Biogenic Raw Materials Are Not Automatically Sensible, Says WWF

Can future packaging demand in Germany be met using bio-based raw materials with minimal and ecologically compatible biomass use? This question is addressed by WWF Germany in a current study. The conclusion: Against the backdrop of packaging consumption projected until 2045, biogenic raw materials in packaging are not automatically the better choice.

A box with a variatey of biogenic raw materials — Bio-based virgin materials should be used in a targeted way and in line with greenhouse gas neutrality, resource efficiency and biodiversity., the WWF states.

At the end of March, WWF presented the findings of the study “Use of Bio-based Raw Materials in Packaging in the Context of the Circular Economy and Nature and Climate Protection” at the German Packaging Congress in Berlin. The study, conducted by ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg and GVM – Gesellschaft für Verpackungsmarktforschung, examines 13 biogenic raw materials and evaluates the impacts of using bio-based raw materials on three central indicators using life cycle assessment calculations: land use, energy and water. It distinguishes whether the respective raw material is used to produce fibre-based packaging (PPB packaging) or plastic packaging.

Against the backdrop of packaging demand in Germany projected until 2045, the study analyses which bio-based raw materials will be available in future, what ecological challenges are associated with them, and what alternatives and optimisation potential can be derived.

Key Study Results

Bio-based plastics are more energy-intensive to produce than paper-based packaging when using identical source materials and lead to higher environmental impacts.
Alternative cellulose sources such as foliage, grass, silphie or agricultural residues can significantly reduce the land footprint without substantially increasing energy or water consumption.
The use of by-products and residues such as tall oil, waste wood and waste paper causes the lowest environmental impacts in terms of land and energy requirements. However, water consumption is higher when producing plastic from waste wood and waste paper.
Despite declining packaging volumes and an increasing proportion of recycling materials, land and water requirements increase due to the growing use of bio-based plastics.
The use of bio-based raw materials for manufacturing plastic packaging is classified neither as a priority action option nor as an equivalent substitute.
There is a conflict of objectives between land and energy requirements: everything that requires less land needs more energy and vice versa.

Not Automatically the Better Choice

At the German Packaging Congress at the end of March 2026, Tom Ohlendorf and Tina Kussin drew a clear conclusion based on the study results: Bio-based packaging materials are not automatically the better choice against the backdrop of packaging consumption projected until 2045. More biogenic raw materials in and for packaging do not automatically lead to relief for ecosystems.

According to Ohlendorf and Kussin, this is primarily due to land and water consumption, which inevitably increases with the quantity of bio-based primary materials used. At the same time, however, biomass is only available in limited quantities and is already under high utilisation pressure – with an increasing tendency.

Tina Kussin, Project Manager Materials & Circularity, Transformation Politics & Economy at WWF Germany

Tom Ohlendorf, Senior Manager Circular Economy focus on Packaging at WWF Germany

Ultimately, the actually positive effects of the projected declining demand for packaging until 2045 are largely consumed again by the increasing use of bio-based raw materials. "This shows once again that merely changing packaging consumption is not sufficient. Targeted optimisation is needed in the use of biogenic raw materials," says Kussin.

Conclusion

The conclusion drawn by Kussin and Ohlendorf at the congress: According to WWF, bio-based primary materials must be used in a targeted manner and in harmony with greenhouse gas neutrality, resource efficiency and biodiversity. Residues and by-products must be prioritised, recycling proportions increased and reuse systems considered. "Material decisions need data, not gut feeling. Comparative LCAs provide the foundation," said Tom Ohlendorf at the congress.

Follow-up Question:

Should plastic be substituted with fibre-based materials?

WWF: Fibre-based materials instead of plastic sounds like a good solution at first – but it's not that simple. Blanket substitution doesn't solve the problem, it often just shifts it. Already today, more than 60 per cent of packaging consists of bio-based materials such as wood and cellulose. If we increase this proportion further, we increase pressure on our forests. These are habitats for biodiversity and carbon sinks in the climate system at the same time.

Our study shows another problem: Substitution increasingly uses fibre-based composite materials that are often only limitedly recyclable due to coatings and material combinations. This causes additional ecological problems. Nevertheless, fibre-based packaging can be ecologically sensible in certain applications – when based on recycling fibres, well integrated into existing circular systems and exhibiting high recyclability. Or when specifically replacing problematic plastic solutions.

Therefore, what matters is not just the material change, but a systemic consideration across the entire life cycle. Reducing and slowing resource flows, consistently closing material cycles – that remains the actual task.

Should biogenic residues be credited towards PCR quotas?

WWF: Considerations to credit proportions of biogenic raw materials in plastic packaging towards applicable minimum recyclate quotas of the PPWR are not ecologically advisable. Instead, the focus should be on specifically increasing the availability and quality of PCR – through better packaging design, higher collection rates and the expansion of high-quality recycling capacities. Replacing fossil raw materials with biogenic ones would merely replace one dependency with another, associated with new ecological risks.

What role does reducing packaging volumes play?

FACHPACK360°: As part of the "essential conclusions", the study speaks of a significant reduction in packaging volumes as a key factor and, in this context, of far-reaching packaging avoidance as the top priority. What exactly do you mean by this? Packaging is normally not an end in itself. In which areas is large-scale packaging avoidance possible from WWF's perspective and how decisive would this effect ultimately be?

WWF: Potential lies primarily in retail and shipping: Pre-packaged fruit and vegetables can often be offered unpackaged or in reuse systems – think Girsacs. Dry foods such as rice, pasta or muesli can also be dispensed unpackaged as refill solutions. For many non-food products such as books, CDs or toys, additional films, blisters or hanging packaging are often functionally unnecessary. Shipping and outer packaging for cosmetics, cereals or beverages can also be reduced in many cases.

The quantitative savings potential is limited compared to total packaging volumes, but still relevant – especially because these packages can often be avoided without quality or safety losses. What's crucial is: every avoided package saves resources, energy and emissions from the outset, regardless of material. The key question remains: which packaging do we actually need? Top priority should always be complete avoidance.

Is biomass sensible as a source for fibre-based packaging?

FACHPACK360°: Another essential study conclusion reads: "No use of biomass for bioplastics as packaging material". What is the conclusion regarding the use of biomass as a source for fibre-based packaging material?

WWF: Our study shows that the use of primary wood for paper, cardboard and corrugated packaging must be significantly reduced to prevent overuse of forest areas and corresponding ecological consequences. Instead, alternative raw material sources should be preferentially used that exhibit better land, energy and water balances. These include particularly secondary raw materials such as waste paper, residues and by-products as well as waste wood, which already offers considerable substitution potential today. Additionally, approaches such as silphie and paludicultures can contribute to a more sustainable raw material base in the long term.

Are there any sensible applications for biogenic raw materials at all?

WWF: The use of biogenic raw materials in packaging is particularly sensible when it demonstrably reduces environmental impacts and doesn't just replace fossil with renewable raw materials.

It's most sensible in clearly defined application cases, for instance with well-recyclable, single-material solutions based on waste paper or where bio-based materials replace difficult-to-recycle or particularly problematic packaging whilst being integrated into functioning cycles.

It's less sensible wherever it leads to more material use, new complex composite structures or increased use of primary raw materials.

Author: Christian Nink, Freelance Journalist