Bio-Based Products in the Automotive Industry: the Need for Ecolabels, Standards, and Regulations

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 [1]). 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 [2]. 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 [3]

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 [4,5] 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 [6]). A number of automotive applications for bio-based materials have been identified, partly already in use. According to [7], 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., [6]). 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, [8]). 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” [9]. 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 [10]) (single criterion based on LCA, but that does not provide thresholds). Sustainability 2020, 12, 1623 3 of 22

According to [11,12], 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 [13] provides findings regarding “green innovation,” referring to innovative products, which meet at least partly environmental or social criteria. Based on a literature review, reference [13] 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. [14]. 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” ([15], definition 3.2). In this context, the authors of [16] 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 [17] 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 ([19,20]), 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 [21] 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” [22]. Regulations are “mandatory legal restrictions released and enacted by the government” [16]. 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 20192020, 1112, x 1623 FOR PEER REVIEW 44 of of 23 22

In contrast to regulations, formal standards are, as mentioned, “developed in recognized standardizationIn contrast bodies” to regulations, and “are formalvoluntary standards and consensus are, as driven” mentioned, ([16] based “developed on ISO/IEC, in recognized 2004). In additionstandardization to this bodies”clear distinction, and “are voluntarylegislation and can consensusadopt standards driven” that ([16 ]then based become on ISO enforceable/IEC, 2004). by In regulation.addition to In this addition, clear distinction, there are specific legislation interdep can adoptendencies standards of the thattwo theninstruments become in enforceable the course byof theregulation. so called In “New addition, Approach” there are (see specific [16]), interdependencies discussed later in ofthis the section. two instruments in the course of the so calledAccording “New to Approach” [23], “regulation (see [16 ]),can discussed be an importan later int influence this section. on the direction of innovation” and can helpAccording to “overcome to [23], organizational “regulation can inertia, be an importantfoster creative influence thinking on theand direction mitigate ofagency innovation” problems.” and Thecan helpauthors to “overcome of [22] highlight organizational that environmenta inertia, fosterl regulations creative thinking have andcaused mitigate the emergence agency problems.” of new industries,The authors such of [as22 ]the highlight “environmental that environmental industry”, which regulations is characterized have caused by technologies the emergence to protect of new theindustries, environment such as or the cause “environmental less environmental industry”, damage which is. characterizedIn general, the by technologiesimpact of regulation to protect theon innovationenvironment depends or cause on less the environmental extent of the compliance damage. In cost general, and the incentive impact of effect. regulation As the on diagram innovation of technologicaldepends on the progress extent ofor the innovation compliance (i) and cost capital and the intensity incentive (k) eff inect. Figure As the 1 shows, diagram there of technological is a positive impactprogress on or the innovation rate of technical (i) and progress capital intensity (i1), if compliance (k) in Figure costs1 shows, are low there or even is a zero positive and impactthe incentives on the arerate positive. of technical As progressshown by (i1 ),i2, if referring compliance to costslower are technical low or evenprogress zero than and thei* with incentives the same are positive. capital intensity,As shown the by i2impact, referring is negative, to lower technicalespecially progress with high than compliance i* with the samecost capitaland low intensity, or even the negative impact innovationis negative, incentives. especially with high compliance cost and low or even negative innovation incentives.

Figure 1. TheThe influence inﬂuence of of regulation on the endogenousendogenous determinationdetermination ofof innovation.innovation. Source: Source: Reference [22] [22] based on a ﬁgurefigure of Nicolas Crafts.

In this context, context, [16] [16] also also highlights highlights the the importan importancece to to distinguish distinguish between between two two research research streams: streams: The firstfirst oneone “intensively “intensively discusses discusses regulation regulation (in (in any any form) form) strictly strictly as it relatesas it relates to environmental to environmental issues” issues”while the while second the streamsecond“investigates stream “investigates regulation regulation outside ofoutside the environmental of the environmental field and considersfield and considersregulation regulation as a possible as a barrierpossible to barrier innovation.” to innova Antion.” example An example for such for barriers such barriers is provided is provided by the bymanagers the managers interviewed interviewed by [24], by who [24], indicated who indicated that “environmental that “environmental regulation regulation amounted amounted to a significant to a significantnet cost to (theirnet cost companies).” to (their companies).” In addition toIn thisaddition finding, to this the secondfinding, research the second stream research as a whole stream “[ ...as a] wholeoften neglects “[…] often self-regulatory neglects self-regulatory instruments” instruments” [16] and their [16] potential and their positive potential contributions. positive contributions. Addressing the different different findings findings from the two re researchsearch streams, [16] [16] conducted conducted further further research research on the “optimal policy interventions to to foster and support innovation” based based on on an an analysis in low and high uncertain markets. They They found found for for low low unce uncertainrtain markets, that regulations have a positive influenceinfluence onon the the firm’s firm’s innovation innovation efficiency. efficiency However,. However, highly uncertain highly uncertain markets are markets often characterized are often characterizedby an unstable by and an fast unstable changing and technical fast environmentchanging technical and, usually, environmen higher informationt and, usually, asymmetries, higher informationthus increasing asymmetries, the probability thus ofincreasing a potential the misfit probability between of regulationsa potential andmisfit the between underlying regulations market andtechnologies. the underlying Since regulations market technologies. are developed Since in top-downregulations legislative are developed processes, in thistop-down potential legislative misfit is processes,a typical risk this of potential regulatory misfit instruments. is a typical In contrastrisk of regulatory to this, formal instruments. standards In are contrast derived to from this, a processformal standards are derived from a process driven mainly by the market (i.e., firms) and are therefore, as Sustainability 2019, 11, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2020, 12, 1623 5 of 22 driven mainly by the market (i.e., firms) and are therefore, as [16] 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., [25,26]). The current low level of stability in the market is also linked with a low level of certainty (see, e.g., [25]). 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” [27]. 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” [28]. Around a third of European standardization activities are developed to directly support the implementation of European policies [29]. 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, [30]). The authors of [31] 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 [31], 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 [32] 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 [33] 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 The Ecolabel Index [34] shows the importance of Ecolabels worldwide. In this context, specific goals 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. ”[30] 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 [35]. 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 Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 23 thisextent set this of suggested set of suggested measures measures is similar is or similar different or compared different tocompared other product to other sectors. product For thissectors. purpose, For wethis conceptualizedpurpose, we conceptualized and implemented and a researchimplemente strategyd a research with five strategy elements: with 1. Literaturefive elements: review, 1. 2.Literature analysis review, of the existing 2. analysis ecolabels of the landscape, existing ecolabels 3. preparation, landscape, conduct 3. preparation, and analysis conduct of expert and interviews analysis inof fourexpert areas interviews of bio-based in four products, areas 4.of derivingbio-based comparisons products, 4. between deriving the comparisons automotive industrybetween andthe otherautomotive sectors industry and 5. development and other sectors of recommendations and 5. development for ecolabelof recommendations criteria, standardization for ecolabel andcriteria, the regulatorystandardization framework, and the which regulatory were developedframework, in wh anich iterative were developed process. in an iterative process. A problemproblem of of bio-based bio-based products products in general in general is the lack is ofthe evidence lack of of evidence their specific of environmental,their specific socialenvironmental, and economic social sustainability,and economic sustainability, for which the for development which the development of tools and of indicators tools and isindicators of high relevance.is of high relevance. An initial An goal initial of our goal research of our was research therefore was totherefore identify to suitable identify ecolabel suitable criteria. ecolabel By criteria. means ofBy themeans Ecolabel of the IndexEcolabel [34 Index], which [34], provides which provides information information on 465 on ecolabels 465 ecolabels from from 99 countries 99 countries and 25and industry 25 industry sectors, sectors, we identified we identified the most the mo relevantst relevant labels labels for bio-based for bio-based products. products. Suitable labels labels were were selected selected by by using using the the follow followinging search search terms terms in the in the Ecolabel Ecolabel Index: Index: “bio” “bio” (52 (52hits), hits), “bio-based” “bio-based” (2 hits), (2 hits), “biobased” “biobased” (2 (2hits), hits), “sustainable” “sustainable” (34 (34 hits), hits), “construction” “construction” (24 (24 hits), “building”“building” (62(62 hits), hits), “waste” “waste” (29 (29 hits), hits), and and “plastics” “plast (4ics” hits). (4 Basedhits). onBased further on screenings,further screenings, we analyzed we 42analyzed ecolabels 42 (seeecolabels Figure (see2), including,Figure 2), forincluding, example for the example EU Ecolabel, the EU the Ecolabel, German the Blue German Angel, Blue the Carbon Angel, Trustthe Carbon Footprint Trust Label, Footprint and the Label, Nordic and Swan the regardingNordic Swan relevant regarding basic criteria.relevant Detailed basic criteria. information Detailed on allinformation labels are on provided all labels in are the provided Appendix inA .the Appendix A.

