Implementing point, (a) requires addressing a number of empirical issues due to
the variety of solutions and to the fact that many of them are quickly evolving. On
the same ground, and as shown directly by the graphical analysis, accounting for
externalities may be key to understand the actual optimal level of circularity, which
implies an improved ability to account for non-market values.
Understanding transition pathways is also an issue, not only for the technical
dynamic issues, but also for the wider variety of aspects important for understanding
and promoting transition, such as awareness building and hindering factors. The
understanding of new business models and the study of options allowing their design
and replication remain one of the most challenging emerging issues.
Policy has a key role in bringing private incentives close to social values. As
discussed above, this can also be the case in order to foster a circular bioeconomy
due to needs brought by innovation and externalities. Similar to most of the
bioeconomy policy fields, the analysis above calls for actually a mix of policy
actions (Ladu et al. 2020), which could include one or more of the following:
• internalising externalities through direct incentives or regulation, with a strong
role of environmental and climate policies;
• providing incentives to technical innovation and cost reduction;
• providing incentives to innovation in organisational solutions and business
models; and,
• allowing more value expression by consumers, through information and awareness rising.
Clearly, these policy areas require approaches much more qualitative with the
respect to the general framework highlighted above. In particular, given the lack of
ready-to-use economic information, participatory procedures and strategy would
need to be widely used to substitute economic rationale in actual decision-making
processes. However, there are also limitations of this approach. In perspective, with
increasing empirical studies on the topic, it may be expected to achieve a more
balanced use of different strategies in the direction of truly evidence-based policy
making in the field of circular economy.
References
Akram U et al (2019) Optimizing nutrient recycling from excreta in Sweden and Pakistan: higher
spatial resolution makes transportation more attractive. Front Sustain Food Syst 3. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00050
Cardoen D et al (2015) Agriculture biomass in India: part 2. Post-harvest losses, cost and environmental impacts. Resour Conser Recycl 101:143–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.
06.002
D’Amato D, Veijonaho S, Toppinen A (2020) Towards sustainability? Forest-based circular
bioeconomy business models in Finnish SMEs. Forest Policy Econ 110:101848. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.12.004
1 Exploring the Economics of the Circular Bioeconomy
9
the variety of solutions and to the fact that many of them are quickly evolving. On
the same ground, and as shown directly by the graphical analysis, accounting for
externalities may be key to understand the actual optimal level of circularity, which
implies an improved ability to account for non-market values.
Understanding transition pathways is also an issue, not only for the technical
dynamic issues, but also for the wider variety of aspects important for understanding
and promoting transition, such as awareness building and hindering factors. The
understanding of new business models and the study of options allowing their design
and replication remain one of the most challenging emerging issues.
Policy has a key role in bringing private incentives close to social values. As
discussed above, this can also be the case in order to foster a circular bioeconomy
due to needs brought by innovation and externalities. Similar to most of the
bioeconomy policy fields, the analysis above calls for actually a mix of policy
actions (Ladu et al. 2020), which could include one or more of the following:
• internalising externalities through direct incentives or regulation, with a strong
role of environmental and climate policies;
• providing incentives to technical innovation and cost reduction;
• providing incentives to innovation in organisational solutions and business
models; and,
• allowing more value expression by consumers, through information and awareness rising.
Clearly, these policy areas require approaches much more qualitative with the
respect to the general framework highlighted above. In particular, given the lack of
ready-to-use economic information, participatory procedures and strategy would
need to be widely used to substitute economic rationale in actual decision-making
processes. However, there are also limitations of this approach. In perspective, with
increasing empirical studies on the topic, it may be expected to achieve a more
balanced use of different strategies in the direction of truly evidence-based policy
making in the field of circular economy.
References
Akram U et al (2019) Optimizing nutrient recycling from excreta in Sweden and Pakistan: higher
spatial resolution makes transportation more attractive. Front Sustain Food Syst 3. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00050
Cardoen D et al (2015) Agriculture biomass in India: part 2. Post-harvest losses, cost and environmental impacts. Resour Conser Recycl 101:143–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.
06.002
D’Amato D, Veijonaho S, Toppinen A (2020) Towards sustainability? Forest-based circular
bioeconomy business models in Finnish SMEs. Forest Policy Econ 110:101848. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.12.004
1 Exploring the Economics of the Circular Bioeconomy
9