Consumer Acceptance of Bio‑Based Textiles: What Really Drives Adoption

A new CELLFIL study published by researchers from the School of Arts, Design and Architecture at Aalto University in the Journal of Sustainability Research dives into how consumers understand textile materials and what it will take for innovative bio‑based solutions like orange peel-based filaments to gain consumer´s acceptance.

Consumers often overlook textile materials, seeing them as secondary to the garment itself, while opaque supply chains keep origins and impacts out of sight. Natural fibers are typically associated with higher quality and value, while synthetics are viewed more negatively, despite their widespread use and functionality. Material perceptions are shaped by sensory experience, cultural meanings, and preconceptions, often outweighing actual performance. Although quality and durability matter to consumers and could support more sustainable consumption, limited material knowledge means environmental impacts are rarely linked to everyday purchasing, care, and disposal decisions.

 “The survey questions in this paper focused on awareness and knowledge of textile materials, and consumer perceptions of a potential textile material made with orange peel.”

This study uses the idea of Sloterdijk´s spheres to explore how consumers understand and relate to textile materials. The concept helps explain how materials and sustainability issues can feel either close and familiar or distant and abstract, depending on everyday experiences and social contexts. Based on an online survey of 900 consumers in Germany, Italy, and the UK, the study looks at how people understand where textile materials (Fig 1) come from and how they perceive alternative bio‑based options, such as textiles made from orange peel. By examining these insights through personal, social, and environmental spheres, the research shows where connections between material knowledge and environmental concerns exist and where they break down in the shift toward more sustainable textiles.

The study shows that many people care about what their clothes are made of especially older consumers and people with higher education. That said, most people are only somewhat confident that they can correctly identify the materials in their own clothing. While familiar natural fibers such as cotton, wool, and silk are widely recognized, less well‑known bio‑based materials like viscose and lyocell often cause confusion. Overall, knowledge about textile materials varies widely depending on where people live, their age, and their education level, with good understanding of traditional fibers but much less awareness of newer or more complex ones. Most respondents (71%) were aware that some textiles are made from fossil‑based sources, particularly in Italy and among more highly educated participants. When asked about future options such as textiles made from orange peel, people mainly expected environmental benefits, including lower environmental impact, fewer microplastics, and better recyclability. However, these expectations differed somewhat by country and age. At the same time, practical concerns (such as quality, durability, and price) were far more important than sustainability claims alone. The findings suggest that while people are increasingly aware of where textiles come from, new bio‑based materials like orange‑peel textiles will only be accepted if they perform well and are affordable, not just because they are more sustainable.

When people talked about textiles made from orange peel, one message was very clear: they will only accept them if the material feels good on the body and works well in everyday use. Quality, durability, comfort, and overall performance mattered most. While many respondents were curious about the idea, they were not willing to give up comfort or practicality just for environmental reasons. Everyday details such as how easy the fabric is to wash, how it holds its color, and how it feels to the touch were especially important. Some people even mentioned smell as something that could influence their opinion. Respondents said they would want to see and feel the material themselves before trusting it, showing that real, hands‑on experience is key to acceptance.

“I can’t imagine how you can make a T-shirt out of orange peel.”

“My opinion is that we must also consider the impact of processing of the raw material and its origin.”

“I wouldn’t wear anything containing that.”

“I hope they have the same fit and comfort as cotton, polyester, and other fabrics.”

“If it was long-lasting and hard-wearing, I would buy it.”

“Positive, if it can be useful for the environment and is of good quality.”

“I’m very positive, because food waste that would otherwise be thrown away would be reused.”

“It’s an idea that attracts me because it’s an innovation.”

Opinions about orange peel-based textiles were mixed, but often thoughtful and detailed. Some people were put off by the idea, worrying about hygiene, decay, bad smells, mold, or possible skin reactions. Others, however, found the concept interesting and believed that avoiding synthetic fibers could be better for skin health. Price was another major concern. Most consumers said they would not be willing to pay more just because a material is more sustainable, unless it matches conventional textiles in quality and durability. There were also different views on cost, with some expecting recycled materials to be cheaper, while others assumed new technologies would make them more expensive.

More broadly, many consumers viewed orange peel-based textiles in a positive light because they fit with ideas of recycling, reuse, and reducing waste. Turning food waste into clothing was seen as innovative and in line with hopes for reducing plastic use, microplastics, and dependence on fossil‑based materials. At the same time, respondents were cautious. They questioned whether the full production process might create new environmental problems, such as increased emissions, pollution, or risks linked to large‑scale production. Overall, people expressed both optimism and caution: they liked the idea of “natural” and circular solutions, but wanted a full, honest assessment of their real environmental impacts.

By applying Sloterdijk’s concept of spheres (Fig 2), the study integrates quantitative and qualitative findings to explain how people think about and judge new textile materials. Put simply, these spheres reflect how materials fit into everyday life, social norms, and environmental concerns. In everyday use, what matters most to consumers is how a material feels on the body and how well it performs. Price mattered too, but even more important was the chance to see and feel the material themselves, since trying something new involves effort and risk. Even when people recognized environmental benefits, they were careful and expected the material to be comfortable, reliable, and practical before using it in daily life.

Beyond personal experience, people’s views were also shaped by social and cultural factors, such as where they live, their age, and their level of education. For example, Italian respondents showed higher awareness of textile materials overall, German respondents paid more attention to measurable environmental impacts, and respondents in the UK were generally more distant from questions about where materials come from. Older and more highly educated consumers also tended to know more. At the same time, many people cared about sustainability in general but found it hard to connect specific textiles to their environmental impacts, especially when materials were unfamiliar. Using orange peel as an example helped make the idea of bio‑based textiles easier to understand, but environmental concerns still felt distant. In the end, everyday comfort and performance mattered more than abstract sustainability goals, showing a clear gap between environmental awareness and what people are willing to wear in daily life.

The study shows that consumers’ understanding of textile materials and their environmental impacts is generally limited and uneven, varying strongly by country, age, education, and fiber type. Using the idea of personal, social, and environmental spheres, the findings reveal that people mainly judge textiles based on everyday personal experience, while environmental concerns remain more distant and abstract. Although bio‑based options such as orange peel-based textiles are viewed positively in principle, consumers often struggle to link materials to their biological or fossil origins and will only accept new materials if they match familiar textiles in performance and come with clear, trustworthy sustainability information. Overall, the results highlight that material innovation alone is not enough: better communication, targeted education, hands‑on experience, and broader systemic changes are needed to turn environmental awareness into everyday sustainable choices.

The full version of Aalto University’s paper in the Journal of Sustainability Research titled “Personal, Social, And Environmental Spheres in Consumers’ Knowledge of Textile Materials” is available online here since 9^th April 2026. It has been authored by Aalto University´s principal investigators in CELLFL, Kirsi Niinimäki, and scientists Jenni Väänänen-Lauterbach and Elina Lewe. Find out more about CELLFIL’s scientific publications on our website here.

Article by Marianna Granatier from RTDS