66 M. M. Bugge et al.
3.7 Summary
In this chapter we have discussed the notion of the circular bioeconomy, the
drivers and barriers for adding value to waste and thereby creating a more
sustainable bioeconomy, and the special role of governance including innovation policy in developing the bioeconomy. There are many views on the bioeconomy, which is an emerging area for research, policy and economic
activity. Our focus has been on the role of innovation in waste valorisation,
not only technological but also social and institutional innovation.
We have discussed the waste pyramid that illustrates the hierarchy of alternative forms of waste management in terms of resource efficiency and sustainability, and the associated notion of cascading use of biological resources. We
conceptualised the alternative forms of waste management as integrated sociotechnical systems of production and consumption. This concept provided a gateway
into the studies on socio- technical transitions, innovation and governance
that we claim are central for analysing the patterns and dynamics of waste
valorisation.
The drivers of innovation in waste valorisation were approached through a discussion of three generational perspectives on innovation and innovation
policy. Today, many scholars have come to understand innovation in the bioeconomy as transformative change. This perspective focuses on the upper parts of
the waste pyramid (recycle, reuse and prevention), emphasises entire sociotechnical systems and not only considers companies, researchers and policy
makers as agents, but also intermediary organisations, users and consumers.
Hence, analysis of the dynamics of bio- economic value chains should consider
not only the firm actors handling the products and technologies, but also the
broader institutional, economic and social context of production and trade.
The barriers to innovation in the bioeconomy were discussed through the
concepts of path dependence and lock- in mechanisms. Economic, institutional and
social mechanisms may cause inertia in waste systems and constrain an upward
movement in the waste pyramid, and there are important regional and sectoral dimensions of path dependence arising from the characteristics of specific industries. The Swedish pulp and paper industry is an example thereof.
However, under the right conditions, the same mechanisms, e.g. learning
effects and economies of scale, may bring waste systems onto a more sustainable path, as illustrated by the case of whey valorisation in Arla Foods.
Governance is essential to understanding and enhancing waste valorisation.
The concept not only comprises public policy, but also private governance by
firms within value chains, as well as the activities of civil society organisations,
industry organisations and consumer groups. Another key insight is that the
governance of production, consumption and innovation is not an abstract
process but is instead deeply rooted in existing value chains, organisations and
localities. Firm efforts to gain sustainable competitive advantage through
product differentiation (including CSR) or cost reductions can spur innovations in waste valorisation, while the incentives and capabilities to undertake
3.7 Summary
In this chapter we have discussed the notion of the circular bioeconomy, the
drivers and barriers for adding value to waste and thereby creating a more
sustainable bioeconomy, and the special role of governance including innovation policy in developing the bioeconomy. There are many views on the bioeconomy, which is an emerging area for research, policy and economic
activity. Our focus has been on the role of innovation in waste valorisation,
not only technological but also social and institutional innovation.
We have discussed the waste pyramid that illustrates the hierarchy of alternative forms of waste management in terms of resource efficiency and sustainability, and the associated notion of cascading use of biological resources. We
conceptualised the alternative forms of waste management as integrated sociotechnical systems of production and consumption. This concept provided a gateway
into the studies on socio- technical transitions, innovation and governance
that we claim are central for analysing the patterns and dynamics of waste
valorisation.
The drivers of innovation in waste valorisation were approached through a discussion of three generational perspectives on innovation and innovation
policy. Today, many scholars have come to understand innovation in the bioeconomy as transformative change. This perspective focuses on the upper parts of
the waste pyramid (recycle, reuse and prevention), emphasises entire sociotechnical systems and not only considers companies, researchers and policy
makers as agents, but also intermediary organisations, users and consumers.
Hence, analysis of the dynamics of bio- economic value chains should consider
not only the firm actors handling the products and technologies, but also the
broader institutional, economic and social context of production and trade.
The barriers to innovation in the bioeconomy were discussed through the
concepts of path dependence and lock- in mechanisms. Economic, institutional and
social mechanisms may cause inertia in waste systems and constrain an upward
movement in the waste pyramid, and there are important regional and sectoral dimensions of path dependence arising from the characteristics of specific industries. The Swedish pulp and paper industry is an example thereof.
However, under the right conditions, the same mechanisms, e.g. learning
effects and economies of scale, may bring waste systems onto a more sustainable path, as illustrated by the case of whey valorisation in Arla Foods.
Governance is essential to understanding and enhancing waste valorisation.
The concept not only comprises public policy, but also private governance by
firms within value chains, as well as the activities of civil society organisations,
industry organisations and consumer groups. Another key insight is that the
governance of production, consumption and innovation is not an abstract
process but is instead deeply rooted in existing value chains, organisations and
localities. Firm efforts to gain sustainable competitive advantage through
product differentiation (including CSR) or cost reductions can spur innovations in waste valorisation, while the incentives and capabilities to undertake