Figure 2. Selected ecolabels for bio-based products products..

In depth analyses of these labels’ criteria were conducted based on the label descriptions taken from the labels’ website. An An Excel Excel template template shown shown in in Error! Table 1Reference was created source for this not purpose.found. was created for thisFour purpose. researchers were involved in the analyses. Based on an analysis of all 42 Excel tables, the ﬁndings were summarized. Section 3 will 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 2019, 11, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2020, 12, 1623 7 of 22

Table 1. Template for the analysis of ecolabels.

Label: XYZ Product Bio-based criteria Environmental Social criteria Economic criteria Revision categories and indicators criteria and indicators and indicators and indicators 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 [36] 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 Table2).

Table 2. Overview of participants to the interview series.

Certification Bodies, Testing Other (Government, Stakeholder Group Producers, Retailers etc. Procurement Laboratories, Standards Bodies Research) Interviewees in total 10 3 6 3 Interviewees in the automotive industry 2 2 - 1 2 specifically 1 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 [4] 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. Section3, 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 Section4. Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 23

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. Results 3.1. Analysis of the Existing Ecolabels Landscape 3.1. AnalysisAn ecolabel of the is Existing an important Ecolabels vehicle Landscape to communicate to consumers the benefits of bio-based products,An ecolabel especially is an if importantpredefined vehicle sustainability to communicate criteria toare consumers met and theverified benefits by ofmeans bio-based of a products,certification especially process if [21]. predefined This is sustainabilityespecially the criteriacase for are product met and attributes verified bythat means the consumer of a certification cannot processevaluate, [21 such]. This as is its especially environmen the casetal forimpact. product Sustainability attributes that claims the consumer of environmental cannot evaluate, labels suchand asdeclarations its environmental are usually impact. granted Sustainability upon proven claims satisfaction of environmental of preselected labels andcriterion/criteria. declarations are This usually is for grantedexample upon the case proven of satisfactionISO 14000 ofecolabels, preselected (see criterion Section/ criteria.2.1.2). Based This ison for the example analysis the of case different of ISO 14000ecolabels, ecolabels, this paper (see Section identified 2.1.2 criteria). Based in on the the th analysisree pillars of diofff erentsustainability: ecolabels, Economic, this paper social identified and criteriaenvironmental. in the three An pillarsadditional of sustainability: criterion, related Economic, to product social characteristics and environmental. and performances An additional was criterion,added (see related Figure to 3). product characteristics and performances was added (see Figure3).

Figure 3. Identiﬁed assessment criteria. Figure 3. Identified assessment criteria. 3.1.1. Selected Criteria for the Environmental Pillar 3.1.1. Selected Criteria for the Environmental Pillar Sustainable Sourcing of Biomass Sustainable Sourcing of Biomass An important aspect to be considered in the sustainability assessment of bio-based products is the sustainableAn important sourcing aspect of to biomass. be considered An interesting in the sust documentainability in assessment this context of isbio-based the RED, products which has is establishedthe sustainable clear, sourcing legally binding of biomass. requirements An interestin on sustainableg document sourcing in this of context biomass is forthe bioenergy,RED, which liquid has biofuelsestablished and clear, bioliquids. legally The binding main sustainabilityrequirements requirementson sustainable included sourcing in theof biomass RED are: 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% •• comparedGreenhouse to gas fossil emission fuels (60% saving for from biofuels the use produced of biofuels in plants and bioliquids whose operation shall be startedat least after50% 1compared January 2017) to fossil (see fuels [37]). (60% for biofuels produced in plants whose operation started after 1 (Sustainable)January, 2017) biofuels (see [37]). and bioliquids shall not be made from raw material obtained from land •• with(Sustainable) high biodiversity. 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 •• (Sustainable) biofuels and bioliquids shall not be made from raw material obtained from land with high carbon stock (such as wetlands or forests). with high carbon stock (such as wetlands or forests). The RED provides incentives to biofuels that show compliance with these environmental 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. sustainability requirements. The material use of biomass is not incentivized in the same way. Indeed, Indeed, regulation/sustainability certiﬁcation for material use of bio-based raw materials is missing inSustainability Europe [201938]., 11 Nevertheless,, x; doi: FOR PEER the REVIEW sustainability of biomass for material www. usemdpi.com/journal is important/sustainability 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 [4]) 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 [39], for example, have shown that various bio-based products have the advantage of a lower CO2 footprint during production compared to alternative fossil-based products.

Toxicity According to [40], 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 [41]. 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., [42]. 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 [43] 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 [44]. 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 [45]. 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 [44] 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 [46], 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 [47]. 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” [48]. Economic analysis focusing on LCC provide opportunities to highlight specific advantages of bio-based products. For example, the authors of [49] 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 [50]) and considered, for example, by RSB. Furthermore, according to [51], 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 [52]). 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 [53]). The Cradle to Cradle®label considers the social impact of product cycles and production. The history of the RSPO certificate (see [54]) 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, [55]) 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 [45], 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” [56]. 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 [57]). 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 [58] 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 [59] 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 Table3, 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 tradeoff between 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 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 23

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” Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 23 appropriately. SustainabilitySustainability 2019,, 11,, 2019xx FORFOR, 11 PEERPEER, x FOR REVIEWREVIEW PEER REVIEW 13 13 of of 23 23 13 of 23 detailedSustainability explanations2020, 12, of 1623 the concept. In a further discussion on the suitability of RED criteria it was13 of 22 Table 3. Relevance of selected ecolabel criteria for bio-based car components. detailedmentioneddetailed explanations explanations that theof the use concept. of of the bio-based concept. In a further products In a furtherdiscussion could discussion beon monitoredthe suitabilityon the suitabilityby ofthe RED following of criteria RED two criteriait was specific it was mentionedprinciples:mentioned that theNo that useconversion the of usebio-based ofof bio-basedland products with productspreviously couldRelevance becould highmonitored for becarbon monitored by stock the andbyfollowing the no followinguse two of raw specific two materials specific Relevance for As mentionedAssessment earlier, Criteria the origin of the material was anotherAssessment issue brought Criteria into the discussion. principles:obtainedprinciples: No fromconversion No land conversion with of land high of with biodiversity land previously with previously such highhighEcolabels as primarycarboncarbon high 1 carbonstock stockforests andand stock or nonohighly and useuse nobiodiverseofof rawrawuse ofmaterialsmaterials raw grasslands. materials Ecolabels However, it was highlighted that the selection also depends on the availability of suitable material. obtainedTheseobtained from aspects land fromSustainable withmight land high bewith biomass/bio-based interestingbiodiversity high biodiversity issues such asthat such primaryprimary wo asuld primary forests forestsspecify forestsoror the Fundamentalhighlyhighly criterion or biodiversehighlybiodiverse “sustainableprinciples biodiverse grasslands.grasslands. and grasslands.biomass” An additional suggestion was to communicate the type of feedstock. Speciﬁcally, a label such as the Theseappropriately. aspectsThese aspectsmight bemight interestingcontent be interesting issues thatissues wo thatuld wospecifyuld specifythe criterion the criterion rights“sustainable at “sustainablework biomass” biomass” Vincotte with a ﬁx and a variable part was considered while the variable part could, for example, appropriately.appropriately. Energy requirement during provide informationCO2 emissions on the raw material. Table 3. Relevance of selected ecolabel criteria for bio-based car productioncomponents. Table 3.Table Relevance 3. Relevance of selected of selectedecolabel ecolabel criteria forcriteria bio-based for bio-based car components. car components. TableToxicity 3. Relevance Relevance of selected for ecolabel criteria forBiomass bio-based utilization car components. efficiencyRelevance for Assessment Criteria Assessment Criteria RelevanceEcolabelsRelevance for 1 for RelevanceRelevanceEcolabels for for Assessment Criteria 1 Assessment Criteria AssessmentAssessmentAssessment Criteria Criteria CriteriaRelevance for Ecolabels1 1 AssessmentAssessmentAssessment Criteria Criteria Criteria Relevance for Ecolabels Sustainable biomass/bio-basedEnd-of-life options Ecolabels Ecolabels 1 Fundamental principlesLife cycle and values Ecolabels Ecolabels SustainableSustainable biomass/bio-basedSustainable biomass/bio-based FundamentalFundamental principles principles and and Sustainable biomass/bio-basedbiomasscontent/bio-based Fundamental Fundamental principlesrights principles at and work rights and at work contentcontent contentFitness for use rights atrights workLife at cycle work costs specifically content Energyrights at requirement work during CO2 emissions Energy requirementEnergyproduction requirement during during 2 2 Energy requirement during CO2 emissionsemissionsCO emissions CO2Corporateemissions social responsibility Energy requirementproductionproduction during production production Toxicity Biomass utilization efficiency

ToxicityToxicity Biomass Biomass utilization utilization efficiency efficiency Toxicity Biomass utilization eﬃciency

