Occupying a middle ground between natural and petrochemical, synthetic fibres made from renewable resources may hit the right chord with brands looking to lighten their environmental footprint. But these biopolymers also come with their fair share of issues, related to land use, price competitiveness, and the term ‘bio’ itself, which can have many meanings.                                                  

Biopolymers come in many forms. The cellulose in cotton is a natural biopolymer, whereas that of manmade cellulosic fibres has been modified, or regenerated, to use an industry term. Not entirely natural.

Biosynthetic fibres, derived from renewable rather than fossil resources, are yet another category. Their building blocks, or monomers, come from industrial sugars, such as glucose, or from oils, such as castor bean oil. They combine the performance characteristics of synthetics with the draw of a lighter, biogenic carbon footprint. While this sounds like the best of both worlds, biopolymers have largely remained marginal players in the market. The complex chemistry of converting biomass into chemicals makes them more expensive than petrochemical synthetics. They also face competition on the sustainability front, as ‘recycled’ is considered an easier sell than ‘bio’. 

Although brands claim to be looking to reduce their emissions, biopolymers do not seem to benefit from these (often half-hearted) efforts. In its latest, 2026 materials report, Textile Exchange estimates that the market share of biobased polyester was 0.01% of global production in 2025. Ahead by a slim margin, biopolyamides are said to make up around 0.5% of the total market for nylon.  

Anticipating that demand will eventually materialise, fibre producers have been investing heavily in technologies and factories to produce plant-derived chemicals and ingredients. Korean fibre producer Hyosung has launched production at a brand-new factory in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, with the capacity to produce 50,000 tonnes of biobased butanediol (Bio-BDO) per year. A $1 billion investment. The site was chosen for its proximity to a Hyosung elastane facility, further lightening the footprint of its regen Bio Elastane. The company says it is prepared to increase capacity to 200,000 tonnes annually if market demand follows.  

The Lycra Company is also betting that brands will switch to its bio-derived elastane and has been actively campaigning for the adoption of its Renewable Lycra fibre. Its launch was made possible by the construction of a 66,000-tonne -per-year bio-BDO factory in Eddyville, Iowa. A $300 million investment by Qore, jointly owned by US group Cargill and Germany-based HELM, it sources corn within a 100-mile radius. Describing the company’s strategy, Alistair Williamson, The Lycra Company’s head of sustainability, tells Sportstextiles that “the strongest appeal is that Renewable Lycra fibre helps brands and mills move away from fossil-based resources without asking them to compromise on the performance consumers expect from Lycra fibre. It delivers the same stretch, recovery, comfort, fit and durability, while offering 70% plant-based content derived from annually renewable feedstock”. 

Scaling up 

CovationBio, a DuPont spin-off now owned by Chinese textile group Huafon, was the first to industrialise production of a biopolyester, a polytrimethylene terephthalate (PTT), with 37% renewable content. The launch of Sorona goes back to the early 2000s. Huafon is now investing in a new biobased platform, bio-PTMEG, to which it has applied the brand name Xatryx. It recently sold its stake in Primient Covation, which produces bio-BDO, to Primient while securing sourcing rights. It has announced it is investing RMB 10 billion (or €1.2 billion) in a 50,000-tonne-per-year bio-PTMEG plant in Qidong, Jiangsu Province, referring to it as its new C4 Platform because the factory will convert C4 chemicals (those with four carbon atoms), including BDO, into bio-PTMEG. 

“The C4 Platform facility utilises a new process called Advanced ThermoChemical technology that was developed in-house by CovationBio to create Xatryx products,” says Mosha H. Zhao, marketing director for the C4 Platform. “The first phase of the Qidong plant achieved mechanical completion in April 2026 and has officially initiated production of its first commercial batches of Xatryx, which is designed as a drop-in replacement for fossil-based PTMEG.” This compound can be used to make elastane, polyurethanes and thermoplastic elastomers. Huafon plans to launch its own a bio-elastane. 

UPM Biochemicals is a newer name in the fibre industry. The Finnish company converts wood into sugar and produces bio-MEG, a building block for polyester, among other non-fossil chemicals. It has invested €550 million to build an industrial-scale biorefinery in Leuna, west of Leipzig, in Germany. With an announced capacity of 220,000 tonnes per year, the company claims that it is the largest such facility in Europe. Production of bio-MEG, bio-MPG and lignin-based renewable functional fillers began late last year. The company can also deliver a renewable naphtha from its biorefinery in Lappeenranta, Finland. “Together, these renewable carbon sources enable pathways towards polyester with significantly reduced fossil carbon content and ultimately even 100% wood-based polyester solutions,” says Holger John, sales manager for glycols at a division the company calls UPM Next Generation Renewables. “More broadly, our analysis of future textile pathways shows that the industry’s key challenge is not synthetic fibres themselves, but the fossil carbon on which they currently depend. When comparing different pathways for the textile sector, a key conclusion is that renewable and recycled carbon should not be viewed as competing solutions. The strongest outcomes are achieved when both are allowed to scale together.”  

Better biomass  

Derived from renewable resources, and major agricultural crops such as corn and sugarcane, choosing to use biosynthetics inevitably raises questions about land use, and the long running food-versus-fuel debate. As seen earlier, they make up a small portion of textile fibres, and an even smaller part of farming. In its latest report, ‘Bio-based Building Blocks and Polymers’ published in February 2026, the Nova Institute in Germany pegs global demand for biomass (for all uses) at 13.7 million tonnes per year. Feed production makes up the majority (57%), and some 0.026% are used to make biopolymers. With regards to land use, it says that the production of 4.5 million tonnes of biobased polymers in 2025 required 3.6 million tonnes of biomass, grown on 0.016% of agricultural land. This, the report notes, is due to the high area efficiency of sugarcane and maize crops, which are the main feedstocks used in the production of biobased polymers.  

While this data helps clear the confusion on land usage, the issue continues to haunt the biofuels, bioplastics and biopolymers industries. Food sovereignty is a sensitive issue, and many brands and corporations prefer to steer clear of the topic. Biomass is ranked in three categories: food, non-food and non-agricultural. First-generation feedstocks are derived from maize, sugarcane and sugar beets. Agricultural waste (corn stover, wheat straw) and wood residues make up what are called second-generation feedstock. Third-generation ones are those that avoid terrestrial agriculture, the most commonly cited example is algae. Carbon extracted from flue gases is another third-generation, non-food and non-agricultural source of carbon. 

Earlier this year, Hyosung announced it had switched from corn to sugarcane, which it sources from Brazil, a country with an overcapacity for sugar production, says Simon Whitmarsh-Knight, marketing and sustainability director for Hyosung Textiles. This change also “removes one step in the production process as there is no need to convert corn into sugar,” he adds. The resulting bio-elastane can now claim 70% biobased content. The company also offers a version that is 98% biomass-derived. “It is a combination of 70% from sugarcane and 28% mass balance plant-based biomass,” he says.  

Other companies are switching from food to non-food biomass. CovationBio now uses corn cobs to make its Xatryx bioPTMEG. In Italy, Fulgar has reduced corn in favour of castor bean oil in the production of its EVO biopolyamide. A solution that offers better performance, as Daniela Antunes, marketing manager tells Sportstextiles. At a panel talk at Future Fabrics Expo in Brussels last June, Jerry Luo, the cofounder of the Chinese PEF producer LeafBio, said the company had switched to agricultural straw waste in 2025. “In our process, we turn cellulose into glucose to make PEF. We can use cellulose from textiles and cardboard, but textile waste is 50% more expensive than agricultural waste,” he told the audience.  

Matching nature  

All producers of biopolymers claim that their plant-based solutions are drop-in replacements for fossil-derived chemicals. Biosynthetics are thus virtually indistinguishable from conventional manmade fibres. This is a good point, but not an easy sell. To emphasise their renewable plant-based origins, they are often paired with natural fibres. This trend has been gaining traction amid growing concerns about microplastic pollution and the added pull of a polyester backlash on social media.  

“In activewear, Renewable Lycra fibre can strengthen the overall materials story, particularly when combined with natural or man-made cellulosic fibres,” says Mr Williamson. At CovationBio, Kiki Chen, in charge of marketing communications for Sorona Apparel, also sees “exciting opportunities in combining Sorona with natural fibres to enhance their performance while maintaining their natural comfort and aesthetics. Sorona helps bring together the best of nature and performance.” It is a key macro trend for Mr Whitmarsh-Knight, at Hyosung: “Personal wellness drives demand for biobased elastane, and it is particularly important in next-to-skin applications.” 

With elastane’s biggest producers investing in biopolymers, could bio-elastanes be more prevalent than plant-derived polyesters or nylons? Maybe not, as the stretch fibre makes up a small portion of a fabric’s composition. Others argue that recycled is easier to sell. For elastane, present only in blends, this is a formidable challenge.  

Finally, biopolymers suffer from the double meaning of the prefix ‘bio’ in many languages. At a panel talk at Première Vision in September, René Bethmann, senior innovation manager for Vaude, highlighted this point: “Germans are sceptical of biobased polymers, due in part to the double meaning of bio, which also refers to organic. No one questions the technology, but rather the impact on land use and farming. We need to be able to explain this better because consumers have many questions about biobased.” Recycled, he also noted, is an end-of-life solution, whereas biobased is a beginning-of-life solution. Could this be a first, smart step in helping biosynthetics grow?

Renewable Lycra fibre is said to deliver the same stretch, recovery, comfort, fit and durability of conventional Lycra, while offering 70% plant-based content derived from annually renewable feedstock. Credit: The Lycra Company

Share this story: