228 E. J. Iversen et al.
only two firms have new products related to re- use. On the other hand, 25
firms have introduced a new process related to organic waste in the last three
years. Pre- treatment processes and fermentation/biochemical processes are
the most frequent, while extraction and separation processes have been introduced by seven firms.
11.4 Preliminary conclusions
There are two preliminary conclusions that can be drawn from our study.
The first one relates to the difficulties of approaching the ‘bioeconomy’
meta- sector empirically, since even the theoretical definitions of the metasector are still evolving within the current scientific literature. When we
wanted to target a specific survey about organic waste at the population of
Norwegian bioeconomy firms, we faced discrepancies between the theoretical directions which we ideally wanted to explore, and the empirical possibilities we had according to the information available. Indeed, the data sources
we looked at, concerning the reconstruction of the population of ‘bioeconomy’ firms in Norway, were based on firms’ innovation inputs and outputs
(funded RD&I projects; R&D surveys; patents), on the economic context the
firms belong to (industry classification; affiliation to industry networks) and
on more subjective judgements made internally by the firm or externally by
experts (self- identification vs. supervised reviews). In order to cover the
different conceptual approaches to the bioeconomy meta- sector, researchers
need to navigate through the available data sources and make a series of decisions about how to intersect or merge different data layers, each of which
connects to one or more theoretical approaches to the bioeconomy.
A second conclusion relates to the specific role of organic waste activities
within bioeconomy firms. On the one hand, organic waste activities are often
core activities, thus constituting a distinctive characteristic of a firm. On the
other hand, the development of new products related to organic waste is not
a central concern for such firms. Moreover, unless there is waste transformation involved, the activities related to organic waste seem to attract a low
share of the firms’ total R&D budget. Therefore, in order to reach out to
firms who actively seek to realise value from organic waste streams, an identification based solely on RD&I indicators may not be sufficient. R&D&I data
sources can provide an important first indication of organic waste activities,
e.g. by highlighting R&D allocated to the areas of ‘circular economy’ and
‘ecology’, or by recording patents on biological treatment of waste (CPC class
‘y02W’). However, complementary sources, such as trade descriptions in
financial data or self- identification in response to specific survey questions,
can become necessary to detect other relevant firms, whose active role in
organic waste activities may not be supplemented by corresponding activities
in research and innovation.
only two firms have new products related to re- use. On the other hand, 25
firms have introduced a new process related to organic waste in the last three
years. Pre- treatment processes and fermentation/biochemical processes are
the most frequent, while extraction and separation processes have been introduced by seven firms.
11.4 Preliminary conclusions
There are two preliminary conclusions that can be drawn from our study.
The first one relates to the difficulties of approaching the ‘bioeconomy’
meta- sector empirically, since even the theoretical definitions of the metasector are still evolving within the current scientific literature. When we
wanted to target a specific survey about organic waste at the population of
Norwegian bioeconomy firms, we faced discrepancies between the theoretical directions which we ideally wanted to explore, and the empirical possibilities we had according to the information available. Indeed, the data sources
we looked at, concerning the reconstruction of the population of ‘bioeconomy’ firms in Norway, were based on firms’ innovation inputs and outputs
(funded RD&I projects; R&D surveys; patents), on the economic context the
firms belong to (industry classification; affiliation to industry networks) and
on more subjective judgements made internally by the firm or externally by
experts (self- identification vs. supervised reviews). In order to cover the
different conceptual approaches to the bioeconomy meta- sector, researchers
need to navigate through the available data sources and make a series of decisions about how to intersect or merge different data layers, each of which
connects to one or more theoretical approaches to the bioeconomy.
A second conclusion relates to the specific role of organic waste activities
within bioeconomy firms. On the one hand, organic waste activities are often
core activities, thus constituting a distinctive characteristic of a firm. On the
other hand, the development of new products related to organic waste is not
a central concern for such firms. Moreover, unless there is waste transformation involved, the activities related to organic waste seem to attract a low
share of the firms’ total R&D budget. Therefore, in order to reach out to
firms who actively seek to realise value from organic waste streams, an identification based solely on RD&I indicators may not be sufficient. R&D&I data
sources can provide an important first indication of organic waste activities,
e.g. by highlighting R&D allocated to the areas of ‘circular economy’ and
‘ecology’, or by recording patents on biological treatment of waste (CPC class
‘y02W’). However, complementary sources, such as trade descriptions in
financial data or self- identification in response to specific survey questions,
can become necessary to detect other relevant firms, whose active role in
organic waste activities may not be supplemented by corresponding activities
in research and innovation.