Conclusions 297
welfare economics, can stimulate researchers to define the correct spatial scale
for answering questions on waste valorisation.
Research must explore the geographic dimension in order to define the
opportunities for waste valorisation that are offered within specific regions or
countries. Some geographic areas may indeed be more fertile for particular
types of waste valorisation, in connection with particular economic sectors.
Moreover, research can point to ways to overcome the limitations encountered in specific geographic areas, and show how economic actors, including
firms and policymakers, can contribute to shaping new geographies of
innovation which would favour waste valorisation.
15.4 Resource ownership and interfirm governance
structures
In the introduction to this book, we suggested that the valorisation of waste
streams often necessitates a high degree of coordination along and across value
circles, but such coordination can be prevented by the intrinsic properties of
waste. Indeed, both the amount and the production timing of waste depend
on the needs of the value circle from which it originates, and are not usually
planned on the basis of a potential waste valorisation. However, the book has
shown several solutions that businesses can bring forward in order to avoid
such a “waste puzzle”. Organisational solutions are, for instance, highlighted
in Chapters 7 and 9, about the valorisation of, respectively, animal and dairy
by- products. Both chapters witness the successful establishment, by a large
firm dominant in the sector, of a subsidiary firm which would focus specifically on the valorisation of by- products. Chapter 11, on actors and innovators in the circular bioeconomy, confirms that firms who actively seek to
realise value from organic waste streams often describe organic waste activities
as core activities, which constitute a distinctive mark of the same firms.
Moreover, Chapter 6 shows the dangers of considering waste activities as
peripheral to the firm: breweries would, for instance, focus on a new bottling
line rather than upgrading their brewing equipment for a more efficient use
of spent grain. Waste valorisation could come back into focus when a main
product is branded according to the firm’s corporate social responsibility, as
described in both Chapters 3 and 6. A firm’s environmental reputation may
indeed exert a strong push towards waste valorisation: environmental groups
are currently playing an important role in the context of salmon farming
(Chapter 8), a role which could later be taken over by national governments.
Better coordination between public and private actors, as well as within the
public sector, could also lead to improved waste valorisation, as suggested by
Chapter 5 about the municipality’s management of urban waste in the city
of Oslo. Within- firm coordination of different activities has instead been
presented in Chapter 4, in the form of a Norwegian biorefinery which is
able to optimise the cross- exploitation of side- streams from distinct firm
activities.
welfare economics, can stimulate researchers to define the correct spatial scale
for answering questions on waste valorisation.
Research must explore the geographic dimension in order to define the
opportunities for waste valorisation that are offered within specific regions or
countries. Some geographic areas may indeed be more fertile for particular
types of waste valorisation, in connection with particular economic sectors.
Moreover, research can point to ways to overcome the limitations encountered in specific geographic areas, and show how economic actors, including
firms and policymakers, can contribute to shaping new geographies of
innovation which would favour waste valorisation.
15.4 Resource ownership and interfirm governance
structures
In the introduction to this book, we suggested that the valorisation of waste
streams often necessitates a high degree of coordination along and across value
circles, but such coordination can be prevented by the intrinsic properties of
waste. Indeed, both the amount and the production timing of waste depend
on the needs of the value circle from which it originates, and are not usually
planned on the basis of a potential waste valorisation. However, the book has
shown several solutions that businesses can bring forward in order to avoid
such a “waste puzzle”. Organisational solutions are, for instance, highlighted
in Chapters 7 and 9, about the valorisation of, respectively, animal and dairy
by- products. Both chapters witness the successful establishment, by a large
firm dominant in the sector, of a subsidiary firm which would focus specifically on the valorisation of by- products. Chapter 11, on actors and innovators in the circular bioeconomy, confirms that firms who actively seek to
realise value from organic waste streams often describe organic waste activities
as core activities, which constitute a distinctive mark of the same firms.
Moreover, Chapter 6 shows the dangers of considering waste activities as
peripheral to the firm: breweries would, for instance, focus on a new bottling
line rather than upgrading their brewing equipment for a more efficient use
of spent grain. Waste valorisation could come back into focus when a main
product is branded according to the firm’s corporate social responsibility, as
described in both Chapters 3 and 6. A firm’s environmental reputation may
indeed exert a strong push towards waste valorisation: environmental groups
are currently playing an important role in the context of salmon farming
(Chapter 8), a role which could later be taken over by national governments.
Better coordination between public and private actors, as well as within the
public sector, could also lead to improved waste valorisation, as suggested by
Chapter 5 about the municipality’s management of urban waste in the city
of Oslo. Within- firm coordination of different activities has instead been
presented in Chapter 4, in the form of a Norwegian biorefinery which is
able to optimise the cross- exploitation of side- streams from distinct firm
activities.