Fig 1 - uploaded by Sarah Mubareka
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
The EU Bioeconomy Strategy, updated in 2018, in its Action Plan pledges an EU-wide, internationally coherent monitoring system to track economic, environmental and social progress towards a sustainable bioeconomy. This paper presents the approach taken by the European Commission’s (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC) to develop such a system. To accomp...
Context in source publication
Context 1
... three dimensions of the definition as mentioned above represent the structure of a conceptual framework ( Fig. 1) which serves as a basis to identify data needs for the monitoring system. It is also of interest to verify that the monitoring system does not lack key indicators and that it uses adequate weights for the different aspects of the ...
Similar publications
The European Commission’s strategic long-term vision for 2050, “A Clean Planet for All”, identifies the bioeconomy and the circular economy as key strategic areas for achieving a climate-neutral economy. Focus is given to the sustainability of biomass and the circularity of materials. However, in order to facilitate the transition toward a sustaina...
Citations
... This discussion anchors around applying biological principles and processes based on technical innovation to maximise efficiency and derive high value from bio-based resources in all sectors of the economy [4]. The bioeconomy emerged as an economic paradigm in science, technology, and innovation (STI) policy to minimise adverse the environmental impacts of economic activities, thereby aiming to achieve important sustainable development goals (SDGs) [5,6]. Transitioning to a bioeconomy involves efforts by a wide range of industries to replace fossil fuel inputs with renewable carbon sources along with resource efficiency and preservation of the resource values in material circles [7,8]. ...
Stakeholders and their dynamics are often neglected in innovation system literature. The importance of the bioeconomy is growing due to its implications for addressing environmental challenges, shaping economic decisions, markets, and sustainable development. This paper analyses stakeholders’ dynamics for knowledge creation and innovation to transit from unsustainable practices to the sustainable use of biological resources—the bioeconomy. The originality of this paper is the creation of an analytical framework to characterise the interactions of stakeholders and how these interactions reshape innovation systems to create a new narrative and knowledge-base platform for innovation. Using a qualitative approach, data were collected through surveys between 2022 and 2024. We explored the dynamics of 29 stakeholders involved and collaborating in R&D activities from the biotechnology sector in Caldas, Colombia. Our findings show that dynamics towards the bioeconomy are occurring only at the discursive level. Stakeholders carry out research activities to generate income rather than for innovative purposes, overlooking informal interactions that create novel ideas that could translate into solutions, services, and products. We conclude that the bioeconomy transition needs a systemic disequilibrium with a new institutional infrastructure that enables stakeholders, including civil society, to create a structural change for embracing innovation dynamics.
... This discussion anchors around applying biological principles and processes based on technical innovation to maximise efficiency and derive high value from biobased resources in all sectors of the economy [4]. Bioeconomy emerged as an economic paradigm in science, technology and innovation (STI) policy with the purpose of minimising adverse environmental impacts of economic activities, thereby aiming to achieve important sustainable development goals (SDG) [5,6]. Transitioning to a bioeconomy involves efforts by a wide range of industries in the replacement of fossil fuel inputs by renewal carbon sources along with resource efficiency and preservation of the resource values in material circles [7,8]. ...
Stakeholders and their dynamics are often neglected in innovation systems literature. The importance of bioeconomy is growing for its implications on addressing environmental challenges, shaping economic decisions, markets and sustainable development. This paper analyses stakeholders’ dynamics for knowledge creation and innovation to transit from unsustainable practices to the sustainable use of biological resources - bioeconomy. The originality of this paper is the creation of an analytical framework to characterise the interactions of stakeholders and how these interactions reshape the innovation systems to create a new narrative and a new knowledge base platform for innovation. Using a qualitative approach, data was collected through surveys between 2022 and 2024. We explored the dynamics of 29 stakeholders involved and collaborating in R&D activities from the biotechnology sector in Caldas, Colombia. Our findings show that dynamics towards bioeconomy are only at the discursive level. Stakeholders carry out research activities as a means to generate income rather than for innovative purposes, overlooking informal interactions which generate novel ideas that could translate into solutions, services, and products. We conclude that bioeconomy transition needs a systemic disequilibrium by a new institutional infrastructure that enables stakeholders, including civil society, to create a structural change for embracing innovation dynamics.
... In order to evaluate all aforementioned elements the reports developed by circularity practitioners, available guidelines and reports have been used, as the Ellen MacArthur Foundation [35], the BS 8001 British Standard [9], the Circular Economy Action Plan, [56], the OECD Inventory of Circular Economy Indicators [44] and the European Union Monitoring Framework [52]. The final selection of indicators is depicted on Table 3. ...
The European Bioeconomy Strategy aims to accelerate the deployment of a sustainable European bioeconomy to maximize its contribution to the 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as well as to the Paris Agreement on climate change. In this context, transport is considered as a key sector, with aviation and shipping playing an important role due to the need to meet its huge demand. In order to reduce potential emissions from the transport sector, the use of biofuels could be considered as a solution. However, with the aim of using biofuels to replace conventional fuels, it is important to assess their cost-effectiveness and feasibility, and in this aspect the valorization of waste streams for their production could help to meet this challenge. This is the framework of this research report, which is based on the use of black liquor (BL) from pulp and paper production to produce biofuel through a hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) unit. Three technological designs and production capacities were considered: full extraction of the oil phase and its upgrading by catalytic hydrothermal deoxygenation (Scenario 1, S1), partial extraction of the oil phase (Scenario 2, S2) and full extraction but without upgrading (Scenario 3, S3). Low (100 t/d), medium (300 t/d) and high (600 t/d) production capacities were regarded.
From the modelling data, a life cycle perspective was adopted, taking into account both the environmental analysis (LCA) and the life cycle costs (LCC), as well as the circular potential using different performance, resource-flow circularity and economic indicators. In addition, a composite indicator has been proposed to obtain a single score taking into account the three assessments: environmental, cost and circularity. The results obtained show that S3, with a production of 300 t/d, has the lowest environmental impact and the highest profitability corresponds to a capacity of 600 t/d. In terms of circularity, S3 also shows the best performance, mainly due to its higher resource productivity and lower energy intensity. These results are in line with those obtained for the composite indicator, and also show that higher production capacities and a simple but efficient process technology, such as S3, is the alternative with the highest potential for both sustainability and circularity.
... Given these challenges, the effective use of monitoring and modelling tools is key to understanding the complexities, trade-offs, and potential pathways for achieving a sustainable transition to a CBE, and ultimately to support policy-making (Kardung et al., 2021;Pyka et al., 2022;Robert et al., 2020). In this context, Ferreira et al. (2022) argue that the long-term assessment and implementation of the bioeconomy is currently hindered by the lack of a consistent approach to the methodology and variables used. ...
... Most of the identified articles (21) rely on literature reviews to enhance understanding of the bioeconomy. As mentioned above, reviews addressed various objectives, including proposals for bioeconomy indicators, notably Bracco et al. (2019) for the territorial and product level monitoring and Kardung et al. (2021) for the country level monitoring; conceptual frameworks (de Schutter et al., 2019;Liobikiene et al., 2019;Robert et al., 2020) and models (Christensen et al., 2022;Pyka et al., 2022), among others. ...
... In general, due to their reliance on aggregated data and top-down perspectives, these are generally limited to territorial analysis, with a prevalence towards the macro scale and a broad set of socioeconomic aspects including gross value added or employment creation (Jurga et al., 2021;Loizou et al., 2019). On the other hand, environmental aspects are generally constrained to greenhouse gases (GHG) generation (Asada et al., 2020;Brizga et al., 2019;O'Donoghue et al., 2019;Robert et al., 2020). This limited scope may be due to the fact that the availability of harmonised socioeconomic data at the national level makes it more feasible to apply these approaches at a larger scale. ...
... Arguably, these innovations should minimize negative environmental impacts of food production and consumption, and thereby promote sustainability in the food sector. Consequently, bio-based start-ups are emerging as one of the solutions to the urgent challenges of food security, resource scarcity and climate change (Robert et al., 2020). ...
