A survey on bio based coatings: will the price of bio based coatings fall?

Up to now, bio based materials for coatings have occupied a place, but there are clear signs that this situation may change. Biological based coating materials are actually older than fossil materials. Today, vegetable oil still plays an important role, but most of the paints and varnishes sold are based on fossil materials. But what is the future of the industry? In our survey, 160 experts from the industry responded. Bio based coating materials are becoming more and more important. In our survey, 77% of respondents think that bio based coating is more important than five years ago, nearly 21% think that bio based coating is as important as five years ago, and only 2.5% think that bio based coating is less important. However, this choice actually depends on the interviewee's position in the value chain. Raw material manufacturers, distributors and other enterprises (many research institutions and consulting institutions are here) have the highest evaluation on bio based coatings. Paint manufacturers are a bit cautious, but also think that bio based solutions are more important than five years ago, accounting for 68.5%. However, as some people mentioned in the survey, when talking about sustainable development, natural resources and other related topics, it will help to avoid confusion to have a clear and standardized definition of what the biological base is. Bio based coating materials have become cheaper. Sustainable development is good, but unfortunately, it is often more expensive.

Therefore, in addition to the particularly environmentally friendly customer base, cost plays a key role in the conversion of bio based materials. Most of the respondents (40%) expected to accept the cost-benefit ratio of biological materials within five years. 38% said it would take three years, while nearly 22% said it would take another seven years. It is worth noting that paint manufacturers themselves are more conservative in their answers to this question than raw material manufacturers. Less than 30% think the cost will be higher in three years, while at least 26% think it will take at least seven years. Raw material producers themselves are much more optimistic. Nearly 47% of the respondents think the price / performance ratio will be better in three years. "Once production increases, the price of biomaterials is likely to fall," commented one user. Companies should be positive about this, "while another said," a carbon tax may increase the economic benefits of raw materials, thus significantly reducing carbon emissions. " High cost is the biggest threat. Survey participants also clearly believe that cost is the biggest threat to switch to biological materials. From 1 (the highest risk) to 4 (the lowest risk), the coefficient finally averages 1.84. The second is supply chain risk, which is 2.52, followed by life cycle assessment (2.77) and impact of agricultural and social impacts (2.88). For all threats, participants gave a broad rating. Several comments from some participants also show this. In addition, the researchers discussed the possible competition in food supply. "In Europe, and in other countries, there is enough agricultural land to grow and use biological materials," commented one user The user also pointed out that vegetable oil is very cost-effective. Another user wrote: "for me, it is necessary to promote bio based raw materials with less environmental impact by not supporting industrial intensive agriculture or forestry.".

About the production of bio based materials, but how to produce bio based materials for paints and varnishes in the future? Basically, there are two options. First, they can be produced as temporary substitutes. Biological raw materials are fed into the established production process for fossil raw materials, and products with the same chemical formula are produced. For coating manufacturers, this is a relatively simple process, because the adhesives or additives produced in this way are not different from fossil precursors. Therefore, the formulation of the coating does not need to be changed. 51% of respondents think this is a more important production process. On the other hand, 49% of respondents believe that new raw materials are more likely to produce new properties. Therefore, the method of producing this raw material has interesting potential, but it can't rely on the already running production process and factory economically and effectively, and probably needs more development work. Raw material manufacturers' answers to this question tend to be more direct solutions (60%) to some extent, so the desire to continue to use the existing process is more dominant here. Distributors and "other" participants in the paint industry (many research institutions and consultants are hidden here) often see the advantages of this new chemical. However, there is a broad consensus on the most important industrial sector issues for biobased solutions. In all industries, B2C market is considered to be the most important power source. Overall, more than 64% of people think this is the most important. Label is not so important for bio based coatings.

Another surprising result is that label is not as important as people think for promoting more bio based coatings to enter the market. All sectors of the industry agree that the needs and regulation of end users are much more important. Adhesives have the greatest potential. Which raw materials have the greatest potential to increase the proportion of bio based coatings? The majority of the industry's answers are adhesives, accounting for 77%. In addition, nearly 18% of respondents believe that additives have the greatest potential, while pigments or other raw materials account for 6%. The range of different products. How many biotech based products these companies have provided? There are quite a lot of differences in this respect. In terms of carbon content, raw material manufacturers provide more bio based products than coating manufacturers. However, the survey did not provide a fully accurate value. The evaluation was based on the votes of 160 participants. The largest proportion of respondents was paint manufacturers, followed by raw material manufacturers. Their evaluation of dealers should be treated with caution, because the total number of participants in this group is relatively small, and these values can only indicate the rough statistical direction, but certainly not fully representative. These charts do not include participants who do not clearly indicate where they work or who work in another sector (other) of the paint industry. According to most participants, most of these "others" are in academic research and consulting departments. In addition, there are a small number of end users of paint and varnish hidden here.