Beyond animal feed? 123
Opportunities for taking up new R&D projects were a common topic
addressed in interviews, where CSR was the dominant factor (Table 6.4).
One brewer (1) was interested in assessing the broader environmental impact
of alternative uses of spent grain in relation to energy, land use and greenhouse gas emissions. Also from a sustainability perspective, two brewers were
interested in research projects on energy efficiency and renewable energy
(2, 5), while a long- term objective of brewer 5 was certification in LEED
(Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), a green building rating
system (US Green Building Council, 2017). Other favoured topics were
water savings, sustainable packaging and ways of reducing the company’s
overall environmental footprint. Brewery 22 emphasised that more information and learning possibilities were critical for transitioning to more sustainable production:
This is not a matter of subsidising investments and upgrades. This is a
matter of obtaining information on feasible ways of improving production processes, i.e. consumer information in the same sense as you get
when you buy domestic appliances. In other parts of the primary sector,
e.g. agriculture, it is common to have knowledge and counselling
centres.
Brewery 9 likewise stressed the need for increased knowledge generation and
sharing within the craft brewery side of the industry.
The perceived barriers to engaging in R&D projects were mainly economic (Table 6.4). One brewer (9) found that the labour costs of preparing
funding proposals were a key obstacle, while another (19) anticipated that
entering into R&D projects would involve significant operational costs in
terms of professional and administrative staff time. There were also perceived
regulatory barriers to involvement in R&D, such as compliance with the
EU Best Available Techniques (BAT) regulation (Kawa & Luczyk, 2015;
Kristiansen, Johansen, Mou & Johansson, 2011; Olajire, 2012). Hence,
brewery 2 anticipated the risk that their R&D projects would be viewed as
either too broad or not feasible to implement under BAT rules.
6.7 Conclusion
The management of spent grain observed in the case study categorises it as
part of the bio- resource vision, while alternative uses would introduce the
other two visions, bio- technology and bio- ecology, as well as opening a
debate around system boundaries. For example, if a brewery used spent grain
for biogas production to enhance their greenhouse gas performance, it might
have negative consequences for the sustainability of the wider system, i.e. for
farmers, food production and land use. Our study also showed that the
Nordic brewing industry has not developed a clear vision of the bioeconomy
in relation to its organic residues, let alone implemented major initiatives in
Opportunities for taking up new R&D projects were a common topic
addressed in interviews, where CSR was the dominant factor (Table 6.4).
One brewer (1) was interested in assessing the broader environmental impact
of alternative uses of spent grain in relation to energy, land use and greenhouse gas emissions. Also from a sustainability perspective, two brewers were
interested in research projects on energy efficiency and renewable energy
(2, 5), while a long- term objective of brewer 5 was certification in LEED
(Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), a green building rating
system (US Green Building Council, 2017). Other favoured topics were
water savings, sustainable packaging and ways of reducing the company’s
overall environmental footprint. Brewery 22 emphasised that more information and learning possibilities were critical for transitioning to more sustainable production:
This is not a matter of subsidising investments and upgrades. This is a
matter of obtaining information on feasible ways of improving production processes, i.e. consumer information in the same sense as you get
when you buy domestic appliances. In other parts of the primary sector,
e.g. agriculture, it is common to have knowledge and counselling
centres.
Brewery 9 likewise stressed the need for increased knowledge generation and
sharing within the craft brewery side of the industry.
The perceived barriers to engaging in R&D projects were mainly economic (Table 6.4). One brewer (9) found that the labour costs of preparing
funding proposals were a key obstacle, while another (19) anticipated that
entering into R&D projects would involve significant operational costs in
terms of professional and administrative staff time. There were also perceived
regulatory barriers to involvement in R&D, such as compliance with the
EU Best Available Techniques (BAT) regulation (Kawa & Luczyk, 2015;
Kristiansen, Johansen, Mou & Johansson, 2011; Olajire, 2012). Hence,
brewery 2 anticipated the risk that their R&D projects would be viewed as
either too broad or not feasible to implement under BAT rules.
6.7 Conclusion
The management of spent grain observed in the case study categorises it as
part of the bio- resource vision, while alternative uses would introduce the
other two visions, bio- technology and bio- ecology, as well as opening a
debate around system boundaries. For example, if a brewery used spent grain
for biogas production to enhance their greenhouse gas performance, it might
have negative consequences for the sustainability of the wider system, i.e. for
farmers, food production and land use. Our study also showed that the
Nordic brewing industry has not developed a clear vision of the bioeconomy
in relation to its organic residues, let alone implemented major initiatives in