State of bioplastics 
in Australia



Citation

CSIRO (2024) State of Bioplastics in Australia.

Copyright and disclaimer

© Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research 
Organisation 2024. To the extent permitted by law, all rights 
are reserved, and no part of this publication covered by 
copyright may be reproduced or copied in any form or by 
any means except with the written permission of CSIRO.

Important disclaimer

CSIRO advises that the information contained in this 
publication comprises general statements based on 
scientific research. The reader is advised and needs to be 
aware that such information may be incomplete or unable 
to be used in any specific situation. No reliance or actions 
must therefore be made on that information without 
seeking prior expert professional, scientific and technical 
advice. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO (including its 
employees and consultants) excludes all liability to any 
person for any consequences, including but not limited 
to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other 
compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this 
publication (in part or in whole) and any information or 
material contained in it.

CSIRO is committed to providing web accessible content 
wherever possible. If you are having difficulties with 
accessing this document, please contact csiro.au/contact.



Contents
Executive summary...................................................................................................................................2

Material flow analysis ........................................................................................................................................................2Insights from Australia’s bioplastics system.....................................................................................................................2Introduction..................................................................................................................................................5Need for change.................................................................................................................................................................5A focus on bioplastics........................................................................................................................................................5Taking a circular economy approach................................................................................................................................6Aims of this report..............................................................................................................................................................6Approach.............................................................................................................................................................................6Engagement and acknowledgements...............................................................................................................................6Part 1: What are bioplastics?................................................................................................................8Defining bioplastics............................................................................................................................................................8Characteristics of bioplastics.............................................................................................................................................9Biobased..............................................................................................................................................................................9Biodegradable.....................................................................................................................................................................91.1 The types of bioplastics.............................................................................................................................................101.2 Overview of the bioplastics value chain ..................................................................................................................111.3 Bioplastic polymers....................................................................................................................................................161.4 Global market snapshot.............................................................................................................................................191.5 Local and global regulatory landscape and standards............................................................................................20Part 2: Current state review...............................................................................................................242.1 Material flow analysis.................................................................................................................................................242.2 Stakeholder mapping.................................................................................................................................................272.3 Challenges across the value chain.............................................................................................................................302.4 Opportunities.............................................................................................................................................................33Appendix A: Bioplastic polymers in detail......................................................................................................................36Appendix B: Useful resources..........................................................................................................................................42Appendix C: MFA Assumptions........................................................................................................................................43References.........................................................................................................................................................................44

Executive summary

Growing concerns about the environmental impacts 
of plastic waste have fuelled an increase in the use 
of bioplastics. While definitions vary, bioplastics are 
characterised by unique properties that make them 
biobased, biodegradable and/or compostable. Biobased 
plastics can offer low-carbon, renewable alternatives to a 
wide range of conventional plastics and decouple plastic 
from fossil fuels. Certified biodegradable and compostable 
plastics can offer solutions to plastics that commonly 
contaminate organics recycling streams, aid in transporting 
food waste to soil, and provide improved environmental 
outcomes in niche applications, such as in agricultural films 
and some packaging formats. 

However, the adoption of bioplastics is not without 
challenges. The state of bioplastics in Australia presents 
a complex landscape characterised by a wide range of 
polymer types and applications, compounded by confusing 
terminology. The lack of clear standardised labelling 
for bioplastics and other materials has led to consumer 
confusion, resulting in contamination across recycling and 
composting streams, and leading many bioplastics to end 
up in landfill. 

This report provides an overview of the Australian 
bioplastics system, identifies materials flow from 
feedstocks to end-of-life, highlights lost value within the 
sector, and prioritises interventions and opportunities 
to enhance circular outcomes. 

Material flow analysis 

Material flow analysis (MFA) is a systematic assessment of 
the flows and stocks of materials within a system defined 
in space and time. An MFA was completed and provided 
valuable insights into bioplastics consumption in Australia 
across four distinct phases. The overall findings of the MFA 
indicate that polylactic acid (PLA) dominates the Australian 
bioplastics market and is predominantly used in food 
service ware, the majority of which ends up in landfill, 
highlighting the need for improved waste management 
and recycling infrastructure. The investigation into raw 
materials used for bioplastics production in Australia 
highlighted prevalent sources such as sugarcane, corn 
sugar, and starches for PLA, bio-polyethylene (BioPE), 
and polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) manufacturing. 
Notably, PLA production primarily relies on corn sugar as 
its raw material, while BioPE is exclusively produced from 
sugarcane. PHA production involves using organic wastes, 
cane, and beet sugars. 

The study found that most bioplastics in Australia are 
imported, primarily from Thailand (PLA) and Brazil (BioPE). 
However, quantifying raw material-to-polymer conversion 
rates posed a challenge due to insufficient data, especially 
for multiple raw material inputs. Conversion rates, such 
as 2-to-1 for corn sugar to PLA and 4-to-1 for cane and 
beet sugars to PHA, were established. The conversion 
process generates by-products; however, manufacturers 
confirm these can be repurposed for other products. 
End-of-life outcomes showed that most bioplastics end up 
in landfill due to challenges with recycling or composting. 
Food service ware is largely landfilled with the exception 
of some composting activities in South Australia. 

Insights from Australia’s 
bioplastics system

Research for this report included 10 in-depth interviews 
and two industry workshops with a diverse cohort of key 
stakeholders from across the Australian bioplastics value 
chain. These interactions focused on understanding the 
current use of bioplastics in Australia. Discussions examined 
the challenges and opportunities inherent in establishing a 
circular economy for bioplastics, and stakeholders explored 
and identified key enablers for realising such an economy 
in Australia. The insights gleaned from these interviews and 
workshops serve as a foundation for the recommendations 
and findings presented in this report. 



Image credit: Murdoch University

Challenges for bioplastics

Our report identifies key challenges to achieving a system based approach determining the future of bioplastics, 
including end-of-life management, labelling and certification, regulation, costs, knowledge gaps, trust, awareness, 
and environmental risks. 

End-of-life 
management

End-of-life management emerged as a complex challenge, with insufficient infrastructure for bioplastics’ 
disposal and recycling being a significant barrier. A lack of coordination and collaboration exacerbates this 
issue, necessitating investment and a coordinated approach for effective end-of-life management.

Regulation and 
certification

Clear labelling, certification, and effective regulation are major obstacles hindering the establishment of 
a circular economy for bioplastics. Consumer confusion is a result of inadequate standards and misleading 
practices, underscoring the need for improved certification and labelling practices, along with stronger 
regulatory oversight to counter greenwashing.

Properties and 
performance

Ensuring the properties and performance of various bioplastic types for appropriate applications is crucial. 
The balance between compostability and functionality, as well as the viability of bioplastics for specific uses, 
requires industry-wide collaboration and informed decision-making.

Knowledge, trust, 
and awareness

A lack of consumer understanding and trust in bioplastics’ characteristics, use, and disposal hinders their 
effective adoption. A focus on consumer education, transparent information sharing, and consistent 
labelling is essential to address these challenges.

Feedstocks and 
nature‑related risks

While bioplastics offer environmental benefits, they also pose risks related to feedstock sourcing 
and production processes. Sustainable sourcing, responsible agricultural practices, and mitigating 
environmental impacts are critical considerations in promoting bioplastics as a more environmentally 
friendly alternative.







Opportunities for bioplastics

We also present several opportunities to shape the future of bioplastics in Australia. These include PHA as a promising 
polymer of interest; the potential of bioplastics to further combat food waste; sector-specific applications in agriculture, 
horticulture, and marine activities; and industry 4.0 technologies that can support the transition to a circular economy 
for bioplastics.

Niche applications

Bioplastics present a unique potential to address environmental concerns in niche sectors like horticulture, 
agriculture, and biomedicine. They can replace conventional plastics in these sectors, offering solutions that 
biodegrade under specific conditions, reducing plastic waste and ecosystem harm.

Combating food waste

Incorporating bioplastic bin liners into the Food Organics and Garden Organics (FOGO) system offers an 
opportunity to significantly reduce food waste. These liners, derived from renewable resources, can facilitate 
effective organic waste management, reducing greenhouse gas emissions from landfills and enriching soils.

Polyhydroxyalkanoates 
(PHA)

PHA, a family of biodegradable polymers, holds promise for commercial viability. With its ability to break 
down in various environments, PHA can be used in single-use packaging and disposable products. Australian 
innovators like Uluu are leading the charge in leveraging PHA’s potential.

Local manufacturing

While opinions on local bioplastic manufacturing vary, the potential exists to use agricultural and forestry 
by-products or explore emerging industries like seaweed for production. However, international investments 
in bioplastics manufacturing are a notable consideration.

Chemical recycling

Advanced chemical recycling offers an innovative solution for bioplastics’ end-of-life management. 
This technology, employed by companies like APR Plastics and Licella, can convert bioplastics into valuable 
biofuels and biochemicals, promoting a circular economy approach and reducing waste.

Biobased and 
renewable 
content targets

Setting targets for incorporating biobased and renewable materials in packaging can incentivise the use of 
sustainable resources, reducing reliance on fossil fuel-based plastics and promoting sustainable packaging 
materials.

Clear definitions 
and labelling

Establishing clear definitions and standardised labelling for bioplastics is crucial for effective communication 
and education. Biodegradable bioplastics should be required to meet compostable standards, and claims 
should only be made for certified products, adopting official Seedling logos, and applying the Australasian 
Recycling Label to inform consumers.

Industry 4.0 
technologies

The integration of Industry 4.0 technologies such as IoT, AI, and big data analytics can enhance resource 
efficiency, reduce waste, and improve end-of-life processes in the bioplastics industry. Real-time monitoring 
and tracking inputs and materials across the supply chain, optimised manufacturing, and data-driven 
insights can drive a more sustainable approach to bioplastics.





Finally, our report identifies key enablers to achieving a circular economy for bioplastics, including system-wide 
collaboration, standardisation, supporting regulation, harmonisation with end-of-life management, research, 
data collection, communication, and investment. 



Introduction

Need for change

Since 2019, the amount of materials flowing through 
the global economy has exceeded 100 billion tonnes 
each year.1 Yet, of all the materials we use across the 
globe – for sectors from food to manufacturing and 
mobility – only 8.6% is recirculated back into the system.2 
The circular economy model provides a powerful 
solution to the environmental challenges brought on by 
escalating waste. By prioritising regenerative materials, 
focusing on using materials more efficiently, extending 
product lifetimes, and using waste as a resource, we 
have the opportunity to support global efforts towards 
keeping the global temperature rise below 1.5-degree 
above pre-industrial levels, as per the Paris Agreement, 
within the next decade.1 

During the 2020–21 financial year, Australia generated 
an estimated 75.8 million tonnes (Mt) of waste, 2.6 Mt 
of which was plastic.3 Plastics are a notoriously linear 
material; of the more than 380 Mt produced annually, 
some reports state that more than 50% is used for 
single-use items.4 Australia recovers only 13% of the plastic 
used annually through recycling initiatives, which is the 
lowest recovery rate among all waste streams in the 
country.5 In recent years, the global plastics landscape 
has undergone rapid evolution. This evolution is driven 
by mounting public concern over plastic waste and 
pollution; global policy change, such as China’s National 
Sword Policy and the Basel Convention;6 and initiatives 
such as the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s New Plastics 
Economy Global Commitment,7 and the United Nations-led 
global treaty for plastic pollution.8 Governments, major 
corporations, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) 
are increasingly committing to creating a circular economy 
for plastics. 

A focus on bioplastics

As organisations seek alternatives to conventional 
plastics, bioplastics use has increased.9 Bioplastics can 
be derived from renewable, biologically based (termed 
biobased) feedstocks such as sugarcane. They can decouple 
plastics from fossil-based sources and result in lower 
carbon emissions, making for an attractive alternative to 
conventional plastics. In addition, innovative applications 
of biodegradable bioplastics can solve industry challenges 
in agriculture, horticulture, and biomedicine. Within these 
industries, examples of bioplastics improving overall 
circular outcomes already exist. 

While some bioplastics are derived from renewable sources 
and have the potential to solve an array of challenges, they 
are not without their own complexities. Many different 
types of bioplastics are manufactured using a variety of 
methods and feedstocks – and without labelling standards 
– which can cause confusion for consumers. This can lead 
to contamination across recycling and composting streams 
and has resulted in a system where bioplastics largely end 
up in landfill. In landfill, biodegradable bioplastics can 
break down in anaerobic conditions resulting in methane 
emissions, which negatively contributes to climate change, 
wastes resources, and does not achieve circularity. 

Despite these challenges, bioplastics present the 
opportunity to develop innovative materials with better 
functionality, solve specific environmental challenges, 
and raise awareness about the environmental issues of 
conventional plastics, including their impact on climate 
change. Globally, bioplastics production capacity is set to 
increase from 2.11 Mt in 2019 to approximately 2.43 Mt in 
2024 (representing a 15% increase by weight).10 However, 
the uptake of bioplastics is currently limited by high 
production costs, which impair their price competitiveness 
relative to their fossil-based counterparts. 



Taking a circular economy 
approach

The concept of a circular economy has gained considerable 
attention worldwide as a response to the environmental 
challenges posed by our linear consumption patterns. In a 
circular economy, resources are used efficiently, waste is 
minimised, and materials are kept in continuous circulation. 
This shift away from the traditional ‘take-make-waste’ 
model requires innovative approaches, such as the 
adoption of bioplastics. However, for Australia to effectively 
embrace the principles of a circular economy, it is crucial 
to gain a deeper understanding of the role and potential 
of bioplastics and establish clear standards and regulatory 
guidelines to ensure their beneficial adoption.

It is important to note that bioplastics are still plastics and, 
as with conventional plastics, a circular economy approach 
to their use is required. Australia, like many other nations, 
is in the early stages of transitioning to a circular economy. 
While bioplastics offer considerable potential, the current 
lack of consistent definitions, standards, and labelling 
practices related to their use is leading to confusion among 
consumers, policymakers, and businesses. The absence 
of clear guidelines, based on Life-Cycle Analysis (LCA) to 
assess the environmental impacts of all options, impedes 
their effective implementation and adoption. To accelerate 
the transition to a circular economy and end plastic waste, 
it is important for Australia to gain a comprehensive 
understanding of the current state of bioplastics and 
provide clarity and guidance to all stakeholders involved.

Aims of this report

This report aims to achieve the following: 

• Provide an overview of the Australian bioplastics system.
• Identify how key bioplastics flow from feedstocks 
through to end-of-life.
• Identify opportunities to enhance circular outcomes.
• Identify barriers to adoption of circular opportunities 
and enablers to overcoming these barriers in Australia. 
• Provide a vision for the future of bioplastics and 
recommendations. 


Approach

To address these aims, a range of methods were 
implemented. A comprehensive literature review was 
conducted to establish the definition of bioplastics within 
the Australian context. The review also aimed to identify 
ongoing initiatives and activities that are shaping the future 
of bioplastics, specifically focusing on developments within 
Australia. Furthermore, a series of 10 interviews and two 
workshops were conducted during 2023; these involved 
approximately 60 participants, representing a diverse 
cohort of key stakeholders within Australia’s bioplastics 
system. They included bioplastics manufacturers, finished 
goods providers, retailers, industry peak bodies, NGOs, 
researchers, and policy makers, as well as representatives 
from waste and resource recovery sectors.

Engagement and 
acknowledgements

A significant aspect of our methodology and project effort 
involves engaging stakeholders. These interactions are 
invaluable in driving change, with this document serving 
merely as a record of the process. We acknowledge 
the contribution of the following stakeholders in our 
discussions and workshops, whose insight and opinions 
helped shape this report.



NAME

WEBSITE

SECTOR

TotalEnergies Corbion

https://www.totalenergies-corbion.com

Bioplastics manufacturing

Uluu

https://www.uluu.com.au

Bioplastics manufacturing

BioPak

https://www.biopak.com/au

Compostable packaging products

TIPA Corporation

https://tipa-corp.com

Bioplastics manufacturing

Pact Group

https://pactgroup.com

Packaging manufacturing

Cardia Bioplastics

https://www.cardiabioplastics.com

Bioplastics manufacturing

Coles

https://www.coles.com.au

Retail

ARC Training Centre

https://www.arc.gov.au

Government

Australasian Bioplastics Association (ABA)

https://bioplastics.org.au

Peak industry body for bioplastics

Australian Council of Recycling (ACOR)

https://acor.org.au

Peak industry body for recycling

Australian Institute of Packaging (AIP)

http://aipack.com.au

Peak industry body for packaging 
education and training

Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO)

https://apco.org.au

NGO

National Retail Association (NRA)

https://www.nationalretail.org.au

NGO

Australian Food and Grocery Council (AFGC)

https://www.afgc.org.au

Peak industry body for food and 
grocery products

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 
(ACCC)

https://www.productsafety.gov.au

Government

Waste Management and Resource Recovery 
Association Australia (WMRR)

https://www.wmrr.asn.au

Peak industry body for waste and 
resource recovery

World Wildlife Fund (WWF)

https://wwf.org.au

NGO

Planet Ark

https://planetark.org

NGO

Visy

https://www.visy.com

Recycling 

Goterra

https://goterra.au

Waste management infrastructure

NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA)

https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au

Government

Green Industries SA

https://www.greenindustries.sa.gov.au

Government

Local Government NSW (LGNSW)

https://www.lgnsw.org.au

Government

Department of Energy, Environment and Climate 
Action (DEECA)

https://www.deeca.vic.gov.au

Government

Department of Climate Change, Energy, the 
Environment and Water (DCCEEW)

https://www.dcceew.gov.au

Government





The CSIRO engaged KPMG to undertake the current state analysis, facilitate stakeholder consultations, and create the 
material flow analysis that informed this report.



Image credit: Pixabay

Part 1: What are bioplastics?

Defining bioplastics

The term ‘bioplastics’ is used broadly to describe a variety 
of different materials; a universal and agreed-upon 
definition does not yet exist. The interchanging 
terminology is one of the issues facing the industry, as 
terminology differences are confusing and misleading 
for consumers, regulators, and producers alike. Two of 
the most used definitions for bioplastics come from the 
International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) 
and Bioplastics Europe. 

