212 E. J. Iversen et al.
and project data, is used to identify ‘economic actors’ involved in the
circular bioeconomy, highlighting the six subsectors considered in the
previous book chapters. ‘Actors’ are primarily private- sector entities
(‘firms’) but may include research organisations in the governmental
sector such as research institutes, universities, etc.
iii Survey of bioeconomy innovation: Finally, the chapter presents results
from a novel firm- level questionnaire that focused on innovation in
organic waste activities in Norway in 2017. The population- frame for
this mapping exercise, which was carried out at the TIK centre (University of Oslo), came from the NIoBE dataset. The survey also provides a
quantitative backdrop to the cases previously presented in this book
within specific subsectors.
Together these steps provide a consistent and comprehensive view of the
actors and their activities and how they contribute to the emerging circular
bioeconomy in Norway.
11.2 Background
1
The inaccuracy of industrial classifications for emerging fields and sectors: Addressing
the question of who is involved in the bioeconomy acts as a stumbling block
for empirical and policy- relevant research. Recognised industrial classifications,
such as the NACE taxonomy (Statistical Classification of Economic Activities
in the European Community), are not reliable guidelines in this context. This
is because the bioeconomy is emergent and not yet fully stabilised as a recognised and distinct field; instead, it continues to take shape as existing sectors
utilise both new and existing technologies, inputs and ways of (inter)working
to explore emergent possibilities. A deductive approach to defining the bioeconomy based on the existing foundations of established industrial classification does not get us very far and may even lead us down the wrong road.
Industrial classifications are also unreliable here for another reason. The
bioeconomy is largely a meta- sector that extends across more narrowly
defined industries. In many cases, the products of activities here are not new:
outputs, such as energy, may simply be substitutes for established activities
that use other inputs. This raises its own set of problems in creating reliable
metrics (see discussions elsewhere, e.g. OECD, 2018).
Current approaches: There are ongoing activities to capture the bioeconomy
in figures. These efforts are especially current in jurisdictions where policy
intervention is targeting this nascent sector or area. This includes the OECD
countries in general and Europe in particular. To match the focus of European policy- makers, the EU statistical agency (Eurostat) has recently
attempted to coordinate data- collection efforts across Europe. These have a
focus on primary biomass production and on waste resources.
Establishing the industrial sectors related to economic activity that can be
categorised under the bioeconomy is more difficult. One EU project (BIC
and project data, is used to identify ‘economic actors’ involved in the
circular bioeconomy, highlighting the six subsectors considered in the
previous book chapters. ‘Actors’ are primarily private- sector entities
(‘firms’) but may include research organisations in the governmental
sector such as research institutes, universities, etc.
iii Survey of bioeconomy innovation: Finally, the chapter presents results
from a novel firm- level questionnaire that focused on innovation in
organic waste activities in Norway in 2017. The population- frame for
this mapping exercise, which was carried out at the TIK centre (University of Oslo), came from the NIoBE dataset. The survey also provides a
quantitative backdrop to the cases previously presented in this book
within specific subsectors.
Together these steps provide a consistent and comprehensive view of the
actors and their activities and how they contribute to the emerging circular
bioeconomy in Norway.
11.2 Background
1
The inaccuracy of industrial classifications for emerging fields and sectors: Addressing
the question of who is involved in the bioeconomy acts as a stumbling block
for empirical and policy- relevant research. Recognised industrial classifications,
such as the NACE taxonomy (Statistical Classification of Economic Activities
in the European Community), are not reliable guidelines in this context. This
is because the bioeconomy is emergent and not yet fully stabilised as a recognised and distinct field; instead, it continues to take shape as existing sectors
utilise both new and existing technologies, inputs and ways of (inter)working
to explore emergent possibilities. A deductive approach to defining the bioeconomy based on the existing foundations of established industrial classification does not get us very far and may even lead us down the wrong road.
Industrial classifications are also unreliable here for another reason. The
bioeconomy is largely a meta- sector that extends across more narrowly
defined industries. In many cases, the products of activities here are not new:
outputs, such as energy, may simply be substitutes for established activities
that use other inputs. This raises its own set of problems in creating reliable
metrics (see discussions elsewhere, e.g. OECD, 2018).
Current approaches: There are ongoing activities to capture the bioeconomy
in figures. These efforts are especially current in jurisdictions where policy
intervention is targeting this nascent sector or area. This includes the OECD
countries in general and Europe in particular. To match the focus of European policy- makers, the EU statistical agency (Eurostat) has recently
attempted to coordinate data- collection efforts across Europe. These have a
focus on primary biomass production and on waste resources.
Establishing the industrial sectors related to economic activity that can be
categorised under the bioeconomy is more difficult. One EU project (BIC