive effects on various stakeholder categories.

For example, manufacturers are “increasingly demanding proof of their products’, environmental

soundness in order to prevent future liability or negative publicity”. In addition, by building consumers’

awareness on environmental issues and by influencing consumers’ behavior, ecolabels can be used to

stimulate market development. In general, ecolabel criteria are set so that only a small percentage of

products in a product category (typically, 5% to 30%) can meet these criteria.

In addition to stimulating market development, eco-labels can also promote innovation. In

this context, reference [

] provides findings regarding “green innovation,” referring to innovative

products, which meet at least partly environmental or social criteria. Based on a literature review,

reference [

] emphasizes that “(I)t is possible to generate green innovation if the labelling scheme is

very selective” in order to assure that very few products get the ecolabel without innovation. However,

challenges have to be considered as well: “When labels do not induce green innovation (

. . .

) they

might increase environmental spill overs, increasing overall production, or decreasing the share of

green goods.”

An overview of ecolabels suitable for bio-based products is provided by the Fachagentur

Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e. V. [

]. However, the majority of the relevant ecolabels refer to textiles,

cosmetics, wood products, and biodegradable products, while the automotive sector needs further

research. An interesting approach outside Europe is provided by the US BioPreferred Program,

managed by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), which combines specific guidance for public

procurers with a labelling initiative to encourage the purchase of bio-based products.

2.1.3. Formal Standards

Standards are documents, “established by consensus and approved by a recognized body, that

provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for activities or their

results, aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context” ([

], definition

3.2). In this context, the authors of [

] use the specified form “formal standards” and highlight the

characteristics “developed in recognized standardization bodies”, “voluntary and consensus driven.”

Standards can promote the diffusion of new products in various ways. The authors of [

] refer,

for example, to quality aspects, health, and safety, which are relevant in the given context. Based on the

EU mandate M/429, the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) established a standardization

program for bio-based products. Consequently, in 2011 CEN’s Technical Committee (TC) 411 was

created. Its scope comprises horizontal aspects of the bioeconomy, including a common terminology,

methods for determining bio-based content in a product, Life Cycle Assessments (LCA), sustainability

of biomass and guidance on the use of existing standards for the end-of-life options (see [18]).

Based on the European standardization mandates (M/491) and M/492 ([

]), TC 411 has

been developing standards to help specific sectors move towards higher renewable biomass content.

In addition to that technical committee, other CEN TCs deal with specific bio-based products and

applications. For example, CEN/TC 249 is responsible for the development of standards for biopolymers

and TC 19 is tasked with creating standards for bio-based lubricants while CEN/TC 383 works on

European standards establishing sustainability criteria for biofuels (see [

] for further details).

However, bio-based car components are not yet considered specifically.

2.1.4. Regulatory Framework

Regulatory framework conditions have been identified as “important factors influencing the

innovation activities of companies, industries and whole economies” [

]. Regulations are “mandatory

legal restrictions released and enacted by the government” [

]. This includes also common regulations

developed by representatives of EU member states’ governments. The regulatory framework is

“generally composed of regulations enforced by governmental institutions” while “industry and

other affected stakeholders may complement these governmental regulations by self-regulatory

coordination” [16].

Sustainability 2020,12, 1623 4 of 22

In contrast to regulations, formal standards are, as mentioned, “developed in recognized

standardization bodies” and “are voluntary and consensus driven” ([

] based on ISO/IEC, 2004). In

addition to this clear distinction, legislation can adopt standards that then become enforceable by

regulation. In addition, there are specific interdependencies of the two instruments in the course of the

so called “New Approach” (see [16]), discussed later in this section.

According to [

], “regulation can be an important influence on the direction of innovation” and

can help to “overcome organizational inertia, foster creative thinking and mitigate agency problems.”

The authors of [

] highlight that environmental regulations have caused the emergence of new

industries, such as the “environmental industry”, which is characterized by technologies to protect the

environment or cause less environmental damage. In general, the impact of regulation on innovation

depends on the extent of the compliance cost and the incentive effect. As the diagram of technological

progress or innovation (i) and capital intensity (k) in Figure 1shows, there is a positive impact on the

rate of technical progress (i

), if compliance costs are low or even zero and the incentives are positive.

As shown by i

, referring to lower technical progress than i* with the same capital intensity, the impact

is negative, especially with high compliance cost and low or even negative innovation incentives.

Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 23

Sustainability 2019, 11, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

In contrast to regulations, formal standards are, as mentioned, “developed in recognized

standardization bodies” and “are voluntary and consensus driven” ([16] based on ISO/IEC, 2004). In

addition to this clear distinction, legislation can adopt standards that then become enforceable by

regulation. In addition, there are specific interdependencies of the two instruments in the course of

the so called “New Approach” (see [16]), discussed later in this section.

