PreprintPDF Available

A Critical Analysis of the Dynamics of Stakeholders for Bioeconomy Innovation: The Case of Caldas, Colombia

Authors:
Carlos Humberto González Escobar
Carlos Humberto González Escobar
Carlos Humberto González Escobar
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
Juan Carlos Granobles Torres
Juan Carlos Granobles Torres
Juan Carlos Granobles Torres
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
Abel Osvaldo Villa Rodríguez
Abel Osvaldo Villa Rodríguez
Abel Osvaldo Villa Rodríguez
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet.
Download file PDF
Read file
Download citation

Abstract

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.
Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
Article Not peer-reviewed version
A Critical Analysis of the Dynamics of
Stakeholders for Bioeconomy
Innovation: The Case of Caldas,
Colombia
Carlos Humberto González Escobar * , Juan Carlos Granobles Torres , Abel Osvaldo Villa Rodríguez
Posted Date: 4 November 2024
doi: 10.20944/preprints202411.0199.v1
Keywords: stakeholders; bioeconomy; biotechnology; sustainability; innovation systems
Preprints.org is a free multidiscipline platform providing preprint service that
is dedicated to making early versions of research outputs permanently
available and citable. Preprints posted at Preprints.org appear in Web of
Science, Crossref, Google Scholar, Scilit, Europe PMC.
Copyright: This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons
Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Article
ACriticalAnalysisoftheDynamicsofStakeholders
forBioeconomyInnovation:TheCaseof
Caldas,Colombia
CarlosHumbertoGonzálezEscobar,JuanCarlosGranoblesTorres
andAbelOsvaldoVillaRodríguez*
SustainableDevelopmentandEnvironmentResearchCenterCIMAD,TheUniversityofManizales,
Manizales170001,Colombia
*Correspondence:chgonzalez@umanizales.edu.co
Abstract:Stakeholdersandtheirdynamicsareoftenneglectedininnovationsystemsliterature.The
importanceofbioeconomyisgrowingforitsimplicationsonaddressingenvironmentalchallenges,
shapingeconomicdecisions,marketsandsustainabledevelopment.Thispaperanalyses
stakeholders’dynamicsforknowledgecreationandinnovationtotransitfromunsustainable
practicestothesustainableuseofbiologicalresources‐bioeconomy.Theoriginalityofthispaperis
thecreationofananalyticalframeworktocharacterisetheinteractionsofstakeholdersandhow
theseinteractionsreshapetheinnovationsystemstocreateanewnarrativeandanewknowledge
baseplatformforinnovation.Usingaqualitativeapproach,datawascollectedthroughsurveys
between2022and2024.Weexploredthedynamicsof29stakeholdersinvolvedandcollaborating
inR&DactivitiesfromthebiotechnologysectorinCaldas,Colombia.Ourfindingsshowthat
dynamicstowardsbioeconomyareonlyatthediscursivelevel.Stakeholderscarryoutresearch
activitiesasameanstogenerateincomeratherthanforinnovativepurposes,overlookinginformal
interactionswhichgeneratenovelideasthatcouldtranslateintosolutions,services,andproducts.
Weconcludethatbioeconomytransitionneedsasystemicdisequilibriumbyanewinstitutional
infrastructurethatenablesstakeholders,includingcivilsociety,tocreateastructuralchangefor
embracinginnovationdynamics.
Keywords:stakeholders;bioeconomy;biotechnology;sustainability;innovationsystems
1.Introduction
Bioeconomy(BE)hasbeenatthecentreofsustainabilitydiscussionsworldwideforthelast
twentyyears,asaconsequenceofmajorenvironmental,socialandeconomicchallenges.These
challengesanddevelopmentaltrendsrequirearadicalchangeintheformofamodernisationofthe
globaleconomy[1–3].Thisdiscussionanchorsaroundapplyingbiologicalprinciplesandprocesses
basedontechnicalinnovationtomaximiseefficiencyandderivehighvaluefrombiobasedresources
inallsectorsoftheeconomy[4].Bioeconomyemergedasaneconomicparadigminscience,
technologyandinnovation(STI)policywiththepurposeofminimisingadverseenvironmental
impactsofeconomicactivities,therebyaimingtoachieveimportantsustainabledevelopmentgoals
(SDG)[5,6].Transitioningtoabioeconomyinvolveseffortsbyawiderangeofindustriesinthe
replacementoffossilfuelinputsbyrenewalcarbonsourcesalongwithresourceefficiencyand
preservationoftheresourcevaluesinmaterialcircles[7,8].
Europeancountrieshaveshownsignificantprogressbydevelopingpolicystrategies.These
policiespromotestructuralchangestowardsabioeconomy.Forexample,byreplacingfossil‐based
rawmaterialswithbiobasedresourcesandprinciples[9],sustainablemanagementofnatural
resources,climatechangemitigation,andenergyandfoodsecurity[2].InLatinAmericancountries
(Latam),Colombiahaschampionedabioeconomytocosmeticallypresentbio‐matterstorender
involvedfieldsʹcapitalisableʹ andʹrentierʹ [10,11].Fromthepoliticalperspective,thepolicy‐push
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions, and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and
contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting
from any ideas, methods, instructions, or products referred to in the content.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 November 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202411.0199.v1
© 2024 by the author(s). Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY license.
2
patternofbioeconomyhasbeensimilaracrossLatamgeographies[11].Innovationsrelatedto
bioeconomyencompassarangeofnewproductsi.e.fuels,newfoodadditivesandbiopolymer[12,13]
novelprocessesi.e.biorefining[14]andindustrialbiotechnology[15].
Wearguethatthefocusofbioeconomicpromisesisontheroleof(bioandrelated)technological
innovations,allowingtheadvancementofasustainablewaytomanagerenewablebiological
resources[11].Inthislineofargument,bioeconomystillhastodeliveritspotential,andinthecase
ofColombia,transitionsaredeeplycontested,involvingmultiplepossiblevisionsandtransition
pathways[16–19],fierceresistancefromvestedinterestsacrosssectorsi.e.energy,petrochemical,
agriculture,andforestrysectors[20,21].
Despiteallthepositiveimpactsofbioeconomysuchasenvironmentalbenefits,innovation,
creationofneweconomicopportunities,newbusinessformationandthestrengtheningof
knowledge‐basedsectors,recentresearchhasaddressedinnovationbarrierforsegmentsofthe
bioeconomyusinginnovationsystems(IS)approach,mostatthenationallevel[21–25].Related
assessmentsusingISapproachinthecontextofLatamhaveaddressedtransitiontobioeconomy[26–
28].Thesestudieshavemainlyfocusedonsystemfailures.AlthoughISinLatam,theymayexhibit
presenceandcoordinationamongactorstosupportinnovation,inthisresearch,weexaminethe
dynamicsofstakeholdersinISconcerninginnovationtotransittobioeconomy.Byaddressingthis
researchgap,weaimtomakeatheoreticalandempiricalcontributiontoliterature.Ourtheoretical
contributionderivesfromintroducingelementsofIS,particularlyTechnologicalInnovationSystems
(TIS)andlinkingthemwithstakeholdersratherthanactors.OurstudyreframestheseelementsinIS
placingemphasisontheelementofagencyinstakeholders,whichimpactsoninnovationandthus
bieconomytransition.Theempiricalcontributioncomesfromexaminingthedynamicsof
stakeholdersofthebiotechnologysectorinCaldas,Colombia.Weaddressthequestionastowhy,
despitetheawarenessamongstcriticalstakeholdersoftheimportanceofabioeconomyforthe
sustainabilityoftheCaldaseconomy,andtheexistenceofinstitutionsintheformoflocalandnational
laws,therestillexistsalackofaneffectivetransitionfromafossilfueleconomytoabioeconomy.
ThispaperstartswiththeelaborationofthetheoreticalframeworkinSection2.InSection3we
elucidatethemethodologicalapproachtoanswertheresearchquestion.InSection4wepresentour
resultsinlightoftheelementsofthetheoreticalframework.InSection5wediscusstheimplications
ofthedynamicsofstakeholdersconsideringtheliteratureonIS.Andfinally,inSection6,wepresent
theconclusions.
2.TheoreticalFramework
WetaketheTechnologicalInnovationSystemapproach(TIS).Atechnologicalsystemmaybe
definedasanetworkofagentsinteractinginaspecificeconomicorindustrialareaunderaparticular
institutionalinfrastructureorsetofinfrastructuresandinvolvedinthegeneration,diffusion,and
utilizationoftechnology[29].Technologicalsystemsaredefinedintermsofknowledgecompetence
flowsratherthanflowsofordinarygoodsandservices[30].FromtheTSIapproach,therequired
changesinproductionprocesses,resourceuseandintegrationofcivilsocietyassociatedwith
Bioeconomyconcepts,callforsysteminnovation,includingchangesinthearchitecture,components
oftheentiresectoral(orsociotechnical)system[31].OnekeyaspectofTISisthattheyaremulti‐
dimensional.Inmostcasestheconstituentelements(knowledge/competencenetworks,industrial
networks/developmentblocks,andinstitutionalinfrastructure)arespeciallycorrelated[30].
Althoughagentsininnovationsystemsareoftenseenaskeydriversofsustainabilitytransitions,
stakeholders,ontheotherhandaremerelymentionedininnovationsystemsliterature.Therefore,
wearguethatthefieldlacksofasystemicinvestigationofscientificknowledgeforinnovation,
innovationbarriersanddriversfromthestakeholderperspective[32].
