Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Transaction Cost Theory: a Case Study in the Biomass-to-Energy Sector

  • Biomass and Biofuels (PA Fokaides, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The objective of the present study is, firstly, to identify the types of transaction costs that can be found for a company from the biomass to energy sector. The chosen company has transaction costs in the context of an in-operation company, i.e., a business already in use. A review of the existing relationship between the company and its local biomass suppliers is also explored, being the key factor to evaluate due to its overall importance, as these suppliers ensure the raw material flow to maintain the operation of the production unit.

Recent Findings

It was found that it is possible to apply the same analysis and business monitoring methodologies to the biomass-to-energy sector, similar to what is already happening with other sectors of industrial activity. Thus, it was verified after the analysis that it is possible for the company to obtain better productivity yields, especially if the assumptions of the transaction cost theory are optimized.

Summary

By acknowledging the beneficial effects on the environment by replacing fossil fuels with wood pellets, this study aims, in the context of a pellet producer, to analyze the transaction costs of the entire process of biomass transformation in pellets, from raw materials to processing. This study analyses the value chain of the company by applying transaction cost theory to determine if there is a viable application and to identify which are the transaction costs in the company. The results of this study agree with others carried out under the same theme, thereby supporting the viability of vertical integration and the sustainability of the pellet production industry.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance

  1. Huber MT. Energizing historical materialism: fossil fuels, space and the capitalist mode of production. Geoforum. 2009;40:105–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Moe E. Energy, industry and politics: energy, vested interests, and long-term economic growth and development. Energy. 2010;35:1730–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Riahi K, Grübler A, Nakicenovic N. Scenarios of long-term socio-economic and environmental development under climate stabilization. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. 2007;74:887–935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Masnadi MS, Grace JR, Bi XT, Lim CJ, Ellis N. From fossil fuels towards renewables: inhibitory and catalytic effects on carbon thermochemical conversion during co-gasification of biomass with fossil fuels. Appl Energy. 2015;140:196–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lunnan A. Agriculture-based biomass energy supply—a survey of economic issues. Energy Policy. 1997;25:573–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Costello R, Finnell J. Institutional opportunities and constraints to biomass development. Biomass Bioenergy. 1998;15:201–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Downing M, Volk TA, Schmidt DA. Development of new generation cooperatives in agriculture for renewable energy research, development, and demonstration projects. Biomass Bioenergy. 2005;28:425–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Maria Garcia Perez A, Garcia Martinez M. The agrifood cooperative netchain. A theoretical framework to study its configuration. Acta Agric Scand Sect C. 2007;4:31–9.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Altman IJ, Sanders DR, Boessen CR. Applying transaction cost economics: a note on biomass supply chains. JAgribus. 2007;25:107–14.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Yin RK. Discovering the future of the case study. Method in evaluation research. Eval Pract. 1994;15:283–90.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Coase RH. The nature of the firm: meaning. J Law Econ Org. 1988;4:19–32. These articles are presented as being of major importance because refer directly to the theoretical background that supports this study.

  12. Hobbs JE. Transaction costs and slaughter cattle procurement: processors’ selection of supply channels. Agribusiness. 1996;12:509–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Williamson OE. The modern corporation: origins, evolution, attributes. J Econ Lit. 1981;19:1537–68.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ravenscraft DJ, Wagner CL III. The role of the FTC’s line of business data in testing and expanding the theory of the firm. J Law Econ. 1991;34:703–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Madhok A. Reassessing the fundamentals and beyond: Ronald Coase, the transaction cost and resource-based theories of the firm and the institutional structure of production. Strateg Manag J. 2002;23:535–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chiles TH, McMackin JF. Integrating variable risk preferences, trust, and transaction cost economics. Acad Manag Rev. 1996;21:73–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Williamson OE. On the nature of the firm: some recent developments. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft/J Inst Theor Econ. 1981:675–80.

  18. Richman B-MJ, Macher J. Transaction cost economics: an assessment of empirical research in the social sciences, Duke Law School Legal Studies Paper n. 115, Duke University School of Law, Durham; NC, mimeo: 2006.