IUPAC defines bioplastic as a ‘biobased polymer derived 
from the biomass or issued from monomers derived from 
the biomass and which, at some stage in its processing 
into finished products, can be shaped by flow.’ Within this 
definition, IUPAC notes that ‘bioplastic’ is generally used to 
describe polymers that are not derived from fossil resources 
but discourages use of the term, preferring the expression 
‘biobased polymer’. This, however, is not the common 
definition used by bioplastics industry bodies. 

The definition from Bioplastics Europe is commonly 
referred to by industry and defines bioplastics as plastic 
materials which are either biobased, biodegradable, 
or both.11 This definition encompasses plastics that have 
biobased and/or biodegradable characteristics, whereas the 
IUPAC definition encompasses only biobased plastics. 

In the European Union’s policy framework on biobased, 
biodegradable, and compostable plastics, the European 
Commission recommends: ‘To fight greenwashing and 
avoid misleading consumers, generic claims on plastic 
products such as “bioplastics” and “biobased” should 
not be made… In order to avoid misleading consumers, 
claims should only refer to the exact and measurable 
share of biobased plastic content in the product, stating, 
for instance, that the “product contains 50% biobased 
plastic content”.’ Instead of using the term ‘bioplastics’, 
the Commission recommends more specificity and defining 
bioplastics based on their characteristics of being biobased, 
biodegradable or compostable. Addressing the confusion of 
undefined ‘bio’ claims is an issue the industry will have to 
tackle as it develops. 

For the purpose of this report, the term ‘bioplastic’ has 
been used in favour of ‘biobased polymer’, as the report 
discusses both biobased and biodegradable polymers, 
both of which are encompassed by the term ‘bioplastic’ 
under industry definitions. Moving forward, a consistent, 
standardised definition should be adopted in Australia for 
clarity for consumers, producers, and regulators, and to 
avoid greenwashing.



Characteristics of bioplastics

A biobased bioplastic derives some or all its carbon from 
a renewable plant or animal source, while biodegradable 
plastics degrade into carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), 
and water (H2O) through biological action in specific 
environments and timescales, such as composting. 
Biodegradability and biobased content are two separate 
characteristics of bioplastics and can exist either together 
or independently (demonstrated in Figure 1). 

Figure 1 – Defining bioplastics. Adapted from the Australasian Bioplastics Association (ABA).

Biobased

Biobased polymers are materials which are produced at 
least partially from renewable biomass feedstocks, which 
can include plants, trees, and materials derived from 
organic waste. The most common biomass feedstocks are 
carbohydrate-rich food plants such as corn and sugarcane.5 
Biobased bioplastics can be produced entirely from biomass 
feedstocks or may contain only some components derived 
from biomass, such as the polymer, filler, or additive. 
Bioplastics made from biobased polymers can have 
the same properties and characteristics as fossil-based 
polymers and do not necessarily biodegrade. Biobased 
bioplastics can reduce the dependency on fossil resources, 
resulting in lower emissions of greenhouse gas. Bioplastics 
can be fully or partially made from biobased feedstocks.

Biodegradable

Biodegradable materials are materials that can be 
completely assimilated into natural substances, including 
water, carbon dioxide, and others, by naturally occurring 
organisms. Biodegradable plastics cannot release toxic 
chemicals to the environment when they degrade. 
The property of being biodegradable does not depend 
on the feedstock of a material but is linked to its chemical 
structure, and therefore biodegradable plastics may 
be produced from fossil-based or biobased feedstocks. 
The term ‘biodegradable’ is used broadly in waste 
management to describe materials that will degrade either 
in composting conditions or the environment. The main 
difference is compostable materials will degrade within 
a set time in managed composting conditions that are 
optimised to accelerate the action of the microorganisms 
and the enzymes responsible for the biodegradation and 
production of biomass.

Compostable products require microorganisms, 
humidity, and heat to yield a finished compost product 
(carbon dioxide, water, inorganic compounds, and 
biomass). Claims of compostability should only be 
made where a product has been certified compostable 
by accredited third parties to a recognised standard, 
such as Australian standards AS 4736‑2006 (industrial 
compostable) and AS 5810-2010 (home compostable). 
These standards are discussed in section 1.5. 

A material or product 
that is either in full or 
in part derived from 
biomass (e.g., plants 
such as corn, seaweed, 
sugarcane or cellulose).

Biodegradable plastics can be 
derived from both biobased 
and fossil-based feedstocks. 
Biodegradable means a material 
can be converted into natural 
substances including water, 
carbon dioxide and others by 
naturally occurring organisms.

BIODEGRADABLE

BIOBASED

BIOPLASTICS



Plastics that biodegrade in the environment must do so 
in unmanaged conditions that are less optimal for the 
microorganisms to assimilate them. A biodegradable 
statement must always be associated with the environment 
in which it may occur. There are generally three 
classifications for environmentally biodegradable plastics: 
soil-, marine- and water-biodegradable. In Australia, only 
the soil-biodegradable standard is accredited to ISO 23517, 
but other certifications (e.g., TÜV OK biodegradable SOIL, 
TÜV OK biodegradable WATER, and TÜV OK biodegradable 
MARINE) exist. Further details are available in section 
1.5.3. Compostable plastics do not necessarily degrade 
in the environment or do so slowly, but environment 
biodegradable plastics are often also compostable. 

It’s important to note that a certified compostable 
bioplastic resin may lose its ability to biodegrade when 
compounded with other materials to create a final 
product. The thickness of the manufactured product or 
the additives may affect the biodegradation rate, so if 
not certified compostable as a finished product, it should 
not be promoted as such. Further details on labelling and 
certification can be found in section 1.5.3.

1.1 The types of bioplastics

As presented in the previous section, bioplastics are 
either biodegradable or biobased, or both. However, 
these categories are not exclusive, and there can be 
crossover between the different categories as highlighted 
in Figure 2. There are three basic polymer groups within 
the bioplastic realm: fossil-based biodegradable polymers, 
biobased biodegradable polymers, and biobased 
non-biodegradable polymers.

Biobased non-biodegradable 

Bioplastics can be non-biodegradable but still derived 
from biobased feedstocks. 

Biobased non-biodegradable bioplastics can be used 
to manufacture products that are suitable for plastic 
recycling processes, as they are chemically identical to 
conventional fossil-based plastics. 

These products are increasingly emerging on the market 
as a renewable solution to virgin fossil-fuel inputs. 

Biobased biodegradable 

Biobased biodegradable refers 
to bioplastics that are derived 
from biobased feedstock and 
that completely biodegrade 
into natural substances either 
in composting conditions or 
in the environment.

Certified compostable

Compostable is used to describe a product that can biodegrade 
into non-toxic, natural elements within a set timeframe 
and specified composting conditions. Both fossil-based and 
biobased bioplastics may be certified compostable. Claims 
of compostability should only be made where a product has 
been certified compostable to a recognised standard such as 
Australian standards AS 4736-2006 or AS 5810-2010. 

Fossil-based biodegradable 

Fossil-based biodegradable plastics are a comparatively small 
group. Materials such as PBAT and PCL belong in this category. 
These biodegradable plastics are currently predominately 
produced using fossil-based feedstock. However, biobased 
versions of these materials are also being developed.

The use of the term bioplastic for fossil-based biodegradable 
bioplastics is controversial, owing to the potential confusion 
with biobased materials from biomass feedstocks.

Conventional 
plastics

e.g., PE, PET, 
HDPE, PS, PVC

Figure 2 – The types of bioplastics. Adapted from Bioplastics Europe.9

BIOBASED FEEDSTOCK

NON-BIODEGRADABLE

BIODEGRADABLE

FOSSIL-BASED FEEDBACK

Bioplastics

e.g. bio-PA, 
bio-PET, bio-HDPE

Bioplastics

e.g. PBAT, 
PBS,PHA, PLA

Bioplastics

e.g. PBAT, PCL



1.2 Overview of the bioplastics value chain 

Figure 3 outlines the key stages in the bioplastics value chain, including feedstocks, material manufacturing, production 
and use of final products, and end-of-life management. This chapter explores each of these stages in greater detail.

Biobased Feedstock

Fossil-based

Material 
manufacturing 

Recycling

Production and utlisation 
of final products

End-of-life

Landfill

Environmental 
applications

Composting

Figure 3 – The bioplastics value chain. Adapted from European Bioplastics.10

1.2.1 Feedstocks

Bioplastics can be manufactured from a wide variety of 
feedstocks, which may be biobased or fossil-based, as 
displayed in Table 1. 

Table 1 – Bioplastic feedstocks.10

EXAMPLES OF BIOPLASTIC FEEDSTOCKS

Sugarcane

Feathers

Corn

Algae

Soybeans

Wood

Canola

Natural gas (methane)

Castor beans

Oil (petroleum)

Used cooking oil

Organic waste





Feedstocks used for biobased polymers are categorised 
as follows:

• First generation – Substances retrieved from plants that 
are otherwise used in the food sector, including rice, 
sorghum, soy, beet, corn, palm, barley, sugarcane, wheat, 
and potatoes.
• Second generation – Lignocellulosic feedstocks gained 
from non-food crops or as by-products from the 
cultivation of food crops such as non-edible biowaste 
products like potato peels, sugar bagasse, and cooking 
oil wastes. 
• Third generation – The most innovative forms of 
feedstock extractions from a range of substrates like 
whey, industrial and municipal waste, seaweed, or algae.


Traditionally, fossil-based feedstocks have been used 
to produce conventional plastics such as polyethylene 
(PE), polypropylene (PP), polyvinylchloride (PVC) and 
polyethylene terephthalate (PET), as well as several fossil-
based biodegradable polymers such as polybutylene 
adipate-co-terephthalate (PBAT) and polyvinyl 
alcohol (PVA).12 



Feedstock considerations
Potential competition between the production of biobased 
bioplastics and agricultural production was explored in 
our research.13 European Bioplastics reports that, in the 
foreseeable future, bioplastics production is projected to 
use less than 0.06% of global agricultural land, indicating 
no significant competition with food production.14 
However, a Greenpeace report noted the importance of 
considering the geographic distribution and concentration 
of land used for bioplastics production.15 Additionally, 
bioplastics production requires considerable use of fresh 
water for crop cultivation, e.g., corn farming for PLA 
production.16 Research and innovation into improving 
the commercial viability of second- and third-generation 
feedstocks is ongoing, specifically to establish processes to 
convert agricultural wastes such as forestry by-products, 
wheat straw, and sugarcane bagasse. These agricultural 
wastes are typically inexpensive but require additional 
pre-treatment steps to liberate fermentable cellulose and 
hemicellulose sugars from protective, phenolic, crosslinked 
lignin polymer networks.17 

1.2.2 Polymer manufacturing

Similar to traditional oil refineries, biorefineries convert 
biobased feedstocks into chemicals and fuels to be used 
for bioplastic production.108 Manufacturing processes of 
bioplastics polymers can vary depending on the specific 
type being produced. Primary methods of producing 
biobased bioplastics include: 

1. Polymerisation of biobased monomers, which involves 
joining monomers produced from natural resources to 
form polymer chains.
2. Modification of naturally occurring polymers, which 
involves using natural polymers such as cellulose, 
which forms cellulosics.
3. Extraction of polymers from microorganisms,18 
which can involve using bacteria to synthesise and 
accumulate biopolymers.


Table 2 lists several primary biobased polymers grouped 
by their production process and followed by a brief 
description of their synthesis.

Table 2 – Biobased polymers grouped by production route with a brief description of their synthesis.13

POLYMER

TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW

ROUTE

Polylactic acid (PLA)

PLA is synthesised through a polymerisation process involving lactic acid monomers. The lactic 
acid is then polymerised into PLA chains through a process called condensation polymerisation. 

1

Polybutylene succinate 
(PBS)

PBS is synthesised through a polymerisation process involving succinic acid and 1,4-butanediol 
as the main monomers, which combine under specific conditions to form PBS polymer chains.

Polyurethanes (PU)

Polyols obtained from plant oils are reacted with isocyanates or bio-isocyanates to produce 
polyurethane (PU).

Polyamides (PA)

Diacids derived from castor oil are reacted with a diamine to produce PAs. A typical pair is 
sebacic acid and decamethylene diamine (obtained from the acid).

Polyethylene (PE)

Polyethylene is synthesised through the polymerisation of ethylene monomers. In the case 
of bio-polyethylene (BioPE), ethylene is produced from the plant-derived feedstocks through 
processes like fermentation or gasification. 

Thermoplastic starch 
blends

Typically obtained by gelatinisation of starch (from corn, cassava, etc.) followed by casting or by 
extrusion of starch pellets and plasticisers.

2

Cellulose acetate

Cellulose from wood pulp is converted to a triacetate form which is then hydrolysed to cellulose 
acetate.

Regenerated cellulose

Cellulose is converted to a soluble form then regenerated to obtain a film (cellophane) or a 
fibre (rayon).

Polyhydroxyalkanoates 
(PHA)

PHAs are synthesised by bacteria through a fermentation process that involves the 
accumulation of these polymers as energy and carbon storage materials. Polyhydroxybutyrate 
(PHB) was the first to be discovered.

3







1.2.3 Production and use of final products

Although bioplastics are commonly associated with 
packaging, they are used in various applications and 
sectors, from agriculture to automotive. Figures from 
European Bioplastics showed that the global bioplastic 
market in 2022 included several categories, with the 
three largest being flexible packaging at 695,600 tonnes, 
rigid packaging at 376,100 tonnes, and fibres at 
328,900 tonnes. Other major markets included consumer 
goods at 312,400 tonnes, automotive and transport 
at 159,000 tonnes, and agriculture and horticulture at 
97,400 tonnes. This report will explore these applications 
and markets in subsequent chapters. 

1.2.4 End-of-life 

Bioplastics’ end-of-life phase starts at the point of disposal 
by a customer (either a consumer or business) and involves 
various end routes, including reuse of the product 
without any structural changes (i.e., lifetime extension); 
remanufacturing where a discarded, non-functional, 
or traded-in product is restored to like-new condition; 
recycling, which involves the collection and treatment 
of waste products for use as raw material in the 
manufacture of the same or similar ones; incineration, 
where combustible wastes are burned and changed into 
gases (with or without energy recovery); dumping waste 
underground or landfill; and emission or leakage into 
the environment.

In a circular economy, plastics would be derived exclusively 
from recycled sources or, where unfeasible, renewable 
sources. The current reality deviates significantly from 
this ideal, with most plastics following a linear lifecycle. 
Globally, although many bioplastic types are designed 
for recycling or composting, limitations in current 
infrastructure for both collection and treatment, along 
with gaps in consumer understanding and environmental 
regulation, hinder their processing, which often results in 
their disposal in landfill. In the 2022 National Waste Report 
for Australia, bioplastics were included within the broader 
plastics category.5 Australians discard 2.9 Mt of plastic 
waste annually with only 13% being recovered for recycling 
and the remaining 87% sent to landfill;19 composting as an 
end-of-life treatment is not mentioned in these figures. 
Australia’s waste system will be reviewed in greater detail in 
part 2 of this report.

It is important to note the difference between intended 
end-of-life versus actual end-of-life management. 
The intended end-of-life management of bioplastics 
depends on their specific properties. Biodegradable 
biopolymers may be processed through methods such as 
composting, biological degradation, anaerobic digestion, 
or soil burial; some can also be mechanically recycled. 
Conversely, non-biodegradable biopolymers can be 
recycled mechanically like conventional plastics. Chemical 
recycling presents an alternative to mechanical recycling. 



Table 3 outlines current end-of-life management options for bioplastics. 

Table 3 – Intended end-of-life for bioplastics.22

INTENDED END-OF-LIFE 
MANAGEMENT

DESCRIPTION

Biodegradation and 
composting

Microorganisms break down biodegradable biopolymers into natural substances such as water, carbon 
dioxide, and methane. Composting achieves this within a specific timeframe and under pre-decided 
environmental conditions to create nutrient-rich soil amendments for agricultural use. The conditions 
for compostable and biodegradable do not require the creation of nutrients as part of the process, but 
they need to demonstrate a lack of toxicity in the creation of biomass. The material when composted 
will actually contribute positively to the growth of feedstock. 

Anaerobic digestion

Anaerobic digestion is a process in which microorganisms break down organic matter in the absence of 
oxygen. This process produces biogas, which may be captured and used as a renewable energy source. 
Anaerobic digestion is often used to process biowaste from households and commercial sources. 
Organic waste is ideally connected with a subsequent composting step.

Mechanical recycling

Plastics are sorted by polymer type and mechanically shredded, washed, and melted to be remoulded 
into new forms. Drop-in biobased bioplastics such as BioPE can be recycled alongside their 
conventional counterparts, as they are chemically identical.

Chemical recycling

Chemical recycling presents an alternative to mechanical recycling and has the potential to create 
high-quality polymers from waste. Materials are depolymerised into their monomeric subunits, 
which can then undergo controlled polymerisation mechanisms to create high-quality polymers.

Landfill

A landfill is a designated area where waste materials are deposited and buried in the ground. 
In Australia, 45% of all generated waste is directed to landfill.20 It is a common method of waste 
disposal for solid waste and also the primary method for plastic waste disposal.

Other

Biological and enzymatic degradation, incineration, degradation for specific environmental 
applications; e.g., soil or marine. 







1.2.5 Advantages and disadvantages of bioplastics

Bioplastics present a promising solution to many environmental challenges, including reducing fossil fuel dependency, 
mitigating plastic pollution, and optimising material circulation. However, bioplastics also present certain challenges, 
such as high production costs and the need for dedicated infrastructure. Table 4 outlines key advantages and disadvantages 
to bioplastics adoption. 

Table 4 – Advantages and disadvantages of bioplastics adoption.21

BIOBASED

BIODEGRADABLE

Advantages

Reduces fossil fuel dependency by utilising renewable resources.

Can replace existing plastics with biobased counterparts, such as drop-in 
plastics with the same functional properties.

Can offer climate-related benefits by reducing global warming potential.

Can be used to transport food waste to soil (e.g., caddy liners) and 
used in products that commonly contaminate food waste streams 
(e.g., teabags).

Contributes to anaerobic digestion, producing significant energy and 
optimising the carbon-to-nitrogen ratio.

Can potentially mitigate plastic pollution by replacing non-degradable 
plastics in environmental leakage-prone products (e.g., agriculture).

Innovative film/barrier applications may improve the end-of-life 
outcomes for some packaging formats.

Wide range of polymer types with a variety of properties that may be 
applied in applications across industries to improve environmental 
outcomes (e.g., biomedicine, agriculture, horticulture etc.). 

Disadvantages

High production costs and possible lower performance compared to 
conventional plastics. 

Early stages of commercialisation with limited technologies and low 
conversion ratios for some polymer types.

Insufficient market volume to justify major investments or redesign of 
production and waste management infrastructure.

Primary feedstocks may compete with the biofuel and food industry.

May contaminate existing mechanical recycling streams with 
biodegradable plastics.

Potential GHG emissions from landfilling biodegradable plastics.

Lack of dedicated composting and recycling infrastructure and logistics.

Uncertainty regarding biodegradability in different open environments.

Lack of consumer understanding for materials at end-of-life.

Environmental impacts e.g., biodiversity loss (ecosystems and soil), 
emissions and waste associated with manufacturing and leakage to the 
environment.

Barrier properties may be limited and not meet the functional 
requirements for some packaging formats.







1.3 Bioplastic polymers

Bioplastics are not just one single material. They comprise a whole family of materials with different properties, applications, 
and end-of-life management processes. This study investigates the following six common bioplastic types in greater 
detail: PLA, Starch blends, PHA, PA, PE, and PBAT. These have been selected based on market share and their potential for 
improved environmental outcomes. Table 5 outlines key properties, including feedstocks, applications, end-of-life treatment, 
environmental considerations and markets. Refer to Appendix 1 for greater detail on each biopolymer.

Table 5 – Key properties of various bioplastic polymers.

POLYMER 
TYPE

FEEDSTOCK AND 
CONVERSION

APPLICATION

END-OF-LIFE MANAGEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL 
CONSIDERATIONS

GLOBAL 
MARKET 
SHARE 

PLA

The most common 
feedstocks used 
for PLA include 
corn, sugarcane, 
corn stover (stems, 
husks, and leaves), 
cassava root.

Packaging

Food service ware

Coatings

3D printing

Textiles

Medical implants

Agriculture

Mechanical recycling - PLA can 
be recovered for mechanical 
recycling; however, due to its 
prevalence in low volumes, it is 
not separated in post-consumer 
waste streams.

Industrial composting - 
Depending on the application, 
PLA can be composted under 
commercial composting 
conditions. To ensure PLA 
products are suitable for compost, 
it is essential to use a certified 
compostable PLA resin and have 
the final products undergo their 
own compostability testing.

Home composting - Depending 
on the application, PLA can 
be composted at home. 
However, achieving certification 
for home composting 
biodegradation is challenging 
due to the inefficiencies of home 
composting systems compared 
with commercial operations.

Landfill - Landfill is a common 
waste treatment for PLA but is 
not ideal waste for this type of 
material and should be avoided.

Environmental impacts will 
differ depending on the 
feedstock used to produce 
the PLA. Sugarcane is the 
most efficient feedstock 
for producing PLA, and 
as such has the lowest 
emissions and non-
renewable energy demand 
due to its high productivity 
yields. Alternatively, land 
requirements for use of 
corn stover are lower than 
those of sugarcane or corn. 
On average, PLA saves 
approximately 66% of the 
energy required to produce 
conventional plastics. 
Through natural conversion, 
PLA emits 2.8 kg CO2 kg-1 
throughout its lifecycle.

20.7%

Starch 
blends

The most common 
feedstocks used are 
potato, corn and 
wheat starch, side 
stream starch from 
potato processing 
(and/or grain, root, 
or seed flour-based 
resources), and 
starch reclaimed 
from wastewater.

Starch-based 
bioplastics are 
complex blends 
of starch with 
compostable 
plastics such as 
PLA, PBAT, PBS, PCL 
and PHAs.

Packaging

Packing peanuts

Food service ware

Coatings and films

Pharmaceuticals

Composting 

Landfill

Environmental degradation (e.g., 
soil)

Starch plastics have been 
shown to enable reductions 
in greenhouse gas (GHG) 
emissions and non-renewable 
energy use. However, they 
have higher eutrophication 
potential (overabundance of 
nutrients in water, primarily 
nitrogen and phosphorus) 
and require more agricultural 
land use compared to 
common fossil-based plastics. 
The potential GHG emissions 
savings are influenced by the 
composition of the plastic. 
Some grades can offer an 
85% reduction, while others 
can offer an 80% increase 
compared to their fossil-
based counterpart.

17.9%







POLYMER 
TYPE

FEEDSTOCK AND 
CONVERSION

APPLICATION

END-OF-LIFE MANAGEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL 
CONSIDERATIONS

GLOBAL 
MARKET 
SHARE 

PHA

The most common 
feedstocks used 
for PHA include 
corn, sugar, and 
vegetable oils. 
Today, many 
PHA-producing 
start-ups are 
working with 
innovative 
technologies that 
use wastewater 
streams, plastic 
waste, renewable 
methane, and 
carbon dioxide 
as feedstock.

Depending on type 
and grade, PHA 
can be used for 
injection moulding, 
extrusion, 
thermoforming, 
foam, non-wovens, 
fibres, 3D-printing, 
paper and 
fertiliser coating, 
glues, adhesives, 
as additive for 
reinforcement or 
plasticisation, or 
as building block 
for thermosets in 
paints and foams. 
The main markets 
where PHAs have 
already achieved 
some degree 
of penetration 
are packaging, 
food service, 
agriculture, and 
medical products.

Most PHA types degrade faster 
than PLA, which makes them 
attractive for applications in 
which biodegradation is desired. 
Among the advantages of PHA is 
the relatively high degradation 
rate in marine environments. 
After one year in a marine 
environment at 30° C, PLA 
biodegrades by approx. 8%, while 
PHBV (a type of PHA) degrades by 
approx. 80%. Additionally, PHA 
can be (in theory) mechanically 
recycled, though no material 
recycling facilities in Australia are 
currently set up to recycle PHA. 
Different PHA types are better 
suited to the mechanical recycling 
process, with PHB properties 
significantly reduced after two 
processing cycles, while PHBV 
maintains its tensile strength 
after seven processing cycles. 
PHA can also be biologically 
recycled under both aerobic and 
anaerobic conditions. As such, 
they can be suitably treated 
both by compositing and by 
anaerobic digestion. However, 
further research is needed on the 
degradation of PHA under aerobic 
conditions through composting.

Carbon dioxide and methane 
can be used as 

feedstocks to produce PHA, 
helping 

reduce greenhouse gases in 
the 

atmosphere.

As PHAs are 100% 
biodegradable, 

PHA materials won’t turn into 

microplastics which lower the 
uptake 

and storage of carbon 
dioxide in our oceans.

3.9%

BioPA

The most common 
feedstocks used for 
BioPA are vegetable 
oils, castor plants 
and oil, sugarcane, 
sugar beet, and 
starch.

PA bioplastics 
exhibit high 
heat resistance, 
stiffness, and 
mechanical 
stability, making 
them suitable 
for a range of 
applications across 
various industries. 
BioPA is often used 
for technical parts 
(in the transport 
and automotive 
industry), textiles, 
and regular 
consumption 
goods. BioPA 
is also used in 
the sport and 
leisure industries, 
primarily 
in injection 
moulding. As such, 
it is also used in 3D 
printing.

There is limited information 
available regarding end-of-life 
management options for BioPA. 
Supplier Technoform claims 
that their BioPA has unlimited 
recyclability. Fossil-based PAs 
such as nylon can be mechanically 
and chemically recycled; however, 
their collection is limited.

The environmental impacts 
of BioPA are unclear, though 
specific manufacturers have 
made claims regarding their 
products. Technoform claims 
that their BioPA production 
reduces carbon dioxide 
consumption during profile 
production by 62% and fossil-
fuel energy consumption 
by 23%. It is important to 
note that this claim did not 
make explicit the basis for 
these comparisons; however, 
we have assumed that the 
comparison is made with 
conventional PA. Another 
manufacturer, Roboze, claims 
their BioPA is produced with 
60% lower carbon emissions 
than conventional PA.

 

11.1%







POLYMER 
TYPE

FEEDSTOCK AND 
CONVERSION

APPLICATION

END-OF-LIFE MANAGEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL 
CONSIDERATIONS

GLOBAL 
MARKET 
SHARE 

BioPE

Typical feedstocks 
used for BioPE 
include sugarcane, 
sugar beet, 
lignocellulosic 
crops and waste, 
and starch crops 
such as maize and 
wheat.

BioPE can be 
used in the same 
applications as 
its conventional 
counterpart. 
Some common 
applications 
for PE include 
food packaging, 
agricultural use, 
and industrial 
use. PE also has 
applications across 
toy manufacturing, 
cosmetics, and 
personal care.

As a biobased equivalent of 
conventional PE, BioPE can be 
recycled in the same way as PE. 
As such, BioPE can be integrated 
into already formed waste streams 
and does not require separate 
waste infrastructure. A study 
conducted indicated that recycling 
of BioPE in conventional recycling 
(alongside fossil-based PE) did not 
lower the quality of the recylates.

Land use, human health 
and biodiversity must be 
considered due to the use of 
first-generation feedstocks. 
BioPE results in significant 
GHG emissions reduction 
when compared with its 
conventional counterpart. 
The typical emissions profile 
of BioPE is around 0.75 kg 
CO2-eq per kg polyethylene, 
which is 140% lower than the 
production of fossil-based 
PE. Additional, BioPE reduces 
non-renewable energy usage 
by approximately 65%.

14.8%

PBAT

Feedstocks for PBAT 
may be biobased 
or fossil-based or 
a combination of 
both. The main 
feedstocks for PBAT 
are petrochemicals 
and castor plant. 

PBAT has similar 
properties to 
LDPE, and as such 
can be used as 
an alternative 
for this product. 
PBAT is designed 
for film extrusion 
and extrusion 
coating, and as 
such has common 
applications across 
several industries 
for different film 
requirements. One 
such application is 
use in agricultural 
mulch films, 
where PBAT can 
degrade in soil 
over a period of >9 
months.

In commercial composting, PBAT 
biodegrades within 2-3 months. 
PBAT is also commonly used in 
agricultural films where it can 
degrade in soil over a period of 
>9months.

Although PBAT can 
biodegrade and be 
compostable, it still has an 
impact on the environment 
if not disposed of properly. 
The composting process also 
requires specific conditions 
to break down the material 
effectively and will depend 
on how the polymer is used 
in the finished product.

4.5%










1.4 Global market snapshot

The annual worldwide production of biobased bioplastics 
using 100% renewable feedstocks is currently around 2 Mt, 
with biodegradable plastic accounting for two-thirds of that 
amount.22 When also including partially biobased polymers, 
global production was 4.4 Mt in 2023 and it is expected 
to reach over 10 Mt in 2028.23 In contrast, the annual 
production of fossil-based plastic is over 380 Mt per year.24 

Owing to similar expected fossil-based plastic growth, 
the global market share of bioplastics is expected to remain 
low at 2%, with a compound annual growth rate of 4%. 
In Europe, the annual growth rate of biobased bioplastics 
is expected to be 10%, driven by upcoming regulations and 
increased demand for sustainable products. If bioplastics 
were subsidised and politically supported in a similar way to 
biofuels, the global growth rate could reach 10-20% annually. 

Examples of bioplastics already on the market produced by 
companies in Europe, the USA, and Asia include Ecoflex® and 
Ecovio® manufactured by BASF (Germany), the Luminy® PLA 
portfolio by TotalEnergies Corbion (Netherlands), Ingeo™ by 
NatureWorks LLC (USA), CJ PHACT by CJ CheilJedang (Korea), 
Mater-Bi by Novamont (Italy), and PHA-based bio-polymers 
by Tianjin Guoyun (China).25 Figure 4 shows the global 
production capacities by continent in 2022; Asia holds 41.4% 
of the market followed by Europe at 26.5%.

Total
2.22 million 
tonnes

Asia
41.4%

Europe
26.5%

North 
America
18.9%

South 
America
12.6%

Australia
/Oceania
0.5%

Figure 4 – Global production capacities by region.10 

The largest market for bioplastics is flexible and rigid 
packaging, fibres, and consumer goods (see Figure 5). 
Growth in these markets is expected to continue due to 
potential investors seeking better environmental, social, 
and governance outcomes. Investment in and scaling of 
bioplastic technologies remain high-risk businesses due to 
uncertain demand, high prices, and undefined end-of-life 
management. 

Figure 5 – Global production of bioplastics in 2022 by 
material type.10



1.5 Local and global regulatory 
landscape and standards

1.5.1 Local regulatory landscape and 
standards 

Australia is increasingly committing to a circular 
economy. In 2022, the Federal Government committed 
to an ambitious target of transitioning towards a circular 
economy by 2030. On 9 June 2023 at the Environment 
Ministers Meeting, ministers met with a renewed purpose 
to work together to achieve a ‘nature positive Australia’ to 
leave the environment better off for future generations.26

Within their commitments, ministers agreed the need to 
‘shift Australia toward a safer, circular economy by putting 
in place a new packaging regulatory scheme that will, 
for the first time, develop mandatory packaging design 
obligations, so packaging is designed to minimise waste 
and be recovered, reused, recycled, and reprocessed’.27 
For the first time, Australia will mandate obligations for 
packaging design as part of a new packaging regulatory 
scheme based on international best practice and make 
industry responsible for the packaging they place on the 
market. This scheme will also regulate to remove harmful 
chemicals and other contaminants in packaging. To support 
food waste recycling, ministers agreed that a timeline will 
be set to remove contaminants from compostable food 
packaging. They also agreed on developing a national 
roadmap for staged improvements to the harmonisation 
of kerbside collections, considering circumstances of 
metropolitan, regional, and remote communities for 
ministers to consider in 2024.

These commitments send clear signals to industry that 
outcomes for a regenerative circular economy are a priority. 

Single-use plastic bans relevant to bioplastics 
In addition to the regulations above, as part of the National 
Plastics Plan 2021, a range of single-use plastic bans have 
been implemented in Australia.28 Each state is tackling this 
situation differently; some states’ bans are inclusive of PLA 
and some exclusive, increasing confusion for consumers 
using these products. Figure 6 below shows some of the 
different laws relating to single-use plastic and highlights 
the complexity of regulation across the country. 

Figure 6 – Australian State-based regulations on single-use plastics to be implemented 2023-2026.

WA

Banned: disposable plastic cups or 
plastic glasses of any kind used for 
cold drinks, disposable paper cups 
which have any form of plastic or 
bioplastic, disposable cups made 
purely from compostable plastic (PLA), 
unlidded bowls/containers/straws 
(includes PLA coated paperboard 
products without lids)

Exempt: disposable plastic cups used 
for hot drinks, containers used for 
food, PLA cups with a lid, certified 
compostable paperboard bowls lined 
with PLA, PLA clear bowls with a lid, 
lidded containers including PLA, large 
serving ware (platters), compostable 
utility/barrier bags

SA

Banned: PLA straws

Exempt: PLA bowls and line paper 
cups, compostable bags AS4736

NT

Exempt: compostable AS4736 bags

QLD

Banned: un lidded PLA bowls and 
containers

Exempt: PLA straws and cutlery, lidded 
bowls certified compostable (home 
or industrial), PLA coated paperboard, 
compostable utility/barrier bags (bin 
liners, dog bags)

NSW

Banned: PLA straws, containers 
or bowls without spill-proof lids

Exempt: PLA containers or 
bowels designed to be used with 
spill-proof lid (must be sold with lid), 
PLA cups and PLA lined paper cups, 
compostable utility bags/barrier bags

ACT

Banned: PLA cutlery and stirrers

Exempt: PLA bioplastic is an 
acceptable replacement product for 
expanded polystyrene. Compostable 
AS4736 bags exempt

VIC

Banned: PLA straws

Exempt: PLA cups, containers, lined 
cups, lined paperboard containers, 
compostable utility/barrier bags

TAS

Exempt: PLA products and compostable 
bags (home or industrial certified)



1.5.2 Global regulatory landscape and 
standards

Governments and international bodies are increasingly 
prioritising circular economy principles. The United Nations 
(UN) recognised plastic pollution as a priority during its 
73rd Session in 2018–2019. In response, 187 UN-member 
nations amended the directives of the Basel Convention in 
2019 to include plastic waste, introducing new transparency 
and regulatory requirements.29

Collaborative efforts between the United Nations Industrial 
Development Organization, G20 nations, and the Plastic 
Waste Partnership are underway to implement circular 
economy measures. These initiatives encompass various 
stages of the plastic life cycle, including selective plastic 
bans, clear labelling standards, consumer engagement in 
waste management, and financial incentives for renewable 
resources and chemical recycling.30

Regarding bioplastics, the Basel Convention’s Open-ended 
Working Group recommends that nations define and 
standardise the identification of bio(degradable) plastics, 
improve the economic and ecological competitiveness of 
bioplastic production processes compared to fossil-based 
plastics, and develop universal techno-economic analysis 
methodologies to assess the environmental benefits of 
bioplastics.31

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation is advocating for the 
creation of a UN treaty that incorporates legally binding 
global rules and comprehensive circular economy 
measures.32 This treaty presents a unique opportunity to 
bring about significant changes in systems and effectively 
address the issue of plastic pollution. The Foundation 
emphasises the importance of legally binding rules in 
stimulating investment and innovation necessary for 
driving global change. The Foundation suggests prioritising 
plastic packaging initially, as it constitutes approximately 
40% of total plastic waste and is more likely to end up in 
the environment.

In the USA, the current (Democratic) administration is 
committed to environmentally and climate-focused policies, 
including clean energy technologies and addressing 
ocean plastics.33 The Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act, 
introduced in the House of Representatives in February 
2020, aims to limit single-use items and non-recyclables 
by establishing a tax on carry-out bags and holding plastic 
producers accountable for collecting and recycling their 
products. The bill also prohibits the export of plastic waste 
to non-OECD countries.34 

China, the world’s largest producer of single-use plastics, 
announced a ban on non-recyclables other than degradable 
bioplastics by 2025 in 2020.35 This has led Chinese 
manufacturers to increase production capacities for PLA, 
PBAT, and PBS, which may impact global market prices 
for these polymers. Other countries like Japan, Malaysia, 
Singapore, and South Korea have implemented financial 
subsidies for bioplastics.36

The European Union (EU) has introduced several plastics 
policies within the framework of the European Green Deal 
and Circular Economy Action Plan. One of the goals is to 
achieve a recycling target of 50% for plastic packaging 
by 2030. As of January 2021, certain single-use plastic 
items and oxo-degradable plastics have been banned for 
sale in the EU. The EU is also restricting low-grade plastic 
waste exports outside its borders and implementing a 
tax on non-recycled plastic to encourage the adoption of 
recyclable, reusable, or compostable materials. Extended 
Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes, currently limited 
to packaging materials, need to be expanded to other 
plastic-intensive industries, and their implementation and 
definitions require improvement. The EU is developing 
a regulatory framework for bioplastics to prevent false 
sustainability claims and plans to revise and harmonise 
existing standards for more realistic biodegradation testing.



1.5.3 Labelling and certification

Plastic products are often labelled to indicate their chemical 
composition and whether they are recyclable, biobased, 
and/or biodegradable, including the conditions under 
which they biodegrade. The Australian Competition and 
Consumer Commission (ACCC) recently published draft 
guidance to improve the integrity of environmental and 
sustainability claims made by businesses and protect 
consumers from greenwashing.37

Identification labels

The most common labels on plastic products are the plastic 
resin identification codes which identify the polymer but 
provide no information on the recyclability. The older 
version of these labels – the ‘chasing arrows’ – still appears 
on products, and many consumers still falsely believe 
that products with these labels are recyclable. Biobased 
bioplastics such as PLA are currently labelled as ‘7’ (‘Other’). 

Recycling-oriented labels

The Australian Recycling Label developed by the Australian 
Packaging Covenant Organisation aims to provide 
clear and concise information to help consumers make 
environmentally responsible choices when disposing of 
their packaging.

Globally, a range of recycling-oriented labels exist in 
attempt to guide consumers. The ‘Green Dot’ symbol 
used in the EU indicates that producers have paid an ERP 
fee to fund collection and recycling programs, but it does 
not guarantee that the product can be recycled. The UK’s 
on-pack recycling label (OPRL) recommends whether 
consumers should dispose of plastic packaging components 
in trash or recycling bins based on the likelihood of 
successful collection, sorting, and reprocessing. DIN 
CERTCO, a German certification body, has introduced 
labels to certify the recyclability of plastic products based 
on the polymer and existing recycling infrastructure. The 
‘How2Recycle’ logo in the United States is a standardised 
labelling system that communicates recycling instructions 
to the public. Additionally, certification labels for recycled 
content are being proposed. 

Biobased content labels

Labels have also been developed to certify the biobased 
content in plastic products. The ‘DIN-Geprüft biobased’ 
label, granted by DIN CERTCO, and the ‘OK biobased’ 
label, granted by TÜV Austria, are certifications commonly 
used to indicate the biobased content of products. The 
US Department of Agriculture’s BioPreferred® Program 
issues a label based on third-party analysis, while in Japan, 
the Japan BioPlastics Association issues biobased labels. 
These labels adhere to recognised standards such as EN 
16640 (Europe), ISO 16620 (international), and ASTM D6866 
(USA). The Australasian Bioplastics Association (ABA) offers 
certification of biobased content. 

Compostability and biodegradability labels

The ABA administers a voluntary verification scheme for 
companies or individuals wishing to verify their claims of 
compliance with Australian standards AS 4736-2006 and 
AS 5810-2010. Figure 7 presents the logos for these two 
certifications.

Australian standard AS 4736-2006 relates specifically to 
biodegradable plastics suitable for composting and other 
microbial treatment. This standard refers to industrial 
composting and specifies requirements and procedures to 
determine the compostability of plastics, noting that this 
refers exclusively to biodegradable plastic shopping bags.38 
The standard requirements under AS 4736-2006 include:39

• Minimum of 90% biodegradation of plastic materials 
within 180 days in compost.
• Minimum of 90% of plastic materials should disintegrate 
into less than 2 mm pieces in compost within 12 weeks.
• No toxic effect of the resulting compost on plants and 
earthworms.
• Hazardous substances such as heavy metals should not 
be present above the allowed levels.
• Plastic materials should contain more than 50% organic 
materials.


Australian standard AS 5810-2020 is the additional 
standard (with the same requirements as above) for home-
compostable biodegradable plastics. The requirements 
are the same as the 12 weeks mentioned above except the 
testing period is 12 months (due to differences in home and 
industrial composting).40



Figure 7 – Logos for AS 4736-2006, AS 5810-2010 and ISO 23517 administered by the Australasian Bioplastics Association (ABA).

The ABA has also launched a program for verifying 
compostable materials and products to the requirements 
of ISO 23517:2021. The ‘Soil Biodegradable’ logo (Figure 7) 
identifies and differentiates materials and products as 
biodegradable in soil. To be certified compostable and 
carry this logo, suitable biopolymer materials must undergo 
a stringent test regime described in ISO 23517, carried out 
by recognised independent accredited laboratories to the 
ISO 23517 standard.41

Globally, ‘OK compost’ and ‘BPI Compostable’ labels, along 
with the Seedling logo, are currently used to communicate 
industrial compostability. These are based on four tests 
specified in the standards EN 13432 and ASTM D6400:

• Biodegradation (90% of material is converted into 
carbon dioxide in inoculum derived from compost at 
58° C after 6 months). 
• Disintegration (90% of material is smaller than 2 mm 
after 3 months at 40–70° C, depending on the standard). 
• Ecotoxicity (90% of regular plant growth in soil with 
plastic present).
• Heavy metal content (must not exceed a certain 
threshold). 


TÜV Austria’s ‘OK biodegradable’ certifications 

TÜV Austria has also developed labels and certification 
procedures for different environments in which plastics 
may end up, including home composting, soil, water, 
and marine environments. Currently, only items certified 
under Australian composting standards are accepted 
for composting within Australia. The certifications are 
as follows:

• TÜV AUSTRIA OK biodegradable 
MARINE: Requires 90% 
biodegradation within a 
maximum of 6 months at a 
temperature of 30° C. 
• TÜV AUSTRIA OK biodegradable 
WATER: Requires 90% 
biodegradation within a 
maximum of 56 days in fresh 
water at a temperature of 21° C. 
• TÜV AUSTRIA OK biodegradable 
SOIL: Requires 90% 
biodegradation within a 
maximum of 2 years at a 
temperature of 25° C (certified 
by DIN Certco as ‘DIN-Geprüft 
biodegradable in soil’).




Part 2: Current state review

This chapter delves into the current state of bioplastics 
in Australia, providing an overview of their use and 
impact across the value chain. The current lifecycle of 
polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), polylactic acid (PLA), and 
bio-polyethylene (BioPE) has been examined through 
material flow analysis (MFA), which examines the pathway 
for these materials from feedstocks to end-of-life. Drawing 
from a combination of desktop research, 10 stakeholder 
interviews, and two system-wide workshops, this section 
presents a holistic view of the bioplastics landscape.

The stakeholder selection process ensured a diverse 
representation from various sectors involved in the 
bioplastics system, including government agencies, 
industry associations, bioplastics producers, manufacturers, 
retailers, waste management organisations, environmental 
NGOs, research institutions, and consumers.

2.1 Material flow analysis

2.1.1 What is material flow analysis?

MFA is a systematic assessment of the flows and stocks 
of materials within a system defined in space and time. 
It can be used to keep track of bioplastic consumption 
within Australia by analysing the inputs, outputs, and 
transformations of bioplastics in the country. MFA can help 
identify inefficiencies, waste generation, and potential 
opportunities for improvement in the bioplastic lifecycle.

In the context of a circular economy, MFA can be used 
to track the flow of bioplastics from production to 
consumption and end-of-life management. This includes 
monitoring the recycling, recovery, and disposal of 
bioplastics, as well as identifying opportunities for reducing 
waste and improving resource efficiency.



2.1.2 Methodology

An MFA was conducted to examine the movement of 
bioplastics within the Australian system. The purpose of 
this analysis was to develop a model that tracks the flow 
of bioplastics from polymer production to end-of-life 
in Australia. The approach is based on the principle of 
mass conservation, where material inputs and outputs 
are balanced to enable the quantification and analysis of 
material flows.

Our analysis aimed to showcase the flow of bioplastic 
materials from polymer production to end-of-life, focusing 
on the following phases:

• Phase 1 – Raw materials/feedstocks used for polymer 
production. Key question: What feedstock is used, and in 
what quantities, to produce the polymer?
• Phase 2 – Production/import quantities of polymers. 
Key question: How much polymer is produced or 
imported into Australia?
• Phase 3 – Use of polymers in goods (output of polymers). 
Key question: Once acquired, which products/sectors 
utilise the polymers?
• Phase 4 – End-of-life outcomes for polymers. 
Key question: What end-of-life management options are 
used, and how much of each polymer is present in each 
waste stream?


For each phase:

• A desktop analysis was conducted, which included 
review of peer-reviewed literature, grey literature, 
and industry reports. 
• Interviews with key stakeholders in the bioplastics 
industry were conducted to gain further insight into 
data; key assumptions were used as inputs into the MFA. 
Key stakeholders interviewed included manufacturers, 
producers, local government, researchers, and industry 
bodies. 


It is important to note that limited Australian bioplastics 
studies exist with most studies predominately from Europe, 
the USA and Asia.

A Sankey diagram* (Figure 8) provides visualisation of how 
the materials flow in the Australian system. 

In-scope polymers
The polymers selected for our MFA analysis were PLA, 
PHA, and BioPE. These polymer types were chosen due to 
their significant global production capacities and current 
investment in research and development, making them 
the most relevant for scaled market applications in the 
short term. PLA represents 20.7% of the global bioplastics 
production capacity (the maximum output that can be 
produced using available resources), with BioPE and PHA 
representing 14.8% and 3.9% respectively.

Main limitations

Data availability 

• Available data is limited due to the small scale of the 
industry.
• While main scale use is PLA, there are large data gaps for 
BioPE and PHA, as they are yet to be used in large-scale 
applications in the Australian market. 
• Lack of large-scale Australian production further 
exacerbates data limitations. 
• Data collection lacks granularity at the polymer level; 
data is often categorised as ‘bioplastics’ without further 
breakdown. 


Quantification 

• Limited data makes accurate quantification difficult. 
• Assumptions are required to quantify some 
aspects (see Appendix 3). 
• Most products are imported in finished form, which 
further complicates quantification. 
• Differentiating between BioPE and polyethylene (PE) 
presents challenges, as recyclers’ collection data 
quantifies all PE (Bio-PE, low-density polyethylene (LDPE), 
high-density polyethylene (HDPE), etc.). This means there 
is an unknown make-up of biobased content within 
these quantities. 




2.1.3 Sankey diagram*

Through the MFA completed (Figure 8), valuable insights 
into bioplastics consumption in Australia have been gained 
across four distinct phases. In the following sections, key 
findings and insights are presented on the current state of 
bioplastics use and potential areas for improvement and 
growth within the Australian market. The overall findings of 
the report indicate that PLA (Polylactic Acid) dominates the 
Australian bioplastics market. However, a concerning trend 
revealed that a significant portion of bioplastics in Australia 
ends up in landfill, highlighting the need for improved 
waste management and recycling infrastructure. 

Figure 8 – Material flow analysis completed for PLA, PHA, and BioPE in Australia, demonstrating the flow of materials contained 
within bioplastics from feedstock to final consumer product. The width of the arrows is proportional to the quantity material flowing 
through the value chain.

Phase 1: Raw materials/feedstock used for polymer production

In Phase 1, we examined the raw material inputs used to 
produce key bioplastics in Australia. We found that the most 
common raw materials used include sugarcane, corn sugar, 
and starches for PLA production. In Australia, there is one 
key supplier of PLA, which solely uses corn sugar as the 
raw material. Similarly, for BioPE production, there is one 
key supplier that exclusively uses sugarcane for Australia’s 
BioPE production. Organic wastes and cane and beet sugars 
are used for PHA production in Australia. Due to limited 
data and low PHA consumption in Australia, it is difficult to 
determine the exact proportions of each input used in the 
annual production of PHA. 



Phase 2: Production/import quantities of polymers

In Phase 2, we examined the polymers produced or 
imported in Australia. We found that most polymers in 
Australia are imported from overseas, predominantly 
from Thailand for PLA and Brazil for BioPE. Limitations 
included determining the conversion rate of raw materials 
to bioplastic polymers, as there is limited data on the 
conversion rate, especially if multiple raw material inputs 
were used. It was determined to use a 2-to-1 conversion rate 
between corn sugar to PLA polymers and a 4-to-1 rate for 
cane and beet sugars to produce PHA. A 1-to-1 conversion 
rate from cane sugar to BioPE was used. Although the 
conversion rate does not use entire raw materials, 
manufacturers confirmed that the waste (e.g., excess corn 
sugar) is used for other products, which essentially creates a 
circular flow.

Phase 3: Use of polymers in goods (output of polymers)

In Phase 3 of our analysis, we discovered that most 
compostable bioplastic polymers are used within the food 
industry, particularly in food service ware; an estimated 
8,000 tonnes of PLA is used in cutlery, cups, and coffee lids, 
and as a water barrier coating on paper cups. Compostable 
bioplastics are increasingly used in FOGO (Food Organics 
and Garden Organics) kitchen caddy bags. In agriculture, 
bioplastic material is used for mulch films, and according 
to one survey, the industry consumes approximately 
7,300 tonnes of bioplastic.42 However, 6,100 tonnes of this 
material consists of plant-based starches and the remaining 
1,200 tonnes comprises a mixed composition of PLA, PBAT 
and starches; this complicates determining how much PLA is 
actually consumed by the industry.39 In addition, bioplastics 
are used in 3D printing and biomedicine; however, the data 
available for these sectors in Australia is limited due to 
relatively low consumption levels.

Phase 4: End-of-life outcomes for polymers

In phase 4, we reviewed the end-of-life of bioplastic 
products and discovered that the majority ends up in 
landfill. This is primarily due to the mixed materials in food 
packaging, such as paper and bioplastics, which render 
them non-recyclable or compostable in most states, except 
for South Australia. Agriculture mulch films, on the other 
hand, are left to naturally degrade on fields. As BioPE 
bioplastics have a structure similar to polyethylene, it is the 
only bioplastic that can be recycled with other plastics.

Note: During the stakeholder workshops, participants noted 
that quantifying polybutylene adipate terephthalate (PBAT) 
in Australia would be valuable due to its common use in 
agricultural films and FOGO/waste caddy bin liners. It is 
important to note that 9.8 million liner bags are currently 
in use in Australia. This information could contribute to a 
better understanding of bioplastic consumption and waste 
management in the country.



2.2 Stakeholder mapping

Table 6 below provides an overview of the key stakeholders involved in the Australian bioplastics system. This was 
developed through a combination of stakeholder consultations, including interviews and workshops, as well as desktop 
research. By engaging with stakeholders and through this research, a network of actors in the bioplastics value chain in 
Australia has been identified. 

Table 6 – Key players and activities in Australia’s bioplastics system identified by interview and workshop attendees.

APPLICATIONS/
USES

MANUFACT-
URERS

INDUSTRY 
BODIES

FINISHED 
GOODS 
SUPPLIERS

WASTE AND 
RESOURCE 
RECOVERY

RESEARCH AND 
INNOVATION

NGOS

GOVERNMENT 
AND 
REGULATORY 
BODIES

Agriculture and 
horticulture

NatureWorks

Australasian 
Bioplastics 
Association 
(ABA)

Australian 
standards for 
compostable 
and biobased 
content

BioPak

Visy

Commonwealth 
Scientific and 
Industrial 
Research 
Organisation 
(CSIRO)

Compost 
Connect

Australian 
Competition 
and Consumer 
Commission

Food service 
ware

TotalEnergies 
Corbion

Australian 
Council of 
Recycling 
(ACOR)

Great Wrap

Goterra

The ARC Training 
Centre for 
Bioplastics and 
Biocomposites

Planet Ark

Australian 
Circular 
Economy Hub

State 
Environmental 
Protection 
Agencies

Packaging

Uluu

Australia 
Organics 
Recycling 
Association 
(AORA)

Cardia 
Bioplastics

Cleanaway

Universities

Commonwealth 
Scientific and 
Industrial 
Research 
Organisation 
(CSIRO)

CSIRO-Murdoch 
University 
Bioplastics 
Innovation Hub

Australian 
Marine 
Conservation 
Society

Department 
of Climate 
Change, Energy, 
Environment 
and Water 
(DCCEEW)

Food and 
grocery

Cardia 
Bioplastics

Australian 
Packaging 
Covenant 
Organisation 
(APCO)

Compostable 
packaging work 
stream

National 
Packaging 
Targets

Australasian 
Recycling Label 
(ARL)

Source 
Separation 
Systems

Repurpose It

Ocean Impact 
Organisation

Plastic Free 
Foundation

Plastic Free 
July

Sustainability 
Victoria

Caddy liners

Plantic 
Technologies

Australian Food 
and Grocery 
Council (AFGC)

National plastics 
recycling 
scheme

Detpak

Sacyr

Cooperative 
Research 
Centres

World 
Wildlife 
Fund (WWF) 
Australia

Sustainability 
of Bioplastics 
in Australia 
Report

Department 
of Energy, 
Environment 
and Climate 
Action (DEECA)







APPLICATIONS/
USES

MANUFACT-
URERS

INDUSTRY 
BODIES

FINISHED 
GOODS 
SUPPLIERS

WASTE AND 
RESOURCE 
RECOVERY

RESEARCH AND 
INNOVATION

NGOS

GOVERNMENT 
AND 
REGULATORY 
BODIES

Supermarket

BASF

Australian 
Institute of 
Packaging (AIP)

Pac Trading

Soilco

Twynam 
Investments

Tangaroa 
Blue 
Foundation

Recycling 
Victoria

Customers/end 
user

Tipa

National Retail 
Association 
(NRA)

Single-
use plastic 
education 
campaign 

Huhtamaki

Green Eco 
Technologies

Stop Food Waste 
Australia

Boomerang 
Alliance

All local 
governments

Hygiene

Phantm

National Retail 
Association 
(NRA)

Single-
use plastic 
education 
campaign

Hero 
Packaging

Corio Waste 
Management

Australian 
Impact 
Investments

Ellen 
MacArthur 
Foundation

Federal 
Government

Retail

Kuraray

Overseas e.g. 
European 
Bioplastics, 
Biodegradable 
Products 
Institute (BPI), 
BBIA

Compost-
a-Pak

WRITE 
Solutions

Victoria 
University

Waste and 
Resources 
Action 
Programme 
(WRAP) 

Queensland 
Government 

Controlled 
release 
applications

Hisun

Go!PHA

Glad

Jeffries 
Compost

CSIRO-Murdoch 
University 
Bioplastics 
Innovation Hub 

Northern 
Territories 
Government

Biomedical

Source 
Separation 
Systems

ISO 
International 
Organisation 
for 
Standardisation

Biogone

Pete Soils 

University of 
Technology 
Sydney Institute 
For Sustainable 
Futures

Tasmania 
Government

Entertainment 
venues

Alliance to End 
Plastic Waste

Amcor

Local councils

Quick service 
restaurants

Green 
Industries 
South Australia

Brisbane 2032 
Olympics

Clothing and 
textiles

3D printing







2.3 Challenges across the 
value chain

The interviews and workshops conducted as part of this 
review highlighted several key challenges across the 
bioplastics’ value chain. Key themes identified were:

• End-of-life management.
• Regulation and certification.
• Bioplastic properties and performance.
• Knowledge, trust, and awareness.
• Feedstocks and nature-related risks.


