literature review bioeconomy

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Perspective
• Published: 09 August 2021

Principles, drivers and opportunities of a circular bioeconomy

• Abigail Muscat   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6106-2884 1 ,
• Evelien M. de Olde 1 ,
• Raimon Ripoll-Bosch   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1234-7015 1 ,
• Hannah H. E. Van Zanten   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5262-5518 2 ,
• Tamara A. P. Metze 3 ,
• Catrien J. A. M. Termeer 3 ,
• Martin K. van Ittersum   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8611-6781 4 &
• Imke J. M. de Boer 1  

Nature Food volume  2 ,  pages 561–566 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

4498 Accesses

119 Citations

27 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Agroecology
• Sustainability

A Publisher Correction to this article was published on 25 August 2021

A circular, bio-based economy could provide the pathway to a sustainable future. Here we present five ecological principles to guide biomass use towards a circular bioeconomy: safeguarding and regenerating the health of our (agro)ecosystems; avoiding non-essential products and the waste of essential ones; prioritizing biomass streams for basic human needs; utilizing and recycling by-products of (agro)ecosystems; and using renewable energy while minimizing overall energy use. Implementing these principles calls for a transformation of our current economic system, including fundamental changes to policies, technologies, organizations, social behaviour and markets.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

111,21 € per year

only 9,27 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Environmental and socioeconomic footprints of the German bioeconomy

Stefan Bringezu, Martin Distelkamp, … Vincent Egenolf

Life-cycle energy and climate benefits of energy recovery from wastes and biomass residues in the United States

Bo Liu & Deepak Rajagopal

Bioenergy-induced land-use-change emissions with sectorally fragmented policies

Leon Merfort, Nico Bauer, … Elmar Kriegler

Haberl, H., Erb, K.-H. & Krausmann, F. Human appropriation of net primary production: patterns, trends, and planetary boundaries. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 39 , 363–391 (2014).

Article   Google Scholar  

Krausmann, F. et al. Global human appropriation of net primary production doubled in the 20th century. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110 , 10324–10329 (2013).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   ADS   Google Scholar  

Foley, J. A. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478 , 337–342 (2011).

Article   CAS   PubMed   ADS   Google Scholar  

Steffen, W. et al. Planetary boundaries: guiding changing planet. Science 347 , 1259855 (2015).

Article   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Muscat, A., de Olde, E. M., de Boer, I. J. M. & Ripoll-Bosch, R. The battle for biomass: a systematic review of food-feed-fuel competition. Glob. Food Sec. 25 , 100330 (2020).

Befort, N. Going beyond definitions to understand tensions within the bioeconomy: the contribution of sociotechnical regimes to contested fields. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 153 , 119923 (2020).

Jørgensen, S. E. & Nielsen, S. N. Application of ecological engineering principles in agriculture. Ecol. Eng. 7 , 373–381 (1996).

Potting, J., Hekkert, M., Worrell, E. & Hanemaaijer, A. Circular Economy: Measuring Innovation in the Product Chain (PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2016).

Van Kernebeek, H. R. J., Oosting, S. J., van Ittersum, M. K., Ripoll-Bosch, R. & de Boer, I. J. M. Closing the phosphorus cycle in a food system: insights from a modelling exercise. Animal 12 , 1755–1765 (2018).

Scherhaufer, S., Moates, G., Hartikainen, H., Waldron, K. & Obersteiner, G. Environmental impacts of food waste in Europe. Waste Manag. 77 , 98–113 (2018).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Global Food Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes and Prevention (FAO, 2011).

van den Bos Verma, M., de Vreede, L., Achterbosch, T. & Rutten, M. M. Consumers discard a lot more food than widely believed: Estimates of global food waste using an energy gap approach and affluence elasticity of food waste. PLoS ONE 15 , e0228369 (2020).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Obesity and Overweight. WHO https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight (accessed 10 April 2020).

Rico-Campà, A. et al. Association between consumption of ultra-processed foods and all cause mortality: SUN prospective cohort study. Brit. Med. J. 365 , l1949 (2019).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Srour, B. et al. Ultra-processed food intake and risk of cardiovascular disease: prospective cohort study (NutriNet-Santé). Brit. Med. J. 365 , l1451 (2019).

Daystar, J., Chapman, L., Moore, M., Pires, S. & Golden, J. Quantifying apparel consumer use behavior in six countries: addressing a data need in life cycle assessment modeling. J. Text. Apparel Technol. Manag. 11 , 1–25 (2019).

Google Scholar  

Mottet, A. et al. Livestock: on our plates or eating at our table? A new analysis of the feed/food debate. Glob. Food Sec. 14 , 1–8 (2017).

Cashion, T., Le Manach, F., Zeller, D. & Pauly, D. Most fish destined for fishmeal production are food-grade fish. Fish Fish. 18 , 837–844 (2017).

Garnett, T. Livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions: impacts and options for policy makers. Environ. Sci. Policy 12 , 491–503 (2009).

Goodland, R. Environmental sustainability in agriculture: diet matters. Ecol. Econ. 23 , 189–200 (1997).

Van Hal, O. et al. Upcycling food leftovers and grass resources through livestock: impact of livestock system and productivity. J. Clean. Prod. 219 , 485–496 (2019).

Van Zanten, H. H. E. et al. Defining a land boundary for sustainable livestock consumption. Glob. Change Biol. 24 , 4185–4194 (2018).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Zhou, S. et al. Balanced harvest: concept, policies, evidence, and management implications. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 29 , 711–733 (2019).

Haberl, H. & Geissler, S. Cascade utilization of biomass: strategies for a more efficient use of a scarce resource. Ecol. Eng. 16 , 111–121 (2000).

Suominen, T., Kunttu, J., Jasinevičius, G., Tuomasjukka, D. & Lindner, M. Trade-offs in sustainability impacts of introducing cascade use of wood. Scand. J. For. Res. 32 , 588–597 (2017).

Churkina, G. et al. Buildings as a global carbon sink. Nat. Sustain. 3 , 269–276 (2020).

Max-Neef, M. in Real-Life Economics (eds Ekins, P. & Max-Neef, M.) Ch. 7 (Routledge, 1992).

Doyal, L. & Gough, I. A Theory of Human Need (Macmillan, 1991).

Bos-Brouwers, H., Langelaan, B. & Sanders, J. Chances for biomass. Wageningen University UR https://edepot.wur.nl/248866 (2012).

Sandin, G. & Peters, G. M. Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling – a review. J. Clean. Prod. 184 , 353–365 (2018).

Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A. & Seppälä, J. Circular economy: the concept and its limitations. Ecol. Econ. 143 , 37–46 (2018).

