Skip to main content

Criteria for the Success of the Bioeconomy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Bioeconomy for Beginners

Abstract

The establishment of bioeconomic value chains has implications for companies, regions, jobs and consumers. The most important factors on which the successful transformation into a sustainable bioeconomy will depend are raw material supply, technological progress, production costs, ecological sustainability, and social acceptance. The transition from the fossil-based economy to the bioeconomy will take decades, especially since, at this point in time, most bio-based value chains remain in competition with their fossil-based counterparts. It must be borne in mind, however, that not all areas currently dominated by the fossil-based economy will be replaced by bio-based processes. In the energy industry, for example, non-bio-based processes must also pursue a greater degree of sustainability, for example, through the use of wind, water, and solar energy. The transition to more bio-based forms of economy must therefore be oriented towards three specific dimensions of sustainability, which together take into account the potential for increasing competition of numerous economic sectors for scarce biomass resources. This results in fundamental conflicts of objectives that must inevitably be resolved if the transition is to succeed. The two most important general prerequisites for a successful transition to future bio-economies are therefore contingent on solutions of this nature being attained. After all, new innovations, whether products or process technologies, must be competitive if they are to attain a foothold in the market. This means that innovations in both the business-to-business area (B2B) and the business-to-customer area (B2C) also require the active involvement of customers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ajzen I (1985) From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhl J, Beckmann J (eds) Action control: from cognition to behavior. Springer, Berlin, pp 11–39

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen I (1991) Theory of planned behaviour. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50(2):179–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen I (2001) Nature and operation of attitudes. Annu Rev Psychol 52(1):27–58

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen I, Madden TJ (1986) Prediction of goal-directed behavior: attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. J Exp Soc Psychol 22:453–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bamberg S, Möser G (2007) Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: a new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. J Environ Psychol 27(1):14–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bamberg S, Schmidt P (2003) Incentives, morality, or habit? Predicting students’ car use for university routes with the models of Ajzen, Schwartz, and Triandis. Environ Behav 35(2):264–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney J (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manag 17(1):99–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Beedell JDC, Rehman T (1999) Explaining farmers’ conservation behavior: why do farmers behave the way they do? J Environ Manag 57:165–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BMBF (2009) Kohlendioxid: die gemischte Bilanz der Landwirtschaft. http://www.pflanzenforschung.de/de/journal/journalbeitrage/kohlendioxid-die-gemischte-bilanz-der-landwirtschaft-10011. Accessed: 11.09.2016

  • BMU und BMELV (2010) Nationaler Biomasseaktionsplan für Deutschland: Beitrag der Biomasse für eine nachhaltige Energieversorgung. Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (BMU) und Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz (BMELV), Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • BMWi (2012) Energiestatistiken: Energiegewinnung und Energieverbrauch. Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (BMWi), Berlin. https://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Redaktion/PDF/E/energiestatistiken-energiegewinnung-energieverbrauch,property=pdf,bereich=bmwi2012,sprache=de,rwb=true.pdf

  • Boehlje M (2016) How might big data impact industry structure and enhance margins? Int Food Agribus Manage Rev 19(A):13–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer JL, Blake AJ, Rankin SA, Douglass LW (1999) Theory of reasoned action predicts milk consumption in women. J Am Diet Assoc 99(1):39–44

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cardello AV (2003) Consumer concerns and expectations about novel food processing technologies: effects on product liking. Appetite 40(3):217–233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carus M, Eder A, Beckmann J (2014) GreenPremium prices along the value chain of bio-based products. Nova paper #3 on bio-based economy. Hürth 04.2014. Download at www.bio-based.eu/novapapers

  • Christensen CM (1997) The innovator’s dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business School Press, Brighton

    Google Scholar 

  • Conner M, Armitage CJ (1998) Theory of planned behavior: a review and avenues for further research. J Appl Soc Psychol 28:1429–1464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbion (2016) Carbon footprint: Emissions from production of common polymers (kg CO2 eq per kg polymer – cradle to gate). http://www.corbion.com/bioplastics/about-bioplastics/sustainability

  • Cox DN, Evans G (2008) Construction and validation of a psychometric scale to measure consumers’ fears of novel food technologies: the food technology neophobia scale. Food Qual Prefer 19(8):704–710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuthbertson B, Marks N (2007) Beyond credence: emerging consumer trends in international markets. Melbourne, Australia State of Victoria Department of Primary Industries. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/5980/2/cp08cu01.pdf

  • Darby MR, Karni E (1973) Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. J Law Econ 16(1):67–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13:319–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DBFZ (2012) Basisinformationen für eine nachhaltige Nutzung von landwirtschaftlichen Reststoffen zur Bioenergiebereitstellung. DBFZ Report Nr. 13, Deutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum (DBFZ), Leipzig. https://www.dbfz.de/fileadmin/user_upload/DBFZ_Reports/DBFZ_Report_13.pdf

  • Desaint N, Varbanova M (2013) The use and value of polling to determine public opinion on GMOs in Europe: limitations and ways forward. GM Crops Food 4(3):183–194

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly AH, Chaiken S (1993) The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Fort Worth

    Google Scholar 

  • EBP (2014) Case studies of market-making in the bioeconomy. European Bioeconomy Panel (EBP), Brussels. https://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/pdf/13-case-studies-0809102014_en.pdf

  • EC (2012) Innovating for sustainable growth: a bioeconomy for Europe. European Commission (EC), Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • EC (2014) What next for the European bioeconomy? The latest thinking from the European Bioeconomy Panel and the Standing Committee on Agricultural Research Strategic Working Group (SCAR). European Commission, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/pdf/where-next-for-european-bioeconomy-report-0809102014_en.pdf

  • EC (2015) Closing the loop – an EU action plan for the circular economy. European Commission (EC), Brussels. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52015DC

  • Ekins P (2010) Eco-innovation for environmental sustainability: concepts, progress and policies. IEEP 7(2):267–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evonik Industries, Health & Nutrition (2014) What if...; How amino acids from Evonik contribute to sustainable food production

    Google Scholar 

  • FNR (2015) Massebezogener Substrateinsatz in Biogasanlagen 2014. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe (FNR), Gülzow-Prüzen, Deutschland. https://mediathek.fnr.de/catalog/product/gallery/id/93/image/1424/

  • Gaskell G, Stares S, Allansdottir A, Allum N et al (2010) Europeans and biotechnology in 2010: winds of change? European Commission, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_winds_en.pdf

  • Hacker J, Köcher R (2015) The public understanding of synthetic biology: considerations in the context of science-based policy advice to policy-makers and the public. 01.2015/Discussion No.3, IfD Allensbach und Leopoldina National Akademie der Wissenschaften, Halle (Saale), Deutschland

    Google Scholar 

  • Harland P, Staats H, Wilke HAM (1999) Explaining pro environmental behavior by personal norms and the theory of planned behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol 29:2505–2528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasler K, Olfs H-W, Omta O, Bröring S (2016) Drivers for the adoption of eco-innovations in the German fertilizer supply chain. Sustainability 8:682–699. Journal of Sustainability (in press)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson BD, Gälweiler A (1984) Die Erfahrungskurve in der Unternehmensstrategie. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt

    Google Scholar 

  • IBVT/TU Braunschweig (2016) Biobasierte Produktion von L-Lysin mit Corynebacterium glutamicum – Maßgeschneiderte Zellfabriken und Bioprozesse. Institut für Bioverfahrenstechnik (IBVT), Technische Universität Braunschweig. http://www.ibvt.de/DE/Forschung/Abgeschlossene_Projekte/Lysin.php

  • Junqueira TL, Cavalett O, Bonomi A (2016) The virtual sugarcane biorefinery – a simulation tool to support public policies formulation in bioenergy. Ind Biotechnol 12(1):62–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157):1124–1131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Ritov I, Schkade D (1999) Economic preferences or attitude expressions? An analysis of dollar responses to public issues. J Risk Uncertain 19:220–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp R, Pearson P (2007) Final report MEI project about measuring eco-innovation. Deliverable 15 of Measuring Eco-Innovation (MEI) project (D15), UM Merit, Maastricht

    Google Scholar 

  • Kircher M (2012) The transition to a bio-economy: emerging from the oil age. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 5:369–375

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kircher M (2015) Sustainability of biofuels and renewable chemicals production from biomass. Curr Opin Chem Biol 29:26–31

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kircher M (2016) KADIB Unternehmensdatenbank. www.kadib.de

  • Kollmuss A, Agyeman J (2002) Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ Educ Res 8(3):239–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leikas S, Lindeman M, Roininen K, Lähteenmäki L (2009) Who is responsible for food risks? The influence of risk type and risk characteristics. Appetite 53(1):123–126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Löbnitz N, Bröring S (2015) Consumer acceptance of new food technologies for different product categories: the relative importance of experience versus credence attributes. J Int Consum Mark 27:307–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luchs MG, Naylor RW, Irwin JR, Raghunathan R (2010) The sustainability liability: potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference. J Mark 74(5):18–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusk JL, House LO, Valli C, Jaeger SR, Moore M, Morrow JL, Traill WB (2004) Effect of information about benefits of biotechnology on consumer acceptance of genetically modified food: evidence from experimental auctions in the United States, England, and France. Eur Rev Agric Econ 31(2):179–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusk JL, Roosen J, Bieberstein A (2014) Consumer acceptance of new food technologies: causes and roots of controversies. Ann Rev Resour Econ 6(1):381–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynne GD, Casey CF, Hodges A, Rahmani M (1995) Conservation technology adoption decisions and the theory of planned behavior. J Econ Psychol 16(4):581–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maddux JE, Rogers RW (1983) Protection motivation and self-efficacy: a revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Exp Soc Psychol 19(5):469–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matin AH, Goddard E, Vandermoere F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A, Marette S, Roosen J (2012) Do environmental attitudes and food technology neophobia affect perceptions of the benefits of nanotechnology? Int J Consum Stud 36(2):149–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mogendi JB, De Steur H, Gellynck X, Makokha A (2016) Consumer evaluation of food with nutritional benefits: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. Int J Food Sci Nutr 67(4):355–371

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moser R, Raffaelli R, Thilmany-McFadden D (2011) Consumer preferences for fruit and vegetables with credence-based attributes: a review. Int Food Agribus Manage Rev 14(2):121–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Nameroff TJ, Garant RJ, Albert MB (2004) Adoption of green chemistry: an analysisbased on US patents. Res Policy 33:959–974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson P (1970) Information and consumer behavior. J Polit Econ 78(2):311–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson P (1974) Advertising as information. J Polit Econ 82(4):729–754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2009) The bioeconomy to 2030: designing a policy agenda, main findings. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Paris. http://www.oecd.org/futures/bioeconomy/2030

  • Pauwels E (2013) Public understanding of synthetic biology. BioScience 63(2):79–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penrose E (1959) The theory of the firm. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Pliner P, Salvy S (2006) Food neophobia in humans. In: Shepherd R, Raats M (eds) The psychology of food choice. Frontiers in nutritional science 3. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 75–92

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Porter ME (1980) Competitive strategy: techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad CK, Hamel G (1990) The core competence of the corporation. Harv Bus Rev 68(3):79–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers RW (1975) A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Psychol Interdiscip Appl 91(1):93–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of innovation: a cross-cultural approach. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozin P (2005) The meaning of “natural” process more important than content. Psychol Sci 16(8):652–658

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • SCAR (2015) Sustainable agriculture, forestry and fisheries in the bioeconomy: a challenge for Europe. 4th SCAR Foresight Exercise, Standing Committee on Agricultural Research (SCAR), Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnettler B, Crisóstomo G, Sepúlveda J, Mora M, Lobos G, Miranda H, Grunert KG (2013) Food neophobia, nanotechnology and satisfaction with life. Appetite 69:71–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M (2000) The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal 20(2):195–204

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M (2008) Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and products. Trends Food Sci Technol 19(11):603–608

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236:280–285

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Specter M (2009) A life of its own: where will synthetic biology lead us? New Yorker (28 September 2009). http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/28/

  • Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, Haan CD (2006) Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations(FAO), Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg Manag J 18(7):509–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece DJ (2016) Dynamic capabilities and entrepreneurial management in large organizations: Toward a theory of the (entrepreneurial) firm. European Economic Review 86:202–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenbült P, De Vries NK, Dreezens E, Martijn C (2005) Perceived naturalness and acceptance of genetically modified food. Appetite 45(1):47–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ueland Ø, Gunnlaugsdottir H, Holm F, Kalogeras N, Leino O, Luteijn JM, Verhagen H (2012) State of the art in benefit–risk analysis: consumer perception. Food Chem Toxicol 50(1):67–76

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Utterback JM, Abernathy WJ (1975) A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega 3(6):639–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vidigal MC, Minim VP, Simiqueli AA, Souza PH, Balbino DF, Minim LA (2015) Food technology neophobia and consumer attitudes toward foods produced by new and conventional technologies: a case study in Brazil. LWT-Food Sci Technol 60(2):832–840

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt B (1984) A resource-based view of the firm. Strateg Manag J 5(2):171–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Energy Council; London, UK (2011) Oil recoverable reserves by region. https://www.worldenergy.org/data/resources/resource/oil/. Accessed July 2016

  • WWF Deutschland (2016) Soja: Wunderbohne mit riskanten Nebenwirkungen. WWF Deutschland, Berlin. http://www.wwf.de/themen-projekte/landwirtschaft/produkte-aus-der-landwirtschaft/soja/

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefanie Bröring .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bröring, S., Baum, C.M., Butkowski, O.K., Kircher, M. (2020). Criteria for the Success of the Bioeconomy. In: Pietzsch, J. (eds) Bioeconomy for Beginners. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-60390-1_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics