On the Concept of Decentralization in Biointelligent Manufacturing

Full text

ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia CIRP 125 (2024) 296–301
2212-8271 © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the CIRP BioM 2024
10.1016/j.procir.2024.08.050
Keywords: Biomanufacturing, Biointelligence, Decentralization
1. Introduction
Industrial value creation is facing enormous challenges. In
addition to the rapid development of new technologies that are
responsible for replacing old value chains, competitive pres-
sure and dependence on emerging and developing countries is
increasing in large parts of the western world [1]. Moreover,
the low resilience of often highly complex supply chains and
the increase in trade barriers and global regulations have re-
cently become even more apparent. At the same time, value
creation must be made future-proof in the context of mounting
environmental and social challenges. The omnipresent threat
posed by climate change requires a timely change of course in
order to achieve the net zero target [2]. Yet a sustainable trans-
formation of value creation is much more complex. Recent
studies show the enormous overuse of the ecosphere caused by
our current production and economic practices. Of the nine
planetary boundaries classified as essential for the long-term
stability of the ecosystem, six have already been critically ex-
ceeded [3]. And yet it can be assumed that resource consump-
tion, which has already increased by almost 120% worldwide
in the last 30 years, will double again by 2050 [4].
The situation becomes even more pressing when looking at
specific problem areas of value creation. Today, human food
consumption alone is responsible for 25% of all environmental
impacts [5]. 60% of the agricultural land available worldwide
is currently only used to grow animal feed [6]. Around 17% of
the food produced is disposed of, which alone is responsible for
around 8-10% of global GHG emissions [7]. Given the rising
population growth, agricultural production would have to be
CIRP BioM 2024
On the Concept of Decentralization in Biointelligent Manufacturing
Robert Miehea,b,c*
a Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation (IPA), Nobelst. 12, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
bInstitute of Industrial Manufacturing and Management, University of Stuttgart, Allmandring 35, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
cBiointelligence Competence Center e.V., Nobelstr. 12, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 711 970 1424. E-mail address:robert.miehe@ipa.fraunhofer.de
Abstract
Biointelligent manufacturing represents one of the most promising innovation paths towards a sustainable restructuring of industrial production.
In doing so, it assumes significantly changing framework conditions for the production of a wide variety of goods. A recurring element is the
decentralization of value chain design, i.e. an increasing shift of the focus of value creation to the customer. While the concept of decentralization
has been discussed in the context of systems and organization theory, green supply chain and life cycle management for quite some time, recent
studies suggest that especially biointelligent manufacturing systems might represent a promising technological opportunity to truly realize this
goal. However, up to now the concept appears somewhat vague, as neither the validity of the assumption of increasing decentralization nor the
extent to which a reduction of supply chain length results in an improvement of environmental impact is resolved. This paper is intended to
provide a foundation for the advancement of the research area by analyzing the state of knowledge and uncovering logical misconceptions.
Although the findings indicate a clear technical decentralization potential of biointelligent manufacturing by various examples, a comprehensive
dissemination as small-scale production units in industrial practice remains unlikely due to prevailing organizational and socio-political barriers.
© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientic committee of the CIRP BioM 2024

Robert Miehe / Procedia CIRP 125 (2024) 296–301 297
increased by a further 70% by 2050, despite a simultaneous
global decline in agricultural land (e.g. due to climate change
and desertification) [8]. Similar problems exist in the construc-
tion sector. Global cement production alone is the largest single
industrial contributor to climate change, accounting for 8% of
all GHG emissions [9]. The expected population growth of a
further 2 billion people by 2050 corresponds to the entire built-
up world of 1930 [10].
Various authors predict that these issues represent the root
of a change in the social order [11,12]. It is not only initiatives
such as Fridays for Future that illustrate this increasing gener-
ational conflict, which revolves around three fundamental is-
sues: the question of guilt and resolution, the prosperity and
meaning debate and the freedom and justice dispute.
Major causes for these problems, which are likely to trigger
so-called polycrises in the future [13], are the widespread use
of certain technologies and the overarching design of value cre-
ation. In this context, numerous authors predict a potential
change of value creation design towards a more decentralized
production of goods due to the increasing introduction of bi-
omanufacturing technologies within a sustainable bioeconomy
[14-16]. This idea culminates in the vision of biointelligent
manufacturing that identifies major opportunities for on-site
production through the increasing convergence of bio-, hard-
and software in production technologies [17-20]. Biointelligent
manufacturing systems realize the entire energetic and material
value creation steps, including recycling, at a single location
[19].Early technological examples of such systems include ad-
vanced therapy medicinal products manufacturing or biologics.
[21-23], new forms of food production [24-27], and so-called
waste-to-X systems [28].Fig. 1 illustrates the shift of focus of
value creation according to Miehe et al. [19]
Fig. 1: Shift of focus of value creation according to Miehe et al. [19]
While the concept of decentralization has been discussed in
various scientific disciplines since the 18th century, partially
linked to the question of how to produce with fewer resources
[29],up to now it appears somewhat vague in the context of
biointelligent manufacturing. This paper thus addresses two
unresolved research questions: (1) Is decentralization actually
evident in research and practice in the context of evolving bio-
intelligent manufacturing technologies? (2) Does it necessarily
correlate with (eco-)effectiveness of value creation?
2. State of research and industry
The term decentralization is a complement of centralization.
Both terms originate from the debate about a rational structur-
ing of state authority around the time of the French revolution
[30]. In systems theory, they represent extrema of the degree of
concentration of structural or controlling elements of a system
[31]. In centralized systems, such elements are concentrated on
a single center or only a few areas (polycentric). The term de-
centralization is historically used whenever a centralized struc-
ture is perceived as problematic [32]. A decentralized configu-
ration of elements can thus only be described in relation to a
centralized one.In other words, a system is decentralized if the
concentration of elements is lower than in a centralized or pol-
ycentric system.
After the discourse initially evolved on political issues, both
terms gradually became relevant in economic theories. For ex-
ample, Lenin describescentralization as a major characteristic of
capitalist economies [33.The centralization of capital results
from a trend towards a reduction in the number of companies (as
a result of mergers). Although the concept of decentralization is
not used here directly, it is promoted as a hypothetical solution
through redistribution. While Marxist economic theory is of little
importance in economics today, the concept of decentralization
is subject to organizational theory, determining the degree of di-
vision of labor within an enterprise [34]. A fundamental distinc-
tion exists between two types of decentralization of organiza-
tional structures [35]: (1) horizontal decentralization occurs
when tasks are distributed to autonomous organizational units
and (2) vertical decentralization occurs when decision-making
authority is assigned to several units or persons.
Decentralized systems are inherently related to the notion of
self-organization [36,37]. Thereby, local interactions between
the components of a system generate structure and coordination
to achieve global goals without a central commanding influ-
ence. In addition to the organizational dimension, literature
outlines the concept of technical decentralization [38], which
describes a shift in the production and consumption of goods
and services from a concentrated to a distributed form. In other
words, the focus here lies on a comprehensive change of pre-
vailing technical solutions. A prominent example in an indus-
trial context is information and communication technology
(ICT). ICT, e.g. in form of block chain technology, enables a
much more granular organization of administrative workflows
and value-added processes [39,40]. Another example is the
trend away from the assembly line in the automotive industry
towards decentralized driverless transport systems within
cyber-physical-systems (CPS). Other authors see additive man-
ufacturing as further technological potential for technical de-
centralization [41]. Additional examples originate from waste
water disposal, agricultural technology and energy technology
[42-44]. Yet, the reasons for the centralization and decentrali-
zation of value creation systems are not solely determined by
the technologies used. Whereas technological necessity (esp.
upscaling, automation), economies of scale and cost effective
design are among the most relevant reasons for centralized
value creation design, reasons for decentralization among oth-
ers include using locally available resources, satisfying local
needs through customization, supply chain resilience, and sus-
tainability performance. At the same time, it is clear that the
decentralization of production does not only affect its machines
and equipment, but also the people, i.e. decision-making pro-
cesses, degree of division of labor, etc., which in turn may have
a considerable influence on the eco-performance of production.
The importance of the reasons for centralization and decen-
tralization varies depending on the current socio-political
framework and the priorities set by decision-makers in enter-

298 Robert Miehe / Procedia CIRP 125 (2024) 296–301
prises. Thus, both trends are evident in today's industrial envi-
ronment, with companies generally implementing a hybrid ap-
proach.
Examples of both trends can be found, for example, in the
sporting goods industry. While Decathlon has been able to gen-
erate substantial market wins in recent years with an economies
of scale approach, smaller market participants in the higher-
priced segment such as Patagonia and Vaude are rather
strengthening a decentralized approach to manufacturing and
sourcing (including using organic and recycled materials, min-
imizing GHG emissions, and reducing waste in their supply
chain). The two approaches are examples of classic generic
strategies according to Porter [45]. While Decathlon strives for
price leadership, companies such as Patagonia and Vaude com-
pete for quality leadership, whereby the understanding of qual-
ity is extended to factors such as eco-performance.
One example that is often used to illustrate decentralization,
although essentially it is another example of a hybrid approach,
is Tesla [46]. By building Gigafactories in multiple locations
worldwide, the company aims to meet regional demand more
efficiently while simultaneously reducing GHG emissions as-
sociated with the transporting vehicles. Meanwhile, a key
driver of such factories is the realization of economies of scale
(esp. in battery production) in order to be able to offer a low
market price, which in turn is a clear example of centralization.
Likewise, the supply chains required for these complex vehi-
cles do not represent a great change towards a decentralized
supply chain design.
Brands such as Walmart, Unilever and IKEA have also im-
plemented decentralization strategies in sub-areas of their own
value creation. The main focus for these companies is on sourc-
ing materials and assemblies more locally compared to the pre-
vious organization, getting closer to the customer and improv-
ing ecological performance. Still, these measures are merely a
first step towards sustainable decentralization, as the compara-
tively low efficiency gains associated with the increase in prod-
ucts sold effectively have no or only marginal impact on envi-
ronmental performance (rebound effect).
Two key findings can be derived from these examples: (1)
whether a value creation system is perceived as centralized or
decentralized depends on the perspective or only affects indi-
vidual elements of the overall system, and (2) the most promi-
nant reasons for decentralization today are rather non-techno-
logical, i.e. market strategy, increasing ecological performance,
supply chain resilience and trade dynamics.
3. Decentralization potentials of biointelligent
manufacturing
Biointelligent manufacturing aims to realize a holistic in-
crease in value (economic, ecological, social) by applying con-
verging technologies.Yet, according to Johnson and Acemglu,
the overall benefit of technologies is determined by the techno-
logical vision and the will of a minority of decision-makers in
industry and politics to implement this vision [47]. In order to
evaluate how realistic decentralization is in the context of bio-
intelligent manufacturing, three key aspects have to be exam-
ined: technical, organizational and socio-political potential. It
can be assumed that major decentralization potential only ex-
ists if indications of a trend or need can be identified in all three
domains.
3.1. Technical decentralization potential
The technical decentralization potential of biomanufactur-
ing is demonstrated in a variety of studies [14-16]. In order to
further explore this in the context of biointelligent manufactur-
ing, a combination of two approaches provides a more compre-
hensive picture. In addition to the assessment of the decentral-
ization potential of key enabling technologies (table 2), se-
lected application examples, each representing new technolog-
ical solutions for today's predominant processes, provide an in-
dication.
The evaluation is based on a causal chain that compares the
enabling technology with a conventional production approach,
even if the new technology is not a 100% substitute or offers
further application possibilities. This becomes clear with the
example of biorefineries [48]. These systems not only use more
locally available resources compared to conventional refiner-
ies, but also process higher-value molecules, which in many
cases do not have to be cracked open by adding chemicals. Not
least, they can process decentralized waste streams or even be
used as negative emission technologies. Accordingly, the po-
tential for decentralization can be considered high.
Following this logic, table 1 reveals that eight of 13 technol-
ogy fields, which are subject to increasing convergence in the
context of biointelligent manufacuting, have a distinct or exist-
ing potential for decentralization compared to existing tech-
nical solutions. Five fields are hardly assessable.
Table 1. Estimation of decentralization potential of key enabling technologies
of biointelligent manufacturing*.(++ = major; + = minor; 0 = not assessable)
Selected eneabling technologies
Decentralization
potential
Artificial intelligence and soft sensor technology
++
Bioinformatics and data storage
0
Digital platforms, models and twins
0
Gene sequencing and editing
0
Biofoundries and high-throughput screening
+
Biofunctional materials and surfaces
+
Bio-based energy generation and storage
++
Biosensors and bioactuators
+
Bio-based/hybrid micro-and nanotechnology
0
Biorefineries and bioreactors
++
Bio-based fuel cells and electrolyzers
++
Bio(hybrid) and soft robotics
0
Bioprinting and additive bioproduction
++
* key enabling technologies = aggregated categories of an analysis of over
250 technology examples
The technical potential for decentralization also becomes
clear from an in-depth look at the examples of biointelligent
manufacturing described in the introduction.
Waste-to-X systems: Today, around 2 Gt of municipal waste
is generated decentrally, which is expected to increase to 3.4

Robert Miehe / Procedia CIRP 125 (2024) 296–301 299
Gt by 2050. Currently, only 26-33% of this is recycled in an
ecologically appropriate way. This represents an increasing
problem, especially in the ever-growing megacities. The fusion
of individual technological innovations from the context of bi-
omanufacturing enables the creation of climate-positive, sover-
eign, scalable waste recycling systems [28]. These include, in
particular, hydrogen-bioenergy-carbon-capture storage sys-
tems (HyBECCS), enzyme or mycelium based circular additive
manufacturing processes (EnCAM/MyCAM), as well as inte-
grated approaches that include biorefinery systems and waste
water treatment [50,51]. In the near future, such systems will
allow to close cycles, in particular biogenic waste streams, in a
much shortened and less complex form and at the same time
bind GHGs.
Cultured meat: The production of artificial meat based on
totipotent stem cells is a fast-growing market characterized by
an increasing number of start-ups [24]. Various authors have
calculated a reduction potential of these meat derivates com-
pared to traditional meat production of 7-45 % lower energy
consumption, 78-96 % lower GHG emissions, 99 % less land
consumption and 82-96 % less water consumption [52-54].
Similar improvements in sustainability performance are possi-
ble in the areas of microbial food production and urban farming
[25,26], Since the process of cultured meat production follows
acomparatively simple pattern of cell line derivation (primary
or secondary), cell growth (by injection into a nutrient medium)
and formation (by scaffolding or bioprinting), some pioneers of
this technology have gone so far as to predict that meat produc-
tion in the future will be as simple as brewing beer [55], a clear
sign of decentralization compared to today's dominant factory
farming. However, an example of a related start-up in the field
of plant-based meat, Impossible Foods,shows the opposite in
industrial scale-up by opening up a centralized production fa-
cility in East Oakland, USA, that enables the supply of one mil-
lion vegan burgers each week to supply restaurants nationwide
[56]. Another example from the area of plant-based substitute
products, Revo Food, follows a consistent decentralization
strategy; some of its printed, plant-based fish derivatives are
produced locally in supermarkets in Germany and Austria [57].
ATMP production: From a technical perspective, the exam-
ple of CAR-T cell therapy is a clear demonstration of decen-
tralization compared to the drug-based, cost-intensive produc-
tion of pharmaceuticals according to the one-fits-all principle
[21,22]. In the best case scenario, autologous or allogeneic ther-
apies are produced individually for each patient in quantities of
one (ideally in the hospital). From an economic perspective,
however, the situation is somewhat less clear. Medcalf, for ex-
ample, shows that an appropriate choice depends upon a com-
bination of regulatory, economic and supply-chain factors [58].
Due to the high demands imposed on the manufacturing fea-
tures (including clean room conditions, high quality require-
ments and long-distance cold supply chains), no single business
model will suit all cases.
Similar to additive manufacturing in the past, the technolog-
ical potential for decentralization appears to be generally high
in key enabling technologies of biointelligent manufacturing as
well as in the assessed examples. In addition, the examples
clearly show that decentralization also appears to be the eco-
logically best option, although the studies are not sufficiently
comprehensive and need to be evaluated on a case-by-case ba-
sis. However, the examples also reveal doubts as to whether the
technical decentralization potential can be implemented as on-
site production systems commercially.
3.2. Organizational decentralization potential
The primary concern here is not whether a decentralized de-
sign of biointelligent value creation necessarily requires decen-
tralized internal organizational structures. Such a correlation
has not yet been investigated and therefore cannot be answered
in this paper. Rather, the section serves to discuss the probabil-
ity of implementing the existing technical decentralization po-
tential in industrial value creation practice.
The previous section illustrated partially that a technological
decentralization potential does not necessarily result in an ac-
tual decentralization in industrial practice. This is mostly due
to basic economic conditions that are proving difficult to
change as well as the will of decision-makers [47]. Yet, com-
panies are increasingly experiencing the pressure to change as
a result of the challenges described in the introduction and are
forced to act. Nevertheless, the way entrepreneurs conduct
business will continue to be based primarily on what is eco-
nomically feasible. Cost-driven management and economies of
scale will therefore continue to determine the degree of decen-
tralization. An increase in decentralization can only be
achieved through commercially superior technological argu-
ments or more intensive regulation.
However, the latter represents an ever increasing potential
for the realization of the above described technical decentrali-
zation. This is illustrated by the virtually exponential increase
in 'sustainability regulations' [59], which have recently been re-
inforced by the EU Green Deal, ESG legislation, the Circular
Economy Package, the increased carbon price and others.
These measures are to be regarded as genuine milestones for a
change of priority in the mind set of industrial decision-makers.
The requirements for greater transparency and due diligence in
supply chains resulting from regulatory pressure will hardly be
achievable with the current complexity of value creation net-
works. Short supply chains, a small number of suppliers and
the use of generally unproblematic renewable resources will be
particularly attractive. An increase in GHG pricing alone, or in
future the pricing of various environmental impacts as an inter-
nalization instrument (true cost accounting), would already
make numerous decentralized production solutions cost-effec-
tive today [60]. In addition, the recent global protectionist
tendencies and supply bottlenecks also tend to promote decen-
tralization.
In industries that are subject to intense pressure as a result
of biointelligent manufacturing innovation, it is however likely
that strong resistance will emerge, as recently experienced in
the automotive industry in the context of the transition to elec-
tric powertrains. Yet,a modest shift towards a greater need for
decentralized solutions can be observed from an organizational
perspective.

300 Robert Miehe / Procedia CIRP 125 (2024) 296–301
3.3. Socio-political decentralization potential
The socio-political decentralization potential essentially re-
sults from two factors. First, the desire of society encouraging
decentralization. Indicators are changing values, changing cus-
tomer wishes as well as political engagement and voting behav-
ior. Second, vision, will and the persuasive power of political
decision-makers to implement decentralized value creation
through appropriate incentives and regulations as well as the
removal of corresponding obstacles.
Both factors currently indicate a mixed picture that includes
beneficial as well as detrimental trends. In the case of desire of
society, a positive trend is the increasing demand for sustaina-
bility and the rise of political engagement of younger genera-
tions [11,12], which tends to promote decentralized production
of goods (e.g. fridays-for-future, transparency and remanufac-
turing demands on producers). Meanwhile, the changes in the
type and quantity of consumption remain marginal. Potential
increases in sustainability performance are neutralized by re-
bound and leakage effects [61]. Furthermore, societal reserva-
tions continue to be prevalent, e.g. with regard to genetically
modified foods.
With regard to the second factor, the increasing global sus-
tainability regulations outlined above are a key driver. Two ma-
jor challenges remain. The first is the restrictive legislation on
genetic engineering, particularly in Europe, in combination
with the comparatively large social reservations. The second
challenge is the limited measures against oligopolies and mo-
nopolies in large areas of the economy, which represent the
greatest obstacles to decentralization. This becomes clear from
the fact that nearly every company in the world is financially
dependent on only 147 globally operating enterprises [62]. If
the dismantling of monopolistic tendencies and the inclusive
design of political institutions is not accomplished on a broad
scale, it is likely that the socio-political decentralization poten-
tial will not be exploited.
4. Conclusion
Biointelligent manufacturing is among the most promising
innovation paths for the sustainable production of goods. One
of its core arguments is that they will contribute to a decentral-
ization of value creation and thus increasesits sustainability
performance. Still this hypothesis appears somewhat vague.
This paper therefore aimed to substantiate the concept of de-
centralization in the context of biointelligent manufacturing
and to examine the evidence for the two hypotheses that value
creation is in the process of being decentralized and that it will
result in an improvement in key sustainability benefits.
The results reveal a clear technical decentralization potential
of biointelligent manufacturing, which in many cases also
promises a distinct ecological benefit. Moreover, the findings
show that the implementation of the technical decentralization
potential has often failed in the past due to non-technical fac-
tors. Even today, only modest shifts in organizational and so-
cio-political conditions that promote decentralization can be
observed. Whether biointelligent manufacturing will actually
result in decentralization thus cannot be conclusively evaluated
at present.
However, several conclusions can be drawn for the future
design of industrial value creation. First, decision makers in in-
dustries and the production scientific community need to reject
the notion that uncoordinated activities at the micro level
(namely the development of new technologies) are approaching
a global optimum (namely sustainability) by itself. Second, it
is essential to further disseminate the vision and techno-eco-
nomic potentials of biointelligent manufacturing in order to en-
sure that an increasing number of decision-makers in science,
business and politics consider the topic, which involves the de-
centralization aspect, to be relevant. Not least, decentralization
for the sake of decentralization is not an option. Decisions must
always involve a holistic assessment of economic, ecological
and social factors in accordance with life cycle theory.
References
[1] KPMG (ed.). Key challenges of the manufacturing industry –The
manufacturing industry is undergoing a profound transformation process.
2023. https://kpmg.com/de/en/home/insights/2022/10/zentrale-herausfor-
derungen-der-fertigungsindustrie.html
[2] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ed.). FAQ Chapter 1. 2022.
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/faq/faq-chapter-
1/#:~:text=Human%2Dinduced%20warming%20reached%20approximate
ly,1.5%C2%B0C%20around%202040
[3] Richardson, K., Steffen, W., Lucht, W., Bendtsen, J., Cornell, S. E.,
Donges, J. F., Rockström, J. (2023). Earth beyond six of nine planetary
boundaries. Science advances, 9(37), eadh2458.
[4] International Resource Panel (ed.). Global Resources Outlook 2019:
Natural Resources for the Future We Want. UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya, 2019.
[5] Umweltbundesamt (ed.). Nahrungsmittelindustrie. 2013.
https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/wirtschaft-konsum/industrie-
branchen/nahrungs-futtermittelindustrie-tierhaltungsanlagen/
nahrungsmittelindustrie#allgemeinesNahrungsmittelindustrie
[6] Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (ed.).
Landwirtschaft verstehen Fakten und Hintergründe. 2022.
https://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Broschueren/Landwirts
chaft-verstehen.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=8
[7] United Nations Environment Programme (ed.). Food Waste Index Report
2021. file:///C:/Users/rbm/Downloads/FoodWaste.pdf
[8] Food and Agriculture Organization (ed.).Global agriculture towards 2050.
2009. https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/Issues_papers
/HLEF2050_Global_Agriculture.pdf
[9] Ellis LD, Badel AF, Chiang ML, Park RJY, Chiang Y M. Toward
electrochemical synthesis of cement—An electrolyzer-based process for
decarbonating CaCO3 while producing useful gas streams. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 117 (23) 2020, 12584-12591.
[10] United Nations (ed.). World Population Prospects 2022.
https://population.un.org/wpp/
[11] Prognos AG; Z_punkt GmbH The Foresight Company (ed.). Studie:
Zukunft von Wertvorstellungen der Menschen in unserem Land. 2020.
https://www.vorausschau.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/vorausschau/de/BM
BF_Foresight_Wertestudie_Langfassung.pdf
[12] Demary et al. Gleichzeitig: Wie vier Disruptionen die deutsche Wirtschaft
verändern. Herausforderungen und Lösungen. IW-Studien-Schriften zur
Wirtschaftspolitik aus dem Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft, 2021.
[13] Lawrence M, Janzwood S, Homer-Dixon T. What is a global polycrisis.
Cascade Institute, Technical Paper, 4, 2022.
[14] Angouria-Tsorochidou E, Teigiserova DA, Thomsen M (2021). Limits to
circular bioeconomy in the transition towards decentralized biowaste
management systems. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 164,
105207.
[15] Angouria-Tsorochidou E, Teigiserova DA, Thomsen M(2022).
Environmental and economic assessment of decentralized bioenergy and
biorefinery networks treating urban biowaste. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 176, 105898.
[16] Pfau SF, Hagens JE, Dankbaar B, Smits A.J. Visions of sustainability in
bioeconomy research. Sustainability, 6 (3) 2014, 1222-1249.

Robert Miehe / Procedia CIRP 125 (2024) 296–301 301
[17] Miehe R, Bauernhansl T, Beckett M, Brecher C, Demmer A, Drossel WG,
Wolperdinger M. The biological transformation of industrial
manufacturing–Technologies, status and scenarios for a sustainable future
of the German manufacturing industry. Journal of Manufacturing Systems,
54, 2020, 50-61.
[18] Full J, Miehe R, Kiemel S, Bauernhansl T, Sauer A. The Biological
Transformation of Energy Supply and Stor-age–Technologies and
Scenarios for Biointelligent Value Creation. Procedia Manufacturing, 39,
2019, 1204-1214.
[19] Miehe R, Buckreus L, Kiemel S, Sauer A, Bauernhansl T. A Conceptual
Framework for Biointelligent Production –Calling for Systemic Life Cycle
Thinking in Cellular Units. Clean Technologies, 3 (4 ) 2021, 844-857.
[20] Miehe, R., Baumgarten, Y., Bauernhansl, T. (2023). Towards a Common
Understanding of the Biointelligence Concept. Procedia CIRP, 120,
1416-1421.
[21] Köhl U, Abken H. CAR-T-Zellen als Arzneimittel für neuart ige Therapien
(Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products) (CAR T cells as drugs for novel
therapies (advanced therapy medicinal products)). Internist (Berl) 62 2021,
449-457.
[22] Shoshi A, Xia Y, Fieschi A, Ackermann T, Reimann P, Weyrich M,
Mitschang B, Bauernhansl M, Miehe R. A Flexible Digital Twin
Framework for ATMP Production –Towards an efficient CAR T Cell
Manufacturing. CIRP BioM 2024.
[23] Harrison, R. P., Rafiq, Q. A., & Medcalf, N. (2018). Centralised versus
decentralised manufacturing and the delivery of healthcare products: A
United Kingdom exemplar. Cytotherapy, 20(6), 873-890.
[24] Gaydhane MK, Mahanta U, Sharma CS, Khandelwal M, Ramakrishna S.
Cultured meat: state of the art and future. Biomanufacturing Reviews, 3,
2018, 1-10.
[25] Benke K, Tomkins B. Future food-production systems: vertical farming
and controlled-environment agriculture. Sustainability: Science, Practice
and Policy, 13 (1) 2017, 13-26.
[26] Graham AE, Ledesma-Amaro R. The microbial food revolution. Nature
Communications, 14 (1) 2023, 2231.
[27] Dankar I, Haddarah A, Omar FE et al. 3D printing technology: The new
era for food customization and elaboration. Trends in Food Science &
Technology 75, 2018, 231–242.
[28] Full J, Shoshi A, Gamero E, Baumgarten Y, Protte K, Kiemel S, ... &
Miehe R. Biointelligent Waste-to-X systems: A novel concept for
sustainable, decentralized and interconnected value creation. Procedia
CIRP, 116, 2023, 576-581.
[29] Chryssolouris, G., Papakostas, N., Mavrikios, D. (2008). A perspective on
manufacturing strategy: Produce more with less. CIRP Journal of
Manufacturing Science and Technology, 1(1), 45-52.
[30] Schmidt VA. Democratizing France: The Political and Administrative
History of Decentralization, Cambridge University Press, 2007.ISBN 978-
0521036054
[31] Ampofo A. Systemtheorie und Kybernetik. Betriebswirtschaftslehre für
Umweltwissenschaftler, 2018, 25-29.
[32] Daun H. School decentralization in the context of globalizing governance:
International comparison of grassroots responses. Springer Science &
Business Media, 2006.
[33] Lenin V. Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism. New York:
International Publishers. 1939, 12-54.
[34] Haeberle SG. Das neue Lexikon der Betriebswirtschaftslehre. Walter de
Gruyter GmbH & Co KG, 2014.
[35] Funder M. Dezentralisierung. In: Hirsch-Kreinsen H, Minssen H (ed.).
Lexikon der Arbeits-und Industriesoziologie. edition sigma, 2013.
[36] Bonabeau E, Theraulaz G, Deneubourg JL, Aron S, Camazine S. Self-
organization in social insects. Trends in ecology & evolution, 12 (5) 1997,
188-193.
[37] Johnson NL. Diversity in Decentralized Systems: Enabling Self-
Organizing Solutions. Theoretical Division, Los Alamos National
Laboratory, for University of California Los Angeles 1999.
[38] Eggimann S. The optimal degree of centralisation for wastewater
infrastructures. A model-based geospatial economic analysis. Doctoral
dissertation, ETH Zurich, 2016.
[39] Clemons EK, Reddi SP, Row MC. The impact of information technology
on the organization of economic activity: The “move to the midd le”
hypothesis. Journal of management information systems, 10 (2) 1993,
9-35.
[40] Lee JY. A decentralized token economy: How blockchain and
cryptocurrency can revolutionize business. Business Horizons, 62 (6) 2019,
773-784.
[41] Ben-Ner A, Siemsen E. Decentralization and localization of production:
The organizational and economic consequences of additive manufacturing
(3D printing). California Management Review, 59 (2) 2017, 5-23.
[42] Magliaro J, Lovins A. Valuing Decentralized Wastewater Technologies:
A Catalog of Benefits, Costs, and Economic Analysis Techniques.Rocky
Mountain Institute, 2004.
[43] Smith LD. Reform and Decentralization of Agricultural Services: A
Policy Framework, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization,
2001. ISBN 978-9251046449
[44] Koerth-Baker M. What We Talk About When We Talk About the
Decentralization of Energy.The Atlantic, 2012.
[45] Porter M. From competitive advantage to corporate strategy.Harvard
Business Review, 1987, 43‐59.
[46] Cooke P. Gigafactory logistics in space and time: Tesla's fourth
gigafactory and its rivals. Sustainability. 2020 Mar 6;12(5):2044.
[47] Johnson S, Acemoglu D. Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year
Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity. Hachette UK, 2023.
[48] Cherubini F. The biorefinery concept: using biomass instead of oil for
producing energy and chemicals. Energy conversion and Management, 51
(7) 2010, 1412–1421.
[49] The World Bank (ed.). What is Waste 2.0 -A Global Snapshot of Solid
Waste Management to 2050. 2023. https://datatopics.worldbank.org/what-
a-waste/trends_in_solid_waste_management.html
[50] Full J, Merseburg S, Miehe R, Sauer A. A new perspective for climate
change mitigation –introducing carbon-negative hydrogen production
from biomass with carbon capture and storage (Hybeccs). Sustainability,
13 (7) 2021, 4026.
[51] Protte-Freitag K, Gotzig S, Rothe H, Schwarz O, Silber N, Miehe R.
Enzyme assisted circular additive manufacturing (EnCAM) –Additive
manufacturing as an enabling technology for a circular bioeconomy.
Sustainability, 2023.
[52] Tuomisto HL, Teixeira de Mattos MJ. Environmental impacts of cultured
meat production. Environmental science & technology, 45 (14) 2011,
6117-6123..
[53] Mattick CS, Landis AE, Allenby, BR. A case for systemic environmental
analysis of cultured meat. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14 (2) 2015,
249-254..
[54] Alexander P, Brown C, Arneth A, Dias C, Finnigan J, Moran D,
Rounsevell MD(2017). Could consumption of insects, cultured meat or
imitation meat reduce global agricultural land use?. Global Food Security,
15, 2017, 22-32..
[55] New Scientist (ed.) Accelerating the cultured meat revolution.2020.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24032080-400-accelerating-the-
cultured-meat-revolution/
[56] Livekindly (ed.) Impossible Foods Scale Up Production To Supply 1
Million Vegan Burgers Every Week. 2023. https://www.livekindly.
com/impossible-burger-vegan-factory/
[57] TrendingTopics (ed.) Revo Foods: Veganes Lachsfilet aus dem 3D-
Drucker landet bei Billa.2023. https://www.trendingtopics.eu/revo-foods-
veganes-lachsfilet-aus-dem-3d-drucker-landet-bei-billa/
[58] Medcalf N. Centralized or decentralized manufacturing? Key business
model considerations for cell therapies. Cell Gene Ther. Insights, 2 (1)
2016, 95-109.
[59] Miehe R, Mueller S, Schneider R, Wahren S, Hornberger M. Integrated
hazardous materials management: Combining requirements from various
environmental legislations to enable effective business compliance
processes in industries. International Journal of Precision Engineering and
Manufacturing-Green Technology, 2, 2015, 289-298.
[60] Baker L, Castilleja G, De Groot Ruiz A, Jones A. Prospects for the true
cost accounting of food systems. Nature Food, 1 (12) 2020, 765-767.
[61] Greening LA, Greene DL, Difiglio C. Energy efficiency and consumption
–the rebound effect -a survey. Energy policy, 28 (6-7) 2000, 389-401.
[62] Vitali S, Glattfelder JB, Battiston S. The network of global corporate
control. PloS one, 6 (10) 2011, e25