Castro, M. B. G., Remmerswaal, J. A. M., Brezet, J. C. & Reuter, M. A. Exergy losses during recycling and the resource efficiency of product systems. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 52 , 219–233 (2007).

Bergen, S. D., Bolton, S. M. & Fridley, J. L. Design principles for ecological engineering. Ecol. Eng. 18 , 201–210 (2001).

Vidal, O., Goffé, B. & Arndt, N. Metals for a low-carbon society. Nat. Geosci. 6 , 894–896 (2013).

Article   CAS   ADS   Google Scholar  

Grandell, L. & Höök, M. Assessing rare metal availability challenges for solar energy technologies. Sustainability 7 , 11818–11837 (2015).

Kovacic, Z., Strand, R. & Völker, T. The Circular Economy in Europe (Routledge, 2019).

Dammer, L. & Essel, R. Quo Vadis, Cascading Use of Biomass? (nova Institute for Ecology and Innovation, 2015).

Cascading Use of Biomass: Opportunities and Obstacles in EU Policies 2013–2016 (Birdlife Europe & European Environmental Bureau, 2014).

Zabaniotou, A. Redesigning a bioenergy sector in EU in the transition to circular waste-based bioeconomy: a multidisciplinary review. J. Clean. Prod. 177 , 197–206 (2018).

Termeer, C. J. A. M. & Metze, T. A. P. More than peanuts: transformation towards a circular economy through a small-wins governance framework. J. Clean. Prod. 240 , 118272 (2019).

Velenturf, A. P. M. et al. Circular economy and the matter of integrated resources. Sci. Total Environ. 689 , 963–969 (2019).

de Boer, I. J. M. & Van Ittersum, M. K. Circularity in Agricultural Production (Wageningen University & Research, 2018); https://edepot.wur.nl/470625

Van Eijk, F. Barriers & Drivers Towards a Circular Economy (Acceleratio, 2015); https://www.circulairondernemen.nl/uploads/e00e8643951aef8adde612123e824493.pdf

Teigiserova, D. A., Hamelin, L. & Thomsen, M. Review of high-value food waste and food residues biorefineries with focus on unavoidable wastes from processing. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 149 , 413–426 (2019).

Gifford, R. & Nilsson, A. Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: a review. Int. J. Psychol. 49 , 141–157 (2014).

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Steg, L. & Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 29 , 309–317 (2009).

Nyborg, K. et al. Social norms as solutions. Science 354 , 42–43 (2016).

Kollmuss, A. & Agyeman, J. Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 8 , 239–260 (2002).

Rothgerber, H. Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: masculinity and the justification of meat consumption. Psychol. Men Masculin. 14 , 363–375 (2013).

Shove, E., Watson, M. & Spurling, N. Conceptualizing connections: energy demand, infrastructures and social practices. Eur. J. Soc. Theory 18 , 274–287 (2015).

Barnes, S. J. Out of sight, out of mind: plastic waste exports, psychological distance and consumer plastic purchasing. Glob. Environ. Change 58 , 101943 (2019).

Richter, B. Knowledge and perception of food waste among German consumers. J. Clean. Prod. 166 , 641–648 (2017).

Schanes, K., Dobernig, K. & Gözet, B. Food waste matters: a systematic review of household food waste practices and their policy implications. J. Clean. Prod. 182 , 978–991 (2018).

Aschemann-Witzel, J., de Hooge, I., Amani, P., Bech-Larsen, T. & Oostindjer, M. Consumer-related food waste: causes and potential for action. Sustainability 7 , 6457–6477 (2015).

Priefer, C., Jörissen, J. & Bräutigam, K. R. Food waste prevention in Europe: a cause-driven approach to identify the most relevant leverage points for action. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 109 , 155–165 (2016).

Ölander, F. & Thøgersen, J. Informing versus nudging in environmental policy. J. Consum. Policy 37 , 341–356 (2014).

Söderholm, P. Taxing virgin natural resources: lessons from aggregates taxation in Europe. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55 , 911–922 (2011).

Growth Within: A Circular Economy Vision for a Competitive Europe (Ellen Macarthur Foundation, 2015); https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/EllenMacArthurFoundation_Growth-Within_July15.pdf

Spierling, S., Venkatachalam, V., Behnsen, H., Herrmann, C. & Endres, H. Bioplastics and Circular Economy—Performance Indicators to Identify Optimal Pathways (Springer, 2019).

Van Zanten, H., Mollenhorst, H., Klootwijk, C. W., van Middelaar, C. E. & de Boer, I. J. M. Global food supply: land use efficiency of livestock systems. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21 , 747–758 (2016).

Odegard, I., Croezen, H. & Bergsma, G. Cascading of Biomass: 13 Solutions for a Sustainable Bio-based Economy-Making Better Choices for Use of Biomass Residues, By-products and Wastes (CE Delft, 2012).

Szarka, N., Wolfbauer, J. & Bezama, A. A systems dynamics approach for supporting regional decisions on the energetic use of regional biomass residues. Waste Manage. Res. 36 , 332–341 (2018).

Koppelmaki, K., Helenius, J. & Schulte, R. P. O. Nested circularity in food systems: a Nordic case study on connecting biomass, nutrient and energy flows from field scale to continent. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 164 , 105218 (2021).

Mayer, A. L. Importing timber, exporting ecological impact. Science 308 , 359–360 (2005).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Mayer, A., Schaffartzik, A., Haas, W. & Rojas-Sepúlveda, A. Patterns of Global Biomass Trade: Implications for Food Sovereignty and Socio-Environmental Conflicts (EJOLT, 2015).

Raworth, K. A doughnut for the Anthropocene: humanity’s compass in the 21st century. Lancet Planet. Health 1 , e48–e49 (2017).

O’Neill, D. W., Fanning, A. L., Lamb, W. F. & Steinberger, J. K. A good life for all within planetary boundaries. Nat. Sustain. 1 , 88–95 (2018).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement no. 689669. The present work reflects only the authors’ views and the funding agency cannot be held responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Animal Production Systems group, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Abigail Muscat, Evelien M. de Olde, Raimon Ripoll-Bosch & Imke J. M. de Boer

Farming Systems Ecology group, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Hannah H. E. Van Zanten

Public Administration and Policy group, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Tamara A. P. Metze & Catrien J. A. M. Termeer

Plant Production Systems group, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Martin K. van Ittersum

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors wrote the paper. I.J.M.d.B. and M.K.v.I. conceptualized the principles. A.M., I.J.M.d.B., E.M.d.O. and R.R.-B. conceptualized and expanded the principles. A.M., I.J.M.d.B., E.M.d.O., H.H.E.v.Z. were responsible for visualization. A.M. prepared the original draft. E.M.d.O., R.R.-B., H.H.E.V.Z., T.A.P.M., C.J.A.M.T., M.K.v.I. and I.J.M.d.B. supervised, reviewed and edited.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abigail Muscat .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Food thanks Nick Holden, Trisha Toop and Bruce Dale for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Muscat, A., de Olde, E.M., Ripoll-Bosch, R. et al. Principles, drivers and opportunities of a circular bioeconomy. Nat Food 2 , 561–566 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00340-7

Download citation

Received : 10 September 2020

Accepted : 09 July 2021

Published : 09 August 2021

Issue Date : August 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00340-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Farming practices to enhance biodiversity across biomes: a systematic review.