2.3.1 End-of-life management 

End-of-life management poses one of the most complex 
challenges for the use of bioplastics in Australia, and was 
the most frequently mentioned challenge by stakeholders 
during the workshops. Lack of infrastructure capable of 
supporting the bioplastics value chain was seen as the 
biggest barrier to widespread uptake, with a fragmented 
regulatory environment further exacerbating this challenge. 
Industry called for greater investment, coordination, and 
collaboration in this area to ensure Australia is able to 
effectively manage bioplastics at end-of-life. 

The waste and resource recovery sector emphasised the 
importance of ensuring the presence of viable end markets 
for materials. Designing a product using compostable or 
recyclable bioplastics in the absence of markets for the 
recovered material can hinder recycling efforts and render 
these products economically unfeasible and destined 
for landfill. For a range of biopolymers used in Australia, 
volumes are so low that the economics of collecting and 
reprocessing them do not cover their market price. Location 
can also influence the viability of recovery, as transporting 
materials can affect the economic feasibility of recycling. 
Additionally, resource recovery in certain locations 
can be constrained by limited space and availability of 
suitable end markets. Participants from the resources 
recovery sector suggested that South Australia likely offers 
preferred conditions for composting bioplastics, including 
a historically motivated community, lower urban density 
that provides more space, and existing end markets for 
composted material. 

Mechanical recycling 
Currently, biopolymer types which have identical properties 
to their fossil-based counterparts, such as bio-polyethylene 
terephthalate (BioPET), can be recycled in existing recycling 
streams. As these are chemically identical, they are not 
recognised for their biobased qualities and are treated 
the same as conventional polymers. Finished goods 
suppliers struggle to inform consumers that products are 
bioderived, fearing they may increase confusion leading to 
contamination of organics recycling streams. Due to low 
volumes, mechanical recycling is currently not accessible for 
all bioplastic polymer types. 

The risk of contaminating traditional recycling streams 
was raised in discussions with stakeholders, but industry 
participants did not consider it to be likely. They highlighted 
that current market volumes of bioplastics are relatively 
low, making it unlikely to significantly impact existing 
recycling activities, especially considering the abundance 
of multi-layered and non-recyclable materials already 
being used. Further research is needed to gain a better 
understanding of the impact that bioplastics might have 
on recycling streams if their usage were to increase to help 
identify appropriate mitigation strategies and potential 
solutions to future challenges.

Composting
In Australia, FOGO collection is limited to 30% of 
Australians, primarily in metropolitan areas. Among the 
councils that offer FOGO collection, most do not accept 
certified compostable plastics except for those in South 
Australia, where they are widely collected. However, some 
councils make exceptions for compostable bin liners, 
resulting in around 950 million liners used annually across 
the country. For instance, in New South Wales, regulations 
by the Environment Protection Authority allow only 
compostable plastic kitchen caddy liners that comply with 
Australian standard AS 4736-2006 in FOGO bins, while 
other compostable plastics and fibre-based packaging are 
prohibited.

Managing compostable plastics through the FOGO system 
faces several challenges. Certain composting facilities 
have shorter processing durations, leading to insufficient 
biodegradation. Additionally, low consumer awareness of 
compostable plastic certification and misleading product 
labelling increases the risk of contaminating FOGO waste 
with conventional or fragmentable plastics. As more local 
councils adopt the FOGO system, compost processors face 
an increased burden due to waste stream contamination. 
This highlights the overarching issue of consumer confusion 
regarding proper waste disposal, which is likely to persist as 
bioplastics gain more prominence in the market.



Stakeholders in workshops emphasised the need for 
uniform kerbside collection standards and stressed the 
importance of a national approach to reduce consumer 
confusion and enhance compliance. In the context 
of organics recycling, concerns were raised about 
contamination associated with the chemical composition 
of certain bioplastic products. This challenge is linked to 
regulation and certification, as there is a lack of regulation 
concerning the properties of polymers and how they 
interact with the environment during biodegradation 
or composting. If compost becomes contaminated with 
harmful chemicals like per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances 
(PFAS), it poses a risk of environmental contamination and 
negative impacts resulting from increased use of bioplastic 
products. Measures are being taken to phase out PFAS, with 
the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO) 
publishing an Action Plan to Phase Out PFAS in Fibre-Based 
Food Contact Packaging.

2.3.2 Regulation and certification 

The lack of clear labelling, certification, and effective 
regulation emerged as major obstacles to establishing a 
circular economy. Recognising the urgency, stakeholders 
emphasised that addressing labelling and certification 
challenges requires a collective effort from the entire 
system, rather than individual entities.

Labelling and certification
Labelling and certification emerged as a core challenge 
among stakeholders, with compostability and recyclability 
labels a key focus. Discussions highlighted the necessity 
of conducting public consumer behaviour surveys to 
understand the underlying heuristics and assess consumer 
comprehension of Australia’s waste management system. 
Such insights are crucial for developing a streamlined 
labelling system that is easily comprehensible and 
applicable to all materials available in the market, not 
limited to bioplastics. The interviewed stakeholders 
referenced a potential to integrate the Australasian 
Recycling Label (ARL) into packaging with home and 
commercial composting icons that require products to 
be certified to a relevant Australasian standard. Industry 
participants expressed interest in scaling the use of 
biobased and recycled content labels and certification, but 
were apprehensive about further confusion this may cause. 

Challenges were also raised regarding certification of 
bioplastics in Australia. There are currently voluntary 
programs available for certification of compostable 
bioplastics products in accordance with AS 4736-2006 
and AS 5810-2010. For any business making claims of 
biodegradability or compostability, participants believed 
it should be mandatory to be certified to an Australasian 
standard. However, participants acknowledged a specific 
challenge regarding the high cost associated with this 
process, which requires certifying all final product formats, 
not just the raw materials. This poses a significant barrier to 
entry for businesses with multiple products. 

Greenwashing
Greenwashing poses a significant concern for the bioplastics 
industry in Australia. Greenwashing refers to deceptive 
marketing or labelling practices that mislead consumers into 
believing a product is more environmentally friendly than 
it is. In the case of bioplastics, there is a risk that companies 
may overstate the environmental benefits of their products 
or use ambiguous terminology that confuses consumers. 
A 2023 World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Australia report 
prepared by the Institute of Sustainable Futures uncovered 
widespread greenwashing by analysing the sustainability 
claims of 26 bioplastic products from 14 companies involved 
in their production or sale.43 The products assessed 
included plastic bags, food service ware, coffee pods, 
postage bags, loose packing fill, and balloons. A total of 
more than 160 individual claims were examined, revealing 
29% were potentially misleading or could not be verified 
(24%). Misleading claims included statements regarding 
product disposal; the use of vague terms like ‘green’, 
‘earth friendly’, and ‘sustainable’; the labelling of products 
as ‘biodegradable’ when they are not compostable; the use 
of the term ‘plastic-free’; and unverifiable assertions about 
feedstocks and carbon footprint. 

The term ‘biodegradable’ was considered unhelpful by 
participants, with growing consensus that its use should be 
restricted to when it can be supported by accreditation or 
verification against a recognised standard. California and 
parts of the EU have already taken steps in this direction 
by implementing sanctions for the use of the term without 
substantiation. It is important to establish a certification 
process for biodegradable products rather than allowing 
unrestricted use of the term. 

Participants believe the ACCC needs to play a more active 
role in regulating this matter. Stakeholders agreed that 
the industry suffers material damage due to the presence 
of counterfeit or falsely labelled products. Such products 
hinder trust in and wider adoption of genuinely beneficial 
products. Awareness and education campaigns were also 
seen as essential to empower individuals to make informed 
choices and recognise greenwashing. 



On 18 November 2024, the committee was granted an 
extension of time for the report until 12 February 2025. 
The report will reference the following:

• the environmental and sustainability claims made by 
companies in industries including energy, vehicles, 
household products and appliances, food and drink 
packaging, cosmetics, clothing and footwear
• the impact of misleading environmental and 
sustainability claims on consumers
• domestic and international examples of regulating 
companies’ environmental and sustainability claims
• advertising standards in relation to environmental and 
sustainability claims
• legislative options to protect consumers from 
greenwashing in Australia
• any other related matters.


2.3.3 Bioplastic properties and performance

During workshops, participants identified several 
challenges related to the properties and performance of 
different bioplastic polymer types and ensuring their use 
in appropriate applications. Consensus emerged that for 
bioplastics to effectively play a role in reducing waste, 
they must support activities further up the waste hierarchy 
and that can be reused. Emphasis was placed on ensuring 
that polymers possess properties that meet their required 
purpose and exhibit high performance compared to 
alternative materials. In packaging, safeguarding products 
was seen as a primary objective, as the environmental 
repercussions of product loss far outweigh those 
of packaging itself. It’s important to note that while 
compostable bioplastics are designed to degrade, this 
attribute can sometimes compromise the packaging’s 
overall effectiveness. Participants agreed that industry-wide 
knowledge and access to the right information about the 
different polymer types are required to make the right 
decisions and to support the effective use of bioplastics. 

Industry also expressed confidence in the ability of 
biobased feedstocks to seamlessly replace fossil-based 
feedstocks for nearly all polymer types, particularly in 
the case of non-biodegradable plastics. The potential 
to substitute commonly recycled plastics with 
biobased polymers creates an opportunity to enhance 
environmental performance in various plastic applications. 
The main limiting factor for a transition to biobased 
non‑biodegradable plastics was seen to be cost. 
Other challenges included unintended consequences 
associated with use of first-generation feedstocks as well as 
lack in transparency across the supply chain, which will be 
discussed in subsequent chapters.

The cost of producing bioplastics compared to conventional 
fossil-based plastics was seen as a significant challenge. 
Raw materials used in bioplastics, derived from renewable 
resources, are generally more expensive to produce 
and process than fossil fuels used in traditional plastics. 
Additionally, the smaller production scale of bioplastics 
currently limits the economies of scale that can minimise 
costs. The technology and infrastructure required for 
bioplastics manufacturing also contribute to higher 
production costs, as specialised equipment and processes 
are required. Research and development efforts in the 
field of bioplastics further add to production expenses. 
Lastly, limited market demand and competition for 
bioplastics result in higher prices. At the time of this 
report, the production of bioplastics in Australia is not 
notable. The manufacturing costs are high, and the limited 
production of finished goods domestically, compared to the 
market’s current scale, provides little motivation for local 
bioplastics’ production to take place. Scalability was another 
key challenge highlighted during discussions, and one which 
will require investment and collaboration across sectors to 
be address. However, as technology advances, economies of 
scale are achieved, and more efficient production processes 
are developed, the cost disparity between bioplastics and 
traditional plastics is expected to decrease in the future. 

2.3.4 Knowledge, trust and awareness

Confusion among consumers regarding bioplastics, 
single-use plastic products, labelling, and resource recovery 
is a prominent issue. At the root of this challenge lies a 
lack of understanding of the different types of bioplastics, 
how they are used, and how they can be disposed of 
appropriately. Due to the differing regulations and policies 
in Australia, consumers can become confused as to 
where and how they should dispose of biodegradable or 
compostable products, and whether they should do so in or 
outside of the home. While a program for labelling grocery 
food products exists to support consumers, labelling is not 
mandatory, and therefore is not uniformly applied across 
all products. Additionally, with the closure of REDcycle in 
Australia, accessibility to recycling for certain products has 
become limited for many consumers. It is important for 
consumers to understand proper disposal methods for both 
recycling and composting of bioplastics. 



Establishing trust and transparency across the 
bioplastics value chain poses significant challenges. 
Questions surrounding feedstock origins, compostability, 
end-of-life management, and waste management hinder 
stakeholder confidence. To overcome these concerns, key 
focus areas should be greater transparency and traceability 
throughout the life cycle of bioplastics. This entails 
disclosing feedstock sourcing, labelling compostable 
materials accurately, and implementing robust tracking 
systems. Collaboration among stakeholders and consumer 
education are crucial in achieving transparency and 
encouraging responsible consumption and disposal.

2.3.5 Feedstocks and nature-related risks

Bioplastics derived from renewable sources can offer 
environmental advantages but also pose nature-related 
risks. When considered in first-generation feedstocks, 
these risks include deforestation and habitat destruction 
due to increased crop cultivation, the use of fertilisers and 
pesticides impacting water and soil, water scarcity from 
irrigation, resource-intensive manufacturing processes, and 
challenges in waste management. Shifting to bioplastics 
should consider sustainable sourcing, responsible 
agriculture, efficient manufacturing, proper waste disposal, 
and consumer education to mitigate these risks.

2.4 Opportunities

2.4.1 Niche applications

Bioplastics offer a unique opportunity to address 
environmental challenges in niche applications within 
Australia. In the horticultural and agricultural sectors, where 
the use of plastics is common for mulching, crop protection, 
and soil preservation, bioplastics that biodegrade under 
specific environmental conditions can provide a sustainable 
alternative. These bioplastics can break down into natural 
components, reducing the accumulation of plastic waste 
and potential harm to ecosystems. 

Similarly, bioplastics can play a vital role in biomedical 
applications, for example as biocompatible materials for 
temporary implants or drug delivery systems that degrade 
harmlessly in the body. Additionally, using bioplastics as 
coatings or films in packaging can improve end-of-life 
outcomes by allowing for easier separation and recycling 
or composting. By adopting bioplastics in these niche 
applications, Australia can contribute to mitigating the 
environmental impact of specific sectors, reduce plastic 
waste, and promote a more sustainable and circular 
approach to materials use.

2.4.2 Combatting food waste

Australia has a significant opportunity to advance 
its efforts in reducing food waste by incorporating 
bioplastic bin liners in the FOGO system. FOGO programs 
aim to divert organic waste, including food scraps and 
garden trimmings, from landfill and instead use it for 
composting or energy generation. Bioplastic bin liners 
are derived from renewable resources and designed to 
biodegrade under specific conditions. They help contain 
and manage food waste – preventing odours, leakage, 
and contamination – while simultaneously facilitating 
organic waste’s integration into composting or anaerobic 
digestion processes. This integration not only reduces 
greenhouse gas emissions from organic waste in landfills 
but also supports the production of nutrient-rich compost 
that can be used to enrich soils and promote sustainable 
agriculture. By embracing bioplastic bin liners within the 
FOGO system, Australia can enhance the effectiveness of 
FOGO initiatives, demonstrate its commitment to circular 
economy principles, mitigate environmental impacts, and 
foster a more sustainable approach to waste management.

2.4.3 PHA 

During stakeholder interviews and workshops, 
participants identified polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) 
as a bioplastic polymer that has the potential to 
become more commercially viable, particularly in 
applications where rapid biodegradation is desirable. 
PHA is a family of biodegradable polymers produced 
by certain microorganisms under specific conditions. 
Stakeholders recognised PHA’s ability to break down in 
various environments, including soil, freshwater, and 
marine ecosystems, making it suitable for applications 
such as single-use packaging and disposable products. 
The participants highlighted PHA’s promising properties, 
including its versatility, durability, and compatibility with 
existing manufacturing processes. 

Additionally, the renewable feedstocks and reduced carbon 
footprint associated with PHA production were seen as 
significant advantages, as well as its mechanical properties 
and lack of toxicity. Stakeholders acknowledged the need 
for further research and development to improve PHA’s 
cost-effectiveness and scalability, but they expressed 
optimism about its potential to address the growing 
demand for sustainable alternatives to conventional 
plastics. Australian start-up Uluu has emerged as a key 
player in the development and commercialisation of 
PHA bioplastics, leveraging innovative technologies and 
sustainable practices to drive the adoption of this promising 
biopolymer in various industries.



2.4.4. Textile industry

The textile industry significantly impacts the global 
economy through its vast production of clothing and other 
products, contributing to synthetic polymer consumption 
and environmental concerns. With a market size exceeding 
113 Mt in 2021, dominated by synthetic fibres, the industry 
faces challenges in waste management, pollution, and the 
need for sustainable practices. The shift towards biobased 
polymers, particularly biodegradable plastics like PLA 
and PHA, offers a potential solution. These materials, 
expected to increase in production capacity, provide an 
environmentally friendly alternative capable of replacing 
conventional plastics in textiles. PHAs and high-molecular-
weight polyhydroxybutyrates (PHBs), in particular, show 
good mechanical properties and strength, allowing for 
the creation of fibres with high tensile strength suitable 
for various textile applications. Their biocompatibility and 
complete biodegradability by various microorganisms into 
harmless products (water and carbon dioxide) make PHAs 
suitable for eco-friendly textile applications. However, 
the significant production expenses of PHAs, which are 
currently higher than those of synthetic polymers, pose a 
major barrier to their widespread adoption. In addition, the 
incorporation of suitable additives and blending with other 
biopolymers needs to be studied to improve mechanical 
qualities. Further research and practical testing are needed 
to address the challenges and expand the use of PHAs in 
textiles effectively.

2.4.5 Local manufacturing

In terms of onshore manufacturing of bioplastics in 
Australia, opinions among interviewees and workshop 
participants varied. While some considered it a possibility, 
others deemed it highly unlikely. Those who saw 
potential emphasised Australia’s agricultural and forestry 
activities, suggesting that by-products from these sectors 
could be used to develop bioplastics. Additionally, they 
highlighted the opportunity to explore other streams 
such as food waste or emerging industries like seaweed 
to locally manufacture bioplastics. However, contrasting 
views pointed out the limited scope of this opportunity 
in Australia. They highlighted the absence of onshore 
manufacturing capabilities for finished bioplastic products 
and referred to international bioplastics manufacturers 
investing in production facilities located closer to feedstock 
sources and manufacturing hubs, particularly in the USA 
and Southeast Asia.

2.4.6 Chemical recycling

Advanced chemical recycling presents a significant 
opportunity for bioplastics in Australia, offering an 
innovative solution to address the challenges associated 
with their end-of-life management. Companies like APR 
Plastics and Licella are at the forefront of this technology, 
utilising a unique hydrothermal liquefaction process to 
convert bioplastics into valuable, high-quality biofuels and 
biochemicals. Unlike traditional mechanical recycling, which 
has limitations in terms of the types of bioplastics that can 
be processed, advanced chemical recycling can handle a 
broader range of bioplastic materials, including mixed and 
contaminated streams. This technology enables the recovery 
of the inherent energy and carbon stored in bioplastics, 
thereby creating a closed-loop system that maximises 
resources and reduces waste. By harnessing advanced 
chemical recycling, Australia can enhance the circularity of 
its bioplastics industry, fostering a more sustainable and 
efficient approach to plastic waste management while also 
supporting the development of a biobased economy.

It is important to note that while advanced chemical 
recycling offers opportunities for bioplastics and a wider 
range of materials, prioritising activities further up the waste 
hierarchy remains crucial. By combining advanced chemical 
recycling with upstream waste reduction and recycling 
strategies, Australia can achieve a more comprehensive and 
sustainable approach to managing its waste and resources.

2.4.7 Biobased and renewable content targets

Australia has a significant opportunity to adopt biobased and 
renewable content targets alongside recycling targets for 
packaging. By setting specific targets for the incorporation 
of biobased and renewable materials in packaging, Australia 
can incentivise the use of renewable feedstocks, such 
as plant-based polymers or bio-derived additives, in the 
production of packaging materials. This shift can reduce 
reliance on fossil fuel-based plastics, decrease greenhouse 
gas emissions, and promote the use of renewable resources. 
Additionally, coupling these targets with recycling goals 
encourages the development of a comprehensive approach 
to waste management. While recycling targets currently 
focus on diverting packaging waste from landfill and 
promoting the recycling infrastructure, biobased and 
renewable content targets promote the use of materials that 
have a lower environmental impact and can be sustainably 
sourced. By adopting both targets, Australia can promote 
a holistic approach to packaging sustainability, balancing 
resource conservation, waste reduction, and the use 
of renewable materials in a manner that aligns with its 
environmental goals.



2.4.8 Common definitions and clear labelling

Clear definitions and common terminology for bioplastics 
in Australia are essential for effective communication and 
education. With the wide range of polymer types, diverse 
feedstocks, and varying properties, it becomes challenging 
to convey accurate information about these sustainable 
materials. By establishing clear definitions and common 
terminology, we can support individuals, businesses, and 
policymakers with a shared understanding, facilitating clear 
communication and enabling effective education about 
the benefits, applications, and environmental implications 
of bioplastics. 

Workshop participants in Australia called for improved 
labelling of bioplastic products to reduce confusion for 
businesses, consumers, and recyclers. They recommended:

• Using the term ‘compostable’ only for products 
certified to Australian standards and avoiding 
‘biodegradable’ for non-certified compostable items. 
Mandating certification for compostable products could 
be considered.
• Standardising labelling with official Seedling logos for 
certified compostable products, discouraging other 
symbols. Detailed guidance on compostable product 
labelling could be developed with industry input.
• Applying the Australasian Recycling Label to 
non-compostable bioplastic products to inform 
consumers about appropriate disposal.
• Adopting reputable standards for the environmental 
impacts and responsible sourcing of biobased plastics, 
enabling more sustainable choices.


International examples from countries like France, 
Belgium, and California demonstrate how clear labelling 
regulations for bioplastics have been successfully 
implemented.44 For instance, France restricts the use of 
‘compostable’ labelling to products that can be industrially 
composted, while Belgium prohibits the use of the term 
‘biodegradable’. California similarly mandates compliance 
with relevant composting standards for products 
labelled as ‘compostable’ or ‘home compostable’. At the 
moment, three certified labels are adopted in Australia 
for products that are ‘compostable’, ‘home compostable’, 
or ‘soil biodegradable’ (see section 1.5.3).

2.4.9 Industry 4.0 technologies

Industry 4.0 technologies are poised to play a pivotal role in 
supporting a circular economy for bioplastics in the future. 
With the integration of advanced digital technologies like 
the Internet of Things (IoT), artificial intelligence (AI), and 
big data analytics, the bioplastics industry can enhance 
resource efficiency, reduce waste, and improve end-of-life 
processes. IoT sensors can enable real-time monitoring of 
bioplastic production, ensuring optimal usage of feedstocks 
and energy resources. AI algorithms can optimise 
manufacturing processes, minimising material waste and 
energy consumption. AI can also improve waste collection 
by sorting products by their materials using smart bins, 
minimising the contamination of recycling streams and 
ensuring the appropriate downstream processing of 
bioplastics. Additionally, big data analytics can provide 
valuable insights into the entire life cycle of bioplastics, 
enabling better decision-making and identifying 
opportunities for optimising processes and reducing 
waste. These technologies will enable greater traceability 
and transparency, facilitating the tracking of bioplastic 
materials across the supply chain, during their usage, and at 
end‑of‑life.



Appendix

Appendix A: Bioplastic polymers in detail

POLYLACTIC ACID (PLA)

Polylactic acid or polylactide (PLA) is the most widely used bioplastic accounting for 20.7% of global bioplastics production volumes.45 
PLA is both biobased and biodegradable. 

Feedstocks and material manufacturing

PLA is derived from renewable biomass, with the main feedstocks coming from corn, sugarcane, corn stover (stems, husks, leaves), and 
cassava roots.46 

PLA is produced from the fermentation of plant-derived carbohydrates. PLA is a polyester (polymer containing the ester group) made 
with two possible monomers or building blocks: lactic acid and lactide. Lactic acid can be produced by the bacterial fermentation of a 
carbohydrate source under controlled conditions. There are various PLA manufacturing processes, each at differing stages of maturity. 
The processes which are currently at full commercial application are azeotropic poly-condensation, ring-opening polymerisation, and 
acidification filtration.47

Key PLA biopolymers include Ingeo™ produced by NatureWorks LLC, as well as the Luminy® series of PLA resins produced by 
TotalEnergies Corbion (a 50/50 joint venture between TotalEnergies and Corbion).

Common applications

PLA has a wide range of applications spanning across several industries. Some common applications for PLA include:

• Packaging and food service ware – PLA bioplastic is commonly used for packaging applications, such as food packaging and 
containers, as well as food service ware like clamshells, cups, and cutlery.48 A well-known example in Australia is PLA products by 
BioPak, which are designed for food service.
• 3D printing – PLA bioplastic is a popular material used in 3D printing due to its low melting point, ease of use, and ability to produce 
detailed prints.
• Textiles – PLA bioplastic can be used to make eco-friendly textiles, such as clothing, bedding, and curtains. PLA-based fabrics are 
soft, breathable, and moisture-wicking.
• Medical implants – PLA bioplastic is used in medical applications, such as implants and sutures. Its biodegradability and 
compatibility with human tissue make it an ideal material for temporary medical devices.
• Agriculture – PLA bioplastic is used in agriculture for applications such as biodegradable mulch films and plant pots. These products 
can help reduce waste and environmental impact in the industry.


End-of-life

Recycling: PLA can be recovered for mechanical recycling; however, due to its prevalence in low volumes, it is not separated in 
post-consumer waste streams. In current plastic waste channels, distinguishing PLA from other polymers such as polyethylene 
terephthalate (PET) (used in water bottles) can be challenging. This can lead to contamination issues that adversely affect recycling. 
Globally, only post-industrial PLA scrap is recycled on an industrial scale. Near Infrared (NIR) sorting can be used to identify PLA in waste 
streams and sort it from other plastic types.49 

Commercial composting: PLA can be composted under commercial composting conditions. Best practice for ensuring PLA products are 
suitable for compost is through the use of a certified compostable PLA resin, as well compostability testing for final products. 

Home composting: Depending on the application, PLA can be composted at home. However, achieving certification for home 
composting biodegradation is challenging due to the inefficiencies of home composting systems compared with commercial 
operations. The value of compostable products like PLA lies in their diversion to composting facilities, which reduces materials entering 
waste or recovery streams. 2,312 tonnes of compostable PLA was consumed in Australia in 2020–2021.50 A current data gap is to 
ascertain the quantity of the consumed PLA which was composted versus recycled or sent to landfill. 

Landfill: Landfill is a common waste treatment for PLA, though it is not ideal for this type of material. Given there are more sustainable 
options for end-of-life use, disposing of PLA in landfill should be avoided.

Environmental considerations 

Environmental impacts will differ depending on the feedstock used to produce the PLA. Sugarcane is the most efficient feedstock 
for producing PLA, and as such has the lowest emissions and non-renewable energy demand due to its high productivity yields. 
Alternatively, land requirements for use of corn stover are lower than those of sugarcane or corn. On average, PLA saves approximately 
66% of the energy required to produce conventional plastics. Through natural conversion, PLA emits 2.8 kg CO2 kg-1 throughout 
its lifecycle.51







STARCH BLENDS 

Starch-based polymers form an important family of bioplastics on the market, and starch-based materials are attracting increasing 
interest across the plastics industry.52 

Feedstocks

Common feedstocks used in starch-blend bioplastics are potato, corn, and wheat starch;53 side stream starch from potato processing 
(as well as from grain-, root-, or seed-based flour resources);54 and starch reclaimed from wastewater.55

Material manufacturing 

Starch-based bioplastics are complex blends of starch with compostable plastics, such as polylactic acid (PLA), polybutylene adipate-
co-terephthalate (PBAT), polybutylene succinate (PBS), polycaprolactone (PCL) and polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA). Blending starch with 
plastics improves the water resistance, processing properties, and mechanical properties of the resulting blend.56 In 2022, starch-blend 
bioplastics accounted for 17.9% of global bioplastics production.57 Starch is a polysaccharide consisting of two main macromolecules: 
amylose and amylopectin. It is a suitable filler material because of its thermal stability and limited interference with the melt flow 
properties of most synthetic plastic materials. Blending starch with synthetic polymers increases their biodegradability, as starch is 
naturally degraded by microorganisms. This leaves behind a skeleton of synthetic polymers, which is more easily degraded by natural 
processes such as thermal oxidation and ultraviolet photo-degradation.58 

To manufacture starch-based plastics, native starch must first be restructured to make it thermoplastic and melt-processable. This 
is achieved using plasticisers such as water, glycerine, or other polyols, or through thermomechanical processes. This results in the 
production of thermoplastic starch (TPS), which can be processed using standard equipment designed for other synthetic plastics. TPS 
can be blended and additivated to adjust its physical-mechanical properties, such as stiffness, strength, and water solubility.59

Additionally, starch blending can reduce the production costs of bioplastics, especially for PHA and PLA production.60 

Novamont is a key manufacturer producing a biodegradable, starch-based product called Mater-Bi.

Common applications

Starch-based plastics find different applications in the packaging, food, textile, and pharmaceutical industries.61 Starch-blend bioplastics 
have applications across several industries, with further development into different applications ongoing. Key areas of use include:

• Transport packaging – Starch-blend bioplastics are often used as loose fill foams (packing peanuts) for transport packaging. 
• Food service ware packaging – Starch-blend bioplastics are often used in cups, plates, cutlery, and films in food services packaging.62 
• Coatings and films – As well as in coatings and films, starch-blend bioplastics are often used in both rigid and flexible packaging.63 


Some applications of starch-blend plastics depend on the plastic type with which it is blended. Some examples of potential blend 
applications include:64 

• PLA/starch for food packaging, electronic devices, membrane material for the chemical and automotive industries, textiles, 
and medical applications.
• PHB/starch for biomaterial in medical applications.
• PBSA/starch for antimicrobial packaging.
• PVA/starch for LDPE film replacement, water soluble laundry bags, biomedical applications, replacement of polystyrene foams, 
and packaging applications.


End-of-life

Depending on the type of starch used and their blend, starch-based polymers may be biodegradable, compostable, or disposed of 
in landfill. 

Environmental considerations 

Starch plastics have been shown to enable reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and non-renewable energy use. 
However, they have higher eutrophication potential and require more agricultural land use compared to common fossil-based plastics. 
The potential GHG emissions savings are influenced by the composition of the plastic. Some grades can offer an 85% reduction, while 
others can offer an 80% increase compared to their fossil-based counterpart.65 In a different study, PLA blends were compared to other 
fossil-based plastics such as LDPE. The study found that PLA blended with other biodegradable materials may have a higher global 
warming potential when compared to LDPE. This is a factor to consider in potential blends.66

Additives can account for up to 40% of GHG emissions associated with starch plastics. As such, the highest GHG savings are realised 
when components such at PBAT and PBS are minimised, while starch, natural fibres, and mineral fillers are maximised. Using reclaimed 
starch as opposed to virgin starch can also lead (in most instances) to modest decreases of up to 10% in non-renewable energy usage 
and GHG emissions, while also providing up to 60% reductions in eutrophication and agricultural land use.67 When compared with 
virgin starch, blends using starch residues, such as waste from potato processing, have shown a reduction in eutrophication potential 
by up to 40%, agricultural land use by up to 60%, and GHG emissions and non-renewable energy usage by up to 10%.68







BIO-POLYETHYLENE (BIOPE)

Bio-polyethylene (BioPE) is biobased and non-biodegradable.69 

Feedstocks

Typical feedstocks used for BioPE include sugarcane, sugar beet, lignocellulosic crops and waste, and starch crops such as maize 
and wheat.70

Material manufacturing

BioPE is produced from first-generation ethanol derived from food crops such as sugarcane.71 BioPE is synthesised through the 
polymerisation of ethylene via different conditions of temperature and pressure and in the presence of various catalysts, which results 
in different PE types, such as high-density PE (HDPE), low-density PE (LDPE) and linear low-density PE (LLDPE).72 Figure 9 depicts the 
process for ethanol to be produced from different feedstocks. Ethylene can be derived from the dehydration of ethanol from sugarcane, 
either by steam cracking of biomass or through the methanol-to-olefin route.73 Bioethylene is also used to synthesise other polymers 
such as polystyrene (PS), rubbers, epoxy resins, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM) rubber. 
Resins synthetized from bioPE are also biobased, and constitute important possibilities for bio-ethylene utilization. 

Manufacturing BioPE is not cost-competitive with that of its fossil-based counterpart, with 1 kg of BioPE costing approximately 30% 
more than one kilogram of fossil-based PE.74

Figure 9 – Production of ethanol for bioPE manufacturing.

1.3.3.3 Common applications

BioPE can be used in the same applications as its conventional counterpart. Some common applications for PE include food packaging, 
agricultural use, and industrial use. PE also has applications across toy manufacturing, cosmetics, and personal care.75

1.3.3.4 End-of-life

BioPE, as a biobased equivalent of conventional PE, can be recycled in the same way as conventional PE. BioPE is chemically identical 
to conventional PE. As such, BioPE can be integrated into already formed waste streams and does not require separate waste 
infrastructure. A study conducted indicated that recycling BioPE in conventional recycle streams (alongside fossil-based PE) did not 
lower the quality of the recylates.76

1.3.3.5 Environmental considerations

The environmental impacts of BioPE depend on its manufacturing process. Using biomass as a steam source for manufacturing can 
minimise GHG emissions in BioPE production. The impact of biobased polymers on human health and ecosystem quality can be up 
to two orders of magnitude higher.65 This is mostly due to pesticide use, pre-harvesting burning practices, and land occupation. 
Improvements to the supply chain, like pesticide management and eliminating burning, can lessen the impact of biobased polymers.77 

Feedstock use and sourcing also play a role in the environmental impacts associated with BioPE production. One such example is 
the difference in impacts associated with use of Brazilian versus Indian ethanol. The environmental impacts associated with the use 
of Brazilian ethanol are higher compared to Indian ethanol, attributed to factors such as the dampening effects of Indian ethanol, 
differences in sugarcane processing procedures, and the transportation of feedstocks.78

BioPE results in significant GHG emissions reduction when compared with its conventional counterpart. The typical emissions profile 
of BioPE is around 0.75 kg CO2-eq per kg polyethylene, which is 140% lower than the production of fossil-based PE. Additional, BioPE 
reduces non-renewable energy usage by approximately 65%.79







BIO-POLYAMIDES (BIOPA)

Feedstocks

The most common feedstocks used for BioPA are vegetable oils,80 castor plants and oil, sugarcane, sugar beet, and starch.81 

Material manufacturing

Polyamide has multiple structural formulae, each of which has a separate method of production. Each method constitutes the synthesis 
of amide monomer from sources like castor oil or biomass.82 Commercially available BioPAs are typically either based on sebacic acid or 
undecanoic acid, which can be derived from castor oil. The more common and commercially available PA derived from this biomolecule 
is polyamide 11 (PA11).83 

Common applications

PA bioplastics exhibit high heat resistance, stiffness, and mechanical stability, making them suitable for a range of applications across 
various industries.84 BioPA is often used for technical parts (in the transport and automotive industry),85 textiles, and regular consumption 
goods. BioPA is also used in the sport and leisure industries, primarily in injection moulding.86 As such, it is also used in 3D printing.87

End-of-life

There is limited information available regarding end-of-life management options for BioPA. Supplier Technoform claims that their BioPA has 
unlimited recyclability.76 Fossil-based PAs such as nylon can be mechanically and chemically recycled; however, their collection is limited. 