The bioeconomy is emerging as a significant driver of economic growth and sustainability thinking globally and in East Africa. Leveraging bioscience knowledge, tools and techniques, research organisations and start-ups are developing improved bio-based products including crop varieties, as they respond to the region’s commitment to sustainability transition. This study evaluated the bio-based start-up ecosystem in four countries in East Africa. The study used a qualitative approach which included document review, key informant interviews (KIIs) with startup managers and focus group discussion (FGD) with stakeholders in the start-up ecosystem in East Africa. In the whole region, probably less than 30 successful start-ups relating to the emerging bioeconomy were established within the last five years. The findings show that access to finance remains a critical challenge for bio-based start-ups in East Africa. While there is growing interest from both public and private investors, many start-ups struggle to secure funding due to factors such as stringent collateral requirements and high-interest rates especially for young innovators. Additionally, allocated funds for research initiatives aimed at developing bio-based products, processes and technologies appear to be insufficient to meet the growing financial capital needs of the startups in the food sector. Findings also show that start-ups operate below capacity because of shortage of raw materials due to weak supply chains and to a great extent weak links to markets. It was found that lack of specialization among start up ecosystem players hinders the support provided to entrepreneurs. The study recommends increased collaboration between national research institutions, universities and international partners in the creation of knowledge, and translating the knowledge to innovation in the region. Additionally, leveraging sector-specific expertise and providing incentives for start-ups and innovation hubs are necessary for building a more resilient and inclusive innovation ecosystem for the food system in East Africa.
... Engaging in a participatory decision-making process involving society, the private sector, and the public requires a coherent systemic and dynamic approach. The scientific literature claims that collaborative platforms (Kerdlap et al. 2019;Robert et al. 2020) that bring together representatives from various sectors, including government agencies, businesses, civil society organizations, and academia, are required to provide spaces for dialogue, knowledge sharing, and co-creation of solutions. By fostering collaboration and active participation, diverse perspectives and expertise can be integrated into the decision-making process, claiming for shared vision and goals. ...
In this chapter, we explore and analyze the foundations of our societal relationships, in relation to the concept of industrial transitions. When trying to understand how humans, collectively and prospectively, adapt or react to socioeconomic disruptive changes like the one Industry 5.0 is enacting, two concepts emerge. The first concept is the scope at which humans can handle complex issues. The second is the speed at which they are able to reframe their mental models, based on exposure to high-speed information exchange, that may drive thinking towards unexpected and completely different outcomes. We argue that ecosystems and their innovation capabilities are the only available mechanism we collectively have to build creativity and address the prioritizing of societal values. Innovation ecosystems can supply the testbed pathways on which better societal functions may emerge. In summary, this chapter discusses ways in which socioeconomic transitions could be dynamically applied to relevant functional systems, with a time horizon that allows enough time for evaluation of the effects (positive or negative), so that elements could be changed and/or introduced into or for the system. The circular society described in this chapter would have both intended and unintended consequences, as does any social complex adaptive system. As such, changes to any social contract defining particular interactions and relevant issues, would in turn, contribute to the fabric of preconditions and definitions of the transition between Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0.
... The LCA methodology offers several advantages compared to other methods, such as the Greenness Grid methodology, which focuses more on the production stage, the techno-economic assessment (TEA), which provides information on the conceptual design of the process and its economic feasibility, or the safe-and-sustainable by design (SSbD) framework, which is more related to preliminary design or optimization (Guinée et al., 2022;Pinto et al., 2020;Shah et al., 2016). LCA considers all stages of the value chain and makes it possible to identify trade-offs between different alternatives and to identify the most sustainable and appropriate strategies for the development of bioeconomy activities (Patel et al., 2022;Robert et al., 2020;Hildebrandt et al., 2019;Simonen et al., 2017). ...
... One of the challenges in studying the bioeconomy is the limited availability of data. The bioeconomy encompasses multiple sectors that cannot be adequately captured using conventional data sources on economic activities or innovation endeavors [14,15]. Existing attempts to estimate the contributions of the bioeconomy to specific sectors often rely heavily on assumptions due to the complexity of accurately determining its shares in sectoral activities [16,17]. ...
... This approach will allow us to capture only a subset of all innovative activities in the bioeconomy. Generally speaking, there is no universal definition of the bioeconomy, which is why research results on the bioeconomy depend very much on the conditions, criteria and assumptions under which the bioeconomy is defined [14,17,28]. There are innovations that are considered to be part of the bioeconomy and are renewable, but trigger new direct conflicts e.g. with the use of natural resources or ecosystems. ...
... In the literature, there are approaches to more precisely delineate biobased technologies or economic activities of the bioeconomy. However, there is a lack of comprehensive data in most areas [14,15,18,37]. The same applies to other attempts, such as the study of the impact of the bioeconomy on the national economy of individual countries [16,38]. ...