End-of-life options Life cycle values relevant in 50% of the interviews End-of-lifeEnd-of-lifeEnd-of-life options options options relevant in Life> 50% cycleLife ofLife cyclethe values cycleinterviews values values Fitness for use Legend Life cycle costs specifically

FitnessFitness forFitness use for usefor use Life cycleLifeLife cyclecosts cycle costs specifically costs speciﬁcally specifically

Corporate social responsibility not relevant in > 50% of the alternatively, a suggestion for a CorporateCorporate socialCorporate responsibility social social responsibility interviews Corporate socialresponsibility responsibility modification was made

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

1 and use of water. Side doors with interior cladding of compositerelevant materials in 50% using of the natural interviews fibers such relevantrelevant in > 50% in > of 50% the interviews of the interviews relevant in 50% of the interviews as flax, hemp, linen, and (a) bio-based resin; (b) mi rrorrelevant coversrelevant inand 50% turn of in the sign50% interviewsal of covers the interviews made of bio- LegendLegend relevantrelevant in > 50% in of > the 50% interviews of the interviews relevant in 50% of the interviews based polyamides/PPT;relevant andin > (c)50% car of interiors the interviews made of Polypropylene combined with natural fibers. Legend Legend

not relevantnot in relevant> 50% of the in interviews > 50% of the alternatively, a suggestion for a modification alternatively,was a suggestion made for a As mentioned earlier,not relevant thenot origin relevant ininterviews > 50%of thein of > the material50% of the was another issue brought into the discussion. Note: Interviewees also made specific additional suggests for criteria,alternatively, in particularalternatively,modification related a suggestion to landa wassuggestion use for made and a use for of a However,1 it was highlighted thatinterviewsinterviews theinterviews selection also depends on the availability of suitable material. Note:water. IntervieweesSide doors also with made interior specific cladding additional of composite sugge materialssts for criteria, using natural inmodification particular fibersmodification such related was as flax, made to hemp, wasland made linen,use and (a)An bio-based additional resin; (b)suggestion mirror covers was and to turn communicate signal covers made the oftype bio-based of feedstock. polyamides Specifically,/PPT; and (c) car a interiorslabel such as the Note: IntervieweesNote: Interviewees also 1made also specific made specificadditional additional suggests sugge for criteria,sts for criteria,in particular in particular related torelated land useto land use Note: Intervieweesand usemade of ofwater. Polypropylenealso made Side doorsspecific combined with additional interior with natural sugge cladding fibers.sts for of criteria,composite in particularmaterials usingrelated natural to land fibers use such Vincotte1 with a fix and a variable part was considered while the variable part could, for example, and useas and offlax, water. use hemp, of 1 water.SideSide linen, doorsdoors 1 Sideand withwith doors(a) interiorbio-basedinterior with interiorcladdingcladding resin; cladding(b) ofof compositecompositemirror of coverscomposite materialsmaterials and materialsturn usingusing sign naturalnatural alusing covers fibersfibersnatural made suchsuch fibers of bio- such provide information on the raw material. as flax,based hemp,as flax, polyamides/PPT; linen, hemp, and linen, (a) bio-basedand and (a) (c) bio-basedcar resin; interiors (b) resin; mi maderror (b) of coversmi Polypropylenerror and covers turn and sign combined turnal covers sign withal made covers natural of made bio- fibers. of bio- CO2 emissionsCO2 emissions should should be measured be measured in the various in the life variou cycle stagess life includingcycle stages production, including transport, production, based polyamides/PPT;based polyamides/PPT; and (c) carand interiors (c) car interiors made of made Polypropylene of Polypropylene combined combined with natural with fibers.natural fibers. use andtransport, end-of-life. useRegarding and end-of-life. the end-of-life Regarding stage the in end-of-life general, automotive stage in general, applications automotive require specificapplications As mentioned earlier, the origin of the material was another issue brought into the discussion. solutions.require Recycling specific and solutions. incineration Recycling/energetic and combustion incineration/energetic are the key options.combustion Regarding are the materials, key options. AsHowever, mentionedAs mentionedit was earlier, highlighted earlier,the origin thethat oforigin the the selection material of the material alsowas dependsanother was another issueon the brought issueavailability brought into theof intosuitable discussion. the discussion.material. whichRegarding cannot be recycled,materials, it which was highlighted cannot be recycled, that energetic it was combustion highlighted must that be energetic preferred combustion instead of must However,AnHowever, additional it was highlightedit wassuggestion highlighted that was the to that selection communicate the selection also depends the also type depends onof feedstock.the availabilityon the Specifically, availability of suitable ofa label suitable material. such material. as the incineration.be preferred Furthermore, instead itof wasincineration. pointed out Furthermore, that not only it recyclabilitywas pointed is out important. that not Theonly possibility recyclability is An additionalVincotteAn additional suggestionwith a suggestionfix and was a to variable communicatewas to communicatepart was the consid type the ofered typefeedstock. while of feedstock. the Specifically, variable Specifically, part a label could, sucha label for as such example,the as the to separateimportant. the bio-based The possibility parts is ofto particular separate importance.the bio-based Other parts interviewees is of particular highlighted importance. the need Other VincotteprovideVincotte with informationa withfix and a fixa variableonand the a rawvariable part material. was part consid was eredconsid whileered the while variable the variable part could, part forcould, example, for example, for energyinterviewees as an important highlighted issue the at thisneed stage. for energy They conductedas an important a comparison issue at betweenthis stage. the They disposal conducted of a provideprovide informationCO2 emissionsinformation on the should rawon the material. beraw measured material. in the various life cycle stages including production, carboncomparison fibers, which between requires the significantly disposal of carbon more energy fibers, than which the requires disposal significantly of bio-based more fibers. energy than the COtransport,22 emissionsemissionsCO 2use emissions andshouldshould end-of-life. shouldbebe measuredmeasured beRe gardingmeasured inin thethe the invariouvariou end-of-life the svariou life stagecycles life in stagescycle general, stagesincluding automotive including production, applications production, Thedisposal need forof bi theo-based toxicity fibers. criterion is a specific one. Composite materials, which cannot be recycled, transport,requiretransport, use specific and use end-of-life. andsolutions. end-of-life. Re Recyclinggarding Regarding the and end-of-life incinera the end-of-lifetion/energetic stage in stage general, incombustion general, automotive automotive are applicationsthe key applications options. need to beThe incinerated need for orthe used toxicity for energetic criterion combustion.is a specific Forone. thisComposite reason, toxicitymaterials, is awhich particular cannot be requireRegardingrequire specific specific materials,solutions. solutions. whichRecycling cannotRecycling and be incinera recycled,and incineration/energetic it wastion/energetic highlighted combustion combustionthat energeticare the are keycombustion the options. key options. must end-of-liferecycled, issue need for car to componentsbe incinerated of these or used specific for materials.energetic combustion. For this reason, toxicity is a RegardingbeRegarding preferred materials, materials,instead which of cannot whichincineration. cannotbe recycled, Furthermore,be recycled, it was highlightedit it was was highlighted pointed that outenergetic that that energetic not combustion only combustion recyclability must must is Specificparticular discussions end-of-life on issue the social for car criterion components “fundamental of these principlesspecific materials. and rights at work” led to the be preferredimportant.be preferred instead The instead ofpossibility incineration. of incineration. to separateFurthermore, Furthermore, the bio-basedit was pointedit was parts pointed out is thatof outparticular not that only not recyclabilityimportance. only recyclability isOther is suggestionSpecific of an integration discussions into on the the other social social criterion criterion “fun “corporatedamental principles social responsibility.” and rights at work” led to important.important.intervieweesimportant. TheThe possibilitypossibility highlightedThe possibility toto theseparateseparate needto separate forthethe energy bio-basedbio-based the as bio-based an partspartsimportant isisparts ofof issue particularparticularis ofat thisparticular importance.stage.importance. Theyimportance. conductedOtherOther Other a Accordingthe suggestion to interviewees of an integration opinions, into the LCA, other LCC social (and criterion also biomass “corporate utilization social responsibility.” efficiency) are intervieweesintervieweescomparisoninterviewees highlightedhighlighted between highlighted thethe the needneed disposal the forfor need energy energyof carbonfor energyasas anfibers,an importantimportant as whichan important requiresissueissue atat issue thissignificantlythis stage.stage.at this They Theystage. more conductedconducted They energy conducted than aa the a regarded as particular items for certificates for B2B markets; less for B2C markets. LCA information of comparisondisposalcomparison between of bio-based between the disposal fibers. the disposal of carbon of carbonfibers, which fibers, requires which requires significantly significantly more energy more energythan the than the bio-basedSustainability automotive 2019, 11 interior, x; doi: FOR panels PEER of REVIEW various materials are, for example,provided www.mdpi.com/journal by [60]. /sustainability disposaldisposal ofThe bio-based need of bi o-basedfor fibers. the fibers.toxicity criterion is a specific one. Composite materials, which cannot be Car manufacturers are obliged to prepare energy footprint information for each vehicle and Therecycled, needThe needfor need the to for toxicitybe theincinerated toxicity criterion criterionor is used a specif foris a icic enerspecif one.one.getic icCompositeComposite one.combustion. Composite materials,materials, For materials, this whichwhich reason, cannotwhichcannot toxicity cannotbebe is abe several experts stressed the potential usefulness of label information on LCA and LCC. However, it recycled,particularrecycled, need toend-of-life need be incineratedto be issue incinerated for or car used components or for used ener forgetic of enerthese combustion.getic specific combustion. materials. For this For reason, this reason,toxicity toxicity is a is a is likely that suppliers certify individual parts only, for which the creation of separate data might particularparticular Specificend-of-life end-of-life discussions issue for issue caron componentsthefor carsocial components criterion of these “fun of specific thesedamental specific materials. principles materials. and rights at work” led to be difficult. A comparison for entire vehicles is regarded as challenging, since vehicles can exhibit Specificthe suggestionSpecific discussions discussionsof an on integration the socialon the into criterion social the othercriterion “fun sodamentalcial “fun criteriondamental principles “corporate principles and rightssocial and responsibility.” atrights work” at ledwork” to led to many differences. Car components are also often exchangeable, which means that their lifetime differs the suggestionthe suggestion of an integration of an integration into the into other the so othercial criterion social criterion “corporate “corporate social responsibility.” social responsibility.” Sustainability 2019, 11, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability SustainabilitySustainability 2019,, 11,, 2019x;x; doi:doi:, 11 FORFOR, x; doi: PEERPEER FOR REVIEWREVIEW PEER REVIEW www. www.mdpi.com/journal www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/sustainability/sustainability Sustainability 2020, 12, 1623 14 of 22 from the lifetime of a “whole” car. For this reason, the realization of appropriate LCA and LCC show the need for further research. We were recommended to specify the number of LCA criteria under efficiency considerations. Specifically, it was suggested to consider the environmental criterion CO2 emissions only. To summarize the findings in Table3, key criteria for stakeholders of the automotive sector are sustainable biomass, CO2 emissions, end-of-life issues and social responsibility, added by LCAs with a specific focus on CO2 emissions. The interviewees also specified additional sustainability criteria, which they regard as important: The extent of water use (in the production); the use of energy beyond the production stage and the total use of nonrenewable energy. The existence of bio-based materials leading to a weight reduction when replacing fossil-based materials was highlighted specifically. This weight reduction also implies petrol consumption savings which would justify an additional assessment criterion to highlight the advantages of bio-based car components compared to traditional components. However, only LCAs addressing cars as a whole would make this possible. A specific recommendation in this context referred to the facilitation of a classification of cars regarding energy issues, as well as fuel consumption (which is to be optimized also by characteristics of the material used in the production of the cars). Looking into the future, interviewees also regard aircraft and public transport with bio-based components as conceivable.

Solutions Suggested by Interviewees Regarding ecolabels in general, the implementation of a program such as BioPreferred [61] was suggested. Specifically, a European register of bio-based products meeting selected sustainability criteria was proposed. The implementation of such a register of certified bio-based products could start with selected product categories only. Regardless of having a national or European/international focus, the various existing private labels do not address the needs of the market appropriately according to expert opinion. An independent label is necessary. The development of one of the existing labels for such a solution would be interesting, but its realization at the member state level is regarded as difficult. Therefore, a European solution is suggested, at least for the public sector. Regarding an ecolabel for the automotive industry specifically, interviewees stressed the importance of the interest by (more) manufacturers for successfully establishing an ecolabel in the given area.

3.2.2. Regulatory Measures to Support Bio-based Automotive Applications The current regulatory framework of bio-based car components includes, in particular, general end-of-life regulations for cars, e.g., the End-of-Life Vehicles Directive (Directive 2000/53/EC) and related national legislation such as the “Altautoverordnung” in Germany. Based on the directive, cars are dismantled and separated into their different materials. However, current European and national regulations are not specific enough for bio-based car components according to some interviewees. Examples in this regard refer to various life cycle stages: The development of components with appropriate characteristics, e.g., regarding recyclability, the use of energy for the production, and the requirement to minimize the number of residues. Issues of recycling have to be considered as well. They include, for example, questions on which material mix is possible and which bio-based material can be recycled together with fossil products. It is also considered important to involve recycling companies in these considerations. The usefulness of elements of the RED directive was discussed in particular. Table4 summarizes the results. Four different views were observed: 1. These criteria are important; 2. these criteria are important but could also be considered by a position paper of the car industry instead of a regulation; 3. the adoption of the criteria is useful but the Member States shall have the opportunity to decide on the adoption individually on a national level; and 4. the “regulatory burden” should be kept as low as possible. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1623 15 of 22

As an example for the third view above, speciﬁc types of grassland were mentioned in interview C6, which could be replaced for the cultivation of renewable raw materials without negative consequences. The variety of the views requires further research. STAR-ProBio kept contact with the automotive industry in this regard.

Table 4. Relevance of criteria of the Renewable Energy Directive in the case study on bio-based car components.

Relevance for the Stakeholders Element of the RED Directive C1 C2 C3 C4/C5 C6 Greenhouse gas savings No (x) No (mainly an issue of fuels) x (x) No use of areas converted from land No (x) x (x) with previously high carbon stock No 1 No use of raw materials obtained No (x) 2 x (x) 3 from land with high biodiversity 1 Relevant but no need for further action because this is considered by ISCC PLUS already, 2 the topics are regarded as relevant but a position paper of the car industry might be an instrument, which is regarded as to be more attractive for these stakeholders, 3 see explanations in the text on exemptions.

An additional issue was raised within the interview topic “potential eco-label criteria on life cycle assessment and life cycle cost.” The requirement of exemplary calculations by a European regulation was suggested. This would help show the advantages of bio-based products from cradle to grave and consider in particular the disadvantages of the disposal of carbon, which can be replaced by bio-based alternatives.

3.2.3. Standards to Support Bio-based Automotive Applications As an important prerequisite for standardization considerations in the automotive sector, interviewees mentioned that this industry is an international one and needs common guidelines for production processes worldwide. There are various standards for materials traditionally used in this industry, for example, for steel and glass, addressing safety issues in particular. In addition, there are standards for composite materials, which apply to bio-based composites as well. Regarding sustainability issues of bio-based materials, the following standardization topics were discussed in the interviews: Life cycle assessment, sustainable material flows, reduction of energy use, use of renewable energy, minimization and appropriate use of residues, recyclability, social issues and life cycle cost. The desired guidance refers in particular to the use of energy, renewable energy specifically, the appropriate use of residues and recyclability while the complex specification of end-of-life measures may require an additional standard.

3.3. Reflective Comparison of the Automotive Industry with other Bio-based Products As described in Section1, our study on the automotive industry belongs to a series of four case studies, also including insulation material, food packages, and mulch film. As shown in Table5, the results of the automotive industry deviate from all the other sectors in relation to three sustainability criteria. In contrast to the automotive sector, the majority of the interviewees of the three other sectors suggested to include fitness for use and energy requirement during production in the criteria list of ecolabels for these products. Another contrast to the results from the automotive sector was that biomass utilization efficiency received support by at least 50% of the interviewees from the other industries/sectors. The reason why most interviewees in the automotive sector suggested to exclude the item fit-ness for use from ecolabel criteria catalogues is that this issue is assessed much earlier in the life cycle of the car than ecolabelling takes place. Components, which do not meet necessary functionality Sustainability 2020, 12, 1623 16 of 22

