IMPUESTO GENERAL A LAS VENTAS:

To answer the research question, EU researchers and frontrunners involved in the valorisation of secondary biomass feedstocks are advised to pursue the strategies described below to promote consumer acceptance for their bio-based products.

§ The valorisation of secondary biomass feedstocks could be marketed as an asset. Indeed, consumers are increasingly sensitive to the issue of waste. Therefore, both EU researchers and frontrunner businesses are advised to communicate openly and clearly about waste valorisation. A positive branding with regard to the use of residues might indeed lead to increased consumer acceptance. When a clear link is established between the use of residues and its positive impact in terms of sustainability, consumers are prone to finding such products more attractive (Abbey et al., 2015). Besides, this offers niche stakeholders the opportunity to position themselves with regard to the land grab issue and thereby dissipate possible misconceptions on the part of consumers. The promotion of waste valorisation could further help consumers develop positive mental representations of bio-based products and the bio-based economy in general.

§ The valorisation of secondary biomass feedstocks is not enough however to ensure consumer acceptance, nor is the promise of a bio-based or more sustainable product. The first quality of such products should be to ensure that all the expected product properties and attributes are present. Otherwise, it will not be possible to reach mainstream consumers. As shown by Liobikiene and Bernatoniene (2017), the consumer acceptance factors for each product category have to be taken into account – i.e. product attributes have priority (Cao et al., 2014) and will vary for each product category. Besides, ensuring a high-quality product that meets consumers’ expectations will also contribute to decreasing the product’s sustainability liability (Luchs et al., 2010). With respect to bio-based products specifically, they should offer an added value compared to their fossil-based counterparts, especially when the bio- based content is to be promoted. Indeed, promoting a bio-based product for the sake of being bio-based will not do the trick. Bio-based products needs to convince through additional qualities such as an improved environmental impact, a higher material safety, improved product properties, etc. This also implies that they should offer better end-of-life options than their conventional fossil-based counterparts and ideally reach a 100% bio-based content. Indeed, consumers usually associate bio-based products with biodegradability and

106 recyclability (Steenis et al., 2018; Meeusen et al., 2015). Therefore, end-of-life options need to be explained very transparently to avoid any greenwashing allegations. The same applies to the percentage of bio-based content which matters to consumers (Sijtsema et al., 2016; Reinders et al., 2017). The reasons behind the products’ bio-based share should be clearly explained to consumers when EU researchers and frontrunner businesses decide to communicate about it.

§ A coherent, holistic, and transparent communication is crucial. Both the empirical data and literature review results point to the relevance of adopting a “behind the curtain” communication. EU frontrunner businesses that valorise secondary biomass feedstocks could thus not only communicate on their products but also on the company values, the sustainability of the value chain, the end-of-life options for their products, etc. Simple and transparent labels which reflect the whole lifecycle of a product or combine multiple sustainability factors are a powerful communication tool in that regard. Besides, marketing strategies should be tailored to the targeted customers: where B2C customers want to know how their choices can contribute to increased sustainability for example and how they can feel good about it (Hartmann & Apaolaza-Ibáñez, 2012), B2B customers are rather motivated by strategic performance (Carus et al., 2014). Niche stakeholders are advised to make their product claims more actionable (Koenig-Lewis et al., 2014) and offer a coherent product concept (Magnier & Schoormans, 2015). A further communication strategy is to inform consumers about the fossil-based content of equivalent materials to highlight the benefits of sustainable and bio-based materials. Indeed, knowledge about the negative impact of fossil-based products leads consumers to discount them and privilege more sustainable alternatives (e.g. Petersen & Brockhaus, 2017; Trudel & Cotte, 2009). In the case of products with a low bio-based content however – e.g. active bio-based ingredients with better properties than synthetic equivalents – the additional product qualities should be put forward rather than the bio-based content. Communicating on the bio-based content could indeed backlash and be perceived by consumers as greenwashing.

§ Involving consumers more actively in the product development could contribute to raising awareness among consumers and ensuring that products meet their expectations. This also holds true when it comes to developing future scenarios for the bio-based economy. Both governments and scientific researchers could actively involve citizens so that they feel listened to and can co-shape the transition (van den Berg et al., 2013). Business models can further play a role here. For example, embracing extended producer responsibility and

107 offering customers the possibility to return bio-based materials at the end-of-life stage – that is, where feasible – would signal to consumers that the undertaken sustainability efforts are sincere and thus increase trust.

§ User intermediaries can also be a useful bridge between the niche and the regime level. Frontrunner businesses are advised to collaborate with consumer organisations, NGOs and certification organisations that can act as platforms for their products and their message. The bio-based industry should thereby ensure to speak as one voice and take NGOs with them. Providing detailed information to these intermediaries can contribute to the emergence of a more coherent and visible discourse. However, niche stakeholders can only do so much, and further user intermediaries should jump in. Especially governmental bodies can set the trajectory forward through public procurement, and public figures can act as role models by promoting social desirability for bio-based products and new social norms through peer pressure.

The niche-level strategies mentioned above will not be sufficient however without major regime changes, especially at the policy and cultural level.

§ There cannot be consumer acceptance as long as consumers are not offered a real choice and products are not marketed at their true cost. This implies that the negative externalities of all products – both fossil-based and bio-based – should become visible to consumers and factored into the final price. This could be achieved through graded eco-labels that are compulsory for all products, by legally penalizing greenwashing practices, and by providing incentives to niche businesses that have embraced all sustainability pillars. Furthermore, for the regime infrastructure to change and innovative value chains to flourish, there is a need for EU-wide legislation on end-of-life options and the cascading use of materials. Product sustainability needs to become the legislative trajectory to aim for.

§ At the cultural level, it is crucial for consumers to develop symbolic meanings and social norms with regard to the bio-based concept and the valorisation of so-called “waste”. Information is thereby essential and could be relayed by various regime actors: educational curricula and media reports could discuss environmental issues much more and provide science-based information. Businesses also have their role to play by increasing transparency along the whole value chain. Finally, governments could develop outreach programmes to emulate a broader debate on the correlation between our production and consumption modes and our anthropogenic impact on the planet.

108