According to [23], “regulation can be an important influence on the direction of innovation” and

can help to “overcome organizational inertia, foster creative thinking and mitigate agency problems.”

The authors of [22] highlight that environmental regulations have caused the emergence of new

industries, such as the “environmental industry”, which is characterized by technologies to protect

the environment or cause less environmental damage. In general, the impact of regulation on

innovation depends on the extent of the compliance cost and the incentive effect. As the diagram of

technological progress or innovation (i) and capital intensity (k) in Figure 1 shows, there is a positive

impact on the rate of technical progress (i1), if compliance costs are low or even zero and the incentives

are positive. As shown by i2, referring to lower technical progress than i* with the same capital

intensity, the impact is negative, especially with high compliance cost and low or even negative

innovation incentives.

Figure 1. The influence of regulation on the endogenous determination of innovation. Source:

Reference [22] based on a figure of Nicolas Crafts.

In this context, [16] also highlights the importance to distinguish between two research streams:

The first one “intensively discusses regulation (in any form) strictly as it relates to environmental

issues” while the second stream “investigates regulation outside of the environmental field and

considers regulation as a possible barrier to innovation.” An example for such barriers is provided

by the managers interviewed by [24], who indicated that “environmental regulation amounted to a

significant net cost to (their companies).” In addition to this finding, the second research stream as a

whole “[…] often neglects self-regulatory instruments” [16] and their potential positive contributions.

Addressing the different findings from the two research streams, [16] conducted further research

on the “optimal policy interventions to foster and support innovation” based on an analysis in low

and high uncertain markets. They found for low uncertain markets, that regulations have a positive

influence on the firm’s innovation efficiency. However, highly uncertain markets are often

characterized by an unstable and fast changing technical environment and, usually, higher

information asymmetries, thus increasing the probability of a potential misfit between regulations

and the underlying market technologies. Since regulations are developed in top-down legislative

processes, this potential misfit is a typical risk of regulatory instruments. In contrast to this, formal

standards are derived from a process driven mainly by the market (i.e., firms) and are therefore, as

Figure 1.

The influence of regulation on the endogenous determination of innovation. Source:

Reference [22] based on a figure of Nicolas Crafts.

In this context, [

] also highlights the importance to distinguish between two research streams:

The first one “intensively discusses regulation (in any form) strictly as it relates to environmental issues”

while the second stream “investigates regulation outside of the environmental field and considers

regulation as a possible barrier to innovation.” An example for such barriers is provided by the

managers interviewed by [

], who indicated that “environmental regulation amounted to a significant

net cost to (their companies).” In addition to this finding, the second research stream as a whole “[

. . .

]

often neglects self-regulatory instruments” [16] and their potential positive contributions.

Addressing the different findings from the two research streams, [

] conducted further research

on the “optimal policy interventions to foster and support innovation” based on an analysis in low

and high uncertain markets. They found for low uncertain markets, that regulations have a positive

influence on the firm’s innovation efficiency. However, highly uncertain markets are often characterized

by an unstable and fast changing technical environment and, usually, higher information asymmetries,

thus increasing the probability of a potential misfit between regulations and the underlying market

technologies. Since regulations are developed in top-down legislative processes, this potential misfit is

a typical risk of regulatory instruments. In contrast to this, formal standards are derived from a process

Sustainability 2020,12, 1623 5 of 22

driven mainly by the market (i.e., firms) and are therefore, as [

] found, more closely connected to the

requirements of the underlying technology. As a result, regulation has a negative impact on a firm’s

innovation efficiency in highly uncertain markets while the effect of standards is positive.

The market for bio-based products is emerging. More specifically, it is embedded in a transition

process in the sociotechnical regime, aimed at reaching a paradigm shift away from the traditional

fossil-based economy towards a more sustainable economy with products of biological origin (see,

e.g., [

]). The current low level of stability in the market is also linked with a low level of certainty

(see, e.g., [

]). For this reason, implementing regulations currently faces challenges on the market—but

provides also opportunities to reduce this uncertainty with clear guidance. The challenges themselves

can be addressed by regulations, which adopt formal standards and the so-called “New Approach” [

The “New Approach” to harmonization and standardization, initiated in 1985 is “an attempt to

accelerate both harmonization processes at the Council level and European standardization processes

at industry level while at the same time providing more flexibility for innovation and easier market

access” [

]. Around a third of European standardization activities are developed to directly support

the implementation of European policies [

]. The Lead Market Initiative (LMI) is another demand-side

policy directed at stimulating markets for bio-based products (see [21]).