requirements, are deselected early in the car design stage. By describing specific comparisons, it was also highlighted that the energy balance of bio-based composites is better than the one of an alternative carbon product. However, the different options to use renewable or nonrenewable energy would require considerations. Regarding the biomass utilization efficiency criterion, interviewees Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 23 Sustainabilitystressed 2019, 11 that, x FOR the PEER high REVIEW technical requirements, in particular on functional and exterior car 13 of components, 23 determine clearly which material and biomass is suitable. The material with optimal BMU values does detailed notexplanations necessarily of havethe concept. the characteristics In a further/quality discussion needed on inthe the suitability car industry. of RED For criteria this reason, it was the BMU mentionedcriterion that the has use a lower of bio-based priority although products it could cannot be be monitored ignored. The by criterion the following “fundamental two specific principles and principles: No conversion of land with previously high carbon stock and no use of raw materials Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW principles:rights No atconversion work” was of selected land with in the previously interviews 13 ofhigh on 23 thecarbon other stock three and areas no of use bio-based of raw productsmaterials while the obtaineddeviation from land is with a marginal high biodiversity one. Interviewees such asof primaryprimary the automotive forestsforests oror sector highlyhighly confirmed biodiversebiodiverse the grasslands.grasslands. importance of this detailed explanations of the concept. In a furtherThese diaspectsscussiontopic asmight wellon the be but suitability interesting suggested, of issues forRED example, criteria that wo it anuld was assessment specify the on criterion the firm-level “sustainable or the usebiomass” of a composite mentioned that the use of bio-based productsappropriately. couldcriterion be monitored on social by aspects. the following two specific principles: No conversion of land with previously high carbon stock and no use of raw materials Table 3. Relevance of selected ecolabel criteria for bio-based car components. obtained from land with high biodiversity such asSustainability primaryTable forests2019, 3.11 ,Relevance orx FOR highlyTable PEER of biodiverse REVIEW 5.selectedRelevance ecolabel grasslands. of selected criteria ecolabel for bio-based criteria car in components. the case studies. 13 of 23 These aspects might be interesting issues that would specify the criterion “sustainableRelevance for biomass” Relevance for Assessment Criteria RelevanceRelevance for for EcolabelsAssessment for the Case Study Criteria Products AccordingRelevance to Interviews for detailedAssessment explanations Criteria of the concept. In 1a further discussion on the suitability of RED criteria it was Assessment Criteria Ecolabels 1 Assessment Criteria Ecolabels Sustainabilityappropriately. 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW Bio-basedEcolabels Car Components 13 of 231 PLA/Food Packaging Mulch FilmsEcolabels Insulation Materials Sustainablementioned biomass/bio-based that the use of bio-based products couldFundamental be monitored principles by and the following two specific Sustainable biomass/bio-basedSustainable Fundamental principles and principles:biomass No/bio-based conversion of land with previously high carbon stock and no use of raw materials Table 3. Relevance of selected ecolabel criteriacontent for bio-based car components. rights at work detailed explanations of the concept. In a further discussion on thecontent suitabilitycontent of RED criteria it was rights at work obtained from land with high biodiversity such asEnergy primary requirement forests duringor highly biodiverse grasslands. mentioned that the use of bio-based productsRelevance could for be monitoredCO2 emissions by the following two specificRelevance for Energy requirement during Assessment Criteria TheseCO 2 aspectsemissionsCOAssessment2 emissions might Criteria be interesting issues that would specifyproduction the criterion “sustainable biomass” principles: No conversion of land with previouslyEcolabels high 1 carbon stock and no use of raw materialsEcolabels production appropriately. obtained fromSustainable land with biomass/bio-based high biodiversity such as primary forestsFundamentalToxicity or highly principles biodiverse and grasslands. Biomass utilization efficiency ToxicityToxicity Biomass utilization efficiency content rights at work These aspects might be interesting issues that would specify the criterionTable “sustainable 3. Relevance biomass”of selected ecolabel criteria for bio-based car components. appropriately. End-of-lifeEnergyEnd-of-life options requirement options during Life cycle values CO2 emissions End-of-life options Relevance for Life cycle values Relevance for production Assessment Criteria 1 Assessment Criteria Table 3. Relevance of selected ecolabel criteria for bio-basedFitnessFitness for car foruse components. use Ecolabels Life cycle costs specifically Ecolabels Toxicity FitnessBiomass for utilizationuse efficiency Life cycle costs specifically Sustainable biomass/bio-based Fundamental principles and Relevance for Corporate social Relevance for Assessment Criteria CorporateAssessment social responsibility Criteriacontent rights at work 1 Corporate socialresponsibility responsibility Ecolabels Ecolabels End-of-life options Life cycle values Energy requirement during CO2 emissions Sustainable biomass/bio-based Fundamental Fundamental principles principles and production and rights at work contentFitness for use rightsLife at cycle work costs specifically relevant in 50% of the interviews Energy requirementToxicity during relevant in > 50% of the interviews Biomass utilizationrelevant in efficiency 50% of the interviews CO2 emissions Energy requirement relevant in > 50% of the interviews Corporate social responsibility productionLegend duringLegend production End-of-life options Life cycle values Toxicity Biomass utilization efficiency Biomass utilization not relevant in > 50% of the alternatively, a suggestion for a efficiency not relevant in > 50% of the alternatively, a suggestion for a Fitness for use interviews Life cycle costs specifically relevant in 50% of the interviewsinterviews modification was made relevant in > 50% of the interviews modification was made End-of-life options Note:Life Interviewees cycleLife cycle values values also made specific additional suggests for criteria, in particular related to land use Legend Note:Corporate Interviewees social also responsibility made specific additional suggests for criteria, in particular related to land use and use of water. 1 Side doors with interior cladding of composite materials using natural fibers such Fitness for use Lifeand cycle use ofcostsLife water. cycle specifically costs1 Side doors with interior cladding of composite materials using natural fibers such as flax, hemp,specifically linen, and (a) bio-based resin; (b) mirror covers and turn signal covers made of bio- not relevantas in flax,> 50% hemp, of the linen, andalternatively, (a) bio-based a suggestionresin; (b) mi forrror a covers and turn signal covers made of bio- Corporate social responsibility interviewsbased polyamides/PPT; and (c) car interiors made of Polypropylene combined with natural fibers. based polyamides/PPT; andmodification (c) car interiors was made made of Polypropylene combined with natural fibers. relevant in 50% of the interviews Note: Interviewees also made specific additional suggests for criteria, in particular relatedrelevantrelevant to land in > 50% usein > of 50% the interviews of the interviews relevant in 50% of the interviews As mentionedLegend earlier, the origin of the material was another issue brought into the discussion. and use of water. 1 Side doors with interior claddingAs mentionedof compositeLegend earlier, materials the using origin natural of the fibers material such was another issue brought into the discussion. However, it was highlighted that the selection also depends on the availability of suitable material. as flax, hemp, linen, and (a) bio-based resin;However, (b) mi rror it coverswas highlightedrelevant and turn in sign50% thatal of covers the interviewsselection made of alsobio- depends on the availability of suitable material. relevant in > 50% ofAn the additionalinterviews suggestion was to communicatenot relevantnot in therelevant> 50% type of the in of interviews > feedstock.50% of the Specifically,alternatively, a label a suggestion such foras a the modification based polyamides/PPT; and (c) car interiorsAn made additional of Polypropylene suggestion combined was to with communicate natural fibers. the type of feedstock. Specifically,alternatively, a labelwas asuch suggestion made as the for a Legend Vincotte with a fix and a variable part was consideredinterviews while the variable part could, for example, Vincotte withNote: a fix Interviewees and a variable also made part specific was additionalconsidered suggests while for the criteria, variable in particular part modification relatedcould, to for land example, was use andmade use of 1 As mentioned earlier, the origin of the providematerial information wasNote:water. another IntervieweesSide on issue doorsthe raw broughtalso with material.made interior into specific cladding the additionaldiscussion. of composite sugge materialssts for using criteria, natural in particular fibers such asrelated flax, hemp, to land linen, use and not relevant in > 50% of the (a) bio-basedalternatively, resin; (b) a mirror suggestion covers andfor a turn signal covers made of bio-based polyamides/PPT; and (c) car interiors CO2 emissionsand use of water.should 1 Sidebe doorsmeasured with interiorin the claddingvarious of life composite cycle stagesmaterials including using natural production, fibers such However, it was highlighted that theinterviews selection alsoCO 2depends emissionsmade on of Polypropylenetheshouldmodification availability be combinedmeasured was of made suitable with in natural thematerial. fibers.variou s life cycle stages including production, An additional suggestion was to communicatetransport, the type useas of flax, andfeedstock. hemp, end-of-life. linen, Specifically, and Re garding(a) bio-based a label the such end-of-liferesin; as (b) the mi stagerror covers in general, and turn automotive signal covers applications made of bio- Note: Interviewees also made specific additional suggests for criteria, in particular related to land use require specificbased polyamides/PPT;solutions. Recycling and (c) and car interiorsincinera madetion/energetic of Polypropylene combustion combined are with the naturalkey options. fibers. Vincotte with1 a fix and a variable part wasrequire consid eredspecific whileIn additionsolutions. the variable to Recycling diff erencespart could, and in the incinerafor importance example,tion/energetic of the ecolabel combustion criteria, are there the werekey options. also diff erences and use of water. Side doors with interior cladding Regardingof composite materials, materials usingwhich natural cannot fibers be suchrecycled, it was highlighted that energetic combustion must provide information on the raw material. Regardingregarding materials, the which needs forcannot new be labels. recycled, While it thewas positive highlighted response that regarding energetic labellingcombustion considerations must for as flax, hemp, linen, and (a) bio-based resin; (b) mirrorbe preferred covers andAs instead mentionedturn sign ofal incineration. covers earlier, made the oforiginFurthermore, bio- of the material it was pointed was another out that issue not brought only recyclability into the discussion. is CO2 emissions should be measured inbe thepreferred varioubio-based insteads life car cycle of components incineration. stages including was Furthermore, described production, above, it was interviewees pointed out referred that not to only existing recyclability labels with is regards based polyamides/PPT; and (c) car interiors made of important.PolypropyleneHowever, The combined itpossibility was highlightedwith naturalto separate fibers.that the the selection bio-based also parts depends is of on particular the availability importance. of suitable Other material. transport, use and end-of-life. Regarding theimportant. end-of-lifeto insulationThe stage possibility in material general, to and automotiveseparate suggested the applications updatesbio-based and parts extensions is of ofparticular these labels importance. only. Other intervieweesAn additional highlighted suggestion the need was for to energy communicate as an important the type ofissue feedstock. at this Specifically,stage. They conducteda label such a as the As mentionedrequire specific earlier, solutions. the origin Recycling of the material and incinerainterviewees was anothertion/energetic highlighted issue brought combustion the into need the forare discussion. energythe key as options. an important issue at this stage. They conducted a comparisonVincotte between with a the fix disposal and a variable of carbon part fibers, was whichconsid requiresered while significantly the variable more part energy could, than for theexample, However,Regarding it was highlighted materials, thatwhich the cannot selection be alsorecycled, dependscomparison it was on highlightedthebetween availability the that disposal of energetic suitable of carbon combustionmaterial. fibers, which must requires significantly more energy than the disposalprovide of bio-based information fibers. on the raw material. An additionalbe preferred suggestion instead was of to incineration. communicate Furthermore, the typedisposal of feedstock. it of was bio-based pointed Specifically, fibers. out that a label not onlysuch recyclabilityas the is The needCO2 foremissions the toxicity should criterion be measured is a specif in icthe one. variou Composites life cycle materials, stages whichincluding cannot production, be Vincotteimportant. with a fix andThe apossibility variable part to wasseparate consid theered bio-based whileThe need the parts variablefor theis ofparttoxicity particular could, criterion for importance. example, is a specif Otheric one. Composite materials, which cannot be recycled,transport, need to use be andincinerated end-of-life. or usedRegarding for ener thegetic end-of-life combustion. stage inFor general, this reason, automotive toxicity applications is a provide intervieweesinformation on highlighted the raw material. the need for energyrecycled, as an important need to beissue incinerated at this stage. or used They forconducted energetic a combustion. For this reason, toxicity is a particularrequire end-of-life specific issue solutions. for car Recyclingcomponents and of theseincinera specifiction/energetic materials. combustion are the key options. CO2comparison emissions betweenshould be the measured disposal of in carbon the variou fibers,particulars whichlife end-of-life cycle requires stages issue significantly including for car components more production, energy of than these the specific materials. SpecificRegarding discussions materials, on whichthe social cannot criterion be recycled, “fundamental it was highlighted principles and that rights energetic at work” combustion led to must transport,disposal use and of end-of-life.bio-based fibers. Regarding the end-of-lifeSpecific stage in discussions general, automotive on the social applications criterion “fundamental principles and rights at work” led to the suggestionbe preferred of an instead integration of incineration. into the other Furthermore, social criterion it was “corporate pointed socialout that responsibility.” not only recyclability is require specificThe solutions. need for Recyclingthe toxicity and criterion incinera istion/energetic thea specif suggestionic one. combustion of Composite an integration are materials, the into key the whichoptions. other cannotso cial criterion be “corporate social responsibility.” important. The possibility to separate the bio-based parts is of particular importance. Other Regardingrecycled, materials, need which to be cannot incinerated be recycled, or used it wasforSustainability enerhighlightedgetic 2019 combustion., 11 that, x; doi: energetic FOR For PEER combustionthis REVIEW reason, must toxicity is a www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainabilityinterviewees 2019, 11, x; highlighteddoi: FOR PEER the REVIEW need for energy as an important issue www. mdpi.com/journalat this stage. They/sustainability conducted a be preferredparticular instead end-of-life of incineration. issue for Furthermore, car components it was of these pointed specific out thatmaterials. not only recyclability is comparison between the disposal of carbon fibers, which requires significantly more energy than the important. TheSpecific possibility discussions to separate on the socialthe bio-based criterion “funpartsdamental is of particular principles importance. and rights at Other work” led to disposal of bio-based fibers. intervieweesthe suggestion highlighted of thean integrationneed for energy into the as otheran important social criterion issue at “corporate this stage. social They responsibility.”conducted a The need for the toxicity criterion is a specific one. Composite materials, which cannot be comparison between the disposal of carbon fibers, which requires significantly more energy than the Sustainability 2019, 11, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW recycled, need to be www. incineratedmdpi.com/journal or used/sustainability for ener getic combustion. For this reason, toxicity is a disposal of bio-based fibers. particular end-of-life issue for car components of these specific materials. The need for the toxicity criterion is a specific one. Composite materials, which cannot be Specific discussions on the social criterion “fundamental principles and rights at work” led to recycled, need to be incinerated or used for energetic combustion. For this reason, toxicity is a the suggestion of an integration into the other social criterion “corporate social responsibility.” particular end-of-life issue for car components of these specific materials. Specific discussions on the social criterion “fundamentalSustainability principles 2019, 11and, x; rightsdoi: FOR at PEER work” REVIEW led to www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability the suggestion of an integration into the other social criterion “corporate social responsibility.”