Facilitating the transformation of innovation systems is a vital endeavor within the global quest to diminish the detrimental environmental consequences of economic activities. Against this background, scholars and policymakers emphasize the potentials of a societal transition towards a ‘bioeconomy’. In this paper, we study the technological specialization of countries in biobased technologies relating to chemicals and pharmaceuticals, which are key constituents for a future bioeconomy. By identifying these technologies in patent and publication data, we analyse specialization and diversification processes for 15 countries from 1997 to 2019. We find that countries that already had a relative advantage in biobased technologies are more likely to develop new specializations in technologies that relate to the bioeconomy. Beyond that, countries' specialization in biobased technologies varies between basic research (scientific publications) and applied research (patents). Our study also shows that greater technological complexity tends to limit specialization in biobased publications, highlighting the need for targeted policy interventions supporting the bioeconomy.
... As a matter of fact, after its rise in the 1970s, the popularity of conventional energy input/output analysis quickly declined in the 1980s due to persistent conceptual and methodological ambiguities resulting in lack of practical applicability (Energy Research and Development Administration, 1977;Leach, 1975;Long, 1978;Slesser, 1977), and eventually conventional input/output analysis was appropriated by the fields of economics and econometrics [e.g., (Miller & Blair, 2022)]. The current impasse in sustainability research has revived the interest of the academic community and policy makers in biophysical analyses of social-ecological systems (e.g., regarding the "bioeconomy" (European Commission 2023; Robert et al., 2020) but in this quest the older but highly relevant work already performed in this field by Pimentel tends to be ignored. ...
This paper revisits David Pimentel’s work on input–output analysis of agricultural production systems with the objective of demonstrating its (continued) relevance for the analysis of complex environmental issues. It is shown that his unique accounting procedure is grounded in complexity theory and that it effectively links expected relations over primary inputs and outputs exchanged with the ecosphere and secondary inputs and outputs exchanged with the anthroposphere (including labor). New conceptual building blocks are introduced to demonstrate that Pimentel’s analysis can be extended across different hierarchical levels (crop typologies, commodity supply systems, agricultural regions, etc.) and dimensions of analysis to obtain a formal representation of the metabolic pattern of social–ecological systems. These concepts include: (i) state–pressure relation (extensive properties); (ii) flow–fund ratios (intensive properties), i.e., qualitative benchmarks to define typologies of agricultural production in relation to both the socioeconomic process (e.g., land productivity, labor productivity) and the environmental pressure exerted on the environment (e.g., water consumption, GHG emission and pesticide load per hectare); and (iii) relational analysis to scale up the analysis to higher hierarchical levels so as to acquire policy relevance. Examples of the pertinence of this formalization are illustrated using Pimentel’s original data on grain cultivation in the USA. It is concluded that Pimentel’s work has set an example for a holistic approach to complex environmental problems and has paved the way for a more general conceptualization of social–ecological systems as metabolic systems.
... PPP infrastructures, just like other construction projects, produce a significant quantum of emissions during the building, operation, maintenance and demolition stages that threaten the environment, economy, public health and community's sustainable development. Evidently, Robert et al., (2020) mentioned that PPP building projects in the European Union (EU) in particular account for 40% of overall energy use, 36% of greenhouse gas emissions, 50% of all raw materials extracted and 33% of total water use over their entire life cycle. PPP transport infrastructures such as roads, railways and air trips, which rely heavily on fossil fuel, contribute 37% to global waste and emissions (O'Riordan et al., 2022). ...
Purpose
The application of circular economy (CE) has received wide coverage in the built environment, including public-private partnership (PPP) infrastructure projects, in recent times. However, current studies and practical implementation of CE are largely associated with construction demolition, waste and recycling management. Few studies exist on circular models and success factors of public infrastructures developed within the PPP contracts. Thus, the main objective of this article is to identify the models and key success factors associated with CE implementation in PPP infrastructure projects.
Design/methodology/approach
A systematic review of the literature was undertaken in this study using forty-two (42) peer-reviewed journal articles from Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar and PubMed.
Findings
The results show that environmental factors, sustainable economic growth, effective stakeholder management, sufficient funding, utilization of low-carbon materials, effective supply chain and procurement strategies facilitate the implementation of CE in PPP infrastructure projects. Key CE business models are centered around the extension of project life cycle value, circular inputs and recycling and reuse of projects.
Research limitations/implications
Although the study presents relevant findings and gaps for further investigations, it has a limited sample size of 42 papers, which is expected to increase as CE gain more prominence in PPP infrastructure management in future.
Practical implications
The findings are relevant for decision-making by PPP practitioners to attain the social, economic and environmental benefits of transitioning to circular infrastructure management.
Originality/value
This study contributes to articulating the key models and measures toward sustainable CE in public infrastructure development.