The development of public strategies and other efforts to stimulate the bioeconomy in the EU

aims to achieve technological leadership and tangible improvement in Europe’s social, economic and

environmental welfare (EU Bioeconomy Strategy, [

]). The authors of [

] describe the regulatory

landscape for sustainable bio-based products based on the analysis of 50 key documents at European

and Member State levels. The analysis showed that there is an increasing reference to sustainability

requirements and sustainability criteria, supported by certification and labels. According to [

], the

policies with direct influence on the bio-based industry mostly tackle single and specific sustainability

issues/sectors with high public interest (e.g., biofuels, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), forestry,

waste, etc.). Framework Directives also play an important role by laying down key principles applying

to any product in a specified context. This article considers specifically the Renewable Energy Directive

(RED) and the EU Waste Framework Directive (WFD).

The RED [

] is an example for an approach, where public regulations recognize private initiatives,

such as voluntary certification schemes, as a way to prove compliance with mandatory criteria. In this

regard, certification schemes and labels beyond the biofuel sectors could be potentially used to show

compliance with sustainability criteria. Precondition for this is the official recognition of the scheme

or label by the EU. The so called RED II applying after 2021 will expand sustainability criteria to all

sectors of bioenergy.

The WFD [

] addresses the end of life stage of products and promotes the waste hierarchy as a

guiding principle. This hierarchy sets out a preference for waste prevention, followed by the sequence

reuse, recycling, recovering energy, and finally landfill.

2.2. Research Goals and Methodologies

TheEcolabelIndex[

]shows theimportance ofEcolabels worldwide. Inthis context, specificgoals

were formulated for biobased products in Europe: “Additionally and building upon the availability of

guidance and training materials for bio-based products in procurement for different product groups,

specific requirements promoting bio-based materials and products could be included during the

development of EU Ecolabel and Green Public Procurement (GPP) criteria for new or other existing

product groups not yet addressed and further innovative procurement activities. ”[

] Likewise, the

STAR4BBI project highlighted the need to develop sustainability certification for all products and

identified the EU Ecolabel as a relevant tool for showing sustainability [

]. The automotive sector has

not been considered appropriately in this context so far.

In response to technical developments towards sustainability in the automotive sector, we aimed

to explore how ecolabels, improvements in the regulatory frameworks and standards could support the

market uptake of bio-based car components. In addition, we wanted to provide insight to what extent

Sustainability 2020,12, 1623 6 of 22

this set of suggested measures is similar or different compared to other product sectors. For this purpose,

we conceptualized and implemented a research strategy with five elements: 1. Literature review,

2. analysis of the existing ecolabels landscape, 3. preparation, conduct and analysis of expert interviews

in four areas of bio-based products, 4. deriving comparisons between the automotive industry and

other sectors and 5. development of recommendations for ecolabel criteria, standardization and the

regulatory framework, which were developed in an iterative process.

A problem of bio-based products in general is the lack of evidence of their specific environmental,

social and economic sustainability, for which the development of tools and indicators is of high

relevance. An initial goal of our research was therefore to identify suitable ecolabel criteria. By means

of the Ecolabel Index [

], which provides information on 465 ecolabels from 99 countries and

25 industry sectors, we identified the most relevant labels for bio-based products.

Suitable labels were selected by using the following search terms in the Ecolabel Index: “bio”

(52 hits), “bio-based” (2 hits), “biobased” (2 hits), “sustainable” (34 hits), “construction” (24 hits),

“building” (62 hits), “waste” (29 hits), and “plastics” (4 hits). Based on further screenings, we analyzed

42 ecolabels (see Figure 2), including, for example the EU Ecolabel, the German Blue Angel, the Carbon

Trust Footprint Label, and the Nordic Swan regarding relevant basic criteria. Detailed information on

all labels are provided in the Appendix A.

Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 23

Sustainability 2019, 11, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

extent this set of suggested measures is similar or different compared to other product sectors. For

this purpose, we conceptualized and implemented a research strategy with five elements: 1.

Literature review, 2. analysis of the existing ecolabels landscape, 3. preparation, conduct and analysis

of expert interviews in four areas of bio-based products, 4. deriving comparisons between the

automotive industry and other sectors and 5. development of recommendations for ecolabel criteria,

standardization and the regulatory framework, which were developed in an iterative process.

A problem of bio-based products in general is the lack of evidence of their specific

environmental, social and economic sustainability, for which the development of tools and indicators

is of high relevance. An initial goal of our research was therefore to identify suitable ecolabel criteria.

By means of the Ecolabel Index [34], which provides information on 465 ecolabels from 99 countries

and 25 industry sectors, we identified the most relevant labels for bio-based products.

Suitable labels were selected by using the following search terms in the Ecolabel Index: “bio” (52

hits), “bio-based” (2 hits), “biobased” (2 hits), “sustainable” (34 hits), “construction” (24 hits),

“building” (62 hits), “waste” (29 hits), and “plastics” (4 hits). Based on further screenings, we

analyzed 42 ecolabels (see Figure 2), including, for example the EU Ecolabel, the German Blue Angel,

the Carbon Trust Footprint Label, and the Nordic Swan regarding relevant basic criteria. Detailed

information on all labels are provided in the Appendix A.

