220 E. J. Iversen et al.
well as a seventh category, residual population consisting of other research
activities.
Table 11.2 breaks down the resulting population of 2,369 firms by type of
sector (based on NACE) and by the mode by which the entity was identified.
We have excluded actors from our last identification phase if they feature in
the NIoBE population solely due to membership in an interest organisation
within the broad area of food and drinks or in generic industries that do not
directly involve biomass. We found that 419 firms allocated to the bioeconomy population were based on more than one stage of the identification procedure. More than half of the entities from the R&D data overlap with other
bioeconomy markers, while one third of the patenting firms also do so. This
overlapping category (first column) is arguably the most robust population for
framing the bioeconomy population, although it is biased towards larger firms
which have a higher probability of appearing in multiple firm populations.
In general, entities in the BioSmart Survey are sole proprietor companies
(i.e. very small firms) while other categories such as membership in relevant
Federation of Norwegian Industries (NHO) and patenting firms tend to characterise larger firms. Table 11.3 illustrates the breakdown of the NIoBE population based on size classes in terms of the locations of the entities, which are
spread throughout the country. We note a larger concentration of sole proprietorships (e.g. farms or forestry companies) in more rural areas of the country.
The large population centres of Oslo and Akershus account for many of the
larger firms in the population, as do the other population centres of Trondheim (Sør Trøndelag), Bergen (Hordaland) and Stavanger (Rogaland).
Some areas of Norway are more rural and rely more on primary industries;
others are more urban and service- oriented; while still other localities are
mostly dependent on manufacturing. These differences in the economic landscape influence the question of where circular economy activities take place.
Table 11.4 classifies the location of the entities using Statistics Norway’s
‘classification of municipality groups’ (SSB, 2018); it illustrates how the
different economic activities are distributed across different parts of the
country.
Primary industries – forestry, aquaculture and seafood processing, brewing,
meat processing, dairy, and waste processing – are seen here to be spread
throughout the country, as are the entities that produce food and beverages.
The utilities classification includes recycling firms as well as bioenergy entities. These are more concentrated in population centres, as are the universities
(education, etc.) and R&D service companies. Non- private services include
interest- organisations and government organisations – whose involvement is
qualitatively different from that of other entities in the inventory.
The Norwegian Inventory of Bioeconomy Entities (NIoBE) can thus be
used to provide a systematic look at the ‘circular bioeconomy’ in terms of the
actors who actually work with organic resources. The inventory of firms provides a great deal of information about who is involved in the circular
economy in Norway. However, it does not in itself provide information
well as a seventh category, residual population consisting of other research
activities.
Table 11.2 breaks down the resulting population of 2,369 firms by type of
sector (based on NACE) and by the mode by which the entity was identified.
We have excluded actors from our last identification phase if they feature in
the NIoBE population solely due to membership in an interest organisation
within the broad area of food and drinks or in generic industries that do not
directly involve biomass. We found that 419 firms allocated to the bioeconomy population were based on more than one stage of the identification procedure. More than half of the entities from the R&D data overlap with other
bioeconomy markers, while one third of the patenting firms also do so. This
overlapping category (first column) is arguably the most robust population for
framing the bioeconomy population, although it is biased towards larger firms
which have a higher probability of appearing in multiple firm populations.
In general, entities in the BioSmart Survey are sole proprietor companies
(i.e. very small firms) while other categories such as membership in relevant
Federation of Norwegian Industries (NHO) and patenting firms tend to characterise larger firms. Table 11.3 illustrates the breakdown of the NIoBE population based on size classes in terms of the locations of the entities, which are
spread throughout the country. We note a larger concentration of sole proprietorships (e.g. farms or forestry companies) in more rural areas of the country.
The large population centres of Oslo and Akershus account for many of the
larger firms in the population, as do the other population centres of Trondheim (Sør Trøndelag), Bergen (Hordaland) and Stavanger (Rogaland).
Some areas of Norway are more rural and rely more on primary industries;
others are more urban and service- oriented; while still other localities are
mostly dependent on manufacturing. These differences in the economic landscape influence the question of where circular economy activities take place.
Table 11.4 classifies the location of the entities using Statistics Norway’s
‘classification of municipality groups’ (SSB, 2018); it illustrates how the
different economic activities are distributed across different parts of the
country.
Primary industries – forestry, aquaculture and seafood processing, brewing,
meat processing, dairy, and waste processing – are seen here to be spread
throughout the country, as are the entities that produce food and beverages.
The utilities classification includes recycling firms as well as bioenergy entities. These are more concentrated in population centres, as are the universities
(education, etc.) and R&D service companies. Non- private services include
interest- organisations and government organisations – whose involvement is
qualitatively different from that of other entities in the inventory.
The Norwegian Inventory of Bioeconomy Entities (NIoBE) can thus be
used to provide a systematic look at the ‘circular bioeconomy’ in terms of the
actors who actually work with organic resources. The inventory of firms provides a great deal of information about who is involved in the circular
economy in Norway. However, it does not in itself provide information