Conceptualisedasoneofthemainfunctionsofinnovationsystems[33]thedynamicsof
stakeholdersactivities,andtheirembeddednessininnovationssystemsstilllacksoftheoretical
foundations[34].Tracingongoingtransitionsrequiresattentiontothedynamicsofinteractionsof
stakeholdersandothersystemcomponents.Toenablecivilsociety,policymakersandstakeholders
toassesstheimpactsoftheirdynamicsonbioeconomy,asystemicassessmentofdynamicsof
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 November 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202411.0199.v1
3
bioeconomyinnovationisneeded.Sofar,littleisknownaboutthestakeholdersbethemcompanies,
universities,publicandprivateresearchorganisations,localgovernmentagenciesabouttheattention
torisk,synergiesandtrade‐offs.Toourknowledge,researchneedstoincorporatehowstakeholders
experience,i.e.theirvestedagencyandhowtheyshapethecomplexprocessessuchasinnovation
andthustransformation.
Basedonthisbackground,webuildourframeworkusingstudiesofTechnologicalInnovation
Systems(TIS)atthestakeholderlevel.StudiesofTIShavefocusedonagents,firmsandentrepreneurs
statingthatinnovationrequiresperceptionofopportunitiestoproductivelychangeexistingroutines,
theirwillingnesstoundertakesuchchangesandtheabilitytoimplementthesechanges[35].For
innovationtooccurandproducechanges,stakeholdersareawareoftheircapabilities,valuesand
continuouslyscantheirenvironmentforrisk,opportunitiesandchangewithuncertainoutcomes[36].
Furthermore,toeffectivelytransittobioeconomyinnovationrequirescollaborationbetweenfirms,
universities,researchorganistionsandgovernmentagenciestoproduceknowledgetoultimately
changetheroutines,aspreviouslymentioned[37–39].
Previousresearchhasexaminedfactorsthatimpactthecollaborationbetweenstakeholders.For
example,analysisonuniversitiesasafactorfornewknowledgegenerationandtechnologytransfer
withsignificantimpactonentrepreneursandcompaniesattheregionallevel[40].Likewise,research
hasexaminedthegrowingrolethatendusersplayinregionalproject‐basedinnovations[41].
However,thereisalsoevidencethatshowfactorsthatimpactinnovation,suchasactorsthatmake
uptheinnovationecosystem,howtheseactorsimpactsuccessfulcasesofknowledgetransferandthe
interrelationshipsbetweenthefactorsleadingtoknowledgetransfer[42].
Therefore,ourframeworkexaminesNetworksinSSIthatindicatethatsuccessfulinnovation
seemstorequireinteractionamongstakeholderwithdifferentcompetences.Thenatureofinnovation
isuncertainandcomplex;thereforenetworksprovideotheralternativesforgoverninginnovation
[29,30].Institutionalinfrastructurereferstoasetofinstitutionalarrangementsthatdirectlyor
indirectlysupport,stimulateandregulatetheprocessofinnovationandthediffusionoftechnology
[30,43].Developmentblocksaredynamicinnatureandincorporatethecharacteristicsof
disequilibrium.Theseblockscreatetensionwithinthetechnologicalsystemthatvariesinstrength
andcompositionovertimeandgeneratesdevelopmentpotentialforthesystem[43].
TheTSIapproachisusefulbecauseitmakesitpossibletodescribe,understand,andexplainthe
processofinnovation.Itenablesustoidentifythefactorsthatshapeinnovation[39].Itallowstomap
andexplaininteractionsbetweenstakeholdersthatgenerateknowledge,especiallyinadiverserange
ofstakeholdersinvolved,includinggovernmentalorganisations,businesses,non‐governmental
organisations,localcommunities,scientists,farmers,andcivilsociety.Thesestakeholdersassume
distinctrolesinpolicyformulationandimplementation,researchanddevelopment,andthe
productionandconsumptionofbiotechnologyproducts.Thecontributionsofeachgroupof
stakeholdersarecrucialinpromotingandadvancingthesectortowardsabioeconomy.
However,inourresearchcontext,intheactivitiesofthestakeholders,threedistinctiveelements
interrelatewithwhatconstitutesanexplanationofwhythetransitiontowardsabioeconomyhasnot
beenuptotheglobalchallenge.Weidentifiedthreemaincategories:1)importance,2)influenceand
3)interest.Thesethreeemergingcategorieswererecurrentacrossallstakeholders,privateandpublic
organisations.Theperceptionofeverystakeholderregardingresearchactivitiesundertakings,
translatetheseresearchresultsintochangeandimplementthem,entailsrisktakingandlong‐term
visionofinnovation.
OurframeworkthereforedependsontheImportance,InfluenceandInterestofstakeholdersin
lightoftheperceivedinnovationopportunitiesinthebiotechnologysectorofCaldas,Colombia.We
explainthesedifferentelementsinmoredetailbelow.Theimportanceofspecificstakeholderswithin
thebiotechnologysectorliesintheirabilitytoshapeitstrajectory.Stakeholders’innovationisshaped
bytheirimportance.Forexample,Governmentorganisationscancreateregulationsandpolicies
eitherfacilitatingorimpedinginvestmentinbiotechnologies.Researchrevealsthatinnovationis
shapedbypreferences.Forexample,innovationinenvironmentcanbedrivenbygenuineconcerns
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 November 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202411.0199.v1
4
[36,44].Inthislineofargument,publicandprivateuniversities,technicalschools,andresearch
centres,contributetoresearchanddevelopmentwiththeirwealthofknowledgeandexpertise.
Inthisarticle,Influenceisthecapacityofstakeholderstoshapedecisionsandpolicieswhich
impactthebiotechnologysector.Stakeholderscanexerttheirinfluencethroughvariousmeans,
includingpolitical,economic,orsocialpower.ThestructuralpropertiesofrelevantISsandSTIpolicy
caninfluencetheprevalenceofinnovationamongfirms[45–47].Forinstance,governmentscan
establishregulationsandpoliciesfosteringorhinderingthetransitiontowardsabioeconomy.
Similarly,businessescanleveragetheireconomicpowerandtechnologicalprowesstoinfluencea
bioeconomy.Influenceinstakeholdersindicatetheabilitytoleverage,combine,andrecombine
knowledgeandresourcessothatnewproducts,technologies,andmarketsresult[48].Non‐
governmentalorganisations,alternatively,canmobilisepublicopinionandadvocateforsustainable
approaches.
Theparticipantsinbioeconomicactivitiesarepropelledbyuniqueobjectivesandmotivations,
directlyshapingtheirinterests.Stakeholdersʹ interestscandivergeconsiderably,withcommercial
entitiesoftenprioritisingprofitmaximisationandlocalcommunitiesemphasisingpublichealthand
environmentalprotection.Ameaningfulunderstandingoftheseinterestsisindispensablefor
fosteringproductivecollaborationamongstakeholders.Byrecognisingandcomprehendingthe
interestsofallstakeholders,itispossibletoestablishamorecohesiveandcooperativeenvironment,
leadingtomoreeffectiveoutcomes.
Insummary,ourconceptualframeworkshedslightonthestructuralcomponents(i.e.
Stakeholdersnetwork,institutionalinfrastructure,anddevelopmentblocks)ofinnovationarein
continuousinteractionwithandthereforeshapedbyImportance,InfluenceandInterest.Theintricate
interplaybetweenstakeholdersʹ importance,influence,andinterestscangiverisetocomplex
tensions.Stakeholderswithsignificantimportanceandinfluencecanoftenexerttheirinterestsatthe
expenseofothers.Achievingthisbalanceiscrucialtothelong‐termsuccessofthebioeconomy,and
itrequiresastrategicandcollaborativeapproachthatconsidersthediverseconcernsandperspectives
ofallstakeholdersinvolved.Theconceptualframeworkhighlightstheembeddednessof
stakeholders’innovativebehaviorsandtherelatedoutcomes.Therefore,itisessentialtorecognise
thevariousrolesofthesestakeholdersinabioeconomyandensurethattheirinterestsalignwith
long‐termbioeconomygoals.
3.MaterialsandMethods
3.1.SampleSelectionandResearchTools
WefocusedourresearchonCaldasdepartment,Colombiaandonthebiotechnologysector.
CaldashassetanagendaanchoredaroundacomprehensivenationalSTIprogrammetopromote
transitiontobioeconomy[49].Forover25years,theNationalgovernmentofColombiainpartnership
withCaldasDepartmentandmunicipalitygovernmentlevels,haveimplementedaseriesof
initiativesandprojectstodevelopclustersinvarioussector,biotechnologybeingoneofthem.The
biotechnologyclusterdevelopedthroughtechnicalcommittees.Thesecommitteesaddressedissues
suchasidentifyingandsummoningcompanies,governmentagenciesandorganisationsrelatedto
biotechnologyprocessandresearchthatculminatedinthefoundationofthebiotechnologyclusterof
Caldasin2019[50].Therefore,thekeyobjectiveofthestudyistoexaminethedynamicsof
stakeholdersinthecreationofknowledgedespitetheinstitutionalframeworktosupportinnovation
basedonscienceandtechnologybythebiotechnologysectorinCaldas(Colombia).
In2019,TheNationalGovernmentofColombiacarriedoutaninitiativetoconducta
comprehensivetechnicalassessmentforaroadmaptowardbioeconomyfortheentirecountry.In
2020,shortlyafterthisinitiative,theGovernmentofCaldasdepartment,followedinthestepsofthe
nationalgovernmentandconductedasimilarbutlocaltechnicalassessmenttofurthertakeCaldas
towardsbioeconomyandsustainableeconomiccompetitiveness.Bioeconomyisanareaofstrategic
importancefortheNationalandDepartmentgovernmentlevelsinallproductivesectors,in
particularlife‐scienceandbiotechnology.Hence,whenlookingattheagglomerationofthe
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 November 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202411.0199.v1
5
stakeholdersofthiscluster,itwaslogicaltoexaminetheirdynamicsbasedonthebioeconomy
promotion.Thestakeholders’involvementincollaborativeR&Dandlearningshedslightonefforts
relatedtoSTIthatultimatelyimpactonthebioeconomytransition.
Theresearchwascarriedoutbetween2022and2024.Themethodusedwasqualitativeresearch
basedoninterviews.Qualitativeinterviewsarethemethodthatallowforunderstandingand
meaningtobeexploredindepthbecauseithelpsexaminethecontext[51].Interviewingisapowerful
wayofhelpingpeopletomakeexplicitthingsthathavehithertobeenimplicit,toarticulatetheirtacit
perceptions,feelingsandunderstanding(p.32).Giventhequalitativenatureofthisresearch,there
wasnoneedtoestablisharepresentativesampleofstakholdersforwhichstatisticalanalysiswould
notbeappropriate.Thisprovidedflexibilityintermsofstakeholderstolookat.Thepurposeofthis
wasforparticipantstoacknowledgethemselvesasastakeholder.Thisinvolvedinitialinformal
discussionstoestablishabaselineandidentifycriticalparticipantsandtheirlevelofinvolvement.
3.2.DataCollectionandAnalysis
WeconductedinterviewsbyimplementingsurveysbyusingthevirtualtoolʺGoogleFormsʺ.
Thefirstsurveywascarriedoutin2022,weinvited172stakeholders,outofwhich40participated.
Thesecondsurveyin2024,inviting226stakeholders,with29responding(seeTable1).The
questionnaireofthesurveycombinedthetheoreticalelementsdiscussedinsection2,tookabout40
minutestoanswergiventheopen‐endedquestionsandwasconductedwithowners,managing
directorandwhenexisting,thedirectorofresearchatthestakeholder’splaceofwork.The
questionnairealsoconstructedthebaselineforaqualitativemappingoutofthestakeholderswiththe
validationofotherstakeholdersinthesector.
Table1.ProfileofStakeholdersinthestudy.
SectorDivisionNamePercentage%
PublicDepartmentalGovernmentofCaldas8
SecretaryofTechnologyTICʹs
Academy
UniversityofManizales
25
UniversityofCaldas
AutonomousUniversityofManizales
NationalUniversityofColombia
CatholicUniversityofManizales
LuisAmigoUniversity
NationalLearningServiceSENA‐SENNOVA
Research
ResearchCenterCINDE
25
EnvironmentalStudiesInstitute
BiotechnologicalDevelopmentCenterʺBIOSʺ
EconomiesResearchCenterʺCRECEʺ
ResearchCenterofCoffeeʺCenicaféʺ
BiotechnologyandAgroindustryInstitute‐UNAL
BioprocessPlantofCaldasUniversity
BusinessChambers
Chamberofcommerce
25ProgramʺManizalescomovamosʺ
HydroelectricCaldasCompany
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 November 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202411.0199.v1
6
ManizalesWaterCompany
NationalAssociationofIndustriesʺANDIʺ
University‐Company‐StateFoundationFUEEC
InterUnionCommitteeofCaldas
AgribusinessComitédeCafeterosdeCaldas3
Environment
ʺVivoCuencaʺCorporationʺ 7
EnvironmentalAuthorityCorpocaldas
EntrepreneurshipOrganizationofentrepreunershipʺIncubarʺ 7
EntrepeunershipCenterʺManizales+ʺ
Source:Ownelaboration.
Priortosendingthequestionnaire,weapproachedstakeholdersviaemailandphonecall.This
approachprovedtobeappropriateandenhancedprofessionalismonoursideasresearchersgave
thelevelofassurancethestakeholderneeded.Thisalsoallowedustobuilduprapportaswe
explainedmoreabouttheproject,makingitclearwewerenotinterestedinfinancialinformation,
prices,customersandthelike.Inbothemailandphonecalls,weprovidedparticipantinformation
andenclosedinformedconsent.Abriefleafletwaselaboratedandalsoenclosed;onphonecallsit
wasbrieflyintroduced,containinginformationontheresearchi.e.objectives,thefocusofthe
research,andanexplanationonwhytheirparticipationwasimportant.Itexplainedthetopicsthat
wouldandwouldnotbecoveredi.e.money,financialstatementsandnegotiationarrangements.We
explainedthedatahandlingandprivacyissuesandreassuredthemtheycouldwithdrawfromthe
researchatanytime.
TheThematicAnalysisApproach(TA)wasutilisedgiventhatitensuredtherobustnessofthe
methodsusedandthequalitativenatureofthisresearchandprovidedtransparencyinrelationtothe
analyticalprocess[52,53].WereadallanswersandthenusedNvivosoftwaretocreatelabels
(indexing)andhaveamanageablewayoflookingatthedata.Thenextstagethenconsistedof
transformingthelabelsintocodes,accordingtoconceptsofliteraturesuchasTIS,andthreeemerging
categories:Importance,InfluenceandInterest.ByusingtheTA,weorganisedanalysistothe
systematicrequirementsofthismethod.Itprovidedwiththepossibilitytotracethe
interconnectednessstagesandlinksbetweenaccountstoexplainandconstructathoroughaccount
ofthecase.TAenablesthedescriptionofaanalysisfrominitialmanagementofdatathroughthe
developmentofdescriptivetoexplanatoryaccounts[52](p.55).Finally,aspartoftheconstructionof
thestakeholdermap,threeexpertsratedthestakeholdersinthreecategoriesthatexplainedthe
interactionstakingplacesintheTSI:Interest,Importance,andInfluenceonascalefrom1(verylow)
to5(veryhigh).Wethenassessedtherelativeweightofeachcategorywithinthenetworkasfollows:
45%(Importance),30%(Influence),and25%(Interest),andrecalculatedtheratingsaccordingly.
Duringthisstepweranamultivariateanalysisusingtheprincipalcomponenttechniquetoexamine
thedataexportedtothestatisticalprogramSPSS(StatisticalPackageforSocialScience).
Subsequently,weperformedclusteranalysisandusedadendrogramtogroupstakeholders
accordingtotheirinterests,importance,andinfluence.Then,thestakeholdersmapwasconstructed,
andeachresultinggroupwascharacterisedandtypified.
4.Results
Inthissection,wepresentourfindingsfromtheempiricalanalysisandshedlightontheresearch
question:
Why,despitecriticalstakeholdersʹ awarenessoftheimportanceofabioeconomyforthe
sustainabilityofCaldasʹeconomyandtheexistenceofinstitutionsintheformoflocalandnational
laws,doesalackofeffectivetransitionfromafossilfueleconomytoabioeconomyexist?
TheexaminationofdynamicsofstakeholdersinthebiotechnologysectorofCaldas,hasshown
substantialpublicinvestmentalongwithprivateefforts.Theinvestmentdoneduringthepast25
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 November 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202411.0199.v1
7
yearshasgearedtowardsthecreationoftheclusterwithstakeholders(companiesandpublic
organistions)andclearperceptionofwhatbioeconomyandtransitiontoitentail.Error!Reference
sourcenotfound.illustratesthecomplexinterplaybetweenstakeholdersofthebiotechnologysector
inCaldas.Actinguponthenetwork,R&Dcollaborationamongstakeholdersisrecurrent,showing
activitiesbasedonSTI.Thesecollaborationscreateaknowledgepoolwithpotentialforinnovation.
Inthisline,theinstitutionalinfrastructureallowsthecreationofstrategicalliancesthataffects
positivelythenetworkintermsofblocksofstakeholders.WhenlookingatthearticulationofthisTIS,
thedynamicsofstakeholdershavedevelopedbasedontheirImportance,InfluenceandInterests,
whichneverthelesspointtoacluster,itislessrelatedinnovationandmoretoapromotionof
bioeconomy.Likewise,theinstitutionalinfrastructureissupportiveofformalarrangements,it
overlooksotherpossibilitiesthatcantranslateintoinnovation.Furthermore,moststakeholders
understandinnovationandbioeconomy,butonlyfewreallyembarkintherisk‐takingaspectof
innovation.Inthefollowingsub‐sections,wepresentthefindingsinmoredetail.