Figure 2. Selected ecolabels for bio-based products.

In depth analyses of these labels’ criteria were conducted based on the label descriptions taken

from the labels’ website. An Excel template shown in Error! Reference source not found. was created

for this purpose.

Figure 2. Selected ecolabels for bio-based products.

In depth analyses of these labels’ criteria were conducted based on the label descriptions taken

from the labels’ website. An Excel template shown in Table 1was created for this purpose.

Four researchers were involved in the analyses. Based on an analysis of all 42 Excel tables, the

findings were summarized. Section 3will provide a summary of these relevant existing criteria in

selected ecolabels, which are grouped as follows (see also [4]):

(a)

Sustainability criteria: Environmental, social and economic criteria.

(b)

Additional criteria: Percentage of bio-based content and fitness for use.

Sustainability 2020,12, 1623 7 of 22

Table 1. Template for the analysis of ecolabels.

Label: XYZ

Product

categories

Bio-based criteria

and indicators

Environmental

criteria and indicators

Social criteria

and indicators

Economic criteria

and indicators

Revision

process

This research paved the way for the development of an interview guide to be used in the in-depth

case study analysis. We carried out semi-structured interviews [

] with professionals dealing with the

automotive industry and the three additional product groups of our analysis.

The interview guide consisted of six sections: background of the interviewee(s), framework

conditions, ecolabels, sustainability standards, regulatory framework conditions, and policy gaps. In

addition to open questions, a section included a list of criteria identified in the analysis of the ecolabel

landscape in order to rank their importance in sustainability analysis Interviewees were selected to

represent a wide range of stakeholders (see Table 2).

Table 2. Overview of participants to the interview series.

Stakeholder Group Producers, Retailers etc. Certification Bodies, Testing

Laboratories, Standards Bodies Procurement Other (Government,

Research)

Interviewees in total 10 3 6 3

Interviewees in the

automotive industry

specifically 2 2 -12

Instead of a public procurer, an expert of a governmental organization with a specific focus on bio-based car

components was contacted (see “Other”).

Our research of the automotive industry consisted of interviews of five target groups. They

included representatives of: A big car manufacturer, a big automotive supplier, a governmental agency

and a research institute, as well as experts specialized in automotive field tests. The governmental

agency had a specific focus on bio-based car components while the core competencies of the research

institute included bio-based materials and materials for automotive applications in particular.

Our analysis started with discussions on PBS (Polybutylene Succinate) and PLA (Polylactic Acid)

(See Appendix 3 of [

] for details on both materials) applications in the automotive sector. While the

industry’s experience with PBS is still limited, different material related issues were highlighted by the

interviewees in the discussions on automotive PLA applications. For example, PLA material’s reaction

to differences in temperature and humidity are current challenges that require further research. For

this reason, our scope was broadened to include bio-based car components in general. Car components

made of composite materials were specifically considered as they have certain attractive properties, for

example regarding their energy balance.

The interviews took place between May and September 2018. The results were supported by the

analysis of additional sources provided by the interviewees. Based on all the gathered information,

we finally developed a set of recommendations supporting the use of sustainable car components,

enriched by a comparison with the other three cases.

Section 3, consisting of Sections 3.1–3.3, presents the results of the research steps 2 to 4 described

above: The analysis of the existing ecolabel landscape, the expert interviews and the comparisons of

the automotive industry and other sectors. Recommendations for the development of ecolabel criteria,

standardization, and the regulatory framework based on the results of step 5 are presented in Section 4.

Sustainability 2020,12, 1623 8 of 22

3. Results

3.1. Analysis of the Existing Ecolabels Landscape

An ecolabel is an important vehicle to communicate to consumers the benefits of bio-based

products, especially if predefined sustainability criteria are met and verified by means of a certification

process [

]. This is especially the case for product attributes that the consumer cannot evaluate, such

as its environmental impact. Sustainability claims of environmental labels and declarations are usually

granted upon proven satisfaction of preselected criterion/criteria. This is for example the case of ISO

14000 ecolabels, (see Section 2.1.2). Based on the analysis of different ecolabels, this paper identified

criteria in the three pillars of sustainability: Economic, social and environmental. An additional

criterion, related to product characteristics and performances was added (see Figure 3).

Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 23

Sustainability 2019, 11, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Section 3, consisting of Sections 3.1–3.3, presents the results of the research steps 2 to 4 described

above: The analysis of the existing ecolabel landscape, the expert interviews and the comparisons of

the automotive industry and other sectors. Recommendations for the development of ecolabel criteria,

standardization, and the regulatory framework based on the results of step 5 are presented in Section

3. Results

3.1. Analysis of the Existing Ecolabels Landscape

An ecolabel is an important vehicle to communicate to consumers the benefits of bio-based

products, especially if predefined sustainability criteria are met and verified by means of a

certification process [21]. This is especially the case for product attributes that the consumer cannot

evaluate, such as its environmental impact. Sustainability claims of environmental labels and

declarations are usually granted upon proven satisfaction of preselected criterion/criteria. This is for

example the case of ISO 14000 ecolabels, (see Section 2.1.2). Based on the analysis of different

ecolabels, this paper identified criteria in the three pillars of sustainability: Economic, social and

environmental. An additional criterion, related to product characteristics and performances was

added (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Identified assessment criteria.

