What the number actually measures
93% bio-based content means that 93% of the total carbon in the material comes from biological sources — in Agropak's case, coconut shell powder and bamboo fiber. The remaining 7% comes from additives or processing agents with fossil-derived carbon. The measurement is not about weight, volume, or ingredient count. It is specifically about carbon origin.
This is measured using ASTM D6866, a radiocarbon analysis method. Living plants continuously absorb carbon-14 from the atmosphere. Once biological material is harvested and processed, the carbon-14 ratio reflects its biological origin. Fossil materials have no detectable carbon-14, having been buried for millions of years. A laboratory runs the analysis and reports a percentage against a modern reference standard.
The 93% result for Agropak's bio-composite material was verified by TÜV SÜD, Frankfurt — an independent third-party certification body operating a bio-based content program under this standard. The result is specific to this material and this test date.
What the number does not mean
Bio-based content says nothing about biodegradability, recyclability, compostability, or environmental impact. A material can be 100% bio-based and non-biodegradable. A material can be 0% bio-based and fully recyclable. These are separate properties measured by separate standards.
It also says nothing about how the raw materials were grown, harvested, or transported. Agricultural sourcing, land use, water consumption, and processing emissions are captured in life cycle assessments — a different type of analysis that goes beyond the ASTM D6866 result. Agropak does not currently claim a completed life cycle assessment. The bio-based content figure stands on its own as a documented property of the material's carbon composition.
What a beauty brand can claim — and how
If you use Agropak's packaging, you can reference the bio-based content result in your own communications, provided you attribute it accurately. The defensible phrasing is specific: "Packaging made with material verified at 93% bio-based carbon content by TÜV SÜD to ASTM D6866."
What becomes harder to defend without additional evidence: "eco-friendly packaging", "sustainable packaging", "natural packaging", or "zero-waste packaging" based on the bio-based result alone. These terms are broader than what a single metric documents. Consumer protection regulations in the EU, UK, and increasingly in India require sustainability claims to be substantiated with specific, verifiable evidence. A documented bio-based content figure is that kind of evidence — but it should be presented as such, not used as a proxy for a wider claim the data does not support.
A cleaner approach for brand communications: name what is documented rather than claiming what is not. "Made with 93% bio-based material, independently verified" is more defensible than "eco-friendly packaging" and, for an informed buyer, more credible.
Why 93% and not 100%?
Achieving 100% bio-based content in a structural, compression-moulded composite is practically difficult. Even materials with all-natural inputs typically require small quantities of processing agents, binders, or barrier coatings that introduce fossil-derived carbon at low concentrations. The 7% difference in Agropak's material comes from the cosmetic-grade barrier coating required to make the jar formulation-compatible.
In the context of the cosmetic packaging market, where most alternatives are petroleum polymer-based (effectively 0% bio-based), a 93% result represents a structurally different material class — not an incremental improvement.
How to evaluate bio-based claims from other suppliers
When a packaging supplier describes their product as bio-based, plant-derived, or natural, ask three questions: What standard was used to measure it? What was the specific result? Who verified it independently? If the answer to any of these is absent, the claim is marketing language without a documented basis.
ASTM D6866 and EN 16785-1 are the two widely-used standards for bio-based content measurement. TÜV SÜD, DIN CERTCO, and Bureau Veritas are among the recognized certification bodies operating bio-based content programs. A credible claim names the standard, the percentage, and the certifying body. A claim that names only the percentage without the standard or the certifier is unverifiable.