  19. Macher JT, Richman BD. Transaction cost economics: an assessment of empirical research in the social sciences. Bus Polit. 2008;10:1–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Williamson OE. The economics of organization: the transaction cost approach. Am J Sociol. 1981;87:548–77. These articles are presented as being of major importance because refer directly to the theoretical background that supports this study.

  21. Hobbs, J.E. A transaction cost approach to supply chain management. Supply Chain Manag Int J. 1996;1:15–27. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598549610155260.

  22. Hobbs BF, Rijkers FA. Strategic generation with conjectured transmission price responses in a mixed transmission pricing system-part I: formulation. IEEE Trans Power Syst. 2004;19:707–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hobbs JE, Young LM. Closer vertical co-ordination in agri-food supply chains: a conceptual framework and some preliminary evidence. Supply Chain Manag Int J. 2000.

  24. Platt ML, Huettel SA. Risky business: the neuroeconomics of decision making under uncertainty. Nat Neurosci. 2008;11:398–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Williamson OE. The economics of governance: framework and implications. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft/J Inst Theor Econ. 1984;140:195–223.

  26. Engle RF. The econometrics of ultra-high-frequency data. Econometrica. 2000;68:1–22.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Johanson J, Mattsson L-G. Interorganizational relations in industrial systems: a network approach compared with the transaction-cost approach. Int Stud Manag Org. 1987;17:34–48.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Heide JB, John G. The role of dependence balancing in safeguarding transaction-specific assets in conventional channels. J Mark. 1988;52:20–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Pohlmann MC, Aguiar ABD, Bertolucci A, Martins E. Impacto da especificidade de ativos nos custos de transação, na estrutura de capital e no valor da empresa. Revista Contabilidade Finanças. 2004;15:24–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Koch MJ, McGrath RG. Improving labor productivity: human resource management policies do matter. Strateg Manag J. 1996;17:335–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Williamson OE. Transaction cost economics: the natural progression. Am Econ Rev. 2010;100:673–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Madhok A. Crossroads—the organization of economic activity: transaction costs, firm capabilities, and the nature of governance. Organ Sci. 1996;7:577–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Williamson OE. Transaction cost economics and organization theory. Ind Corp Chang. 1993;2:107–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Gulati R, Singh H. The architecture of cooperation: managing coordination costs and appropriation concerns in strategic alliances. Adm Sci Q. 1998;43:781–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gulati R. Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Acad Manag J. 1995;38:85–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Masten SE. Transaction-cost economics and the organization of agricultural transactions. In: Baye MR, editor. Industrial Organization (Advances in Applied Microeconomics, Vol. 9), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 173–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-0984(00)09050-7.

  37. Masten S, Saussier S. Econometrics of contracts: an assessment of developments in the empirical literature on contracting. Rev Econ Ind. 2000;92:215–36.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Zylbersztajn D. Estruturas de Governança e Coordenação do Agribusiness: Uma Aplicação da Nova Economia das Instituições (Doctoral dissertation, Universidade de São Paulo). 1995.

  39. Miller P, Kurunmäki L, O’Leary T. Accounting, hybrids and the management of risk. Acc Organ Soc. 2008;33:942–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Joskow PL. Asset specificity and the structure of vertical relationships: empirical evidence. J Law Econ Org. 1988;4:95–117.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Artz KW, Brush TH. Asset specificity, uncertainty and relational norms: an examination of coordination costs in collaborative strategic alliances. J Econ Behav Organ. 2000;41:337–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Williamson OE. Outsourcing: transaction cost economics and supply chain management. J Supply Chain Manag. 2008;44:5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Erramilli MK, Rao CP. Service firms’ international entry-mode choice: a modified transaction-cost analysis approach. J Mark. 1993;57:19–38.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Coase RH. The nature of the firm. In: The nature of the firm. Origins, evolution, and development, vol. 1991. New York: Oxford; 1937. p. 18–33.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Coase RH, Fowler RF. The pig-cycle in Great Britain: an explanation. Economica. 1937;4:55–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Coase RH. The nature of the firm: origins, evolution, and development. USA: Oxford University Press; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Hart O. Economica Coase lecture: reference points and the theory of the firm. Economica. 2008;75:404–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Demsetz H. The firm in economic theory: a quiet revolution. Am Econ Rev. 1997;87:426–9.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Coase R. The new institutional economics. Am Econ Rev. 1998;88:72–4.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Williamson OE. The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press Douglas; 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Frohlich MT, Westbrook R. Arcs of integration: an international study of supply chain strategies. J Oper Manag. 2001;19:185–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Katz JP, Pagell MD, Bloodgood JM. Strategies of supply communities. Supply Chain Manag Int J. 2003;8:291–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Behnke K, Janssen M. Boundary conditions for traceability in food supply chains using blockchain technology. Int J Inf Manag. 2020;52:101969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Tönnissen S, Teuteberg F. Analysing the impact of blockchain-technology for operations and supply chain management: an explanatory model drawn from multiple case studies. Int J Inf Manag. 2020;52:101953.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Makkonen H, Saarikorpi M, Rajala R. A transition from goods-dominant to service-dominant exchange logic in a B2B relationship: a relationship positioning perspective. Ind Mark Manag. 2019;81:65–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Pisano GP. The governance of innovation: vertical integration and collaborative arrangements in the biotechnology industry. Res Policy. 1991;20:237–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Altman I, Johnson T. The choice of organizational form as a non-technical barrier to agro-bioenergy industry development. Biomass Bioenergy. 2008;32:28–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Allen DW, Lueck D. The back forty on a handshake: specific assets, reputation, and the structure of farmland contracts. JL Econ Org. 1992;8:366.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Binswanger HP, Rosenzweig MR. Behavioural and material determinants of production relations in agriculture. J Dev Stud. 1986;22:503–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Klass DL. Biomass for renewable energy, fuels, and chemicals: Elsevier; 1998: 651 pp.

  61. Huber GW, Iborra S, Corma A. Synthesis of transportation fuels from biomass: chemistry, catalysts, and engineering. Chem Rev. 2006;106:4044–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Yaman S. Pyrolysis of biomass to produce fuels and chemical feedstocks. Energy Convers Manag. 2004;45:651–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Altman IJ, Boessen C, Sanders D. Contracting for biomass: supply chain strategies for renewable energy. J ASFMRA. 2008;2008:1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Golecha R, Gan J. Optimal contracting structure between cellulosic biorefineries and farmers to reduce the impact of biomass supply variation: game theoretic analysis. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin. 2016;10:129–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Rossi AM, Hinrichs CC. Hope and skepticism: farmer and local community views on the socio-economic benefits of agricultural bioenergy. Biomass Bioenergy. 2011;35:1418–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Mafakheri F, Nasiri F. Modeling of biomass-to-energy supply chain operations: applications, challenges and research directions. Energy Policy. 2014;67:116–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Zalesny RS, Stanturf JA, Gardiner ES, Perdue JH, Young TM, Coyle DR, et al. Ecosystem services of woody crop production systems. BioEnergy Res. 2016;9:465–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Johnson TL, Bielicki JM, Dodder RS, Hilliard MR, Kaplan PO, Miller CA. Advancing sustainable bioenergy: evolving stakeholder interests and the relevance of research. Environ Manag. 2013;51:339–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Altman I, Johnson T. Organization of the current US biopower industry: a template for future bioenergy industries. Biomass Bioenergy. 2009;33:779–84.

  70. Lenzen M. Current state of development of electricity-generating technologies: a literature review. Energies. 2010;3:462–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Altman IJ, Klein PG, Johnson TG. Scale and transaction costs in the US biopower industry. J Agric Food Ind Org. 2007;5:1–19. http://www.bepress.com/jafio/vol5/iss1/art10.

  72. Altman I, Bergtold J, Sanders D, Johnson T. Willingness to supply biomass for bioenergy production: a random parameter truncated analysis. Energy Econ. 2015;47:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Ruiz P, Nijs W, Tarvydas D, Sgobbi A, Zucker A, Pilli R, et al. ENSPRESO-an open, EU-28 wide, transparent and coherent database of wind, solar and biomass energy potentials. Energy Strateg Rev. 2019;26:100379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Nunes L, Causer T, Ciolkosz D. Biomass for energy: a review on supply chain management models. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2020;120:109658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Avitabile V, Camia A. An assessment of forest biomass maps in Europe using harmonized national statistics and inventory plots. For Ecol Manag. 2018;409:489–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Olatunji OO, Akinlabi S, Madushele N, Adedeji PA, Ndolomingo MJ. Geospatial investigation of physicochemical properties and thermodynamic parameters of biomass residue for energy generation. Biomass Convers Biorefin. 2020:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-00723-z.

  77. Braghiroli FL, Passarini L. Valorization of biomass residues from forest operations and wood manufacturing presents a wide range of sustainable and innovative possibilities. Curr For Rep. 2020;6:172–83.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Nunes LJ, Matias JC. Biomass torrefaction as a key driver for the sustainable development and decarbonization of energy production. Sustainability. 2020;12:922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Aggestam F, Konczal A, Sotirov M, Wallin I, Paillet Y, Spinelli R, et al. Can nature conservation and wood production be reconciled in managed forests? A review of driving factors for integrated forest management in Europe. J Environ Manag. 2020;268:110670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Zahraee SM, Shiwakoti N, Stasinopoulos P. Biomass supply chain environmental and socio-economic analysis: 40-years comprehensive review of methods, decision issues, sustainability challenges, and the way forward. Biomass Bioenergy. 2020;142:105777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Malico I, Pereira RN, Gonçalves AC, Sousa AM. Current status and future perspectives for energy production from solid biomass in the European industry. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2019;112:960–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Cardoso J, Silva V, Eusébio D. Techno-economic analysis of a biomass gasification power plant dealing with forestry residues blends for electricity production in Portugal. J Clean Prod. 2019;212:741–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Saint Akadiri S, Alola AA, Akadiri AC, Alola UV. Renewable energy consumption in EU-28 countries: policy toward pollution mitigation and economic sustainability. Energy Policy. 2019;132:803–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Nunes LJ, Loureiro LM, Sá LC, Silva HF. Waste recovery through thermochemical conversion technologies: a case study with several Portuguese agroforestry by-products. Clean Technol. 2020;2:377–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Sá LC, Loureiro LM, Nunes LJ, Mendes AM. Torrefaction as a pretreatment technology for chlorine elimination from biomass: a case study using Eucalyptus globulus Labill. Resources. 2020;9:54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Nunes LJR, Meireles CIR, Pinto Gomes CJ, de Almeida Ribeiro NMC. Socioeconomic aspects of the forests in Portugal: recent evolution and perspectives of sustainability of the resource. Forests. 2019;10:361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Dagoumas AS, Koltsaklis NE. Review of models for integrating renewable energy in the generation expansion planning. Appl Energy. 2019;242:1573–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Prando D, Boschiero M, Campana D, Gallo R, Vakalis S, Baratieri M, et al. Assessment of different feedstocks in South Tyrol (Northern Italy): energy potential and suitability for domestic pellet boilers. Biomass Bioenergy. 2016;90:155–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Balat M, Balat M. Political, economic and environmental impacts of biomass-based hydrogen. Int J Hydrog Energy. 2009;34:3589–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Demirbas A. Potential applications of renewable energy sources, biomass combustion problems in boiler power systems and combustion related environmental issues. Prog Energy Combust Sci. 2005;31:171–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Saidur R, Abdelaziz E, Demirbas A, Hossain M, Mekhilef S. A review on biomass as a fuel for boilers. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2011;15:2262–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. McKendry P. Energy production from biomass (part 1): overview of biomass. Bioresour Technol. 2002;83:37–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Nunes L, Matias J, Catalão J. Analysis of the use of biomass as an energy alternative for the Portuguese textile dyeing industry. Energy. 2015;84:503–8. These articles are presented as being of major importance because refer directly to the theoretical background that supports this study.