3.1.1. Selected Criteria for the Environmental Pillar

Sustainable Sourcing of Biomass

An important aspect to be considered in the sustainability assessment of bio-based products is

the sustainable sourcing of biomass. An interesting document in this context is the RED, which has

established clear, legally binding requirements on sustainable sourcing of biomass for bioenergy,

liquid biofuels and bioliquids. The main sustainability requirements included in the RED are:

• Greenhouse gas emission saving from the use of biofuels and bioliquids shall be at least 50%

compared to fossil fuels (60% for biofuels produced in plants whose operation started after 1

January, 2017) (see [37]).

• (Sustainable) biofuels and bioliquids shall not be made from raw material obtained from land

with high biodiversity.

• (Sustainable) biofuels and bioliquids shall not be made from raw material obtained from land

with high carbon stock (such as wetlands or forests).

The RED provides incentives to biofuels that show compliance with these environmental

sustainability requirements. The material use of biomass is not incentivized in the same way. Indeed,

Figure 3. Identified assessment criteria.

3.1.1. Selected Criteria for the Environmental Pillar

Sustainable Sourcing of Biomass

An important aspect to be considered in the sustainability assessment of bio-based products is

the sustainable sourcing of biomass. An interesting document in this context is the RED, which has

established clear, legally binding requirements on sustainable sourcing of biomass for bioenergy, liquid

biofuels and bioliquids. The main sustainability requirements included in the RED are:

•

Greenhouse gas emission saving from the use of biofuels and bioliquids shall be at least 50%

compared to fossil fuels (60% for biofuels produced in plants whose operation started after

1 January 2017) (see [37]).

•

(Sustainable) biofuels and bioliquids shall not be made from raw material obtained from land

with high biodiversity.

•

(Sustainable) biofuels and bioliquids shall not be made from raw material obtained from land

with high carbon stock (such as wetlands or forests).

The RED provides incentives to biofuels that show compliance with these environmental

sustainability requirements. The material use of biomass is not incentivized in the same way.

Indeed, regulation/sustainability certification for material use of bio-based raw materials is missing

in Europe [

]. Nevertheless, the sustainability of biomass for material use is important and some

pioneer labels deal with sustainable sourcing in the assessment of bio-based products, for example

the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB). The RSB Principles and Criteria (RSB-STD-01-001)

include twelve principles: 1. Legality, 2. Planning, Monitoring and Continuous Improvement,

3. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 4. Human and Labor Rights, 5. Rural and Social Development, 6. Local

Sustainability 2020,12, 1623 9 of 22

Food Security, 7. Conservation, 8. Soil, 9. Water, 10. Air, 11. Use of Technology, Inputs and Management

of Waste, and 12. Land Rights. According to principle 7 on conservation, operations shall avoid

negative impacts on biodiversity, ecosystems and conservation values. In addition, it is important to

mention three certificates, which include relevant sustainability principles: International Sustainability

and Carbon Certification (ISCC), PLUS and FSC

/PEFC (see STAR Pro-Bio, 2018a). PEFC also includes

social criteria and requires that genetically modified organisms are not used.

Emissions of Greenhouse Gas (GHG)

The pollution of air is an important aspect considered in sustainability assessment of products

and processes. In this regard, the measurement of GHG emissions is often used as a proxy to measure

the impact of a product or process on climate change. GHG emissions are also accounted for a life cycle

perspective and used in various Type III labels, such as the Carbon Trust Footprint Label. Accordingly,

the Ecolabel Index includes 25 ecolabels that focus on the carbon footprint of products or processes.

Different options are available for measuring GHG emissions (see [

]) and the comparability among

the different approaches is difficult, because they often consider different impact categories. Different

studies show that the use of biomass in products may help reduce the global warming potential of

our economy. The authors of [

], for example, have shown that various bio-based products have the

advantage of a lower CO

footprint during production compared to alternative fossil-based products.

Toxicity

According to [

], the term toxicity refers to the ability of a substance to produce an adverse

effect upon a living organism. The importance of reduced human toxicity from the perspective of

the users is, for example, shown by [

]. Various labels consider human toxicity as a criterion (e.g.,

different categories of the EU Ecolabel and the ÖkoControl label (source: Internal ecolabel database).

In addition, other labels, such as the Ecolabel, consider toxicity to aquatic organisms.

End-of-Life Criteria

The importance of end-of-life criteria for consumers interested in more sustainable products is

shown by various studies, e.g., [

]. Depending on product properties and what substances they may

contain, a number of end-of-life options can be considered for bio-based products. Given the partial

or total biological origin of bio-based products, their end-of-life management can be important as to

avoid losing materials that can more naturally be returned to biological cycles. Indeed, the waste

hierarchy encourages the prevention of waste or the return of materials into the economy, which has to

be considered specifically in the prioritization of end-of-life options. However, it is also important to

note that not all biologically sourced materials can be added to biological cycles.

3.1.2. Selected Criteria for the Economic Pillar

As described in Section 2.1.2, ecolabels are mainly seals that show environmental impacts of

products. However, our analysis unveiled social and economic criteria used for assessing sustainability

in the current ecolabel landscape. Some of the identified and proposed economic criteria, such as

energy efficiency and biomass utilization efficiency are closely linked to the environmental pillar.

Under the economic criteria, life cycle cost is briefly introduced and considered as a specific horizontal

issue, which will be further described in Section 3.1.5.

Energy Efficiency of the Production Stage

While economic criteria are rarely considered by ecolabels, the Cradle to Cradle

concept

considers the use of materials, energy, and water in the production. The production stage of bio-based

products can provide various advantages compared to fossil-based products. Based on the example of

smart drop-ins, the authors of [

] highlight that the production of bio-based products may require

Sustainability 2020,12, 1623 10 of 22

significantly less energy in comparison to fossil-based products. To show this advantage appropriately,

the consideration of a specific criterion on the energy efficiency of the production process is suggested.

Specific advantages of bio-based products could be shown by a criterion, which compares the energy

consumption with a conventional benchmark product.

Biomass Utilization Efficiency

The biomass utilization efficiency (BUE) factor was developed by [

]. It is defined as “percentage

of initial biomass ending up in the end product based on the molar mass of the reactant (=biomass)

and target bio-based product.”

The biomass utilization efficiency was also identified as a specific assessment gap by [

According to the previous section, the Cradle to Cradle

scheme considers the use of materials in the

production. In this context, attractive options to include assessment criteria to highlight advantages of

specific bio-based products exist. The authors of [

] found, for example, that the bio-based polyester

PLA (Polylactic Acid) and the acid SA (Succinic Acid) exhibit a highly efficient material use of biomass.

The examples show the attractiveness of a BUE criterion. This was further analyzed in our in-depth

case analysis, presented in Section 3.2.

Life Cycle Cost

An additional economic criterion is Life Cycle Cost (LCC). According to [

], LCC is a method for

evaluating all relevant costs over time of a project, product or measure. It takes into account: Initial

costs (including capital investment costs, purchase, and installation costs); future costs (including

energy costs, operating costs, maintenance costs, capital replacement costs, financing costs); and any

resale, salvage, or disposal cost over the lifetime of the project, product or measure [

]. Bio-based

products can provide various cost advantages. The Cradle to Cradle

concept combines environmental,

social and specific economic analysis, adding that “in the medium term the goal is for designs that are

positive or beneficial in terms of cost, performance, (

. . .

), and material (re)utilization potential with

continuous use and reuse periods” [

]. Economic analysis focusing on LCC provide opportunities to

highlight specific advantages of bio-based products. For example, the authors of [

] found that the

LCC of ten environmental-friendly products are lower than those of traditional alternatives. LCC will

be discussed further in Section 3.1.5 in a broader context.

3.1.3. Selected Criteria for the Social Pillar

The social pillar of sustainability addresses general social issues, as well as specific working

conditions of the employees, who work in the various value chains of the entire life cycle of a bio-based

product. An important social aspect to be considered is “food security”, which is also mentioned

as one of SCAR’s five principles for the bioeconomy (see [

]) and considered, for example, by RSB.

Furthermore, according to [

], the majority of the consumers worldwide regard it as extremely

important that companies care for: safe drinking water as part of their products, services, or operations

(92%), health care (87%), fair wages, and safe working conditions (87%), as well as jobs and economic

opportunity (86%).

The majority of ecolabels have a strong focus on environmental aspects, compared to social and

economic ones. Indeed, there are only few examples of ecolabels that include social criteria. One

of them is the EU Ecolabel, which requires corporate social responsibility to respect “fundamental

principles and rights at work” in the sets of assessment criteria for a few product categories. As

described in the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Core Labour Standards, the UN Global

Compact, and the OECD Guidelines for Multi-National Enterprises, such social standards should

be observed by production sites along the supply chain of a product (see [

]). As another good

practice example, PEFC does not only require food security (PEFC principle 6) but also to respect

human and labor rights (principle 4), demanding: Freedom of workers to organize themselves and

their representative and to negotiate with the employer, no forced and child labour, equal employment

Sustainability 2020,12, 1623 11 of 22

opportunities, equal treatment for all workers and working conditions that do not affect occupational

safety or health (see [

]). The Cradle to Cradle

label considers the social impact of product cycles

and production. The history of the RSPO certificate (see [

]) showed the importance of not only

formulating social sustainability criteria but also of assessing compliance appropriately.

3.1.4. Additional Criteria Related to Bio-based Characteristics and Performance

Bio-Based Content

Bio-based products are partly or wholly made out of biomass. This is an important characteristic

of these products that should be communicated to consumers. Some labels and standards require

a minimum share of bio-based content. For example, the EU Ecolabel considers bio-based content

in various product categories. Different methods are available for measuring the bio-based content,

including: the bio-based carbon content methods, which measures the amount of renewable-based

carbon in a given product, using the radiocarbon analysis (14C carbon approach). The specification

CEN/TS 16137:2011 (Plastics—Determination of bio-based carbon content, [

]) expresses the bio-based

carbon content as a fraction of the sample mass, or the total carbon/organic carbon content.

Fitness for Use

Functionality and performance are key product attributes. Therefore, various ecolabels include

a ‘fitness for use’ criterion. According to [

], there are stakeholders, who are unsure about the

performance of bio-based products, and in particular of their characteristics compared to conventional

ones. Therefore, to facilitate comparisons with traditional fossil-based products, a criterion on

functionality/performance could be of major importance to raise trust on bio-based products. The use

of such a criterion could be voluntary and product-specific to keep labelling efforts as low as possible.

3.1.5. Life Cycle Assessment

Life cycle assessments (LCA) are “compilation(s) and evaluation(s) of the inputs, outputs and

the potential environmental impacts of a product system throughout its life cycle” [

]. Their

foundations are laid by the two general standards ISO 14040 and 14044, while EN 16760 describes

how to handle the specificities of the bio-based part of a bio-based product in an LCA (see [

]). In

particular, Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), which are Type III labels according to the ISO

classification, are a famous direct application of LCAs. Experts interviewed by [

] stressed that many

bio-based products perform better than traditional alternative products over their entire life cycle,

mostly in terms of important environmental impact categories (for example, end-of-life options and

GHG emissions). However, currently existing ecolabels only relate to specific stages in the life cycle,

for example, to the extraction/production of raw materials or the end-of-life. In addition, many labels

only refer to environmental aspects, and not so much on social and economic issues (in particular LCC).

The need for further research on LCA is fundamental considering that there are many open questions.

As the project BioMat_LCA highlighted, at the moment no common LCA approach exists. Results vary

a lot (see [

] for details). Harmonization and common calculation guidelines for LCAs are needed to

avoid inconsistencies and contradicting results due to the use of different calculation methods.

3.2. Results of the Expert Interviews and Related Research in the Automotive Industry

3.2.1. Ecolabels for Bio-Based Automotive Applications

General Considerations

As an important prerequisite in the automotive sector, interviewees highlighted that certification

can only take place with regards to single car components. Realizing an ecolabel for the category

“bio-based vehicles” would not be possible because they consist of too many different materials and

Sustainability 2020,12, 1623 12 of 22

parts. Due to the newly introduced topic of bio-based car components, no specific ecolabels on

sustainability and bio-based issues exist. Therefore, several labels with a more general focus are

discussed as a starting point.

RSB and ISCC PLUS are regarded as important certificates to prove the sustainability of biomass.

Limitations, in particular highlighted for ISCC PLUS, are that they do not refer to (car) components but

just to the material. Furthermore, ISCC PLUS is not an ecolabel and its scope excludes, for example,

end-of-life issues. Other general labels for bio-plastics mentioned in interviews are, for example, the

end-of-life related labels from DIN CERTCO and Vincotte. In addition, the Blue Angel (Blauer Engel)

label gained focus on bio-based plastics regarding recycling aspects. A general gap not addressed by

the labels on plastics refers to bio-based cellulose fibers.

On the level of sustainability assessment criteria, it was highlighted that fuel consumption stays

on the top of the lists of environmental characteristics, as fuel efficiency is a legal obligation in the

automotive sector. Any material used for building a car has to support this goal. The weight of a car

has a specific influence on its fuel consumption. Therefore, all suitable materials and components have

to ensure that cars of an appropriate weight can be built.

Regardless of the existing solutions for selected specific questions, it was highlighted clearly that

no ecolabel for bio-based automotive applications exists. One expert added: “Such a solution would

be a ‘super’ output of STAR-ProBio to provide customers with transparent information.” Explicitly,

it was also mentioned that an EU-wide label such as the EU Ecolabel would be interesting for the

automotive industry. Regarding the scope of a potential label, the importance to distinguish between

different target groups was highlighted. Business-to-consumer (B2C) markets need labels, which are

easy to understand, while issues, as for example LCA, are more important for business-to-business

(B2B) markets.

The high number of options for the various car components is perceived as a challenge for the

development of labelling specifications. An agreement on focusing on specific components by the

car industry might be necessary. Currently, many areas of the market for bio-based car components

are still in the testing stage. The test results will also play an important role in potential further steps

regarding ecolabelling of car components.

Ecolabel Criteria

The interviewees views on selected sustainability assessment criteria are shown in Table 3,

followed by an interpretation of the results.

Regarding bio-based content, the need for reference values (thresholds) facilitating comparisons

was mentioned. However, it was suggested to appropriately consider the tradeoffbetween the origin

of a feedstock and the minimum amount of bio-based content. If material with a higher percentage

rate of bio-based content is only available abroad/outside Europe and requires more transportation

efforts, this should also affect the environmental score.

Regarding sustainable biomass, experts drew our attention to two important general challenges

regarding the use of bio-based materials in the automotive industry: Land use versus assurance of food

security and the avoidance of GMOs. Regarding interior linings of car doors, for example, promising

options to use material from residues were highlighted. Regarding GMOs, it was added by one of our

interviewees that: “We could check where the seeds came from, but it would be too costly.” Labelling

could reduce such a cost. In general, the assessment criterion “sustainable biomass” is regarded as

more suitable for B2B markets than for B2C markets. B2C markets would require detailed explanations

of the concept. In a further discussion on the suitability of RED criteria it was mentioned that the use

of bio-based products could be monitored by the following two specific principles: No conversion of

land with previously high carbon stock and no use of raw materials obtained from land with high

biodiversity such as primary forests or highly biodiverse grasslands. These aspects might be interesting

issues that would specify the criterion “sustainable biomass” appropriately.

Sustainability 2020,12, 1623 13 of 22

As mentioned earlier, the origin of the material was another issue brought into the discussion.

However, it was highlighted that the selection also depends on the availability of suitable material.

An additional suggestion was to communicate the type of feedstock. Specifically, a label such as the

Vincotte with a fix and a variable part was considered while the variable part could, for example,

provide information on the raw material.

Table 3. Relevance of selected ecolabel criteria for bio-based car components.

Assessment Criteria Relevance for Ecolabels 1Assessment Criteria Relevance for Ecolabels

Sustainable

biomass/bio-based

content

Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 23

Sustainability 2019, 11, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

detailed explanations of the concept. In a further discussion on the suitability of RED criteria it was

mentioned that the use of bio-based products could be monitored by the following two specific

principles: No conversion of land with previously high carbon stock and no use of raw materials

obtained from land with high biodiversity such as primary forests or highly biodiverse grasslands.

These aspects might be interesting issues that would specify the criterion “sustainable biomass”

appropriately.

Table 3. Relevance of selected ecolabel criteria for bio-based car components.

Assessment Criteria Relevance for

Ecolabels

Assessment Criteria Relevance for

Ecolabels

Sustainable biomass/bio-based

content

Fundamental principles and

rights at work

emissions

Energy requirement during

production

Toxicity Biomass utilization efficiency

End-of-life options Life cycle values

Fitness for use Life cycle costs specifically

Corporate social responsibility

Legend

relevant in > 50% of the interviews

relevant in 50% of the interviews

not relevant in > 50% of the

interviews

alternatively, a suggestion for a

modification was made

Note: Interviewees also made specific additional suggests for criteria, in particular related to land use

and use of water.

Side doors with interior cladding of composite materials using natural fibers such

as flax, hemp, linen, and (a) bio-based resin; (b) mirror covers and turn signal covers made of bio-

based polyamides/PPT; and (c) car interiors made of Polypropylene combined with natural fibers.

As mentioned earlier, the origin of the material was another issue brought into the discussion.

However, it was highlighted that the selection also depends on the availability of suitable material.

An additional suggestion was to communicate the type of feedstock. Specifically, a label such as the

Vincotte with a fix and a variable part was considered while the variable part could, for example,

provide information on the raw material.

emissions should be measured in the various life cycle stages including production,

transport, use and end-of-life. Regarding the end-of-life stage in general, automotive applications

require specific solutions. Recycling and incineration/energetic combustion are the key options.

Regarding materials, which cannot be recycled, it was highlighted that energetic combustion must

be preferred instead of incineration. Furthermore, it was pointed out that not only recyclability is

important. The possibility to separate the bio-based parts is of particular importance. Other

interviewees highlighted the need for energy as an important issue at this stage. They conducted a

comparison between the disposal of carbon fibers, which requires significantly more energy than the

disposal of bio-based fibers.

The need for the toxicity criterion is a specific one. Composite materials, which cannot be

recycled, need to be incinerated or used for energetic combustion. For this reason, toxicity is a

particular end-of-life issue for car components of these specific materials.

Specific discussions on the social criterion “fundamental principles and rights at work” led to

the suggestion of an integration into the other social criterion “corporate social responsibility.”

Fundamental principles and rights at work