226 E. J. Iversen et al.
of activity the firm is involved in: the recovery of energy from different
organic feedstocks, their re- use or their transformation, as well as recycling or
other uses. With more than one type of activity allowed for each respondent,
we observed that recycling appeared to be the main activity type, while
re- use and transformation, which aim to upgrade to a different type of
product, were less frequent. Energy recovery is pursued by 31 firms, i.e. by
more than one third of the firms involved in organic waste activities. Simultaneously, we observed the predominance of small firms, not least in the
meat- processing area. The waste- processing firms, on the other hand, tend to
be larger.
Of the 85 firms that have declared activity connected to organic waste, 64
consider it to be the core activity of the firm, while 21 define it as a supplementary activity. When asked specifically about activities involving transforming bio- based feedstock into new intermediate products, less than half of
the firms involved in the activity defined the activity as ‘core’. A similar proportion is observed for involvement in the development of new OW technologies to be sold to other companies. In contrast, activities devoted to the
development of new products for end users are almost as frequently defined
as ‘core’ as ‘supplementary’. An intermediate case is represented by activities
of selling and/or delivering to other companies without transformation.
The orientation and intensity of organic waste- oriented activities differ by
type. Figure 11.2 demonstrates that the branch of firms involved in recovering energy from organic waste reports that roughly a third of their business
activities (and turnover) are related to this activity. The proportion is higher
for transformative activities. Noting that the activities might overlap, we see
that firms involved in recycling- oriented activities report on average a fourth
of their activity in this category.
What is the source of bio- based feedstock? Noting that there may be more
than one source, half of the companies responded that their feedstock was
produced as a by- product of the company’s own production activities.
Significantly fewer companies obtained bio- based feedstock from other companies, for free (10) and/or by purchase (14).
Thirty- one firms have invested in R&D linked to its organic waste activities in the last three years. A minority of seven of the 31 firms reported
spending more than 80% of the R&D budget on activities related to organic
waste. Table 11.5 breaks down the RD&I activity by the share that report
R&D expenditure and the share that also report product and/or process
innovation. A final category indicates whether the firm has acquired new
machinery expressly to process organic waste. The same firm can report multiple types of waste- related activities (e.g. energy recovery and re- use).
Those firms that report ongoing activities in transforming organic waste
are the most active innovators in this area. Eighteen firms have introduced
and commercialised a new product related to organic waste in the last three
years. For most firms, the new products relate to recycling and transformation. Four of the firms have new products related to energy recovery, and
of activity the firm is involved in: the recovery of energy from different
organic feedstocks, their re- use or their transformation, as well as recycling or
other uses. With more than one type of activity allowed for each respondent,
we observed that recycling appeared to be the main activity type, while
re- use and transformation, which aim to upgrade to a different type of
product, were less frequent. Energy recovery is pursued by 31 firms, i.e. by
more than one third of the firms involved in organic waste activities. Simultaneously, we observed the predominance of small firms, not least in the
meat- processing area. The waste- processing firms, on the other hand, tend to
be larger.
Of the 85 firms that have declared activity connected to organic waste, 64
consider it to be the core activity of the firm, while 21 define it as a supplementary activity. When asked specifically about activities involving transforming bio- based feedstock into new intermediate products, less than half of
the firms involved in the activity defined the activity as ‘core’. A similar proportion is observed for involvement in the development of new OW technologies to be sold to other companies. In contrast, activities devoted to the
development of new products for end users are almost as frequently defined
as ‘core’ as ‘supplementary’. An intermediate case is represented by activities
of selling and/or delivering to other companies without transformation.
The orientation and intensity of organic waste- oriented activities differ by
type. Figure 11.2 demonstrates that the branch of firms involved in recovering energy from organic waste reports that roughly a third of their business
activities (and turnover) are related to this activity. The proportion is higher
for transformative activities. Noting that the activities might overlap, we see
that firms involved in recycling- oriented activities report on average a fourth
of their activity in this category.
What is the source of bio- based feedstock? Noting that there may be more
than one source, half of the companies responded that their feedstock was
produced as a by- product of the company’s own production activities.
Significantly fewer companies obtained bio- based feedstock from other companies, for free (10) and/or by purchase (14).
Thirty- one firms have invested in R&D linked to its organic waste activities in the last three years. A minority of seven of the 31 firms reported
spending more than 80% of the R&D budget on activities related to organic
waste. Table 11.5 breaks down the RD&I activity by the share that report
R&D expenditure and the share that also report product and/or process
innovation. A final category indicates whether the firm has acquired new
machinery expressly to process organic waste. The same firm can report multiple types of waste- related activities (e.g. energy recovery and re- use).
Those firms that report ongoing activities in transforming organic waste
are the most active innovators in this area. Eighteen firms have introduced
and commercialised a new product related to organic waste in the last three
years. For most firms, the new products relate to recycling and transformation. Four of the firms have new products related to energy recovery, and