At recent conferences, I’ve become aware that European manufacturers of manmade fibres, nonwovens and technical textiles are starting to resent the many hoops they’re now obliged to jump through in order to comply with increasingly strict regulations – as well as pressure from NGOs – that don’t apply elsewhere in the world.

The evolving bioplastics industry is a case in point.

Coca Cola’s development of Bio-PET 30 is a revolutionary concept that has kick-started a scramble towards so-called ‘drop-in’ polymers as the basis for a new ‘non-synthetic’ fibres chain, as well as one for plastics.

What the drinks giant has done so far, is replace 15-30% of its oil-based bottles with a renewable component based on bioethanol, that will eventually – given the chance to develop – be made from biomass. And along with some adventurous US start-ups, it believes it can achieve 100% renewable bottles in the near future. Toray Industries in Japan, is involved too, and working to do the same for PET fibres for textiles and nonwovens.

The beauty of this, is that these ‘drop-in’ renewable substitutes also work the infrastructure such multi-corporations have in place worldwide. Minimum change, maximum gain for all.

Surely this is not only entirely practical, but also laudable and potentially game changing?

Coca Cola, however, has widely and perhaps ill-advisedly marketed its new bottles under the name ‘PlantBottle’, and now the Danish ombudsman has objected, following complaints from an environmental group called Forests of the World. In Denmark, Coca Cola bottom-lined its renewable claim to just 15%, which was as cautious as possible.

These kind of issues are no longer the ‘David and Goliath’ battles they’re still often portrayed as in the general media. Such pressure groups have considerable influence to stall things in their tracks while not having to actually do or create anything new themselves, only object. They have the ear of the European Union too, to a far greater extent than they sometimes deserve.

If the wheel didn’t already exist, it wouldn’t have a chance of being invented in 21st Century Europe.

But Coca Cola and its partners certainly deserve the opportunity to develop their concept.

Hindering the debelopment of biomaterials

According to Michael Carus of Germany’s Nova Institute, the European Union’s Renewable Energy Directive (RED), is also hindering the development of biomaterials use and consequently the entire creation of a bio-based European economy. Companies like Cargill, DSM and BASF are suddenly choosing to make investments in other countries such as the USA and Brazil, as well as Asia.

“The EU’s bioenergy and biofuel policy, as embodied in the ambitious objectives fixed by RED, leads to the systematic allocation of biomass to energy – to the disadvantage of material use,” Carus says. “RED has triggered the development of national action plans and support systems for bioenergy and biofuels and this in turn has driven up biomass prices and agricultural leases, making it far more difficult for other sectors to get their hands on biomass and distorting prices.

“This is blocking higher value material uses like chemicals and plastics from coming to fruition. RED-linked developments on the ground will have a considerable impact on the future availability of biomass for the materials industry.

“We urgently need a new European political framework for the most efficient and sustainable utilisation of biomass. This means especially, a level playing field between material and energy use. Five years ago this was a worldwide problem – today it’s mainly a problem for Europe. In America and Asia the political framework for bio-based chemicals and plastics is now much more favourable than in Europe. Accordingly, most of the new investments are going to the US, Canada, Brazil, Thailand, Malaysia and China.”

Labour and natural gas costs

At the recent Dornbirn Manmade Fibre conference in Austria, Giulio Bonazzi, president of CIRFS – the European Manmade Fibres Association – observed that European labour costs are the highest in the world as a result of taxes, social charges and unflexible labour laws, while a lack of liberalisation, legislation around issues such as climate change and political choices are all having negative consequences for manufacturers.

He believes, however, that sustainability will continue to grow in importance and since Europe is a forerunner in this respect, it should benefit from this leadership in the longer term.

At the same time, energy costs have also risen considerably and the shale gas revolution in other parts of the world is now having a major impact in Europe.

USA is increasingly competitive

For one thing, it’s making the US increasingly competitive, to the extent of being able to compete with China in conventional manufacturing, while also enjoying an increasing lead in new technologies based on renewables such as biofibres.

Bonazzi observed that as recently as 2005, the price of natural gas in the United States was almost three times higher than it was in Europe. Today, natural gas in Europe is twice the price it is in the USA.

“In Europe, the policy debates around issues such as GMOs – genetically modified organisms – have created a precedent and reinforced resistance against developments such as bioplastics and shale gas fracking,” says Pierre Wiertz, general manager of EDANA, the European Disposables and Nonwovens Association. “Current discussions on the application of nanotechnologies are another example of this trend.”

There is a feeling that Europe’s layers of legislation – 75% of which originate from the European Union before trickling down to individual countries – are stifling progress in such areas.

“Quite frankly, the governments of emerging economies are exerting bolder leadership to lure companies like us to invest there,” says Eamonn Tighe, of the pioneering biofibres company NatureWorks. “Not for short term, but for long term sustainable growth. Certainly countries in South East Asia and also Brazil have their eyes on the prize – to usurp the leadership of the US and EU, and establish rival regional hubs of industrial biotechnology, manufacturing and export development.”