Sustainability 2019, 11, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2020, 12, 1623 17 of 22

4. Discussion

4.1. Fulfilment of Our Research Goals and Summary of Findings This article aimed to provide suggestions for ecolabels, standards and regulations to support the market uptake of innovative bio-based cars and car components, currently under development in the automotive industry. On this basis, sustainability assessment gaps for these specific product groups were studied. A key finding is that existing ecolabels do not refer to bio-based car components and that a need to address this gap exists. This article unveiled key criteria, which are not only relevant for ecolabels but also for further standardization activities, although specific indicators and the establishment of related thresholds will require further research. We identified 11 ecolabel criteria, 10 of which are relevant for bio-based automotive components according to at least half of the interviewees. They include: Sustainable biomass/bio-based content, CO2 emissions, toxicity, end-of-life options, corporate social responsibility, fundamental principles and rights at work, energy requirement during production, biomass utilization efficiency, life cycle values, and life cycle costs specifically. Only the criterion “fitness for use” was deselected because this aspect is tested already in an early stage of the production process. Options for a potential expansion of the European Ecolabel were also discussed. Focusing on the biomass specifically, an additional labelling gap regarding the assessment of bio-based cellulose fibers was identified. In addition, regulatory measures to better integrate new characteristics relevant for bio-based products into existing regulations, covering their entire life cycle were proposed. Our interviewees also highlighted that current European regulations are not specific enough for the emerging field of bio-based car applications. Gaps refer, for example, to the development of the components, the recyclability and the requirement to minimize the number of residues. In addition, the development of exemplary LCAs and LCC for both bio-based and fossil-based products on a European level was suggested to show the advantages of bio-based materials. In particular bio-based car components, which facilitate a reduction of petrol consumption due to weight loss, are promising. Last but not least, the development of a LCA standard for bio-based car components, specifically addressing the use of energy and the end-of-life stage was suggested, with recyclability as the key end-of-life aspect. The analysis also showed the importance to consider product-specific characteristics in the sustainability assessment of bio-based products and highlighted the need to customize sustainability assessment solutions for B2C and B2B markets, as well as public procurement. In addition to its main focus on requirements to be considered by ecolabels, standards, and regulations to support bio-based car components better in the future, this article addressed various additional issues. In particular, it aimed to present specific needs of the automotive sector regarding ecolabels for bio-based products. It also explained why it might be useful to exclude criteria such as functionality and biomass utilization efficiency from sustainability assessment criteria sets in this context.

4.2. Recommendations This paper recommends adding the category “bio-based automotive applications” in the EU Ecolabel, or at least to consider cellulose fiber materials in the labels on plastic. In this context, one expert stated: An eco-labelling solution “would be a ‘super’ output of STAR-ProBio to provide customers with transparent information.” More research and communication with stakeholders on concreate ecolabelling measures are suggested to develop appropriate solutions. Based on Section 3.2.3 and the desired guidance, in particular regarding the specification of end-of-life measures, which may require a separate standard, industry-driven considerations on standardization measures are suggested as well. According to our discussions on regulatory measures, it should be specified, which bio-based materials can be recycled together with fossil products and which mix of car components is possible Sustainability 2020, 12, 1623 18 of 22 to facilitate appropriate recycling. It is also important to address the need for guidance to separate bio-based and non-bio-based parts appropriately in the end-of-life stage. An interesting observation in our analysis was that our interviewees’ suggestions to address end of life issues included standardization measures and regulatory measures as well, while the differences were sometimes marginal. On this basis, more analyses are needed to use both instruments appropriately.

4.3. Outlook This article aimed to provide suggestions for ecolabels, standards, and regulations to support the market uptake of bio-based cars and car components and to provide deeper insight in the needs of the bio-based economy based on three additional case studies. The realization of a sustainable bio-based economy as a whole will rely on the commitment of the stakeholders. An intrinsic motivation to promote sustainability and a fundamental change on the demand side of the market is needed, as emphasized by our interviewees. The combination of suitable sustainability requirements and a change in society’s mindset towards sustainability has the potential to become a cornerstone to make the sustainable bio-based economy a reality. In addition, [22] demonstrated how environmental regulation can lead to innovation. Considering the recommendations of [23], in particular on pp. 110-114, it will be essential regarding the implementation of regulatory measures. In addition to this, the benefits of formal standards, the New Approach and legislation, which adopts standards were demonstrated while [13] explained how labels can support innovation. Therefore, it is suggested to monitor the further development of the instruments suggested by this article and in particular to analyze how they contribute to innovation in the bioeconomy. Based on the findings of [16], it is recommended to analyze specifically, how regulations, in particular those relying on standards and Europe’s “New Approach” can reduce uncertainty in transition markets. Specific questions on the sustainability of selected bio-based automotive components, a possible establishment of a circular economy, as well as appropriate regulatory framework conditions in this context will be addressed in the above-mentioned project ConCirMy. Finally, it should be mentioned that our study could only include a limited number of interviewees and representatives of the various stakeholder groups in Europe. Therefore, more research is encouraged to deepen and extend the findings of this research.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.W. and L.L.; methodology, S.W. and L.L.; data curation, S.W. and L.L.; investigation, S.W. and L.L.; validation, S.W. and L.L.; formal analysis, S.W.; writing—original draft, S.W. and L.L.; writing—review and editing, S.W. and L.L.; visualization, S.W and L.L.; funding acquisition, L.L. and S.W. All authors have read and agree to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 727740 and in addition by Germany’s research funding measure ReziProK, funding No. 033R236E. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest.

Appendix A. Information on the Ecolabels Analyzed for This Study

Blauer Engel http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/blue-angel Carbon Footprint of Products http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/carbon-footprint-of-products Carbon Neutral Product Certification http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/carbon-neutral-products Cradle to Cradle Certified (CM) Products http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/cradle-to-cradle-certification Der Grüner Punkt http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/green-dot DGNB http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/dgnb-certificate earth advantage institute http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/earth-advantage ECOCERT http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/ecocert Effinature http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/effinature EU Ecolabel http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/eu-ecolabel FAIRTRADE http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/fairtrade http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/forest-stewardship-council-fsc-chain-of-custody- FSC certification GreenCircle Certified http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/greencircle GreenPla http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/greenpla Gütezeichen Kompost RAL http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/compost-label-ral Sustainability 2020, 12, 1623 19 of 22

IMO Certified http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/imo-certified LEED http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/leed-green-building-rating-system Level http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/level National Green Pages™ Seal of Approval http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/national-green-pages-seal-of-approval Natureplus http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/natureplus Naturland http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/naturland-ev Nordic Ecolabel http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/nordic-ecolabel-or-swan NSF http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/NSFSustainabilityCertified OK biobased http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/ok-biobased OK Biodegradable WATER http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/ok-biodegradable-water ÖkoControl http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/okocontrol PAS 100 Certified http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/composting-association-certified http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/programme-for-the-endorsement-of-forest- PEFC certification-schemes-pefc RSB http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/roundtable-on-sustainable-biomaterials RSPO http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/rspo-certified-sustainable-palm-oil SCS certified Recycled Content http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/scs-recycled-content Seedling http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/compostability-mark-european-bioplastics SFC Member Seal http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/sustainable-furnishing Smart Water-Mark http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/Smart-Water-Mark SMaRT Consensus Sustainable http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/smart-consensus-sustainable-product-standards Product Standards Terracycle http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/TerraCycle UL Environment Multi-Attribute Certification http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/ul-sustainable-product-certification UL Environmental Claim Validation http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/ul-environmental-claim-validation UPS Eco Responsible Packaging Programm http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/ups-eco-responsible-packaging-program USDA Certified Biobased http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/usdabiopreferred VCS Verified Carbon Standard http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/verified-carbon-standard VIBE http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/vibe

References

1. IfBB—Institut für Biokunststoffe und Bioverbundwerkstoffe. Hannover Messe: Niedersachsens Wissenschaftsminister Thümler Informiert Sich am Stand des IfBB; IfBB: Hannover, Germany, 2018. 2. Blain, B.L. Japan Proposes Wooden Cars Made of Plant-Based Cellulose Nanofibers. 2019. Available online: https://newatlas.com/automotive/cnf-cellulose-nanofibers-wooden-car/ (accessed on 27 December 2019). 3. Lanzini, P.F.; Testa, F.F. Iraldo, Factors affecting drivers’ willingness to pay for biofuels: The case of Italy. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 2684–2692. [CrossRef] 4. STAR-ProBio. STAR-ProBio Deliverable D9.2, Recommendations for Standards and Criteria for Eco-Labels for Bio-Based Products. 2018. Available online: https://www.star-probio.eu (accessed on 21 October 2019). 5. Wurster, S.; Ladu, L. Bio-based Products—Suggestions for Ecolabel Criteria and Standards in Line with the Sustainable Development Goals. Int. J. Stand. Res. (IJSR) 2020, 17, 417–435. 6. CE Delft. Biobased Plastics in a Circular Economy Policy Suggestions for Biobased and Biobased Biodegradable Plastics. 2017. Available online: https://www.cedelft.eu/publicatie/biobased_plastics_ in_a_circular_economy/2022 (accessed on 29 November 2018). 7. Comité Européen de Normalisation. Bio-Based Products—Vocabulary; EN 16575:2014; CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2014. 8. International Organization for Standardization. Traditional Chinese Medicine—Labelling Requirements of Products Intended for Oral or Topical Use; ISO 21371:2018; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. 9. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Eco-labels: The Industrialisation of Environmental Standards. Ecologist 1995, 25, 16–20. 10. Retail Forum for Sustainability. 2011. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/industry/retail/pdf/ labelling_issue%20paper_final.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2018). 11. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Effects of Eco-Labelling Schemes: Compilation of Recent Studies. 2005. Available online: http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/ ?doclanguage=en&cote=com/env/td(2004)34/final (accessed on 29 November 2018). 12. Bröring, S.; Baum, C.M.; Butkowski, O.K.; Kircher, M. Kriterien für den Erfolg der Bioökonomie, in Bioökonomie für Einsteiger; Pietzsch, J., Ed.; Springer Spektrum: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017. 13. Galarraga Gallastegui, I. The use of eco-labels: A review of the literature. Environ. Policy Gov. 2002, 12, 316–331. [CrossRef] 14. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. Umweltzeichen. 2019. Available online: https://beschaffung.fnr. de/umweltzeichen/ (accessed on 12 February 2020). Sustainability 2020, 12, 1623 20 of 22

15. International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission. Conformity Assessment—Vocabulary and General Principles; ISO/IEC 17000:2004; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2004. 16. Blind, K.; Petersen, S.S.; Riillo, C.A.F. The impact of standards and regulation on innovation in uncertain markets. Res. Policy 2017, 46, 249–264. [CrossRef] 17. Blind, K.; Gauch, S. Research and Standardisation in Nanotechnology: Evidence from Germany. J. Technol. Transf. 2009, 34, 320–342. [CrossRef] 18. Comité Européen de Normalisation. CEN/TC 411-Bio-based Products. 2019. Available online: https://standards. cen.eu/dyn/www/f?p=204:7:0::::FSP_ORG_ID:874780&cs=112703B035FC937E906D8EFA5DA87FAB8 (accessed on 29 November 2018). 19. European Commission. M/491 Mandate Addressed to CEN, CENELEC and ETSI for the Development of European Standards and Technical Specifications and/or Technical Re-ports for Bio-Surfactants and Bio-Solvents in Relation to Bio-Based Product Aspects. 2011. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/ tools-databases/mandates/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.detail&id=476# (accessed on 29 November 2018). 20. European Commission. M/492 Mandate Addressed to CEN, CENELEC and ETSI for the Development of Horizontal European Standards and other Standardisation Deliverables for Bio-Based Products. 2011. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/mandates/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.detail& id=477# (accessed on 29 November 2018). 21. Ladu, L.; Blind, K. Overview of Policies, Standards and Certifications Supporting the European Bio-Based Economy. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 2017, 8, 30–35. [CrossRef] 22. Blind, K. The influence of regulations on innovation: A quantitative assessment for OECD countries. Res. Policy 2012, 41, 391–400. [CrossRef] 23. Porter, M.E.; van der Linde, C. Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. J. Econ. Perspect. 1995, 9, 97–118. [CrossRef] 24. Palmer, K.; Oates, W.E.; Portney, P.R. Tightening Environmental Standards: The Benefit-Cost or the No-Cost Paradigm? J. Econ. Perspect. 1995, 9, 119–132. [CrossRef] 25. Bosman, R.; Rotmans, J. Transition Governance towards a Bioeconomy: A Comparison of Finland and the Netherlands. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1017. [CrossRef] 26. Morone, P. Sustainability Transition towards a Biobased Economy: Defining, Measuring and Assessing. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2631. [CrossRef] 27. Comité Européen de Normalisation. New Approach and Other Directives. 2019. Available online: https://www.cen.eu/work/supportLegislation/Directives/Pages/default.aspx (accessed on 29 November 2018). 28. Pelkmans, J. The New Approach to Technical Harmonization and Standardization. J. Common Mark. Stud. 1987, 25, 249–269. [CrossRef] 29. CEN-CENELEC Annual Report CEN CENELEC 2013. 2013. Available online: https://www.cencenelec.eu/ News/Publications/Publications/AR2013_CEN_EN_final.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2018). 30. European Commission. A Sustainable Bioeconomy for Europe: Strengthening the Connection between Economy, Society and the Environment. Updated Bioeconomy Strategy. 2018. Available online: https://ec.europa. eu/research/bioeconomy/pdf/ec_bioeconomy_strat-egy_2018.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none (accessed on 29 November 2018). 31. STAR-ProBio STAR-ProBio Deliverable D9.1. Comprehensive Overview of Existing Regulatory and Voluntary Frameworks on Sustainability Assessment. 2018. Available online: http://www.star-probio.eu/wp-content/ uploads/2017/04/STAR-ProBio-D9.1_V-1.0.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2018). 32. European Parliament and the Council. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renew-able sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. Off. J. Eur. Union 2009, 5, 39–85. 33. European Parliament and the Council. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on Waste and Repealing Certain Directives. 2008. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32008L0098&from=EN (accessed on 29 November 2018). 34. Ecolabel Index. 2018. Available online: http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ (accessed on 29 November 2019). 35. Ladu, L.; Clavell, J.; Quitzow, R.; Costenoble, O.; Vrins, M.; van den Berg, J.; Babayan, T.; vom Berg, C.; Dammer, L.; Partanen, A.; et al. Policy paper on strategy for development of an RCS framework. Deliverable 3.3 of the STAR4BBI project. 2019. Available online: https://www.star4bbi.eu/app/uploads/sites/11/2019/09/ D3.3-Sustainability-Certification-for-all-Products_final.pdf (accessed on 21 October 2019). Sustainability 2020, 12, 1623 21 of 22

36. Adams, W.C. Conducting Semi-Structured Interviews. In Newcomer: Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation; Wholey, K.J., Hatry, H., Eds.; Jossey-Bass: Hoboken, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 492–505. 37. European Commission. Energy. 2018. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/renewa-ble- energy/biofuels/sustainability-criteria (accessed on 29 November 2018). 38. Federal Environment Agency (UBA). Nachhaltigkeitsstandards/Zertiﬁzierung von Biomasse. 2018. Available online: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/nachhaltigkeitsstandards-zertiﬁzierung-von (accessed on 29 November 2018).

39. Open-Bio. Deliverable N◦ 7.3: Proposal on eco-criteria for bio-based products. Public Summary. 2016. Available online: https://www.biobasedeconomy.eu/app/uploads/sites/2/2017/09/Open-Bio_D7-3_summary.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2018). 40. International Organization for Standardization. Plastics—Vocabulary; ISO 472:2013; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013. 41. Peuckert, J.; Quitzow, R. Acceptance of bio-based products on business-to-business markets and public procurement: Expert survey results. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 2017, 11, 92–109. [CrossRef] 42. TNS Political & Social at the request of the European Commission—Directorate-General for Environment. Flash Eurobarometer 367 “Attitudes of Europeans towards Building the single market for green products”. 2012. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eurobarometers_en.htm (accessed on 29 November 2018). 43. Carus, M.; Dammer, L.; Puente, Á.; Raschka, A.; Arendt, O. Bio-Based Drop-in, Smart Drop-in and Dedicated Chemicals. 2017. Available online: https://www.roadtobio.eu/uploads/news/2017_October/RoadToBio_Drop- in_paper.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2018). 44. Iffland, K. Definition, Calculation and Comparison of the “Biomass Utilization Efficiencies (BUE)” of Various Bio-based Chemicals, Polymers and Fuels. 2015. Available online: http://bio-based.eu/nova-papers/ (accessed on 29 November 2018). 45. STAR-ProBio. STAR-ProBio Deliverable D1.1, Report on Identified Environmental, Social and Economic Criteria/Indicators/Requirements and Related “Gap Analysis”. 2017. Available online: www.star-probio.eu (accessed on 29 November 2018). 46. Vertech Group. Life Cycle Cost Assessment. 2014. CloseWEEE-WP8-DEL-D8.1-VTG-20150631-v02.doc. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/documents/downloadPublic?documentIds= 080166e5a0aca20f&appId=PPGMS (accessed on 29 November 2018). 47. Fuller, S. Guidance on Life-Cycle Cost Analysis. Required by Executive Order 13123; Department of Energy, Federal Energy Management Program: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. 48. C2C (Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute). Cradle to Cradle CertifiedTM. Product Standard Version 3.1. 2016. Available online: https://s3.amazonaws.com/c2c-web-site/resources/certification/standard/ STD_C2CCertified_ProductStandard_V3.1_082318.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2018). 49. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e. V. Nachwachsende Rohstoffe im Einkauf, Themenheft III: Büro—Einrichtung, Material, Gestaltung. 2017. Available online: https://mediathek.fnr.de/broschuren/ nachwachsende-rohstoffe/nachhaltige-beschaffung.html (accessed on 29 November 2018). 50. European Commission. 4th Foresight Exercise Sustainable Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries in the Bioeconomy—A Challenge for Europe. 2015. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/research/scar/index.cfm? pg=foresight4th (accessed on 29 November 2018). 51. BBMG GlobeScan and SustainAbility. Re: Thinking Consumption—Consumers and the Future of Sustainability. 2012. Available online: https://globescan.com/rethinking-consumption-consumers-and- the-future-of-sustainability/ (accessed on 29 November 2018). 52. International Labour Organization. International Instruments and Corporate Social Responsibility a Booklet to Accompany Training on Promoting Labour Standards through Corporate Social Responsibility. 2007. Available online: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---emp_ent/---multi/documents/ instructionalmaterial/wcms_227866.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2018). 53. Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification. Vom Wald zum Produkt. Die PEFC-Chain-OF- Custody—So Funktioniert der Produktkettennachweis. Available online: https://pefc.de/media/filer_public/ 2d/38/2d385cb6-a7be-409a-8dfa-fb8e330b4a3e/tmppefc_coc-broschuere.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2018). 54. Environmental Investigation Agency. Who Watches the Watchman? Auditors and the Breakdown of Oversight in the RSPO. 2015. Available online: https://eia-international.org/wp-content/uploads/EIA-Who- Watches-the-Watchmen-FINAL.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2018). Sustainability 2020, 12, 1623 22 of 22

55. Comité Européen de Normalisation. Plastics—Determination of Bio-Based Carbon Content; CEN/TS 16137:2011; CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2011. 56. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 14044 Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. 57. Comité Européen de Normalisation. Bio-based products—Life Cycle Assessment; EN 16760:2015; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. 58. Wurster, S.; Ladu, L.; Majer, S. Förderung biobasierter Produkte durch Normung und Zertifizierung. Horizon-2020-Projekt STAR-ProBio—Bisher Erreichtes, Handlungsbedarf und Lösungsansätze. DIN Mitt. 2018, 2018, 13–21. 59. Görmer, M. Harmonisierung von Ökobilanzregeln für Biobasierte Werkstoffe. IfBB-Webinarreihe: “Biowerkstoffe im Fokus!”. 2018. Available online: https://www.ifbb-hannover.de/files/IfBB/downloads/ webinarreihe/20180816_Webinar_23_Harmonisierung_von_Oekobilanzregeln_fuer_biobasierte_ Werkstoffe.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2018). 60. Nessi, S.; Bulgheroni, C.; Konti, A.; Sinkko, T.; Tonini, D.; Pant, R. Environmental Sustainability Assessment Comparing through the Means of Lifecycle Assessment the Potential Environmental Impacts of the Use of Alternative Feedstock (Biomass, Recycled Plastics, CO2) for Plastic Articles in Comparison to Using Current Feedstock (Oil and Gas). 2018. Available online: https://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/permalink/PLASTIC_LCI/ Plastic_LCA_Report_I_2018.11.20.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2018). 61. United States Department of Agriculture. Biopreferred. 2018. Available online: https://www.biopreferred. gov/ (accessed on 29 November 2018).

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).