  94. Nunes L, Matias JC, Catalao JP. Wood pellets as a sustainable energy alternative in Portugal. Renew Energy. 2016;85:1011–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Nunes LJ, Godina R, Matias JC, Catalão JP. Economic and environmental benefits of using textile waste for the production of thermal energy. J Clean Prod. 2018;171:1353–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Nunes L, Matias J, Catalão J. Biomass in the generation of electricity in Portugal: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2017;71:373–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Nunes LJ, Raposo MA, Meireles CI, Pinto Gomes CJ, Ribeiro N, Almeida M. Fire as a selection agent for the dissemination of invasive species: case study on the evolution of forest coverage. Environments. 2020;7:57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Nunes LJ, Loureiro LM, Sá LC, Silva HF. Sugarcane industry waste recovery: a case study using thermochemical conversion technologies to increase sustainability. Appl Sci. 2020;10:6481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Bajwa DS, Peterson T, Sharma N, Shojaeiarani J, Bajwa SG. A review of densified solid biomass for energy production. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2018;96:296–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Garcia-Maraver A, Rodriguez M, Serrano-Bernardo F, Diaz L, Zamorano M. Factors affecting the quality of pellets made from residual biomass of olive trees. Fuel Process Technol. 2015;129:1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Wilson TO, McNeal FM, Spatari S, Abler GD, Adler PR. Densified biomass can cost-effectively mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and address energy security in thermal applications. Environ Sci Technol. 2012;46:1270–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Thomson H, Liddell C. The suitability of wood pellet heating for domestic households: a review of literature. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2015;42:1362–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Pradhan P, Mahajani SM, Arora A. Production and utilization of fuel pellets from biomass: a review. Fuel Process Technol. 2018;181:215–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Thek G, Obernberger I. Wood pellet production costs under Austrian and in comparison to Swedish framework conditions. Biomass Bioenergy. 2004;27:671–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Nunes L, Azevedo S. Application of lean thinking to the processing of raw materials: case study of a company in the biomass torrefaction sector. Int J Eng Technol. 2018;10:89–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Ribeiro JMC, Godina R, Matias JCDO, Nunes LJR. Future perspectives of biomass torrefaction: review of the current state-of-the-art and research development. Sustainability. 2018;10:2323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Nunes LJ. A case study about biomass torrefaction on an industrial scale: solutions to problems related to self-heating, difficulties in pelletizing, and excessive wear of production equipment. Appl Sci. 2020;10:2546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Loureiro L, Nunes L, Rodrigues AM. Woody biomass torrefaction: fundamentals and potential for Portugal. Silva Lusitana. 2017;25:35–63.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Karkania V, Fanara E, Zabaniotou A. Review of sustainable biomass pellets production–a study for agricultural residues pellets’ market in Greece. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2012;16:1426–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Asadi E, Habibi F, Nickel S, Sahebi H. A bi-objective stochastic location-inventory-routing model for microalgae-based biofuel supply chain. Appl Energy. 2018;228:2235–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Masten SE. Modern evidence on the firm. Am Econ Rev. 2002;92:428–32.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. DEGEIT—Departamento de Economia, Gestão, Engenharia Industrial e Turismo, Universidade de Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193, Aveiro, Portugal

    Marta Ferreira Dias, Ana C. Silva & Leonel J. R. Nunes

  2. GOVCOPP—Unidade de Investigação em Governança, Competitividade e Políticas Públicas, Universidade de Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193, Aveiro, Portugal

    Marta Ferreira Dias & Leonel J. R. Nunes

Authors
  1. Marta Ferreira Dias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ana C. Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Leonel J. R. Nunes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leonel J. R. Nunes.

Ethics declarations

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Biomass and Biofuels

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dias, M.F., Silva, A.C. & Nunes, L.J.R. Transaction Cost Theory: a Case Study in the Biomass-to-Energy Sector. Curr Sustainable Renewable Energy Rep 8, 57–69 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40518-020-00174-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40518-020-00174-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation