Author
Listed:
- L. H. Aramyan
(Wageningen University and Research)
- Eggo U. Thoden van Velzen
(Wageningen University and Research)
- N. Herceglić
(Wageningen University and Research)
- G.M. Splinter
(Wageningen University and Research)
- A. Susa
(Wageningen University and Research)
Abstract
Adverse impacts of plastic can be reduced by shifting to a circular bioeconomy with biobased plastics. Incumbents face barriers, including the alleged “recycling lock-in”, hindering the adoption of new polymers due to the current plastic packaging system. Corporate power is crucial in promoting this shift. This study focuses on corporate power in the Dutch plastic packaging sector, analyzing conflicts of interest and barriers in transitioning to a circular bioeconomy. Market-based Instruments’ effectiveness in promoting circularity among food companies is explored. Fifteen incumbents in Dutch plastic food packaging sector were interviewed. Reasons for not widely using biobased polymers are: technical performance issues, higher prices, limited availability and lack of recycling infrastructure. Moreover, existing recycling infrastructure, regulations, and practices are optimized for fossil-based polymers, creating lock-ins for the inclusion of new materials. Despite no legal barriers, companies are hesitant to use biobased plastics due to system challenges. They struggle to transition from fossil-based to biobased plastic packaging due to resistance to change. Power dynamics analysis shows that the petrochemical industry, Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) sector, and retail dominance has decreased in the past decade, with governmental measures increasing the influence of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and recyclers. No single entity controls the system.
Suggested Citation
L. H. Aramyan & Eggo U. Thoden van Velzen & N. Herceglić & G.M. Splinter & A. Susa, 2025.
"Unlocking the biobased future: investigating recycling lock-ins and corporate power in the adoption of biobased food packaging,"
Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 27(3), pages 471-509, July.
Handle:
RePEc:spr:envpol:v:27:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s10018-025-00442-7
DOI: 10.1007/s10018-025-00442-7
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:envpol:v:27:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s10018-025-00442-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.