Meat processing and animal by-products 141
being used in animal feed outside the borders of EU. However, the argument
EFPRA put forward was that the EU had the strictest regulations in the
world and whether or not EU rendering companies export PAP to be used in
animal feed, PAP is used anyway in animal production outside Europe.
Therefore, to assist the industry in creating a market for PAP, the EU agreed
to lift the export ban on PAP. Likewise, the EU has assisted in creating new
markets as a result of industry players’ lobbying activities, such as allowing
PAP in aqua feed.
7.8 Conclusion
This chapter has analysed the co- evolutionary development of the meat
processing and ABP industry in Denmark and Norway from a sectoral
innovation system perspective. We have shown how the value creation strategies of firms co- evolve with institutional change, input and demand, organisational changes and knowledge and technological development.
In particular, institutional changes in the form of regulations have a huge
impact on the strategies of firms in value creation processes. First, the EU
regulations on ABP introduced in 2001 after the BSE scandal condition the
type and volumes of input to the ABP industry. Second, we demonstrate that
temporary trade barriers such as import/export restrictions between countries
influence the market creation possibilities, and hence the demand for meatand ABP- based products. These temporary import boycotts therefore have a
huge impact on price formation in the industry and influence market
dynamics. As a result, actors align the conditions shaped by input and output
in their search for new valorisation paths and market opportunities.
Second, we conclude that differences in the two countries’ industrial structure and geography influence the input and hence the possibilities for value
creation in different ways. Primarily, Denmark’s pig production is one of the
largest in Europe and the two slaughterhouses Danish Crown and Tican
(Tönnies) are among the largest in Europe. Because of Denmark’s small size
in area, ABPs are more easily collected and transported to customers or
processing facilities. By comparison, the slaughterhouses in Norway are
smaller and scattered across the country. Company size in terms of finances,
geographical markets and volumes of meat and ABP is important for the
value creation strategy – in relation to possibilities to finance new initiatives
and to access input as well as the technological options for efficient processing
technologies. In summary, the industrial structure, size and geography of the
two compared countries put the Danish industry in a better position to create
and utilise new market opportunities.
Finally, in relation to our initial question of how the meat processing and
ABP industry can contribute to a circular bioeconomy, we see diverging
trends. During the last couple of decades, the valorisation of ABP has
returned to the centre stage of the global meat industry. Slaughterhouses are
increasingly interested and active in processing ABPs, which puts pressure on
being used in animal feed outside the borders of EU. However, the argument
EFPRA put forward was that the EU had the strictest regulations in the
world and whether or not EU rendering companies export PAP to be used in
animal feed, PAP is used anyway in animal production outside Europe.
Therefore, to assist the industry in creating a market for PAP, the EU agreed
to lift the export ban on PAP. Likewise, the EU has assisted in creating new
markets as a result of industry players’ lobbying activities, such as allowing
PAP in aqua feed.
7.8 Conclusion
This chapter has analysed the co- evolutionary development of the meat
processing and ABP industry in Denmark and Norway from a sectoral
innovation system perspective. We have shown how the value creation strategies of firms co- evolve with institutional change, input and demand, organisational changes and knowledge and technological development.
In particular, institutional changes in the form of regulations have a huge
impact on the strategies of firms in value creation processes. First, the EU
regulations on ABP introduced in 2001 after the BSE scandal condition the
type and volumes of input to the ABP industry. Second, we demonstrate that
temporary trade barriers such as import/export restrictions between countries
influence the market creation possibilities, and hence the demand for meatand ABP- based products. These temporary import boycotts therefore have a
huge impact on price formation in the industry and influence market
dynamics. As a result, actors align the conditions shaped by input and output
in their search for new valorisation paths and market opportunities.
Second, we conclude that differences in the two countries’ industrial structure and geography influence the input and hence the possibilities for value
creation in different ways. Primarily, Denmark’s pig production is one of the
largest in Europe and the two slaughterhouses Danish Crown and Tican
(Tönnies) are among the largest in Europe. Because of Denmark’s small size
in area, ABPs are more easily collected and transported to customers or
processing facilities. By comparison, the slaughterhouses in Norway are
smaller and scattered across the country. Company size in terms of finances,
geographical markets and volumes of meat and ABP is important for the
value creation strategy – in relation to possibilities to finance new initiatives
and to access input as well as the technological options for efficient processing
technologies. In summary, the industrial structure, size and geography of the
two compared countries put the Danish industry in a better position to create
and utilise new market opportunities.
Finally, in relation to our initial question of how the meat processing and
ABP industry can contribute to a circular bioeconomy, we see diverging
trends. During the last couple of decades, the valorisation of ABP has
returned to the centre stage of the global meat industry. Slaughterhouses are
increasingly interested and active in processing ABPs, which puts pressure on