Environmental considerations 

The environmental impacts of BioPA are unclear, though specific manufacturers have made claims regarding their products. 
Technoform claims that their BioPA production reduces carbon dioxide consumption during profile production by 62% and fossil-fuel 
energy consumption by 23%. It is important to note that this claim did not make explicit the basis for these comparisons; however, we 
have assumed that the comparison is made with conventional PA.88 Another manufacturer, Roboze, claims their BioPA is produced with 
60% lower carbon emissions than conventional PA.89







POLYBUTYLENE ADIPATE TEREPHTHALATE (PBAT)

Feedstocks

Polybutylene adipate-terephthalate (PBAT) is a biodegradable aromatic-aliphatic copolyester. 

Feedstocks for PBAT may be biobased or fossil-based. Main feedstocks for PBAT are petrochemicals and castor plant.90 

Material manufacturing

PBAT is both biodegradable91 and fully compostable.92 It can be produced by a polycondensation reaction of 1,4-Butanediol (BDO), 
polyarylate (PAT), and adipic acid (AA) using conventional polyester manufacturing technology and equipment. The synthesis of PBAT 
can be divided into three key processes: pre-mixing, pre-polymerisation, and final polymerisation.93 As PBAT can be synthesised using 
conventional polyester manufacturing technology, it may be possible to obtain sufficient production capacity for PBAT within the 
short- to medium-term timeframe.94

For more than two decades, BASF have manufactured Ecoflex®, which is the most used PBAT-certified compostable polymer from 
fossil-based feedstock.95 

Common applications

PBAT has similar properties to LDPE, and as such can be used as an alternative to this product.96 PBAT is designed for film extrusion and 
extrusion coating,97 and has common applications across a number of industries for different film requirements. One such application 
is agricultural mulch films,98 where PBAT can degrade in soil over a period of >9 months.99 PBAT is also used in compostable kitchen 
waste liner bags, packaging and wrapping films, and disposable tableware.100 Certified compostable kitchen waste liners have been 
found to significantly increase the usage and capture rates of food waste, reaching up to 70% within a local government area.101 PBAT is 
also used in the manufacture of medical products such as suture materials, wound dressings, and other medical devices.102

A challenge associated with the use of pure PBAT is the high production costs of the product versus its lower mechanical properties 
when compared to its conventional counterparts. As a result, the PBAT market is underdeveloped, and will only increase when 
production costs decrease or when further investment is made to improve properties of PBAT. One way of working around this is 
through blending low-cost materials (such as starch) and reinforcing materials (such as PLA) with PBAT to decrease the final price and 
improve the properties, while also maintaining the biodegradability of the composites.103

End-of-life

In commercial composting, PBAT biodegrades within 2-3 months.104 PBAT is also commonly used in agricultural films where it can 
degrade in soil over a period of >9months.105

Environmental considerations

Although PBAT can biodegrade and be compostable, it still has an impact on the environment if not disposed of properly. 
The composting process also requires specific conditions to break down the material effectively and will depend on how the polymer 
is used in the finished product.106







POLYHYDROXYALKANOATES (PHA)

PHAs are an emerging family of biodegradable aliphatic polyesters with a commercial market that is expected to reach annual volumes 
of >100,000 tonnes in the coming years.107

Feedstocks

PHA can be produced using a wide variety of feedstocks, including some exciting developments which will positively affect the 
environmental impact of the production of these materials. 

Typical feedstocks include oil crops, lignocellulosic crops and residues, starch and sugar crops,108 and sugar or fatty acid-rich wastes.109 
Oil crop feedstock yields higher amounts of PHA per mass than sugar feedstocks due to its higher carbon content.110

Developments in feedstocks used to produce PHA have been made, which can contribute to a more circular economy and reduce 
environmental impacts. Of five companies manufacturing PHA in Europe, three use sugar beet as a feedstock, one uses waste cooking 
oil, and one uses wastewater.111 Additionally, Australian company Uluu has developed a PHA polymer that is manufactured using algae 
and seaweed.112

Material manufacturing

PHA is produced by fermenting natural raw material such as sugar or lipids. PHA can be produced by various bacteria, including 
Pseudomonas and Ralstonia strains, as well as algae.113 First, microorganisms are fermented to grow the PHA biopolymer within their 
casing. Once the desired yield is reached, they are harvested from the fermentation broth to increase the concentration. The PHA is 
then extracted from the cells, which can be done physically or chemically depending on each production specifications. Finally, the 
lysate is extracted to form the bioplastic. PHA is often more adaptable and less elastic than other plastics, making it a much more 
versatile option to produce.

PHAs are typically extracted from cells using halogenated organic solvents, however research is being undertaken to develop more 
environmentally benign and solvent-free cell disruption methodologies.114 

Common applications

PHAs are used in the packaging, food and chemical industries, and recent attention has shifted towards their use in agricultural 
applications.115 PHA has also been used to replace petrochemical polymers in coatings and packaging, and has applications across the 
medical industry F.116 

End-of-life

Most PHA types degrade faster than PLA, which makes them attractive for applications where biodegradation is desired.117 Among 
the advantages of PHA is their relatively high degradation rate in marine environments. After one year in a marine environment at 30° 
C, PLA biodegrades by approx. 8%, while PHBV (a type of PHA) biodegrades by approx. 80%.118 Additionally, PHA can be (in theory) 
mechanically recycled. Different PHA types are better suited to the mechanical recycling process, with PHB properties significantly 
reduced after two processing cycles, and PHBV maintaining its tensile strength after seven processing cycles.119 PHA can be also 
biologically recycled under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions. As such, they can be suitably treated both by compositing and by 
anaerobic digestion. However, further research is needed on the degradation of PHA under aerobic conditions through composting.120

Environmental impacts 

As with the other bioplastics discussed, the environmental impacts of the production and use of PHA is dependent on the type of 
feedstocks used. The lowest values found for carbon emissions and non-renewable energy demand were obtained for the production 
of PHA from sugarcane, owing to the high productivity yields of sugar and the credits assigned to the process for the energy surplus, 
generated from bagasse burn.121 Additionally, most PHA types degrade faster than PLA, which makes them attractive for applications 
where biodegradation is desired.122







Appendix B: Useful resources

APCO National Compostable Packaging Strategy 

The Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO) 
has taken steps to address compostable packaging 
through the development of a national compostable 
packaging strategy. They have established a working group 
tasked with implementing a roadmap to tackle the issue 
effectively. The strategy involves several key initiatives 
to drive positive outcomes for the use of compostable 
packaging. The proposed strategies to achieve these shifts 
are summarised below:

• Packaging design and procurement
• Strategy 1.1 – Phase out fragmentable plastic packaging.
• Strategy 1.2 – Educate the packaging value chain about 
appropriate use.
• Strategy 1.3 – Eliminate false or misleading claims.
• Collection systems
• Strategy 2.1 – Label for correct disposal. 
• Strategy 2.2 – Minimise contamination inorganics 
collection services.
• Strategy 2.3 – Increase collection of organics from the 
food service sector.
• Recycling end markets
• Strategy 3.1 – Promote greater collaboration between the 
packaging and recovery sectors.
• Strategy 3.2 – Undertake processing trials for 
compostable packaging.


WWF Sustainability of Bioplastics in Australia Report

WWF Australia’s No Plastics in Nature initiative is working 
to eliminate the leakage of plastic into the environment, 
build a circular economy for plastics, and drive global 
action to end plastic pollution. WWF commissioned 
the Institute for Sustainable Futures to examine risks 
and opportunities associated with bioplastics to assist 
policymakers in navigating and regulating this emerging 
class of materials. 

The report outlines a growing global bioplastics market 
that requires responsible sourcing and proper end-of-life 
management. 

Recommendations include phasing out problematic 
bioplastic products, improving labelling and feedstock 
standards, mandating certification for compostable 
products, acting against misleading claims, increasing 
awareness, improving end-of-life management options, 
conducting further research, and advocating for global 
regulations.



Appendix C: MFA Assumptions

Key Assumptions used in the production of MFA

Phase 1: 

• Production of PLA uses 2 kg of feedstock to produce 1 kg 
of polymer.
• Insignificant amounts of BioPE currently used 
in Australia.
• PHA uses 4 kg of feedstock to produce 1 kg of polymer.


Phase 2: 

• Estimated around 10,000 tonnes of PLA is imported into 
Australia per annum, particularly in food service ware 
with an estimated 8,000 tonnes of PLA used in items 
such as cutlery, cups, and coffee lids.
• The Australian Plastics Flows and Fates study identified 
around 9,600 tonnes of PLA bioplastic in the 
waste system.


Phase 4: 

• Bioplastic present in compost, as identified by the 
Plastics Flows and Fates study, is food service ware 
products, as food contaminated products cannot 
be recycled. 
• Remainder of food service ware products not in compost 
will flow to landfill, as they cannot be recycled. 
• Very limited amount of non-contaminated food service 
ware will be recycled. 


Note: Many assumptions have been made based on 
commercially sensitive figures provided by industry through 
stakeholder interview and workshops. 



References

1 Circularity Gap Reporting Initiative. The Circularity 
Gap Report 2023. 2023. https://www.circularity-gap.
world/2023 (accessed: Sep 2023).

2 Circularity Gap Reporting Initiative. The Circularity 
Gap Report 2023. 2023. https://www.circularity-gap.
world/2023 (accessed: Sep 2023).

3 Blue Environment. National Waste Report 2022; P1385; 
2022. https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/
documents/national-waste-report-2022.pdf (accessed: 
Sep 2023).

4 Plastic Oceans. Plastic Pollution Facts. (n.d.). https://
plasticoceans.org/the-facts/#:~:text=Annually%2C%20approximately%20500%20billion%20plastic 
(accessed: Sep 2023).

5 Blue Environment. National Waste Report 2022; P1385; 
2022. https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/
documents/national-waste-report-2022.pdf (accessed: 
Sep 2023).

6 CSIS. Basel Convention on Hazardous Waste and 
Plastic Pollution. 2021. https://www.csis.org/
analysis/basel-convention-hazardous-waste-plastic-
pollution#:~:text=Despite%20the%20fact%20the%20United,being%20imported%20into%20the%20country (accessed: Sep 2023).

7 Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Global 
Commitment 2022: Overview. 2022. https://
www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/global-
commitment-2022/overview#:~:text=The%20Global%20Commitment%20has%20already,value)%2C%20and%20regenerate%20nature 
(accessed: Sep 2023).

8 United Nations Environment Programme. End Plastic 
Pollution: Towards an International Legally Binding 
Instrument. 2022. https://wedocs.unep.org/xmlui/
bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/39764/END%20PLASTIC%20POLLUTION%20-%20TOWARDS%20AN%20INTERNATIONAL%20LEGALLY%20BINDING%20INSTRUMENT%20-%20English.
pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed: Sep 2023).

9 Bioplastics Europe. About Bioplastics Europe. 2022. 
https://bioplasticseurope.eu/about (accessed: Sep 
2023).

10 European Bioplastics. Bioplastics. 2022. https://
european-bioplastics.org/bioplastics/ (accessed: Sep 
2023).

11 European Bioplastics. Bioplastics. 2022. https://
european-bioplastics.org/bioplastics/ (accessed: Sep 
2023).

12 Hees, T.; Zhong, F.; Stürzel, M.; Mülhaupt, R. 
Tailoring hydrocarbon polymers and all-hydrocarbon 
composites for circular economy. Macromolecular 
Rapid Communications 2019, 40, 1800608.

13 Di Bartolo, A.; Infurna, G.; Dintcheva, N.T. A Review 
of Bioplastics and Their Adoption in the Circular 
Economy. Polymers 2021, 13, 1229. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.3390/polym13081229.

14 Bioplastics Europe. About Bioplastics Europe. 2022. 
https://bioplasticseurope.eu/about (accessed: Sep 
2023).

15 Jia, Z. Biodegradable Plastics: Breaking Down the 
Facts—Production, Composition and Environmental 
Impact; Green Peace East Asia: Hong Kong, China, 
2020.

16 Di Bartolo, A.; Infurna, G.; Dintcheva, N.T. A Review 
of Bioplastics and Their Adoption in the Circular 
Economy. Polymers 2021, 13, 1229. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.3390/polym13081229.

17 Ali, S.S.; Abdelkarim, E.A.; Elsamahy, T.; Al-Tohamy, 
R.; Li, F.; Kornaros, M.; Zuorro, A.; Zhu, D.; Sun, 
J. Bioplastic Production in Terms of Life Cycle 
Assessment: A State-of-the-Art Review. Environmental 
Science and Ecotechnology 2023, 15. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ese.2023.100254.

18 Di Bartolo, A.; Infurna, G.; Dintcheva, N.T. A Review 
of Bioplastics and Their Adoption in the Circular 
Economy. Polymers 2021, 13, 1229. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.3390/polym13081229.

19 Blue Environment. National Waste Report 2022; P1385; 
2022. https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/
documents/national-waste-report-2022.pdf (accessed: 
Sep 2023).

20 Australian Bureau of Statistics. Waste Account, 
Australia, Experimental Estimates. 2020. https://www.
abs.gov.au/statistics/environment/environmental-
management/waste-account-australia-experimental-
estimates/latest-release (accessed: Sep 2023).

21 Compiled from various sources. See: [8], [10], [15], [16], 
[18], [17] & [24].

22 Rosenboom, J.G.; Langer, R.; Traverso, G. Bioplastics 
for a Circular Economy. Nature Reviews Materials 2022, 
7, 117–137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-021-
00407-8.

23 Skoczinski, P.; Carus, M.; Tweddle, G.; Ruiz, P.; Hark, 
N.; Zhang, A. Bio-based Building Blocks and Polymers 
Global Capacities, Production and Trends 2023–2028 
2024, http://www.renewable-carbon.eu/publications 



24 Walker, S.; Rothman, R. Life Cycle Assessment of 
Biobased and Fossil-Based Plastic: A Review. Journal of 
Cleaner Production 2020, 261, 121158. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121158.

25 Di Bartolo, A.; Infurna, G.; Dintcheva, N.T. A Review 
of Bioplastics and Their Adoption in the Circular 
Economy. Polymers 2021, 13 (8), 1229. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.3390/polym13081229.

26 Australian Environment Ministers. Agreed Communiqué 
of 9 June 2023. 2023. https://www.dcceew.gov.au/
sites/default/files/documents/emm-communique-09-
june-2023.pdf (accessed: Sep 2023).

27 IBISWorld. IBISWorld - Industry Market Research, 
Reports, & Statistics. (n.d.). https://www.ibisworld.
com/ (accessed: Sep 2023).

28 Australian Government, Department of Agriculture, 
Water and the Environment. National Plastics Plan 
2021. 2021. https://www.agriculture.gov.au/sites/
default/files/documents/national-plastics-plan-2021.
pdf (accessed: Sep 2023).

29 United Nations. Report of the Conference of the 
Parties to the Basel Convention on the Control of 
Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and 
Their Disposal on the Work of its Fourteenth Meeting. 
Fourteenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to 
the Basel Convention Meeting Documents 2019, 1–123.

30 Brink, P. et al. Circular Economy Measures to Keep 
Plastics and Their Value in the Economy, Avoid Waste 
and Reduce Marine Litter; Economics Discussion Papers 
No. 2018-3; Kiel Institute for the World Economy, 2018. 

31 Open-ended Working Group of the Basel Convention. 
Technical Guidelines for the Identification and 
Environmentally Sound Management of Plastic Wastes 
and for Their Disposal; Matters Related to Work 
Program 2020, 1–94.

32 Ellen MacArthur Foundation. UN Plastics 
Treaty: Overview. (n.d.). https://www.
ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/un-plastics-treaty/
overview (accessed: Sep 2023).

33 Biden, J. Joe Biden’s Climate Plan. (n.d.). https://
joebiden.com/climate-plan/# (accessed: Sep 2023).

34 Lowenthal, A. S. Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act. 
116th US Congress, 1–127. US Congress, 2020.

35 The Times Editorial Board. Editorial: China is putting 
the U.S. to shame in the fight against plastic trash. Los 
Angeles Times, 2020.

36 Moshood, T. D. Expanding Policy for Biodegradable 
Plastic Products and Market Dynamics of Biobased 
Plastics: Challenges and Opportunities. Sustainability 
2021, 13, 6170.

37 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. 
Environmental and Sustainability Claims - Draft 
Guidance for Business. 2023. https://www.accc.
gov.au/system/files/Environmental%20and%20sustainability%20claims%20-%20draft%20guidance%20for%20business_web.pdf (accessed: Sep 
2023).

38 Australian Business Licence and Information Service. 
Australian Standard AS 4736-2006: Biodegradable 
Plastics Suitable for Composting and Other Microbial 
Treatment. 2006. https://ablis.business.gov.au/service/
act/australian-standard-as-4736-2006-biodegradable-
plastic-biodegradable-plastics-suitable-for-
composting-and-other-microbial-treatment/36797 
(accessed: Sep 2023).

39 Bioplastics Council. FAQ. (n.d.). https://bioplastics.org.
au/resources/faq/#toggle-id-9 (accessed: Sep 2023).

40 Advent Packaging. Australian Compostability Standards: 
AS4736 & AS5810. (n.d.). https://www.adventpac.
com/resources/australian-compostability-standards 
(accessed: Sep 2023).

41 Bioplastics Council. Soil Biodegradable Verification 
Programme. (n.d.). https://bioplastics.org.au/
certification/soil-biodegradable-verification-
programme (accessed: Sep 2023).

42 Dominish, E.; Berry, F.; Legg, R. Examining 
Sustainability Claims of Bioplastics. Report prepared 
by the Institute for Sustainable Futures for WWF-
Australia, University of Technology Sydney, 2023. 
https://www.uts.edu.au/sites/default/files/2023-03/
Full%20report_Examining%20sustainability%20of%20bioplastics%20in%20Australia_Final.pdf (accessed: 
Sep 2023).

43 Dominish, E.; Berry, F.; Legg, R. Examining 
Sustainability Claims of Bioplastics. Report prepared 
by the Institute for Sustainable Futures for WWF-
Australia, University of Technology Sydney, 2023. 
https://www.uts.edu.au/sites/default/files/2023-03/
Full%20report_Examining%20sustainability%20of%20bioplastics%20in%20Australia_Final.pdf (accessed: 
Sep 2023).

44 Dominish, E.; Berry, F.; Legg, R. Examining Sustainability 
Claims of Bioplastics. Report prepared by the Institute 
for Sustainable Futures for WWF-Australia, University of 
Technology Sydney, 2023. https://www.uts.edu.au/sites/
default/files/2023-03/Full%20report_Examining%20sustainability%20of%20bioplastics%20in%20Australia_
Final.pdf (accessed: Sep 2023).



45 Di Bartolo, A.; Infurna, G.; Dintcheva, N.T. A Review 
of Bioplastics and Their Adoption in the Circular 
Economy. Polymers 2021, 13 (8), 1229. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.3390/polym13081229.

46 BioPak. What Is PLA? 2023. https://www.biopak.com/
au/resources/what-is-pla (accessed: Sep 2023).

47 Di Bartolo, A.; Infurna, G.; Dintcheva, N.T. A Review 
of Bioplastics and Their Adoption in the Circular 
Economy. Polymers 2021, 13 (8), 1229. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.3390/polym13081229.

48 Blue Environment. Australian Plastics Flows and Fates 
Study 2020-21 – National Report; P1348; 2022. https://
www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/
apff-national-report-2020-21.pdf (accessed: Sep 2023).

49 European Bioplastics. Mechanical recycling. 2020. 
https://docs.european-bioplastics.org/publications/
bp/EUBP_BP_Mechanical_recycling.pdf (accessed: Sep 
2023).

50 Blue Environment. Australian Plastics Flows and Fates 
Study 2020-21 – National Report; P1348; 2022. https://
www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/
apff-national-report-2020-21.pdf (accessed: Sep 2023).

51 Rosenboom, J.G.; Langer, R.; Traverso, G. Bioplastics 
for a Circular Economy. Nature Reviews Materials 2022, 
7, 117–137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-021-
00407-8.

52 Fredi, G.; Dorigato, A. Recycling of bioplastic waste: 
A review. Advanced Industrial and Engineering 
Polymer Research 2021, 4(3), 159-177. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.aiepr.2021.06.006.

53 Jayarathna, S.; Andersson, M.; Andersson, R. Recent 
Advances in Starch-Based Blends and Composites for 
Bioplastics Applications. Polymers 2022, 14, 4557. DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14214557

54 Broeren, M.L.M.; Kuling, L.; Worrell, E.; Shen, L. 
Environmental impact assessment of six starch 
plastics focusing on wastewater-derived starch and 
additives. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 
2017, 127, 246-255. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2017.09.001.

55 IfBB - Institute for Bioplastics and Biocomposites. 
Biopolymers - Facts & Statistics 2018. 2018. https://www.
ifbb-hannover.de/files/IfBB/downloads/faltblaetter_
broschueren/Biopolymers-Facts-Statistics-2018.pdf 
(accessed: Sep 2023).

56 Gadhave, R.; Das, A.; Mahanwar, P.; Gadekar, P. 
(2018) Starch Based Bio-Plastics: The Future of 
Sustainable Packaging. Open Journal of Polymer 
Chemistry, 2018, 8, 21-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/
ojpchem.2018.82003.

57 Rosenboom, J.G.; Langer, R.; Traverso, G. Bioplastics 
for a Circular Economy. Nature Reviews Materials 2022, 
7, 117–137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-021-
00407-8.

58 Jayarathna, S.; Andersson, M.; Andersson, R. Recent 
Advances in Starch-Based Blends and Composites for 
Bioplastics Applications. Polymers 2022, 14, 4557. DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14214557 

59 Fredi, G.; Dorigato, A. Recycling of bioplastic waste: 
A review. Advanced Industrial and Engineering 
Polymer Research 2021, 4(3), 159-177. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.aiepr.2021.06.006.

60 Jayarathna, S.; Andersson, M.; Andersson, R. Recent 
Advances in Starch-Based Blends and Composites for 
Bioplastics Applications. Polymers 2022, 14, 4557. DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14214557

61 Ali, S.S.; Abdelkarim, E.A.; Elsamahy, T.; Al-Tohamy, 
R.; Li, F.; Kornaros, M.; Zuorro, A.; Zhu, D.; Sun, 
J. Bioplastic Production in Terms of Life Cycle 
Assessment: A State-of-the-Art Review. Environmental 
Science and Ecotechnology 2023, 15. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ese.2023.100254.

62 Gadhave, R.; Das, A.; Mahanwar, P.; Gadekar, P. 
(2018) Starch Based Bio-Plastics: The Future of 
Sustainable Packaging. Open Journal of Polymer 
Chemistry, 2018, 8, 21-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/
ojpchem.2018.82003.

63 Jayarathna, S.; Andersson, M.; Andersson, R. Recent 
Advances in Starch-Based Blends and Composites for 
Bioplastics Applications. Polymers 2022, 14, 4557. DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14214557

64 Encalada, K.; Aldás, M. B.; Proaño, E.; Valle, V. An 
Overview of Starch-Based Biopolymers and Their 
Biodegradability. Ciencia e Ingeniería 2018, 39(3). 
http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=507557607005 
(accessed: Sep 2023).

65 Broeren, M.L.M.; Kuling, L.; Worrell, E.; Shen, L. 
Environmental impact assessment of six starch 
plastics focusing on wastewater-derived starch and 
additives. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 
2017, 127, 246-255. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2017.09.001.

66 Choi, B.; Yoo, S.; Park, S.-i. Carbon Footprint of 
Packaging Films Made from LDPE, PLA, and PLA/PBAT 
Blends in South Korea. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2369. 
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072369.

67 Broeren, M.L.M.; Kuling, L.; Worrell, E.; Shen, L. 
Environmental impact assessment of six starch 
plastics focusing on wastewater-derived starch and 
additives. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 
2017, 127, 246-255. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2017.09.001.



68 Abe, M. M.; Martins, J. R.; Sanvezzo, P. B.; Macedo, 
J. V.; Branciforti, M. C.; Halley, P.; Botaro, V. R.; 
Brienzo, M. Advantages and Disadvantages of 
Bioplastics Production from Starch and Lignocellulosic 
Components. Polymers (Basel) 2021, 13(15), 2484. 
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13152484. PMID: 
34372086; PMCID: PMC8348970.

69 Rosenboom, J.G.; Langer, R.; Traverso, G. Bioplastics 
for a Circular Economy. Nature Reviews Materials 2022, 
7, 117–137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-021-
00407-8.

70 Advent Packaging. Australian Compostability Standards: 
AS4736 & AS5810. (n.d.). https://www.adventpac.
com/resources/australian-compostability-standards 
(accessed: Sep 2023).

71 Rosenboom, J.G.; Langer, R.; Traverso, G. Bioplastics 
for a Circular Economy. Nature Reviews Materials 2022, 
7, 117–137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-021-
00407-8.

72 Fredi, G.; Dorigato, A. Recycling of bioplastic waste: 
A review. Advanced Industrial and Engineering 
Polymer Research 2021, 4(3), 159-177. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.aiepr.2021.06.006.

73 Rosenboom, J.G.; Langer, R.; Traverso, G. Bioplastics 
for a Circular Economy. Nature Reviews Materials 2022, 
7, 117–137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-021-
00407-8.

74 Di Bartolo, A.; Infurna, G.; Dintcheva, N.T. A Review 
of Bioplastics and Their Adoption in the Circular 
Economy. Polymers 2021, 13 (8), 1229. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.3390/polym13081229.

75 Advent Packaging. Australian Compostability Standards: 
AS4736 & AS5810. (n.d.). https://www.adventpac.
com/resources/australian-compostability-standards 
(accessed: Sep 2023).

76 European Bioplastics. Mechanical recycling. 2020. 
https://docs.european-bioplastics.org/publications/
bp/EUBP_BP_Mechanical_recycling.pdf (accessed: Sep 
2023).

77 Tsiropoulos, I.; Faaij, A.P.C.; Lundquist, L.; Schenker, U.; 
Briois, J.F.; Patel, M.K. Life cycle impact assessment of 
bio-based plastics from sugarcane ethanol. Journal of 
Cleaner Production 2015, 90, 114-127. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.071.

78 Tsiropoulos, I.; Faaij, A.P.C.; Lundquist, L.; Schenker, U.; 
Briois, J.F.; Patel, M.K. Life cycle impact assessment of 
bio-based plastics from sugarcane ethanol. Journal of 
Cleaner Production 2015, 90, 114-127. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.071. 

79 Rosenboom, J.G.; Langer, R.; Traverso, G. Bioplastics 
for a Circular Economy. Nature Reviews Materials 2022, 
7, 117–137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-021-
00407-8.

80 NaturePlast. Bio-Based PA. (n.d.). https://natureplast.
eu/en/matiere/biobased-pa-2/ (accessed: Sep 2023).

81 Rahman, M. H.; Bhoi, P. R. An Overview of Non-
Biodegradable Bioplastics. Journal of Cleaner 
Production 2021, 294, 126218. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126218.

82 Rahman, M. H.; Bhoi, P. R. An Overview of Non-
Biodegradable Bioplastics. Journal of Cleaner 
Production 2021, 294, 126218. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126218.

83 Fredi, G.; Dorigato, A. Recycling of bioplastic waste: 
A review. Advanced Industrial and Engineering 
Polymer Research 2021, 4(3), 159-177. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.aiepr.2021.06.006.

84 Technoform. Bio-Polyamide (PA). (n.d.). https://www.
technoform.com/en/material/bio-polyamide-pa 
(accessed: Sep 2023).

85 European Bioplastics. Automotive Applications of 
Bioplastics. 2024. https://docs.european-bioplastics.
org/publications/fs/EuBP_FS_Automotive.pdf 
(accessed: Sep 2023).

86 NaturePlast. Bio-Based PA. (n.d.). https://natureplast.
eu/en/matiere/biobased-pa-2/ (accessed: Sep 2023).

87 Roboze. Bio-Based PA. (n.d.). https://www.roboze.com/
en/3d-printing-materials/bio-based-pa.html (accessed: 
Sep 2023).

88 Technoform. Bio-Polyamide (PA). (n.d.). https://www.
technoform.com/en/material/bio-polyamide-pa 
(accessed: Sep 2023).

89 Roboze. Bio-Based PA. (n.d.). https://www.roboze.com/
en/3d-printing-materials/bio-based-pa.html (accessed: 
Sep 2023).

90 Pycnoplast. PBAT - A compostable LDPE alternative. 
(n.d.). https://pycnoplast.com/biodegradable-resins/
polybutylene-adipate-terephthalate/ (accessed: Sep 
2023).

91 Jian, J.; Zeng, X.; Huang, X. An Overview on Synthesis, 
Properties and Applications of Poly(butylene-adipate-
co-terephthalate)–PBAT. Advanced Industrial and 
Engineering Polymer Research 2020, 3(1), 19-26. DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aiepr.2020.01.001. 

92 Jian, J.; Zeng, X.; Huang, X. An Overview on Synthesis, 
Properties and Applications of Poly(butylene-adipate-
co-terephthalate)–PBAT. Advanced Industrial and 
Engineering Polymer Research 2020, 3(1), 19-26. DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aiepr.2020.01.001. 



93 Jian, J.; Zeng, X.; Huang, X. An Overview on Synthesis, 
Properties and Applications of Poly(butylene-adipate-
co-terephthalate)–PBAT. Advanced Industrial and 
Engineering Polymer Research 2020, 3(1), 19-26. DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aiepr.2020.01.001.

94 Jian, J.; Zeng, X.; Huang, X. An Overview on Synthesis, 
Properties and Applications of Poly(butylene-adipate-
co-terephthalate)–PBAT. Advanced Industrial and 
Engineering Polymer Research 2020, 3(1), 19-26. DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aiepr.2020.01.001. 

95 BASF. ecoflex® (PBAT): The original since 1998 – certified 
compostable biopolymer. (n.d.). https://plastics-rubber.
basf.com/global/en/performance_polymers/products/
ecoflex.html (accessed: Sep 2023).

96 Pycnoplast. PBAT - A compostable LDPE alternative. 
(n.d.). https://pycnoplast.com/biodegradable-resins/
polybutylene-adipate-terephthalate/ (accessed: Sep 
2023).

97 Jian, J.; Zeng, X.; Huang, X. An Overview on Synthesis, 
Properties and Applications of Poly(butylene-adipate-
co-terephthalate)–PBAT. Advanced Industrial and 
Engineering Polymer Research 2020, 3(1), 19-26. DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aiepr.2020.01.001.

98 Jian, J.; Zeng, X.; Huang, X. An Overview on Synthesis, 
Properties and Applications of Poly(butylene-adipate-
co-terephthalate)–PBAT. Advanced Industrial and 
Engineering Polymer Research 2020, 3(1), 19-26. DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aiepr.2020.01.001. 

99 Rosenboom, J.G.; Langer, R.; Traverso, G. Bioplastics 
for a Circular Economy. Nature Reviews Materials 2022, 
7, 117–137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-021-
00407-8.

100 Fredi, G.; Dorigato, A. Recycling of bioplastic waste: 
A review. Advanced Industrial and Engineering 
Polymer Research 2021, 4(3), 159-177. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.aiepr.2021.06.006.

101 Blue Environment. National Waste Report 2022; P1385; 
2022. https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/
documents/national-waste-report-2022.pdf (accessed: 
Sep 2023).

102 EuroPlas. What is PBAT Plastic? Pros and Cons of PBAT. 
(n.d.). https://europlas.com.vn/en-US/what-is-pbat-
plastic-pros-and-cons-of-pbat (accessed: Sep 2023).

103 Jian, J.; Zeng, X.; Huang, X. An Overview on Synthesis, 
Properties and Applications of Poly(butylene-adipate-
co-terephthalate)–PBAT. Advanced Industrial and 
Engineering Polymer Research 2020, 3(1), 19-26. DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aiepr.2020.01.001. 

104 Rosenboom, J.G.; Langer, R.; Traverso, G. Bioplastics 
for a Circular Economy. Nature Reviews Materials 
2022, 7, 117–137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-
021-00407-8.

105 BASF. ecoflex® (PBAT): The original since 1998 – 
certified compostable biopolymer. (n.d.). https://
plastics-rubber.basf.com/global/en/performance_
polymers/products/ecoflex.html (accessed: Sep 2023).

106 EuroPlas. What is PBAT Plastic? Pros and Cons of PBAT. 
(n.d.). https://europlas.com.vn/en-US/what-is-pbat-
plastic-pros-and-cons-of-pbat (accessed: Sep 2023).

107 Tullo, A. H. Will the Biodegradable Plastic PHA Finally 
Deliver? Chemical & Engineering News 2021, 99(22). 
https://cen.acs.org/business/biobased-chemicals/
biodegradable-plastic-PHA-finally-deliver/99/i22 
(accessed: Sep 2023).

108 Torres De Matos, C.; Cristobal Garcia, J.; Aurambout, 
J.-P. Environmental Sustainability Assessment of 
Bioeconomy Products and Processes – Progress Report 1. 
European Commission, 2016. JRC102053. ISBN 978-92-
79-59535-6. DOI: 10.2791/252460. https://publications.
jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC102053 
(accessed: Sep 2023).

109 Rosenboom, J.G.; Langer, R.; Traverso, G. Bioplastics 
for a Circular Economy. Nature Reviews Materials 2022, 
7, 117–137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-021-
00407-8.

110 Gutschmann, B.; Huang, B.; Santolin, L.; Thiele, I.; 
Neubauer, P.; Riedel, S. L. Native Feedstock Options 
for the Polyhydroxyalkanoate Industry in Europe: A 
Review. Microbiological Research 2022, 264, 127177. 
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2022.127177.

111 Gutschmann, B.; Huang, B.; Santolin, L.; Thiele, I.; 
Neubauer, P.; Riedel, S. L. Native Feedstock Options 
for the Polyhydroxyalkanoate Industry in Europe: A 
Review. Microbiological Research 2022, 264, 127177. 
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2022.127177.

112 Uluu. (n.d.). https://www.uluu.com.au (accessed: Sep 
2023).

113 Rosenboom, J.G.; Langer, R.; Traverso, G. Bioplastics 
for a Circular Economy. Nature Reviews Materials 2022, 
7, 117–137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-021-
00407-8.

114 Rosenboom, J.G.; Langer, R.; Traverso, G. Bioplastics 
for a Circular Economy. Nature Reviews Materials 2022, 
7, 117–137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-021-
00407-8.



115 Di Bartolo, A.; Infurna, G.; Dintcheva, N.T. A Review 
of Bioplastics and Their Adoption in the Circular 
Economy. Polymers 2021, 13 (8), 1229. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.3390/polym13081229.

116 Torres De Matos, C.; Cristobal Garcia, J.; Aurambout, 
J.-P. Environmental Sustainability Assessment of 
Bioeconomy Products and Processes – Progress Report 1. 
European Commission, 2016. JRC102053. ISBN 978-92-
79-59535-6. DOI: 10.2791/252460. https://publications.
jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC102053 
(accessed: Sep 2023).

117 Rosenboom, J.G.; Langer, R.; Traverso, G. Bioplastics 
for a Circular Economy. Nature Reviews Materials 2022, 
7, 117–137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-021-
00407-8.

118 Fredi, G.; Dorigato, A. Recycling of bioplastic waste: 
A review. Advanced Industrial and Engineering 
Polymer Research 2021, 4(3), 159-177. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.aiepr.2021.06.006.

119 Fredi, G.; Dorigato, A. Recycling of bioplastic waste: 
A review. Advanced Industrial and Engineering 
Polymer Research 2021, 4(3), 159-177. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.aiepr.2021.06.006.

120 Fredi, G.; Dorigato, A. Recycling of bioplastic waste: 
A review. Advanced Industrial and Engineering 
Polymer Research 2021, 4(3), 159-177. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.aiepr.2021.06.006.

121 Torres De Matos, C.; Cristobal Garcia, J.; Aurambout, 
J.-P. Environmental Sustainability Assessment of 
Bioeconomy Products and Processes – Progress Report 1. 
European Commission, 2016. JRC102053. ISBN 978-92-
79-59535-6. DOI: 10.2791/252460. https://publications.
jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC102053 
(accessed: Sep 2023).

122 Rosenboom, J.G.; Langer, R.; Traverso, G. Bioplastics 
for a Circular Economy. Nature Reviews Materials 2022, 
7, 117–137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-021-
00407-8.



For further information

research.csiro.au/ending-plastic-waste

Contact us

1300 363 400
+61 3 9545 2176
csiro.au/contact
csiro.au