218 E. J. Iversen et al.
targeting climate change mitigation technologies related to wastewater
treatment or waste management), but augmented by the work of WIPO,
the OECD and other work that links patenting to the bioeconomy. The
approach is elaborated on in the EU report (Frietsch, Neuhausler,
Rothengatter & Jonkers, 2016) and by Kreuchauff and Korzinov (2017).
The external authorities that delimit the activities include patent examiners,
funding organisations, university administrations and other researchers. They
use recognised criteria to determine what constitutes the ‘bioeconomy’ in
relation to innovative activities. Entities that conduct R&D, that engage in
research and innovation activities and/or that patent novel products or processes according to clearly relevant criteria are strong candidates as innovative
contributors to the Norwegian bioeconomy. The narrow definition of this
first phase yields 900 firms and other actors.
11.3.2.1.2 CoNfiRmaTioN by exisTiNG sTudies
A second phase uses a broader identification procedure to help eliminate false
negatives, and reduce the likelihood that we were excluding members of the
‘true’ population. In this phase, the identification strategy was loosened to
include other sources where the tie to the bioeconomy had been confirmed
either by other studies and/or by some form of explicit self- identification
with the bioeconomy.
The sources include two earlier studies that have tried to establish populations of bioeconomy firms, one primarily focusing on the primary industries
and the other primarily focusing on waste and recycling. The first study we
used to firm up the bioeconomy population was the Biosmart survey (Biosmart, 2018). Given the lack of a pre- established population of bioeconomy
firms, this survey was sent out by another Bionær project to many actors in
the primary industries (Bjørkhaug, Hansen & Zahl- Thanem, 2018). BioSmart’s wide net approach yielded a small set of respondents (650 firms) who
confirmed involvement in the bioeconomy according to the definition that
was provided by the survey. This form of self- identification arguably provides
a strong, although more subjective, signal.
The second study takes a complementary approach and is focused on a
complementary section of the bioeconomy. The study was conducted by
Menon (Espelien & Sørvig, 2014), and was sponsored by Oslo Renewable
Energy and Environment Cluster (OREEC, 2018), and set out to map
Renewable Energy and Environmental Technologies in Norway in 2014.
This study was primarily deductive: it used industrial categories (NACE) to
select entities from national register data that fell into environmental technology categories: renewable energy, environmental technologies and services,
and relevant parts of the electricity distribution industry (largely related to
hydroelectric power in Norway). A supervised review of these entities led to
a final list based on input from the branch expertise of the OREEC team.
targeting climate change mitigation technologies related to wastewater
treatment or waste management), but augmented by the work of WIPO,
the OECD and other work that links patenting to the bioeconomy. The
approach is elaborated on in the EU report (Frietsch, Neuhausler,
Rothengatter & Jonkers, 2016) and by Kreuchauff and Korzinov (2017).
The external authorities that delimit the activities include patent examiners,
funding organisations, university administrations and other researchers. They
use recognised criteria to determine what constitutes the ‘bioeconomy’ in
relation to innovative activities. Entities that conduct R&D, that engage in
research and innovation activities and/or that patent novel products or processes according to clearly relevant criteria are strong candidates as innovative
contributors to the Norwegian bioeconomy. The narrow definition of this
first phase yields 900 firms and other actors.
11.3.2.1.2 CoNfiRmaTioN by exisTiNG sTudies
A second phase uses a broader identification procedure to help eliminate false
negatives, and reduce the likelihood that we were excluding members of the
‘true’ population. In this phase, the identification strategy was loosened to
include other sources where the tie to the bioeconomy had been confirmed
either by other studies and/or by some form of explicit self- identification
with the bioeconomy.
The sources include two earlier studies that have tried to establish populations of bioeconomy firms, one primarily focusing on the primary industries
and the other primarily focusing on waste and recycling. The first study we
used to firm up the bioeconomy population was the Biosmart survey (Biosmart, 2018). Given the lack of a pre- established population of bioeconomy
firms, this survey was sent out by another Bionær project to many actors in
the primary industries (Bjørkhaug, Hansen & Zahl- Thanem, 2018). BioSmart’s wide net approach yielded a small set of respondents (650 firms) who
confirmed involvement in the bioeconomy according to the definition that
was provided by the survey. This form of self- identification arguably provides
a strong, although more subjective, signal.
The second study takes a complementary approach and is focused on a
complementary section of the bioeconomy. The study was conducted by
Menon (Espelien & Sørvig, 2014), and was sponsored by Oslo Renewable
Energy and Environment Cluster (OREEC, 2018), and set out to map
Renewable Energy and Environmental Technologies in Norway in 2014.
This study was primarily deductive: it used industrial categories (NACE) to
select entities from national register data that fell into environmental technology categories: renewable energy, environmental technologies and services,
and relevant parts of the electricity distribution industry (largely related to
hydroelectric power in Norway). A supervised review of these entities led to
a final list based on input from the branch expertise of the OREEC team.