Walk the halls of any major ingredients show right now — In-Cosmetics Global and Suppliers’ Day— and one word dominates the sustainability conversation: biotech. Precision fermentation and biosurfactant technologies are maturing fast, and for formulators the appeal is obvious. These are ingredients that arrive with a clean data story attached. But as the sector races to quantify its way to sustainability, it’s worth pausing on a quieter truth: not every environmental benefit fits on a spec sheet, and the most sustainable formulation strategy is rarely a single technology strategy.
Biotech’s compelling data story
Consider how far biotech has come. Hyaluronic acid was once extracted from rooster combs; today it’s produced by fermentation and available across a full range of molecular weights and crosslinking profiles. At the sustainability zone, Givaudan introduced a precision-fermentation HA offering higher yields with markedly lower energy, water, and production time, and reduced fossil fuel input. The story repeats across categories. Holiferm‘s biosurfactants claim a 50% CO₂ reduction versus petrochemical surfactants, with a lower carbon footprint than alkyl polyglucosides. A newly launched proprietary omega-7 lipid, made via precision fermentation, reports a carbon footprint six times smaller than macadamia or sea buckthorn oils. And because these processes don’t depend on cultivation, they carry a compelling deforestation-free narrative.
Reading the numbers with a critical eye
For a formulator, this is really appealing. Consistent supply, batch-to-batch reliability, engineered to specific performance, and a quantified footprint are real advantages — especially for materials whose conventional sourcing is volatile or land-intensive. But two cautions are worth holding onto. First, “no land” does not mean “no impact.” Fermentation still draws on water and electricity, and the true footprint depends heavily on the energy mix and process efficiency behind it. Those inputs belong in any honest comparison. Second, and more fundamentally, comparing materials purely on carbon and water metrics can be reductive. It flatters what’s easy to measure and quietly discounts what isn’t.
What the metrics miss: regenerative sourcing
That’s where regenerative and land-based sourcing earns its place — not as a nostalgic alternative to biotech, but as a different kind of sustainability that metrics alone struggle to capture. Take the initiative by Raices Verdes in Peru to reintroduce rosewood through fully traceable plantations on previously unproductive land. This replaces wild harvesting, protects biodiversity, and is built on partnership and on-site training that reframes the forest’s value: local communities learn they can earn a living by protecting the Amazon rather than exploiting it. No carbon figure fully expresses the worth of that shift in incentives.
Turn sustainability commitments into measurable growth and business resiliency with ULTRUS® Enterprise Sustainability software and services. Learn more here!
AAK‘s work with cooperatives in Burkina Faso tells a similar story. By investing in education, the company is changing practices that quietly undermine yield and ecology — for instance, the habit of burning land for quick clearing, which damages shea seedlings and slows their growth. Teaching that biodiversity itself boosts productivity has tangible results: a shea tree in a healthy, biodiverse setting can yield six to eight kilograms, against roughly three from a monoculture plantation. Here, biodiversity and productivity move together — an outcome that benefits the grower, the supply chain, and the ecosystem simultaneously.
Upcycling: sustainability as a systems outcome
Then there’s the upcycling wave, currently among the industry’s most talked-about routes. Lignopure’s lignin, recovered from wood waste, avoids land use entirely while diverting a byproduct from disposal. It’s a double benefit: waste reduction at source, plus functional value in-formula — in this case SPF-boosting properties that can reduce the load of UV filters needed. Sustainability here is a systems outcome, not a single line item.
The takeaway for formulators
So what should formulators take from all this? Not that one approach wins. The temptation, when biotech arrives with such clean numbers, is to treat quantification as a hierarchy — to assume the ingredient with the best carbon figure is automatically the more responsible choice. But a fermentation-derived lipid running on fossil-heavy grid power and a regeneratively farmed botanical that restores biodiversity and secures rural livelihoods are simply doing different jobs. One optimizes a measurable footprint; the other builds resilience, protects ecosystems, and supports communities in ways that resist tidy comparison. Both are legitimate. Both are needed.
The practical discipline is to hold two lenses at once. Use the metrics — demand life-cycle data, ask suppliers about their energy sources, and don’t accept “land-free” as a synonym for “impact-free.” But also look past the metrics to the wider picture: traceability, biodiversity, community, and waste. Ask what a material protects or restores, not only what it emits. The richest formulation portfolios will draw on biotech and regenerative and upcycled sourcing in combination, letting each deliver the type of sustainability it does best.
Innovation in synergy, not rivalry
The innovation unfolding across the industry is remarkable, and biotech is rightly a headline. But the smartest formulators won’t be the ones chasing the lowest number on a chart. They’ll be the ones who understand that biotech and regenerative ingredients aren’t rivals — they’re partners, working in synergy toward a more genuinely sustainable palette.
The views, opinions and technical analyses presented here are those of the author or advertiser, and are not necessarily those of ULProspector.com or UL Solutions. The appearance of this content in the UL Prospector Knowledge Center does not constitute an endorsement by UL Solutions or its affiliates.
All content is subject to copyright and may not be reproduced without prior authorization from UL Solutions or the content author.
The content has been made available for informational and educational purposes only. While the editors of this site may verify the accuracy of its content from time to time, we assume no responsibility for errors made by the author, editorial staff or any other contributor.
UL Solutions does not make any representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy, applicability, fitness or completeness of the content. UL Solutions does not warrant the performance, effectiveness or applicability of sites listed or linked to in any content.