IntensityColour
Low
Media
High
Belongsto
Typeofinteraction
Academy
Business
Entrepreneurship
Environmental
Farmer
Publicsector
Research
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 November 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202411.0199.v1
8
4.1.NetworksofResearch
Ouranalysisfrominterviewsindicatesthatprojectmanagementforresearchstandsoutasthe
mostprevalentamongthevariousformsofengagement.Stakeholderspointoutthatresearchisof
greatimportance.Themapsshowsthatcluster1,moststakeholdersareuniversities,andonlythree
NGOsarededicatedtotheinterestsofbusinesses.Themapshowsstakeholdersarehighlyinterested
inconductingscientificresearch.Thisisespeciallyevidentwhenstakeholdersrequirecontext‐based
solutionswhichconsiderthelocalnaturalendowmentandthesectorʹsrequirements.Stakeholders
alsoassertthatthebiotechnologysectorneedstoshowvisionandimaginationregardingthe
developmentofwasteutilisationalternatives,asstrategiestoaddressenvironmentalandclimate
changechallenges.Mostviewshighlighttheimportanceofuniversitiesandbusinesschambers
advancingthesectortowardbioeconomy.
Dataindicatesthatnationalandlocalgovernmentadministrationspromotecallsforfunding
variousbioeconomyresearchprojects.Universitiesengagewiththeproductivesectorinputting
togetherbidsforfunding.Thisrecurrentengagementinvolvessupplementingscientificresearch
capabilities,dividingworkpackagesbasedoninstitutionalexpertise,anddeliveringreports,
scientificarticles,andpatents.Oneclearexampleofresearchfundingisthearticulationofseveral
highereducationinstitutionsengagedinbiotechnologyandenvironmentalresearchand
developmentsuchasʺImplementationofacomprehensivestrategythroughbiotechnological
innovationfortheutilisationofwasteintheDepartmentofCaldas,ʺexecutedbetween2013and2019.
Scientificinfrastructureforprojectexecutionstillneedsimprovement,beingofmedium
importancetotheoutcomesoftheseresearchprojects.Thelowinfluencestakeholderscanexerteven
thoughpublicuniversitiestypicallypossessthemostinfrastructure,theirdecreasedinfluenceposes
challengesrelatedtofinancialresources.Inthislineofargumentstakeholdersidentifiedtwo
structuralissues.Researchersreportedhinderingfactorsforinnovation.Forexample,thelackoftime
tocarryoutsignificantresearchbyreducingteachinghoursandallowingacademicsgreater
flexibilitytomanagetheirschedules.Withthis,researcherscanworkmoreeffectivelytowardspatent
production,innovation,andtechnologicaldevelopment.
Researchersandbusinessassociationsalsostatethatprojectsareameansoffunding.This
fundingisasurvivalmechanismnecessarytocomplywithacademicperformanceindicators.
Generally,universitiesdedicatesignificanttimeandhumanresourcestocomplywithpublications
andformalcollaborationswithotheruniversitiesandresearchcentres.Theseindicatorsarebasedon
thecontractualarrangementsuniversitieshaveasaneffectofparticipatinginresearchprojects.
4.2.TheFormalandInformalInstitutionalInfrastructure
Researchprojectsencompasspracticalsolutionsandinterventionsforthebiotechnologysector
inCaldas.Forinstance,theUniversityofCaldashousestheTechnologicalDevelopmentCentrein
BioprocessandtheAgroindustryPlant,recognisedbytheMinistryofScience(Minciencias).Sinceits
inceptionin2012,thisresearchcentrehasexecutednumerousresearchprojectsandcurrently
possessesvariousbioproductsandprocessesrangingfromthreetonineintermsofTechnology
ReadinessLevels(TRL).Examplesincludetheproductionanddistributionofmushroomseedsof
severalmacrofungalspecieswithmedicinalattributesandnutritionalpropertiestomushroom
growers.
However,whenwefurtherexploredinterestswithstakeholdersregardingresearchandinnovation,
althoughtheycategoricallystateditasnecessaryforthetransitionofthesectortobioeconomy,
stakeholdersrepeatedlyarguedthatalongsideformalresearch,contractualmechanismsand
relationships,theʺrealʺinnovationhasarobustinformalcomponent.Oneuniversitystakeholdersaid:
…ʺAlongsidethe(research)projectwearecurrentlyundertaking,wehavehadseveralinformal
meetingsthathavearisenspontaneouslytodiscussspecificmattersofvariousissues.Itturnedout
thatasaresultoftheseinformalinteractions,excitingideasemerged,anditiswhatwehavebeen
concurrentlyworkingonʺ(StakeholderA,Nov2023)
Theparticipationofuniversitiesandbusinessesinresearchbidsisinlinewithcallstotackle
issueswhichmayormaynotentirelyaddressthecontextualissuesofCaldas.Theseformal
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 November 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202411.0199.v1
9
mechanismsencouragethesestakeholderstogathertothinkabouttheissuesathand.Inthisregard,
stakeholdersacttacticallyratherthancriticallytoobtainfundingandsubsequentlycomply.
Accordingtoourinterviewees,ʺinnovationencountersʺintheformofinformalmeetingsshouldbe
encouragedasameansforpromotinginnovationthroughresearch,andinfactsuchencounters
alreadytakeplace,withentrepreneursandbusinesspeoplefromacrossCaldas,andfromvarious
valuechainsparticipating.Thistypeofcollaborationwithresearchgroupsatuniversitiesshould
furtherexplorehowcurrentresearchcentrescanbeusedtodevelop,enhance,orsolvecurrentvalue
chain‐relatedissues.Whatisclearisthatinformalinteractionwithentrepreneurs,somefinancial
entities,andgovernmentbodiescouldallowamoreflexiblespacefordiscussingissuesand
developingideastoprovidecomprehensiveandinnovativesolutions.Therefore,thesesignificant
interestsgiverisetoexplorationandasearchforalternativesthatcanacceleratesolutionsandthe
transitiontoabioeconomy.
4.3.ForgingStrategicAlliances
Oneofthemostinterestingfindingswasthecrosscuttingnatureofreplicatingtrending
discoursessuchasinnovation,bioeconomy,andsustainability.Inthemap,Cluster2illustratesa
structurewhichispredominantlycomprisedofprivateorganisationsorientedtowardssupporting
biotechnologycompanies.Stakeholdersbelieveitisvitaltoidentifyothercompaniesinvolvedin
processingfoodandagriculture.Whenstakeholderswereaskedwhattheirunderstandingof
bioeconomyandsustainabilitywas.Whatwasapparentfromtheresponseswasarepeateddiscourse
ofwantingtosoundandappearconcernedaboutthefutureofthebiotechnologysectorand
sustainability,asillustratedbysomeoftherespondentsbelow:
ʺWhendiscussingwithourcounterpartsinBogota,wearealwaystoldthatwedressupand
smellverynicewhenwetalkaboutthistypeofissue(biotechnology,bioeconomyandsustainability),
butwedoverylittlewhenitcomestotransformingthesectorʺ(StakeholderB,Nov2023)
Furthermore,thereisinterestfromthestakeholdersinbeginningtomobilisetowardsa
bioeconomy.Thesignificanceofthesestakeholdersliesintheireffortstoforgealliancesor
agreementswithresearchcentres,companies,andbusinessorganisationsforcooperationintraining,
mentoring,andresearchprojectsfacilitatedbylocalanddepartmentalgovernmentintervention.
However,basedonthestatementabove,thisinterestdoesnottranslateintorealactionwithregards
totransformingthesectorintoabioeconomy.
Thereareotherspecificexampleswherestrategicallianceshaveforgedbenefitsbetween
companiesinthebiotechnologysector.Forinstance,BilröstCraftBeer,acraftbeerproduction
company,suppliesliquidyeasts,aby‐productofbeerbrewing,toAnkor,specialisinginplant
nutrition.TheseliquidyeastsarevitalforAnkorʹsproductionoforganicacidproducts,aminoacids,
fulvicacids,solublecrystals,andplantextracts.Inseekingtounderstandtheinfluenceofthiscluster,
onekeystakeholderexplainedthatwhenestablishingstrategicalliancesthatpromotethevaluechain
intoabioeconomy,thetopmanagementoforganisationsmustaddressandsupporttheseinitiatives.
Itshouldnotsolelyoriginatefromanengineeringdepartment,academics,oraninnovation
department,astheseinitiativesrequireresourcesandafullunderstandingfromtopmanagement.
Moreover,stakeholdersviewtheirrelationshipswithprivatecompanies,NGOs,research
centres,anduniversities(bothpublicandprivate)asfavourably,characterisedbybilateral
communicationfacilitatingtheexchangeofideasandprojects.Duetotheirperceivedimportance,
thisfavourableviewextendstodepartmentalandmunicipalgovernmentlevels.Notably,despitethe
privatenatureofthesestakeholders,relationshipswithfinancialsourcessuchasprivatebankshave
littleinfluence,withstakeholdersprioritisingstrengtheningtheirtieswithuniversities,research
institutions,andgovernmententitiesatvariouslevels.Lessfrequentareinformative,strategic
alliances,andorganisationalrelationships.Nonetheless,itisnoteworthythatstrategicrelationships
betweensectorcompaniescanimpactvalue‐addedprocesses,despitetheirinfrequency.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 November 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202411.0199.v1
10
4.4.RiskinInnovationandDevelopmentBlocks
Giventhecrosscuttinganduncertainnatureofinnovation,itisunsurprisingthatallstakeholders
haveanaversiveviewtowardsembracingandinvestingininnovation.Inresponsetothisquestion,
stakeholdershighlightedhowacutelyawaretheyareoftheneedtoinvestinnewtechnologies.This
isespeciallyhighlightedamongstyoungergenerationsofleadingcompanies.Forexample,therehas
beenaslowgrowthofcriticalvoicesadvocatingfortheacquisitionanddevelopmentoftechnologies
totackleissuessuchasnatureconservationandwaterstewardship.Thisnewwaveofyoungadults
ispartofthegenerationofentrepreneurswhoarebeginningtotakeontheleadershipofmany
prominentandinfluentialcompanies.Manyofthemhavepursuededucationopportunitiesabroad.
Thistrendispartlyfacilitatingachange,givenwhatittakestotransitiontowardsabioeconomyand
thussetanagendawhichrespondstoterritorialneeds.
Weexploredvariousquestionsontheissueofriskmanagement.Lookingspecificallyat
generationalchange,seniormanagementweredeemedtohavealessforward‐lookingperspectivein
regardtodecision‐making.Mostmanagersstillrequireatleastabasicgraspof,orbetterstill,a
completeunderstandingofinnovation.Thedominantviewisoneofwantingimmediatereturnson
anyinvestmentininnovation,withinnovationatthecoreoftheterritorialagenda.Overwhelmingly,
allstakeholdersareunitedinstatingthatifinnovationwereaccessibleand“easytodo”,itwouldnot
beinnovation.
Itisessentialfortheterritorythatbusinessleaderscomprehendtheimplicationsofinnovation
andunderstandwhatinnovationscouldhelptobolsterabiotechnologysector.Linkingbacktoour
earlierdiscussion,cluster3holdssignificantswayoveritsrelationshipswithotherbiotechnology
companiesandgovernmentagenciesatdepartmentandmunicipallevelsinthatitcanpavetheway
tomanageriskamongstakeholders.TheinfluenceoftheFederaciónNacionaldeCafeteros(FNC)is
significantinsettingtheprogressiveuseofgreentechnologiesforcoffeeproduction.Alongwith
coffeeproduction,thisgroupʹsinfluenceoveruniversities(bothprivateandpublic)andscientific
researchorganisationsisconsiderable.ApartfromtheinfluenceofFNCstakeholders,itsimportance
residesinshapinghowpotentialinnovationprototypesandideasarepresented.Accordingtothem,
adjustingbusinesslanguageispartoftheneedforagreateradoptionofinnovation.
Asimilartrendisdiscernibleintherelationshipsbetweennationalandlocalgovernments,
whereininfluenceisgenerallyhigh.Thisinfluenceisperceivedassomethingwhichchangesthe
survivalpatternofotherstakeholders,includingresearchinstitutions,aligningresourceswith
scientificprojects,shiftingthefocustowardstheterritorialagenda,andtacklingissuesbydeveloping
actions,activities,orprogrammes.Stakeholderswithincluster3endeavourtocultivatemore
extensiveconnectionswithintheprivatesector,particularlywithinternationalcorporations,
universities,foundations,andresearchbodies.Forexample,stakeholdersassociatedwithAguasde
Manizales(waterutilitycompany),arenotablyprominentwithinthebiotechnologycluster,capable
ofassumingriskandinfluencingrisk‐relatedpolicies.
5.Discussion
5.1.IntegrationofStakeholdersandTheirImportance,InfluenceandInterestinTIS
Atthetheoreticallevel,ourframeworkaddressesanimportantgapthatISliteratureoverlooks
atthemicrolevel.Byaddressingstakeholdersratherthanagentsandintegratingtheagencyas
Importance,InfluenceandInterestsofstakeholders,weofferanewbottom‐upperspectiveon
innovationsystems.TheattentiononISresearchhasbeenpaidtosystemsfailure[54].Incontextsuch
Latam,thereexistapolicyframeworkanddiscourse[11]specificallyinColombia’scase.Ourresults
highlightthatnetworksshowdynamismamongstakeholderswiththepurposeofcreating
knowledgeforinnovation,stakeholders’interactionsconsidertheirimportance,influenceand
interest.Inthissense,byincorporatingourframeworkallowstopointoutwhatstakeholdersactually
haveatstakeinlightofbelongingtoasector(networks)thatiscrucialforthesustainabilityofthe
departmentandconnectinginnovationresearchonbioeconomy.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 November 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202411.0199.v1
11
Interactionpatternsbetweenstakeholdershaverevealedseveralkeyinsightsregardingcomplex
dynamics.Despitethediscourseontheimportanceofbioeconomy,stakeholderscarryoutactivities
inlinewithabioeconomytransition.Thestructureofthebiotechnologysectorrequireschangeto
achieveaneffectivetransitiontowardsabioeconomy.Thebiotechnologysectorremindsusitisnot
onlyappropriate,butfundamentaltodesignterritorialagendas.Caldasshowsthatstakeholdersare
settingapathwayatadiscourselevel.Thishasmovedfinancial,technology,andknowledge
resourcesproducingfurtherscientificknowledgeanddataasrepositoryforpotentialinnovations.
Contrarytowhatresearchexaminedinemergingeconomies,whichwasthatColombiahasadopted
asectoralandmorecomprehensivenationalbioeconomystrategy,theanalysisindicatesthatsucha
strategyhasbeeninsufficienttomoveforward,andplacestheemphasisintheneedforamore
territorialstrategy[27].
5.2.ImplicationsforTISforTransitioningtoBioeconomy
Empiricalresultsshedlightontheimplicationsofincludingthesethreeemergingcategoriesfor
explainingtheinnovationopportunitiesthatrequiremodernisationofmaterial,producttesting
processesandstandards,amongothers[35].Thedepartmentalandterritorialfocuswasreflectedby
stakeholdershighlightingthehinderingfactorsaffectingthetransitiontoabioeconomy.Drawing
fromtheexperiencesofdevelopedeconomies,thereisconsistencyintheideaofsettingupterritorial
strategiesaddressingtheneedsandtacklingthelocalissuesofBiotechnologysectorofCaldas.There
arestudiesthatindicatetheimportanceofaddressingsectoralissuesforsettingupbioeconomy
agendas[55].
Otherstudiesshedlightontheessentialityofhavingregionalperspectivesandthusfocusing
stakeholdersonidentifyingthechallengesandtakingontheopportunitiesassociatedwith
technologicaldevelopments[56].
Theterritorialagendacouldcatalysetheimplementationofsustainablebioeconomyregionsby
diversification.ResearchinEuropeancontextssuchasdiscussesthecaseofFinlandwhichillustrates
aregionalperspectivewheretheforestrysectorindicatescompaniesmustdiversifytheircurrent
networkstructureandcreatenewopportunitiesforsmaller‐scaleenterprises[23].Thus,thisnetwork
structurewillopennewopportunitiesforʺnicheʺsmall‐scalecompanies.InCaldas,however,biotech
companiesandorganisationspositionthemselvesinrelativelycomfortableactivitieswithinthevalue
chain,whichposeslessrisk.Theeconomicrenewaloradaptationoftheregionandthecreationof
newdevelopmentalpathwayscanbeseenasacombinationofenterpriseandsystemagency[57].
Suchagencyincorporatesperspectivesonenterprisedynamicsandinteractionswithinthe
productiveandresearchsystems,governmentalentities,civilsociety,andotherpublicandprivate
institutions.
Caldasalsoindicatesthatterritorialagendasareneededtosolveissuessuchas(i)resistanceto
risk‐takingandinnovation,(ii)limitedinter‐stakeholdercoordinationandalignment,and(iii)the
prevalenceofashort‐termfocusonimmediatereturnsratherthanlong‐termsustainable
development.Theoreticalandpracticalnotionssuggestinvestigatingthedynamiccapabilitiesof
variousstakeholderstosensechange,seizeopportunities,restructureorganisations,andexaminethe
coherenceofregionaldynamiccapabilitiestoforgenewdevelopmentpaths[58].However,our
analysisillustratesthatmoststakeholdersfeelconstrainedbyriskaversion,preferringproven,
incrementalinnovationsovermoredisruptiveapproaches.Thebioeconomyendeavournecessitates
thoroughresearchintothecapacitiesofbusinessorganisations,publicinstitutions,andsupporting
bodies.Itseekstoidentifyspecificlearningneedsandnewknowledgetoacquirecompetencies,
definingneworganisationalandinstitutionalrolesinresponsetothecomplexchallengesofa
knowledge‐basedBioeconomy.
Additionally,ouranalysissuggeststhatmanystakeholdersareconcernedwithshort‐term
financialgainsratherthansocietalandenvironmentalbenefitsofbioeconomy[59].Greeninnovations
aremorecomplexthantraditionalinnovations,involvingabroaderrangeofstakeholdersand
exhibitingmoresignificantambiguity,withstakeholdersfrequentlypresentingconflictingdemands
[60].Thisreflectsaneedforashared,long‐termvision,andcommitmenttoabioeconomy
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 November 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202411.0199.v1
12
developmentagenda.Inthisregard,thereareexcellentexamplesofhowstakeholdersaresupporting
deepercollaboration,andnewknowledgedisseminationthatcoulddecreaseriskaversion[61].A
territorialbioeconomystrategywhichengagesallrelevantstakeholders,alignstheirinterestsand
encouragescollaborationandrisk‐takingiscrucialtoenhancecollaborationandknowledge
dissemination.Inprocesses,regionsprovideresourcesandaccesstolocalandnon‐localinformation,
influencingtheaccumulation,reproduction,andrecombinationofresources(especiallytacit
knowledge)andcapabilitiesthroughtheactionsandinteractionsoflocalagents[62].Suchastrategy
shouldbetailoredtothespecificcontextandresourcesoftheCaldasregion,drawingonitsunique
strengthsandopportunities[63,64].
Aredirectionoffocus,influence,andprioritiesisrequiredtopromoteinnovationinsupportof
thetransitionanddevelopmentofbioeconomy[23].Participationindecision‐makingandinteraction
betweendiversestakeholdersbecomenecessarypreconditionsforrisk‐takingandsharingintheend
result.Additionally,researchsuggeststhatfomentingaterritorialapproachwhichfacilitatessocial
learning,andthegenerationofsharedvisionsiscriticalforthesustainabilitytransition.Thecaseof
Caldasindicatesthattransitioningtowardsasustainablebioeconomyrequiressectoralstrategiesand
concertedterritorialeffortstoalignstakeholderinterests,fostercollaboration,andpromotelong‐
term,sustainabledevelopment.Thisissupportedbystudiesinwhichmultipleinteractiveaimsand
stakeholdergroupscanbeassociatedwithconsiderableuncertainty[65].
Unlikethetransitioncasestowardsbioeconomy,particularlyinLatinAmerica,orlikethoseseen
inBrazilandThailand[61,66–69].Colombialacksthepresenceofdominantstakeholderswithlarge
landholdingsorapredominanteconomicpresencedominatetechnologicalinnovationsuchasthe
casepalmoilplantationsinBrazil[70].However,whenincorporatingstakeholdersintoacallfor
proposals,thematrixofdominantpowermayincludestakeholderswhocontrolanddominate
economicresourcessuchasloansorgovernmentsupport,publicpolicy,whoseinfluenceisso
significantthatallpublicinvestmentisdirectedtowardsthesestakeholders.Thisisanissuethat
requiresgovernance[71].
Finally,thebiotechnologysectorinCaldashasadoptedatransitiontobioeconomynotmuch
differentofothercasesinLatinAmericainthatit’sconservativeinnatureandgenerallyreproducing
unsustainableoftendisguiseunderthesustainablelabel.Theevolvingdynamicsofstakeholder
interests,influence,andimportancearecriticalconsiderations.Overtime,stakeholdersʹ rolesand
interactionswithintheprocessescantransform.Futureresearchmustexaminetheshiftof
stakeholders’interests,influence,andimportance.
6.Conclusions
OurstudyexploredthedynamicsofstakeholdersinthebiotechnologysectorinCaldas.Inthese
interactions,weexaminedthecreationofknowledgeforinnovationtotransittobioeconomy.Inthe
theoreticalframework,weintroducedthreeemergingcategories:Importance,InfluenceandInterests
andreframedagentsforstakeholders.ThestudytakesISanalysisbeyonditsfocus,predominantly
failures,byconsideringstakeholder’svestedagencywhenitcomestoknowledgecreation,
innovationandthusimpactsontransitiontowardsbioeconomy.
Fromourempiricalresultsitbecomesclearthatstakeholdersrevealacomplexinterplaybetween
stakeholdersʹ importance,influence,andinterests.ThedevelopmentofaTISinthebiotechnology
clusterofCaldasshedslightontheinterventionanddisequilibriumcreatedbystakeholderssuchas
National,DepartmentalandMunicipalitygovernmentlevels.Furthermore,puttingtogether
companies,publicandprivateorganisationsproofsthatstakeholderscanbegintocreate
developmentblocks.OuranalysisshowsthatstakeholdersareonthepathwaytoBioeconomyatthe
discursivelevel.Inlinewithliterature,thesedynamicsresultinminimumstructuralchangetoallow
tangibletransitionforthesectortobioeconomy.Theanalysishighlightstheneedforamorecohesive
andcooperativeenvironmenttofostersustainablebioeconomicdevelopment.Somestakeholdersare
dedicatedtotheformulationandmanagementofresearchprojectsmainlyforthepurposeof
generatingflowofincome,veeringofffromcarryingoutresearchthatresultininnovationsthat
enhancedevelopmentofthebiotechnologysectorandboostproductivity.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 November 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202411.0199.v1
13
Ourstudyalsoshowsthatfewstakeholdershavearealcommitmenttoforgingstrategic
alliancestoenhanceinnovativecapabilitiesandtransformthecurrentsocio‐ecologicalstructurethat
leadstobioeconomy.Wearguethatthereisaneedtoconfigureagovernancesystem,i.e.anew
institutionalarrangement(institutionalinfrastructure)thatplacesscience,technologyand
innovation,civilsocietyandaterritorialagendawithbioprospectiveatitscoretosetthepathway
forbioeconomy.Itisevident,thatstakeholdersshowacomplexinteractionbasedontheframework
withemergingcategoriesofImportance,influenceandInterest.Theseinteractionsshowlittle
cohesivenessandcooperationthatcanresultininnovationinaccordancewithalong‐termvision,
neededforbioeconomy.
Finally,weobservethatCaldasDepartmenthasformulatedinitiatives,developedpolicies,and
constructedinstitutionsandorganisationsintheregion.Despitethis,thereremainsanabsenceofa
strategicplatform,i.e.,aterritorialagendaintegratingallstakeholders,includinggenuine
incorporationandparticipationofcivilsociety.Thisinclusioncanchangethecurrentdynamic
structureofstakeholdersandtherebyenhanceproductionprocessestowardsabioeconomy.
AuthorContributions:Conceptualization,CHGE,JCGTandAOVR;methodology,CHGE,JCGTandAOVR;
software,JCGT;validation,CHGE,JCGTandAOVR;formalanalysis,CHGE,JCGTandAOVR.;investigation,
CHGE,JCGTandAOVR.;resources,CHGEandJCGT;datacuration,JCGT.;writing—originaldraftpreparation
CHGE,JCGTandAOVR.;writing—CHGE,JCGTandAOVR,;visualizationCHGE,JCGTandAOVR.;
supervision,CHGE;projectadministration,CHGE.;Allauthorshavereadandagreedtothepublishedversion
ofthemanuscript.
Funding:ThisresearchwasfundedbyMINCIENCIAS(MinisteriodeCiencia,TecnologíaeInnovación)and
UniversityofManizales,grantnumber903
InformedConsentStatement:Informedconsentwasobtainedfromallsubjectsinvolvedinthestudy
DataAvailabilityStatement:Duetoprivacyrestrictionsresearchdatacannotbeshared.
Acknowledgments:TheauthorswanttothankPaulaAndreaSalazarSánchez,AnaMaríaDurangoGómezand
OscarFernandoGómezMoralesfortheirinvaluablecollaborationindatacollectionandreachingout
participants.
ConflictsofInterest:Theauthorsdeclarenoconflictsofinterest/
References
1. EuropeanCommission.InnovatingforSustainableGrowth.ABioeconomyforEurope.
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication‐detail/‐/publication/1f0d8515‐8dc0‐4435‐ba53‐9570e47dbd51(2012).
2. EuropeanCommission.ASustainableBioeconomyforEurope:StrengtheningtheConnectionbetween
Economy,SocietyandtheEnvironmentUpdatedBioeconomyStrategy.http://europa.eu(2018).
https://doi.org/10.2777/478385.
3. Sołtysik,M.,Urbaniec,M.&Wojnarowska,M.Innovationforsustainableentrepreneurship:Empirical
evidencefromthebioeconomysectorinpoland.AdmSci9,(2019).
4. Gawel,E.,Pannicke,N.&Hagemann,N.Apathtransitiontowardsabioeconomy‐Thecrucialroleof
sustainability.Sustainability(Switzerland)11,(2019).
5. Fritsche,U.etal.FutureTransitionsfortheBioeconomytowardsSustainableDevelopmentandaClimate‐
NeutralEconomyKnowledgeSynthesisFinalReport.https://ec.europa.eu/jrc(2020).
https://doi.org/10.2760/667966.
6. Robert,N.etal.DevelopmentofabioeconomymonitoringframeworkfortheEuropeanUnion:An
integrativeandcollaborativeapproach.NBiotechnol59,10–19(2020).
7. Giampietro,M.OntheCircularBioeconomyandDecoupling:ImplicationsforSustainableGrowth.
EcologicalEconomics162,143–156(2019).
8. Gottinger,A.,Ladu,L.&Quitzow,R.Studyingthetransitiontowardsacircularbioeconomy—asystematic
literaturereviewontransitionstudiesandexistingbarriers.Sustainability(Switzerland)12,1–27(2020).
9. Dietz,T.,Börner,J.,Förster,J.J.&vonBraun,J.Governanceofthebioeconomy:Aglobalcomparativestudy
ofnationalbioeconomystrategies.Sustainability(Switzerland)10,(2018).
10. Birch,K.&Tyfield,D.TheorizingtheBioeconomy:Biovalue,Biocapital,Bioeconomicsor...What?Sci
TechnolHumanValues38,299–327(2013).
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 November 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202411.0199.v1
14
11. BalanzóGuzmán,A.,Centeno,J.P.,PinzónRojas,C.M.&RojasJiménez,H.H.Isbioeconomicpotential
shared?AnassessmentofpolicyexpectationsattheregionallevelinColombia.InnovationandDevelopment
(2021).https://doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2021.1956713.
12. Wydra,S.Valuechainsforindustrialbiotechnologyinthebioeconomy‐innovationsystemanalysis.
Sustainability(Switzerland)11,(2019).
13. Frisvold,G.B.,Moss,S.M.,Hodgson,A.&Maxon,M.E.UnderstandingtheU.S.bioeconomy:Anew
definitionandlandscape.Sustainability(Switzerland)13,1–24(2021).
14. Dahiya,S.etal.Foodwastebiorefinery:Sustainablestrategyforcircularbioeconomy.BioresourceTechnology
vol.2482–12Preprintathttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.07.176(2018).
15. Wohlgemuth,R.,Twardowski,T.&Aguilar,A.Bioeconomymovingforwardstepbystep–Aglobal
journey.NBiotechnol61,22–28(2021).
16. Loorbach,D.&Rotmans,J.Thepracticeoftransitionmanagement:Examplesandlessonsfromfourdistinct
cases.Futures42,237–246(2010).
17. Gamborg,C.,Anker,H.T.&Sandøe,P.Ethicalandlegalchallengesinbioenergygovernance:Copingwith
valuedisagreementandregulatorycomplexity.EnergyPolicy69,326–333(2014).
18. Frow,E.etal.Thepoliticsofplants.FoodSecur1,17–23(2009).
19. Levidow,L.,Birch,K.&Papaioannou,T.EUagri‐innovationpolicy:Twocontendingvisionsofthebio‐
economy.CritPolicyStud6,40–65(2012).
20. Kern,F.&Smith,A.Restructuringenergysystemsforsustainability?Energytransitionpolicyinthe
Netherlands.EnergyPolicy36,4093–4103(2008).
21. Bosman,R.,Loorbach,D.,Frantzeskaki,N.&Pistorius,T.DiscursiveregimedynamicsintheDutchenergy
transition.inEnvironmentalInnovationandSocietalTransitionsvol.1345–59(ElsevierB.V.,2014).
22. Bosman,R.&Rotmans,J.Transitiongovernancetowardsabioeconomy:AcomparisonofFinlandandThe
Netherlands.Sustainability(Switzerland)8,(2016).
23. Korhonen,J.,Giurca,A.,Brockhaus,M.&Toppinen,A.ActorsandpoliticsinFinland’sforest‐based
bioeconomynetwork.Sustainability(Switzerland)10,(2018).
24. Bauer,F.,Hansen,T.&Hellsmark,H.Innovationinthebioeconomy–dynamicsofbiorefineryinnovation
networks.TechnolAnalStrategManag30,935–947(2018).
25. Hellsmark,H.,Mossberg,J.,Söderholm,P.&Frishammar,J.Innovationsystemstrengthsandweaknesses
inprogressingsustainabletechnology:ThecaseofSwedishbiorefinerydevelopment.JCleanProd131,702–
715(2016).
26. Schiller,K.J.F.,Klerkx,L.,Poortvliet,P.M.&Godek,W.Exploringbarrierstotheagroecologicaltransition
inNicaragua:ATechnologicalInnovationSystemsApproach.AgroecologyandSustainableFoodSystems44,
88–132(2020).
27. Johnson,F.X.etal.Acomparativeanalysisofbioeconomyvisionsandpathwaysbasedonstakeholder
dialoguesinColombia,Rwanda,Sweden,andThailand.JournalofEnvironmentalPolicyandPlanning24,
680–700(2022).
28. LópezHernández,V.&Schanz,H.Agencyinactornetworks:Whoisgoverningtransitionstowardsa
bioeconomy?ThecaseofColombia.JCleanProd225,728–742(2019).
29. Bergek,A.,Jacobsson,S.,Carlsson,B.,Lindmark,S.&Rickne,A.Analyzingthefunctionaldynamicsof
technologicalinnovationsystems:Aschemeofanalysis.ResPolicy37,407–429(2008).
30. Carlsson,B.&Stankiewicz,R.OntheNature,FunctionandCompositionofTechnologicalSystems.JEvol
Econvol.1(1991).
31. Geels,F.W.TechnologicalTransitionsandSystemInnovations:ACo‐EvolutionaryandSocio‐Technical
Analysis.(EdwardElgar,Cheltenham,2005).
32. Devaney,L.&Henchion,M.Consensus,caveatsandconditions:Internationallearningsforbioeconomy
development.JCleanProd174,1400–1411(2018).
33. Hekkert,M.P.,Suurs,R.A.A.,Negro,S.O.,Kuhlmann,S.&Smits,R.E.H.M.Functionsofinnovation
systems:Anewapproachforanalysingtechnologicalchange.TechnolForecastSocChange74,413–432(2007).
34. Coenen,L.&DíazLópez,F.J.Comparingsystemsapproachestoinnovationandtechnologicalchangefor
sustainableandcompetitiveeconomies:Anexplorativestudyintoconceptualcommonalities,differences
andcomplementarities.JCleanProd18,1149–1160(2010).
35. Wilde,K.&Hermans,F.Innovationinthebioeconomy:Perspectivesofentrepreneursonrelevant
frameworkconditions.JCleanProd314,(2021).
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 November 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202411.0199.v1
15
36. Wilden,R.&Gudergan,S.P.Theimpactofdynamiccapabilitiesonoperationalmarketingand
technologicalcapabilities:investigatingtheroleofenvironmentalturbulence.JAcadMarkSci43,181–199
(2015).
37. Lundvall,B.NationalSystemsofInnovation:TowardsaTheoremofInnovationandInteractiveLearning.
(Pinter,London,1992).
38. Carlsson,B.TechnologicalSystemandEconomicPerformance:ACaseofFactoryAutomation.(Kluwer
Academic,Dordrecht,1995).
39. Edquist,C.SystemsofInnovation:Technologies,InstitutionsandOrganizations.(1997).
40. Cunningham,J.A.&O’Reilly,P.Macro,mesoandmicroperspectivesoftechnologytransfer.Journalof
TechnologyTransfer43,545–557(2018).
41. Carayannis,E.G.,Barth,T.D.&Campbell,D.F.TheQuintupleHelixinnovationmodel:globalwarming
asachallengeanddriverforinnovation.JInnovEntrep1,2(2012).
42. Bacon,E.,Williams,M.D.&Davies,G.H.Recipesforsuccess:Conditionsforknowledgetransferacross
openinnovationecosystems.IntJInfManage377–387(2019).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.07.012.
43. Chang,Y.C.&Chen,M.H.Comparingapproachestosystemsofinnovation:Theknowledgeperspective.
TechnolSoc26,17–37(2004).
44. Ploum,L.,Blok,V.,Lans,T.&Omta,O.Exploringtherelationbetweenindividualmoralantecedentsand
entrepreneurialopportunityrecognitionforsustainabledevelopment.JCleanProd172,1582–1591(2018).
45. Díaz‐García,C.,González‐Moreno,Á.&Sáez‐Martínez,F.J.Eco‐innovation:Insightsfromaliterature
review.Innovation:Management,PolicyandPractice17,6–23(2015).
46. Mueller,V.,Rosenbusch,N.&Bausch,A.SuccessPatternsofExploratoryandExploitativeInnovation:A
Meta‐AnalysisoftheInfluenceofInstitutionalFactors.JManage39,1606–1636(2013).
47. Yitshaki,R.&Kropp,F.MotivationsandOpportunityRecognitionofSocialEntrepreneurs.JournalofSmall
BusinessManagement54,546–565(2016).
48. Iddris,F.InnovationCapability:ASystematicReviewandResearchAgenda.InterdisciplinaryJournalof
Information,Knowledge,andManagementvol.11http://www.informingscience.org/Publications/3571
(2016).
49. MisiondeSabiosporCaldas.MISIÓNDESABIOSPORCALDAS:Equitativa,ProductivaySostenible.
ConocimientoParaElDesarrollo.(2020).
50. BiotechnologyCluster.Tema:PrimeraplenariaClusterdelConocimientoenbiotecnología.(2019).
51. Arksey,HandKnight,P.Whyinterviews?Interviewingforsocialscientists:anintroductoryresourcewith
examples32–42(1999).
52. Smith,J.&Frith,J.QualitativeDataAnalysis:theframeworkapproach.NurseRes18,52–63(2011).
53. Maggs‐Rapport,F.‘Bestresearchpractice’:Inpursuitofmethodologicalrigour.JAdvNurs35,373–383
(2001).
54. Grillitsch,M.&Trippl,M.InnovationPoliciesandNewRegionalGrowthPaths.inInnovationSystems,
PolicyandManagement(ed.Niosi,J.)329–358(CambridgeUniversityPress,NewYork,2018).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108529525.012.
55. Lühmann,M.WhoseEuropeanbioeconomy?RelationsofforcesintheshapingofanupdatedEU
bioeconomystrategy.EnvironDev35,(2020).
56. Bezama,A.,Ingrao,C.,O’Keeffe,S.&Thrän,D.Resources,collaborators,andneighbors:Thethree‐pronged
challengeintheimplementationofbioeconomyregions.Sustainability(Switzerland)11,(2019).
57. Isaksen,A.,Jakobsen,S.E.,Njøs,R.&Normann,R.Regionalindustrialrestructuringresultingfrom
individualandsystemagency.Innovation:TheEuropeanJournalofSocialScienceResearch32,48–65(2019).
58. Labory,S.&Bianchi,P.Regionalindustrialpolicyintimesofbigdisruption:buildingdynamiccapabilities
inregions.RegStud55,1829–1838(2021).
59. Burkart,S.etal.TheimpactofCOVID‐19onthesustainableintensificationofforage‐basedbeefanddairy
valuechainsinColombia:ablessingandacurse.TropicalGrasslands‐ForrajesTropicales10,237–248(2022).
60. Hall,J.&Vredenburg,H.Thechallengesofinnovatingforsustainabledevelopment.SloanManageRev45,
61–68(2003).
61. BastosLima,M.G.Corporatepowerinthebioeconomytransition:Thepoliciesandpoliticsofconservative
ecologicalmodernizationinBrazil.Sustainability(Switzerland)13,(2021).
62. Boschma,R.Relatednessasdriverofregionaldiversification:aresearchagenda.RegStud51,351–364
(2017).
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 November 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202411.0199.v1
16
63. Tani,M.,Papaluca,O.&Sasso,P.TheSystemThinkingPerspectiveintheOpen‐Innovationresearch:A
systematicreview.JournalofOpenInnovation:Technology,Market,andComplexity4,(2018).
64. Bouchaut,B.,deVriend,H.&Asveld,L.Uncertaintiesanduncertainrisksofemergingbiotechnology
applications:Asociallearningworkshopforstakeholdercommunication.FrontBioengBiotechnol10,(2022).
65. Purkus,A.&Lüdtke,J.Asystemicevaluationframeworkforamulti‐actor,forest‐basedbioeconomy
governanceprocess:TheGermanCharterforWood2.0asacasestudy.ForPolicyEcon113,(2020).
66. Afonso,S.R.InnovationPerspectivesfortheBioeconomyofNon‐TimberForestProductsinBrazil.Forests
13,(2022).
67. Kröger,M.Inter‐sectoraldeterminantsofforestpolicy:thepowerofdeforestingactorsinpost‐2012Brazil.
ForPolicyEcon77,24–32(2017).
68. Hackfort,S.Unlockingsustainability?Thepowerofcorporatelock‐insandhowtheyshapedigital
agricultureinGermany.JRuralStud101,(2023).
69. ThazinAung,M.,Nguyen,H.&Denduang,B.PowerandInfluenceintheDevelopmentofThailand’s
Bioeconomy.ACriticalStakeholderAnalysis.StockholmEnvironmentInstitute(2020).
70. Backhouse,M.&Lehmann,R.New‘renewable’frontiers:contestedpalmoilplantationsandwindenergy
projectsinBrazilandMexico.JLandUseSci15,373–388(2020).
71. Larner,W.&Walters,W.GlobalGovernmentality.GoverningInternationalSpaces.(Routledge,London,New
York,2004).
Disclaimer/Publisher’sNote:Thestatements,opinionsanddatacontainedinallpublicationsaresolelythose
oftheindividualauthor(s)andcontributor(s)andnotofMDPIand/ortheeditor(s).MDPIand/ortheeditor(s)
disclaimresponsibilityforanyinjurytopeopleorpropertyresultingfromanyideas,methods,instructionsor
productsreferredtointhecontent.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 November 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202411.0199.v1
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Unlocking sustainability? The power of corporate lock-ins and how they shape digital agriculture in Germany
Article
Full-text available
  • Jul 2023
  • J RURAL STUD
The digital transformation of agriculture is widely presented as a path to sustainability and a win-win strategy that benefits the environment, farmers, and consumers alike. However, recent studies show how the digital economy is characterized by monopoly structures, market concentration and corporate power that determine patterns of control over digital technology, distribution of benefits and value creation from data. In the field of agriculture, there is a lack of empirical research on lock-ins that examines in detail the logic of these effects, the actors, and the power dynamics behind them. Yet such insights are exactly what is needed to better understand the effects and to break unsustainable lock-ins towards more sustainable agri-food systems. Drawing on the literature on the political economy of food and agriculture, and on studies of innovation and sustainability transitions, this article aims to fill this research gap. Based on an empirical case study in Germany, it identifies systemic, technological, data, legal, soft, and discursive lock-ins that reinforce existing power relations and farmers' dependence on corporate agro-industrial farming models. It concludes that sustainable transformations in agriculture require a disruption of the identified lock-ins at multiple levels.
View
Innovation Perspectives for the Bioeconomy of Non-Timber Forest Products in Brazil
Article
Full-text available
  • Dec 2022
Brazil has great potential for the development of an NTFP bioeconomy as it has 500 million hectares of forest. In this article, I seek to identify, through a literature review, innovations in products and processes inserted in the value chain of Brazilian NTFPs with a greater productive value. The hypothesis is that the prospects for the development of the bioeconomy of NTFPs depend on the establishment of a series of innovations along the value chain and in public policies. The production value of NTFPs reached USD 365 million in 2020 and the main NTFPs were açaí, yerba mate, carnaúba pode, Brazil nut, babassu, and pequi. I observed that the products with the highest production value developed innovations in the cultivation of species and in the development of new products. Innovations related to social and commercial organization have been developed within the scope of working in networks. Several policies were implemented based on the construction of a collective concept for the activity related to the NTFPs, sociobiodiversity. Even so, these actions need to be continued and strengthened for the transition to an inclusive, sustainable bioeconomy that takes into account traditional knowledge. Investment in research needs to be constant for the development of new products. Sustainable planting in diversified systems can also be considered an important strategy. Partnerships between the government and the various actors in the value chains are necessary and urgent to ensure innovations, also in the regulatory and organizational environment of NTFPs’ value chains.
View
The impact of COVID-19 on the sustainable intensification of forage-based beef and dairy value chains in Colombia: a blessing and a curse
Article
Full-text available
  • Sep 2022
The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the difficulties associated with the need to transition the cattle sector in Latin America towards achieving sustainability and created a “double crisis” of pandemic and climate change. The increasing demand for animal sourced foods and the need to address the negative environmental impacts of cattle production, including greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss and deforestation, and the implications of climate change on cattle production (prolonged droughts, prolonged rainy seasons, heat stress), have placed strong emphasis on sustainable intensification of forage-based beef and dairy systems for climate change mitigation and adaptation. This is needed to meet the commitments made by many Latin American countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Paris Agreement. Through a qualitative approach, this perspective paper reviews the present and potential impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on progress towards sustainable intensification of the Colombian cattle sector. It also outlines new opportunities for sustainable intensification in Colombia that may provide useful examples for other Latin American countries. Short-term impacts such as: (i) increased input prices, (ii) limited access to inputs, credit, and technical assistance, and (iii) reduced incomes, have limited investment in sustainable intensification along the value chains. Reduced resources for research and development funding, unavailability of skilled and experienced staff, restrictions to travel and person-to-person interactions, in tandem, have caused setbacks in the development and application of sustainable technologies and programs. This has been addressed by increased use of technology for communication but there are difficulties with the broad availability of such technologies, especially farmers. A long-term shift of consumer demand towards more sustainable animal products is occurring and expected to continue, and this should lead to new opportunities for sustainable intensification.
View
Uncertainties and uncertain risks of emerging biotechnology applications: A social learning workshop for stakeholder communication
Article
Full-text available
  • Sep 2022
Emerging applications of biotechnology such as new genomic techniques may give rise to new uncertainties and uncertain risks. Particularly the increased complexity and limited knowledge of possible risks associated with these new techniques, make it currently impossible to perform an adequate environmental risk assessment. As a result, there is a risk that such techniques don’t get beyond experiments demonstrating the proof of principle, stifling their further development and implementation. To break free from this deadlock, we must be able to learn what such uncertainties and uncertain risks entail, and how they should be assessed to ensure safe further development. To shape a responsible learning environment to explore uncertainties and uncertain risks, we have organized five stakeholder workshops. By means of a case about the genetic engineering of plants’ rhizosphere–an application abundant with uncertain risks–we identified tensions between different stakeholder groups and their different estimates of uncertainties and uncertain risks. Based upon derived insights, we developed a tool–a script for researchers to organize a stakeholder workshop–that enables a constructive discussion about emerging risks with a broad range of stakeholders. Thereby, the script provides a step-by-step approach to identify uncertainties, develop anticipatory strategies and adaptations in (experimental) research designs to lower or mitigate the earlier identified uncertainties, and helps to identify knowledge gaps for which (additional) risk research should be set up.
View
A comparative analysis of bioeconomy visions and pathways based on stakeholder dialogues in Colombia, Rwanda, Sweden, and Thailand
Article
Full-text available
  • Feb 2022
The bioeconomy offers a cross-cutting perspective on the societal transformation towards long-term sustainability and the transition away from the non-renewable economy. Identification of future pathways towards a sustainable bioeconomy can be related to different ‘visions’ of the bioeconomy, including an ecological vision, a bioresource development vision and a biotechnology vision. This paper synthesises empirical work from stakeholder dialogues conducted in Colombia, Rwanda, Sweden, and Thailand. The dialogues were structured around elaboration of bioeconomy pathways arising from different visions. The dialogues considered key driving factors and enabling conditions for different institutional levels ranging from local to regional. By conducting analysis across multiple countries and regions, we aimed to look across different economic development levels, different sectoral perspectives, and different innovation and bioresource strategies. Key components for bioeconomy pathways were identified with respect to bio-based products and resources, sectoral alignment, innovation clusters or hubs, and landscape transitions. The choice of different bioeconomy pathways is characterised by tensions between sector-based development and cross-cutting approaches, which in turn reflect differences between the bioresource and ecological visions, whereas the biotechnology vision tends to be viewed more as a means of implementation. The comparative analysis suggests some future lines of research on governing bioeconomy pathways. © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.