• Felipe Cozim-Melges
• Raimon Ripoll-Bosch
• Hannah H. E. van Zanten

npj Biodiversity (2024)

Citrus-Based Biopolymer for Enhanced Oil Recovery Applications in High-Salinity, High-Temperature Reservoirs

• Ammar Gamal Ali
• Abiodun Matthew Amao
• Taha Moustafa Moawad

Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2024)

Circularity of Nutrients for Food Security: a Case Study of By-products from Meat Industry

• Adriana Cioato Ferrazza
• José Uebi Maluf
• Edson Talamini

Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024)

Interventions to increase circularity and reduce environmental impacts in food systems

• Benjamin van Selm
• Imke J. M. de Boer

Ambio (2024)

Innovation and Networks in the Bioeconomy: A Case Study from the German Coffee Value Chain

• Terese E. Venus
• Caroline Beale
• Roberto Villalba

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Advertisement

Bioeconomy and Circular Economy: Implications for Economic Evaluation in the Post-COVID Era

• Original Paper
• Open access
• Published: 18 November 2021
• Volume 1 , pages 1257–1269, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Davide Viaggi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9503-2977 1 &
• Matteo Zavalloni 1  

2265 Accesses

7 Citations

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The objective of this paper is to review selected insights about the current economic research on the Bioeconomy and circular economy, with a particular focus for the role of primary sector, and to derive implications for organisation, evaluation and valuation practice in the context of the post-COVID era. A framework for the analysis of optimal level of circularity and related economic and evaluation concepts is developed for this purpose. We highlight how higher focus on circularity will increase the complexity of market relationships, contributing to flexibility, but also to uncertainty. The paper argues that these issues will become more important in the post-COVID era, due to the plea for increasing Bioeconomy resilience. New organisational concepts and models are hence needed. Evaluation, on the other hand, will need to be embedded even more in the decision-making processes, in spite of the increasing uncertainty and difficulties in evaluation.

Similar content being viewed by others

Environmental-, social-, and governance-related factors for business investment and sustainability: a scientometric review of global trends

Hadiqa Ahmad, Muhammad Yaqub & Seung Hwan Lee

A systematic literature review on corporate sustainability: contributions, barriers, innovations and future possibilities

Ualison Rébula de Oliveira, Rodolfo Pombo Menezes & Vicente Aprigliano Fernandes

Flexibility and Resilience in Corporate Decision Making: A New Sustainability-Based Risk Management System in Uncertain Times

Davide Settembre-Blundo, Rocío González-Sánchez, … Fernando E. García-Muiña

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction and Objectives

The concept of Bioeconomy has developed in the last 15 years and is growingly adopted to define the aggregate of sectors using biological resources. The Bioeconomy is actually defined in different ways in different contexts, in particular because Bioeconomy strategies are focusing on different sectors depending on countries and areas of the world.

In the EU, a new boost to the Bioeconomy has been given by the launch of the revised Bioeconomy strategy by the EU Commission in October 2018 [ 11 ]. According to the strategy, the Bioeconomy is defined in a comprehensive way as follows: “The bioeconomy covers all sectors and systems that rely on biological resources (animals, plants, micro-organisms and derived biomass, including organic waste), their functions and principles. It includes and interlinks: land and marine ecosystems and the services they provide; all primary production sectors that use and produce biological resources (agriculture, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture); and all economic and industrial sectors that use biological resources and processes to produce food, feed, bio-based products, energy and services. To be successful, the European Bioeconomy needs to have sustainability and circularity at its heart. This will drive the renewal of our industries, the modernisation of our primary production systems, the protection of the environment and will enhance biodiversity” [ 11 ].

The economic and business literature is working to identify structuring concepts allowing a better understanding of this idea. A broad review is provided by Viaggi [ 25 ], while recent updates in terms of economic organisation are illustrated in Viaggi [ 26 ]. Besides the sector coverage, key qualifying features of the Bioeconomy are that, on the one hand, it builds on a wide range of modern technologies; on the other hand, it aims at sustainability, by explicitly including ecosystem management.

In recent years, the concept of Circular Economy (CE) has also become mainstream to answer the societal concern for resources limitations and planet boundaries. As a result, the focus of policy and research is today moving towards the concept of Circular Bioeconomy (CBE). It is usually acknowledged that the Bioeconomy does not imply circularity, which means that a circular Bioeconomy needs to be achieved through a deliberate policy strategy backed by supporting research. In this process, understanding the economic features of a CBE is important, as well as providing suitable evaluation and valuation practices to support decision-making.

In this direction, two gaps emerge in the literature. First, in spite of the growing attention being taken by circularity, the development of a rigorous economic framework to interpret its role in the Bioeconomy is still absent in the literature. Second, circularity is not a property that can be understood in isolation, but rather requires to be framed into a number of other organisational properties of the Bioeconomy systems, such as separability of processes, cascading and flexibility. The need to clarify these issues interacts with the re-positioning of the Bioeconomy in the post-COVID era. In particular the trade-offs between short-term efficiency (required for competitiveness), flexibility and resilience (advocated for crisis management) and circularity (advocated to ensure longer-term resource efficiency) may become more evident in the post-COVID context.

The objective of this paper is to review selected insights about the current economic research on the Bioeconomy and CE, with a particular focus on the role of the primary sector, and to derive implications for organisation, evaluation and valuation practice in the context of the post-COVID era through the proposal of a conceptual economic framework of the CBE.

The reminder of the paper is organised as follows. In the “Main Conceptual, Technological and Organisational Issues in the Bioeconomy” section, we review selected concepts shaping the organisation of Bioeconomy systems. In the “Bioeconomy and Circular Economy” section. we review the main concepts linking the Bioeconomy and the CE (in particular CE application to the Bioeconomy). Based on the integration of these two sections, in the “Towards a Framework for Circular Bioeconomy Organisation and Evaluation in the Post-COVID Era” section, we provide a framework for the analysis of circular Bioeconomy, focusing in particular on market and organisation, evaluation and valuation practice in the context of the post-COVID era. The “Discussion and Final Remarks” section concludes with some discussion and final remarks.

The literature review part of this paper does not follow a systematic methodology. The literature was selected after a search in Scopus using the keywords “CIRCULAR” AND “BIOECONOMY” and filtering for papers in “Business, management and accounting” and “Economics, econometrics and finance”. This yielded 92 papers. Upon inspection of the papers, however, we found that very few of them addressed the problem of framing and modelling the circular Bioeconomy. So we proceeded working on few selected papers and using them to enrich existing frameworks for the Bioeconomy. The outcome is presented in the “Towards a Framework for Circular Bioeconomy Organisation and Evaluation in the Post-COVID Era” section, and it is the main result of this work.

Main Conceptual, Technological and Organisational Issues in the Bioeconomy

Before addressing the issue of circularity, we review the main issues affecting the economic organisation of the Bioeconomy and potentially interacting with circularity. This section is not intended to provide a thorough literature review on the topic, but rather to present selected topics building on already established literature, focusing on organisational issues drawn from Chapters 4, 5 and 6 of Viaggi [ 25 ].

While there are many aspects of the Bioeconomy that can be relevant for the objective of this paper, in this section, we focus on six interconnected issues, roughly organised in the terms of increasing scale:

The relevance of innovation processes

The increased technological separability of processes

The importance of flexibility and cascading

Consumer’s acceptability and market segmentation

The (partly consequent) increase in the complexity of the value chains

The growing relevance of system-level organisational concepts

The relevance of innovation for the Bioeconomy is paramount [ 19 , 23 ]. Most of the concrete policies active in the Bioeconomy sector are based on the promotion of research and innovation [ 8 ], or regulating property rights on new technologies. Innovation implies that technical relationships change rapidly over time, which reflects also in high variability of costs and profits. As a result, also uncertainty is very high. In addition, profits are highly linked to the ability to market innovation properly, and, in turn, values are highly attached to expectation and information. Innovation is not only important in changing input-output relationship, but also in affecting the separability points and the flexibility of the processes, hence having effects on all the following points in this section. Finally, innovation may translate in completely new products with an issue in establishing consumers’ preferences on these products.

Many technologies in the Bioeconomy however are more interesting for their separability implications. One of the main interesting strategies of the Bioeconomy is indeed in the process of breaking down biomass into very simple components and in the ability of recomposing them into a variety of compounds and final products. The study by Taylor et al. [ 24 ] is paradigmatic in this direction, showing how a wide variety of biomass sources can be used to generate two types of sugar molecules, that can then be used to obtain complex materials (Figure 1 ). The increased separability of processes emphasises a direction of change of technology that is already under way, allowing higher specialisation of production and also higher complexity of the value chains.

Example of platform chemicals in the sugar sector. Source: Taylor et al. [ 24 ]

However, separability itself is not telling the whole story of Bioeconomy organisation. On the one hand, flexibility is a characteristic of growing importance especially at processing plant level. Flexibility in this context means the ability of a plant to work with different feedstocks, adapting to availability and costs. It may also mean for a processing plant to be able to process different types of products. This is also explicitly bringing to the emergence of the concepts of flexible biomass and flexible processing plants [ 10 , 29 ]. On the other hand, the current development of the Bioeconomy is dominated by the idea of a cascading approach, incorporated in the biorefinery concept [ 4 ]. The cascading approach implies in particular the ordered treatment of biomass to the extraction of most valuable compounds, down to the production of bioenergy, hence ensuring a complete and efficient use of biomasses available [ 16 ].

In this new context, consumers and consumptions decisions have clearly a paramount role, and this is connected to the mechanisms of preferences building, that is in turn connected to information [ 15 ]. Many Bioeconomy technologies are known for the debate they have brought concerning acceptability. The most well-known example is probably genetic modified organisms. The fact that many products of the Bioeconomy may bring process innovations with uncertain acceptability reflects in high instability of preferences and market, and an important role of information. Even more important, the growing variety of products with rather different acceptability properties and appreciation by different consumers is leading to an exponential segmentation of markets and consumers groups [ 9 ]. This implies not only acknowledging, but also exploiting or even encouraging differentiation of behaviour and consumption habits.

As an effect of the above, the evolution of value chains becomes important and goes in the direction of increasing interaction between different value chains and towards the need to go beyond the value chain concept itself, towards representing the Bioeconomy system rather as a web of relationships, with a much higher number of interactions (Figure 2 ). Here the concept of value web seems a promising pathway to go beyond that of value chain, which is somehow insufficient to account for the increased degree of interaction [ 22 , 27 ]. This process is also functional to a better resilience of the system. From an economic point of view, it is clear that there are trade-offs with potential higher coordination costs and, in general, transaction costs.

Evolution from value chains to a web of relationships. Source: own figure

As for the primary sector, the transformations above imply a much higher substitutability of biomass that would be further emphasised by CE (see below). At the same time, however, the distinction between cultivated and natural environment is fading. Cultivation is growing (see forestry, aquaculture) and substituting pure harvesting (e.g. fishing). Humanity is taking a number of actions to manage the functioning of the ecosphere (one could now say that we are approaching a level where we “cultivate the ecosphere”). This is somehow reflecting the idea of Anthropocene in the field of the Bioeconomy.

The issues addressed above go in the direction of making the Bioeconomy a more and more complex system, not only involving the supply side but event more the integration of social and ecological system. For this reason, system-level organisational concepts are advocated to address the Bioeconomy. An area of attention is that of interpreting the Bioeconomy through the concept of socio-ecological systems [ 7 , 20 ]. Even wider approaches are being proposed in order to enlarge the concept further, taking explicitly into account technology and value flows, e.g. as in the SETVIEW model [ 26 ].

Bioeconomy and Circular Economy

D’Amato et al. [ 5 ] analyse the concepts of CE and Bioeconomy together also with the concept of Green Economy (GE) by reviewing around two thousand scientific articles published in the last 30 years.

Looking at the main keywords and topics, the results of the analysis indicate that the concept of the CE is very homogenous when compared with the other two. It strongly and monolithically focuses on resource efficiency, with mostly an industrial perspective, and with little or no references to the social dimension of the problem. It became popular in the 1990s, and it is roughly based on the idea of setting up an economic system with no or little effect on the environment, by advocating the design of products that minimise both input use and waste. The corollary is a re-organisation of the economy characterised by a strong inter-sectorial cooperation and coordination.

The Bioeconomy idea puts a stronger emphasis on the use of renewable resources as both input and energy source in the industrial production process. Corollary to this idea is, on one hand, the crucial role of agriculture and forestry in providing the raw input needed and, on the other hand, the role of research and innovation to develop the technology needed for the transformational processes. The authors highlight the need for the Bioeconomy to embed the idea of circularity, that, if absent, as in much of the literature, would lead to a business as usual scenario.

The GE concept synthetises much of the previous ones but adds to them a relatively stronger focus on nature-based solution (e.g. the role of ecosystem services) and on the social dimension of the problem. In this prospect, the GE seems to work as an umbrella terms, covering many of the aspects developed by the other two ones. On the contrary, the point of intersections between CE and Bioeconomy are rather limited, even though there is an increasing consensus on the need to reconcile them.

A striking result from the literature review by D’Amato et al. [ 5 ] is that while all the three concepts are interdisciplinary in their nature, economics as a discipline has largely ignored them, with some exceptions related to the GE. This is also the result of the paper by Gregorio et al. [ 14 ] where the great bulk of the papers on the economic aspect of the problem are related to management rather than economics. As a consequence, formal models of CE or Bioeconomy are rather scarce.

One of the few economics perspectives on the CE is provided by George et al. [ 13 ]. Their focus is on the optimal path of economic growth when production inputs can be both a polluting resource (such as oil) and a recycled material. Pollution is generated by the use of the polluting resource or by the stock of product that is not consumed or recycled. The model results follow in a rather mechanistic way. Given the assumptions of the model, the growth rate of consumption increases with the recycling ratio (the exogenously determined capacity of the system to recycle), and society will substitute the polluting with the recycled one as the cost of the former increases. Similarly to George et al. [ 13 ], García-Barragán et al. [ 12 ] develop an economic growth model but with the objective to measure to what extent a path is circular rather than linear. A key feature of their model is that consumer preferences depend on the functionality of the foods rather than of the materials that compose them. Production inputs are here as well both virgin and recycled materials and both entail externalities. The optimum entails that the stream of materials of both types is such that the future and marginal benefits are equal to the social marginal cost of recycling. Given these features, “the circular activity of the economy is defined as the difference between the optimal recycling activity and the optimal linear activity penalised by intolerance factors” [ 12 ]. In line with the findings of the literature review by D’Amato et al. [ 5 ], the formal models addressing the CE revolve around the concept of recycling. In this prospect, an integration with the Bioeconomy perspective would be useful in adding two dimensions to the problem of circularity: (1) the nature of the raw material (whether is renewable or not) and (2) the costly research and development activities needed to develop the technologies required.

Moving to the Bioeconomy, Zilberman et al. [ 31 ] provide a simple and illustrative economic treatment of the idea. The authors sketch the main issues related to the share of renewable and non-renewable resources, taking energy production as an example. The use of non-renewable resources is characterised by high investment costs and very low variable costs that however increase over time as the resource becomes scarcer and scarcer. A technology that relies on renewable resources entails instead even higher investment costs, and low variable costs that might even decrease over time as the technology develops. As long as the exploitation of the resource does not exceed the rate of the regeneration, its use in the production activities can be sustained over time. More likely the two systems coexist, and the optimal share of the use of the two resources is given by the equalisation of the demand with their social marginal costs. The model depicted is rather simple and leaves out more questions than they solve.

The first point that must be addressed is the fact that while biological resources are renewable, they need land to be harvested and cultivated, and land is a finite resource. In this prospect, while biological resources can be sustained indefinitely, the marginal cost of using land might be increasing, as land with lower and lower quality is put into production. This raises another issue (raised by Zilberman et al. [ 31 ] too): the use of land for agriculture is in competition with ecosystem services and habitat, and the use of land for producing industrial inputs is in competition with food production [ 30 ].

Moreover, coordination among the sectors is not addressed while it seems to be a precondition for the emergence of the Bioeconomy [ 18 ]. In this prospect, however, the CE focus on recycling might be of help. Indeed, if the focus of Bioeconomy technologies revolves around the use of waste of food production, the aforementioned trade-offs are likely to be reduced, even though not to disappear. A cross-cutting issue is the role of research and development. The technology needed by the Bioeconomy revolution need to be developed through research. Research, however, is not a free lunch. From the economic point of view, an issue to be further deepened is the role of research funding for the development Bioeconomy technology and its relative added value to other mechanisms such as taxes in the reduction of negative externalities.

Moving from the theoretical analysis to the actions taken by actual firms, the need for the Bioeconomy to embed the notion of circularity at the core of the CE concept is highlighted by, e.g. Lokesh et al. [ 18 ]. In the framework of the Bioeconomy, however, some value chains cannot embrace circularity, as biomass used for energy delivery for example imply a dead-end. Lokesh et al. [ 18 ] map the potential value chains for which circularity can become a promising goal. D’Amato et al. [ 6 ] analyse to what extent companies involved in land use intensive sectors embrace the concepts aforementioned and use them to communicate their sustainability efforts. CE is by far the most dominant concepts across sectors and across continents. The Bioeconomy is the least used idea, and it is predominantly employed by firms located in Europe and in the forest sector. The notion of Bioeconomy and circularity entails substantial changes in the business model of the firms. Business models have been reviewed by Salvador et al. [ 21 ], who highlight several issues and hint at how to develop them for firms working in the circular-bioeconomy. Among the others, the development of new technologies is not itself a motive for success. This is especially true for the sector at stake, where the product itself is going to substitute existing ones, and thus it is difficult, and needed, to properly communicate the novelty of the product. Moreover, logistics is relatively more important for the circular Bioeconomy than for other traditional sectors, as transportation costs might represent a big share of total production costs. An attention to local markets, especially with respect to the input delivery, is of paramount importance.

Additional considerations of interest may be attached to the peculiarity of circularity related to biological resources. First, the fact that the biomass, sooner or later is degraded, implies that taking a system and time span large enough, the Bioeconomy cannot be completely circular. Second, circularity is connected to input availability and circularity (e.g. for fertilisers). Third, it is important the separation, but also the interplay, between circularity of biological and non-biological resources.

Towards a Framework for Circular Bioeconomy Organisation and Evaluation in the Post-COVID Era

There are several consequences of the trends illustrated above. We point here to three main relevant issues:

The need to consider circular processes in the appropriate way, including related economic aspects

The need to cast circularity in the increased complexity and interconnection of downstream and upstream markets

The need for new forms of interaction between demand and supply

These topics have taken increasing importance over time for bio-based systems. However, the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemics has boosted their importance and the need for attention. In particular, the COVID-19 outbreak has pointed attention to the need for flexible and resilient systems, able to respond to totally unexpected situations. This goes beyond what has actually happened during the COVID outbreak, as attention now is not so much to the possible replication of this pandemic, but rather to the idea that completely new shocks may occur, possibly taking different (and unknown) forms and systems need to be ready for this uncertainty.

The need to consider circular processes through a proper economic analysis relates to the issue of addressing appropriately the economic aspects of circularity in the valuation. The main drawbacks are the lack of consideration of the distinction between renewable and non-renewable resources and the poor consideration of research and the dynamics of the optimal share of non-renewable resources. This is connected to management issues, such as the fact that production cost accounting with recycling requires appropriate approaches. The key background issue relates to the economic problem of taking into account or even evaluate the optimal level of recycling or of circularity in a system [ 17 , 28 ].

Figure 3 builds upon Zilberman et al. [ 31 ] and illustrates the economic forces at stake in determining the optimal amount of non-renewable resources, renewable ones and recycled resources. Assume that the demand of input does not distinguish among these typology of resources. On the other hand, each of the resource is delivered at different marginal costs, entailing different technologies. The figure depicts the social marginal costs for each of the resource typologies; such marginal costs include both the private one and the externalities associated with them. The optimal quantity is provided at the point where the demand is equal to the total marginal social costs ( MSC tot ) leading to a clearing price of p . The share of each of the resource typologies is found by intercrossing the price p with the respective MSC lines.

Optimal level of circularity with renewable, non-renewable and non-renewable recycled resources

Note that if the non-renewable resource was the only one available, the total social costs would be given by MSC nr , and the total quantity provided would be Q’ nr * . The introduction of the new technologies, recycling and the Bioeconomy has two effects. The first one is to increase the total supply of the resource, causing a reduction in the clearing price. The second one is a substantial reduction in the use of the non-renewable resource that is substituted with the other two. Simple comparative statics shows that a reduction in the marginal costs of any of the resource delivery has similar effects: an increase in the total supply, a reduction in the price of the resources, and an increase in the use of the resource for which the marginal costs has reduced and a parallel reduction in the use of the other resources.

Important pieces of information are however missing in this simple representation. Technology adoption entails (often high) fixed costs that, while do not affect input use at the margin, affect the adoption of the technology as a whole.

Assuming that higher circularity has a higher marginal cost (higher marginal costs of recycling technology and lower marginal environmental cost due to decrease pressure on the environment), it is likely that there will be a non-trivial issue in understanding what level of circularity is optimal and how it evolves over time. This needs to be further investigated upfront, in order to support meaningful (from an economic point view) transition processes. It however requires the consideration of multiple information and the evaluation of trustable marginal supply curve per technology. This is clearly a difficult area for economic valuation, but it is also the area likely allowing the higher benefit for the analysis of circular Bioeconomy systems.

All these problems were born to solve the problem of sustainability and of environmental degradation. But the technologies to solve this issues (recycling and Bioeconomy) need research that is not a free lunch. One could ask, for example, what is better: taxing polluting activities or investing in research, or both (with may be connected use of funding)?

As a second point of attention, the complexification of the system and the increasing number of separability points need to be considered together with the concept of circularity. In other words, circularity does not mean just re-using products prior to disposal, but exploiting the possibilities offered by the system in terms of connection among chains, or, where suitable, the degradation of the organic material to the most simple components in such a way to allow for the maximum usability in different options. This is also an aspect that allow higher level of flexibility in principle and hence potentially contribute to a system needing resilience. Together with resilience, however, it can bring also potential problems. One of them is the increase of interconnections among markets of different products that can increase volatility of prices, or unpredictability/volatility of economic performance for individual firms, due to interlinkages of shocks.

Summing up the two points above, we can imagine expanding the concept of Figure 3 to a mix of tens or hundreds of potential sources of supply for the same product, interacting among each other, with a degree of flexibility and complexity exacerbated by circularity.

As a result of the above, top-down organisational solutions become less and less credible and in turn new forms of governance gain importance. This is also relevant for economic research and for the kind of contribution economics and management can give to the process. One of the most evident changes looking at the current trends in, e.g. research funding, is the move from cost analysis to business models. Far from being incidental, this move reflects the understanding that cost estimation is quickly obsolete and may require a number of assumptions. In addition, costs tend to look at the issue of drop-in products (product with same features from a new process), rather than looking at exploiting the potential of new products. Business models, on the contrary, look explicitly at the way to provide value for clients and society. On the other hand, business models are also difficult to study as they acknowledge the evolutions of contexts and companies, the potential for success and failure and the role of creativity and entrepreneurship, letting alone the role of context characteristics, heterogeneity and local adaptation.

Taking into account the need of flexibility and resilience in the post-COVID era, these trends offer clearly an opportunity to achieve a bioeconomy system able to face unexpected events and to react to shocks. However, flexibility may be costly either in terms of volatility or coordination costs and needs hence to be governed thorough appropriate processes.

In this direction, it is apparent how evaluation will become more important, but also more complex and difficult, due to the need to account for dynamic processes and a larger variety of interconnected markets. In addition, it will become more uncertain. As a consequence of the combination of high potential and high uncertainty, evaluation will need to become an inherent aspect of decision-making processes, more than in the past, but, at the same time, with a higher awareness of difficulties and limitations also by users of the evaluation. This entails the need to address evaluation having in mind a broader context than in the past, both in the sense of geographical scope and time horizon, but also in terms of the variety of the economic sectors considered.

While this is challenging, these trends also bring certainly opportunities linked to the growing demand for evaluation and valuation, as well as demands for methodological innovation. The concept of business model already goes in the direction of exploring value creation with a view at the interconnection between demand and supply. Key to this innovation will be the combination of new evaluation needs, higher computational needs and new data availability landscape brought by the process of digitalisation.

An aspect of this is also a renewed attention to the mechanisms related to the creation of value, with different branches of the literature pointing in turn to either the new promissory economies linked to innovation and financial markets [ 1 , 2 ] or to new concepts of values due to the use of living organisms, such as the biovalue [ 3 ].

Discussion and Final Remarks

The development of a CBE is certainly bringing several challenges, still to some extent hidden by the partial understating of the current social and economic transition. In this paper we have attempted to provide a framework to address the issue of Bioeconomy and circularity in the post-COVID era, building on a classical comparative statics framework. We show how circularity contributes to the increase of connections among markets and how this interacts with separability in boosting the complexification of the Bioeconomy system. It also contributes, at the same time, to flexibility and uncertainty. As a result, moving to CBE also requires attention to appropriate economic organisation concepts and evaluation procedures, allowing to address novel concepts such as flexibility, resilience and complex systems rather than mere advocacy and description of value chains. In this direction, it is also apparent how evaluation will become more important, but also more complex and difficult, due to the need to account for dynamic processes and a larger variety of interconnected markets.

These issues are particularly relevant for the primary sector, because the increased flexibility and variety of processing approaches also reflect in higher substitutability among biomass sources, hence high competition and volatility of markets, as well as the need of providing clear anchoring between territory and chains based on socio-economic structures rather than physical constraints.

Finally this process is probably further promoted by the effects of the pandemics, calling for an increase in flexibility, resilience and preparedness to future (unknown) shocks. In the context of the pandemics, however, it is likely that the potential trade-offs between flexibility and fairness will be more balanced, due to the high social attention for the topic.

The main limitations of this paper rest in the lack of empirical application and in the simplified qualitative elaboration on alternative organisational pathways. On the other hand, these limitation hint at pathways for future research and improved approach to policy and actors support. Two clear directions for further research are related to: (a) the investigation of system-level organisational models, properly accounting for value web structures, and (b) evolution of business models research in the direction of better incorporating the interaction with these networks.

Code Availability

Not applicable

Data Availability

Not applicable: the paper is a review not using specific data.

Birch K (2017) Rethinking value in the bio-economy: finance, assetization, and the management of value. Sci Technol Hum Values 42(3):460–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243916661633

Article   Google Scholar  

Birch K, Tyfield D (2012) Theorizing the bioeconomy: biovalue, biocapital, bioeconomics or . . . what? Sci Technol Hum Values 38(3):299–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243912442398

Brunori G (2013) Biomass, biovalue and sustainability: some thoughts on the definition of the bioeconomy. EuroChoices 12(1):48–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12020

Budzianowski WM, Postawa K (2016) Total chain integration of sustainable biorefinery systems. Appl Energy 184:1432–1446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.06.050

D’Amato D et al (2017) Green, circular, bio economy: a comparative analysis of sustainability avenues. J Clean Prod 168:716–734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.053

D’Amato D, Korhonen J, Toppinen A (2019) Circular, green, and bio economy: how do companies in land-use intensive sectors align with sustainability concepts? Ecol Econ 158:116–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.12.026

de Schutter L et al (2019) Bioeconomy transitions through the lens of coupled social-ecological systems: a framework for place-based responsibility in the global resource system. Sustainability (Switzerland) 11(20). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205705

Dietz T, Börner J, Förster J, von Braun J (2018) Governance of the bioeconomy: a global comparative study of national bioeconomy strategies. Sustainability (Switzerland) 10(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093190

Djokic N et al (2018) New market segmentation knowledge in the function of bioeconomy development in Serbia. Amfiteatru Econ 20(49):700–716. https://doi.org/10.24818/EA/2018/49/700

Espinoza Pérez AT, Camargo M, Narváez Rincón PC, Alfaro Marchant M (2017) Key challenges and requirements for sustainable and industrialized biorefinery supply chain design and management: a bibliographic analysis. Renew Sust Energ Rev 69:350–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.084

European Commission (2018) A sustainable bioeconomy for Europe: strengthening the connection between economy, society and the environment. Updated Bioeconomy Strategy . Bruxelles. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/pdf/ec_bioeconomy_strategy_2018.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none .

García-Barragán JF, Eyckmans J, Rousseau S (2019) Defining and measuring the circular economy: a mathematical approach. Ecol Econ 157:369–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.12.003

George DAR, Lin BCA, Chen Y (2015) A circular economy model of economic growth. Environ Model Softw 73:60–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.06.014

Gregorio VF, Pié L, Terceño A (2018) A systematic literature review of bio, green and circular economy trends in publications in the field of economics and business management. Sustainability (Switzerland) 10(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114232

Herring R, Paarlberg R (2016) The political economy of biotechnology. Ann Rev Resour Econ 8(1):397–416. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100815-095506

Keegan D, Kretschmer B, Elbersen B, Panoutsou C (2013) ‘Cascading use: a systematic approach to biomass beyond the energy sector’, Biofuels . Bioprod Biorefin 7(2):193–206. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1351

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Kinnaman TC (2014) Determining the socially optimal recycling rate. Resour Conserv Recycl 85:5–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.11.002

Lokesh K, Ladu L, Summerton L (2018) Bridging the gaps for a “circular” bioeconomy: selection criteria, bio-based value chain and stakeholder mapping. Sustainability (Switzerland) 10(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061695

OECD (2009) The bioeconomy to 2030: designing a policy agenda . Main Findings and Policy Conclusions , Paris

Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325(5939):419–422. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133

Salvador R, Puglieri FN, Halog A, Andrade FG, Piekarski CM, de Francisco AC (2021) Key aspects for designing business models for a circular bioeconomy. J Clean Prod 278:124341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124341

Scheiterle L, Ulmer A, Birner R, Pyka A (2018) From commodity-based value chains to biomass-based value webs: The case of sugarcane in Brazil’s bioeconomy. J Clean Prod 172:3851–3863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.150

Sillanpää, M. and Ncibi, C. (2017) A sustainable bioeconomy. The green industry revolution .

Taylor, R. et al. (2015) From the sugar platform to biofuels and biochemical final report for the European Commission Directorate-General Energy, N° ENER/C2/423-2012/SI2.673791 .

Viaggi, D. (2018) The bioeconomy delivering sustainable green growth . CABI Publishing.

Viaggi, D. (2019) ‘Understanding bioeconomy systems: integrating economic, organisational and policy concepts’, in Bioeconomy for Sustainable Development , pp. 3–19. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9431-7_1 .

Virchow, D. et al. (2016) Biomass-based value webs: a novel perspective for emerging bioeconomies in sub-Saharan Africa , technological and institutional innovations for marginalized smallholders in agricultural development . doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25718-1_14 .

Vollaro M, Galioto F, Viaggi D (2016) The circular economy and agriculture: new opportunities for re-using phosphorus as fertilizer. Bio-Based Appl Econ 5(3):267–285. https://doi.org/10.13128/BAE-18527

Wendisch VF, Brito LF, Gil Lopez M, Hennig G, Pfeifenschneider J, Sgobba E, Veldmann KH (2016) The flexible feedstock concept in industrial biotechnology: metabolic engineering of Escherichia coli, Corynebacterium glutamicum, Pseudomonas, Bacillus and yeast strains for access to alternative carbon sources. J Biotechnol 234:139–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2016.07.022

Wesseler J, Von Braun J (2017) Measuring the bioeconomy: economics and policies. Ann Rev Resour Econ 9:275–298. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100516-053701

Zilberman D, Kim E, Kirschner S, Kaplan S, Reeves J (2013) Technology and the future bioeconomy. Agric Econ 44(s1):95–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12054

Download references

Open access funding provided by Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, University of Bologna, Viale Fanin, 50, 40127, Bologna, Italy

Davide Viaggi & Matteo Zavalloni

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The paper is a common work of the authors that jointly conceptualised, planned and revised the text. Davide Viaggi wrote the “Main Conceptual, Technological and Organisational Issues in the Bioeconomy” section; Matteo Zavalloni wrote the “Bioeconomy and Circular Economy” section; the “Introduction and Objectives”, “Towards a Framework for Circular Bioeconomy Organisation and Evaluation in the Post-COVID Era” and “Discussion and Final Remarks” sections were jointly written by the authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Davide Viaggi .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval, consent to participate, consent for publication, conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Viaggi, D., Zavalloni, M. Bioeconomy and Circular Economy: Implications for Economic Evaluation in the Post-COVID Era. Circ.Econ.Sust. 1 , 1257–1269 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00113-1

Download citation

Received : 02 April 2021

Accepted : 30 August 2021

Published : 18 November 2021

Issue Date : December 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00113-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Circular Economy
• Post-COVID era
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Bioeconomy and Circular Economy: Implications for Economic Evaluation in the Post-COVID Era

Davide viaggi.

Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, University of Bologna, Viale Fanin, 50, 40127 Bologna, Italy

Matteo Zavalloni

Associated data.

Not applicable

Not applicable: the paper is a review not using specific data.

The objective of this paper is to review selected insights about the current economic research on the Bioeconomy and circular economy, with a particular focus for the role of primary sector, and to derive implications for organisation, evaluation and valuation practice in the context of the post-COVID era. A framework for the analysis of optimal level of circularity and related economic and evaluation concepts is developed for this purpose. We highlight how higher focus on circularity will increase the complexity of market relationships, contributing to flexibility, but also to uncertainty. The paper argues that these issues will become more important in the post-COVID era, due to the plea for increasing Bioeconomy resilience. New organisational concepts and models are hence needed. Evaluation, on the other hand, will need to be embedded even more in the decision-making processes, in spite of the increasing uncertainty and difficulties in evaluation.

Introduction and Objectives

The concept of Bioeconomy has developed in the last 15 years and is growingly adopted to define the aggregate of sectors using biological resources. The Bioeconomy is actually defined in different ways in different contexts, in particular because Bioeconomy strategies are focusing on different sectors depending on countries and areas of the world.

In the EU, a new boost to the Bioeconomy has been given by the launch of the revised Bioeconomy strategy by the EU Commission in October 2018 [ 11 ]. According to the strategy, the Bioeconomy is defined in a comprehensive way as follows: “The bioeconomy covers all sectors and systems that rely on biological resources (animals, plants, micro-organisms and derived biomass, including organic waste), their functions and principles. It includes and interlinks: land and marine ecosystems and the services they provide; all primary production sectors that use and produce biological resources (agriculture, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture); and all economic and industrial sectors that use biological resources and processes to produce food, feed, bio-based products, energy and services. To be successful, the European Bioeconomy needs to have sustainability and circularity at its heart. This will drive the renewal of our industries, the modernisation of our primary production systems, the protection of the environment and will enhance biodiversity” [ 11 ].

The economic and business literature is working to identify structuring concepts allowing a better understanding of this idea. A broad review is provided by Viaggi [ 25 ], while recent updates in terms of economic organisation are illustrated in Viaggi [ 26 ]. Besides the sector coverage, key qualifying features of the Bioeconomy are that, on the one hand, it builds on a wide range of modern technologies; on the other hand, it aims at sustainability, by explicitly including ecosystem management.

In recent years, the concept of Circular Economy (CE) has also become mainstream to answer the societal concern for resources limitations and planet boundaries. As a result, the focus of policy and research is today moving towards the concept of Circular Bioeconomy (CBE). It is usually acknowledged that the Bioeconomy does not imply circularity, which means that a circular Bioeconomy needs to be achieved through a deliberate policy strategy backed by supporting research. In this process, understanding the economic features of a CBE is important, as well as providing suitable evaluation and valuation practices to support decision-making.

In this direction, two gaps emerge in the literature. First, in spite of the growing attention being taken by circularity, the development of a rigorous economic framework to interpret its role in the Bioeconomy is still absent in the literature. Second, circularity is not a property that can be understood in isolation, but rather requires to be framed into a number of other organisational properties of the Bioeconomy systems, such as separability of processes, cascading and flexibility. The need to clarify these issues interacts with the re-positioning of the Bioeconomy in the post-COVID era. In particular the trade-offs between short-term efficiency (required for competitiveness), flexibility and resilience (advocated for crisis management) and circularity (advocated to ensure longer-term resource efficiency) may become more evident in the post-COVID context.

The objective of this paper is to review selected insights about the current economic research on the Bioeconomy and CE, with a particular focus on the role of the primary sector, and to derive implications for organisation, evaluation and valuation practice in the context of the post-COVID era through the proposal of a conceptual economic framework of the CBE.

The reminder of the paper is organised as follows. In the “Main Conceptual, Technological and Organisational Issues in the Bioeconomy” section, we review selected concepts shaping the organisation of Bioeconomy systems. In the “Bioeconomy and Circular Economy” section. we review the main concepts linking the Bioeconomy and the CE (in particular CE application to the Bioeconomy). Based on the integration of these two sections, in the “Towards a Framework for Circular Bioeconomy Organisation and Evaluation in the Post-COVID Era” section, we provide a framework for the analysis of circular Bioeconomy, focusing in particular on market and organisation, evaluation and valuation practice in the context of the post-COVID era. The “Discussion and Final Remarks” section concludes with some discussion and final remarks.

The literature review part of this paper does not follow a systematic methodology. The literature was selected after a search in Scopus using the keywords “CIRCULAR” AND “BIOECONOMY” and filtering for papers in “Business, management and accounting” and “Economics, econometrics and finance”. This yielded 92 papers. Upon inspection of the papers, however, we found that very few of them addressed the problem of framing and modelling the circular Bioeconomy. So we proceeded working on few selected papers and using them to enrich existing frameworks for the Bioeconomy. The outcome is presented in the “Towards a Framework for Circular Bioeconomy Organisation and Evaluation in the Post-COVID Era” section, and it is the main result of this work.

Main Conceptual, Technological and Organisational Issues in the Bioeconomy

Before addressing the issue of circularity, we review the main issues affecting the economic organisation of the Bioeconomy and potentially interacting with circularity. This section is not intended to provide a thorough literature review on the topic, but rather to present selected topics building on already established literature, focusing on organisational issues drawn from Chapters 4, 5 and 6 of Viaggi [ 25 ].

While there are many aspects of the Bioeconomy that can be relevant for the objective of this paper, in this section, we focus on six interconnected issues, roughly organised in the terms of increasing scale:

• The relevance of innovation processes
• The increased technological separability of processes
• The importance of flexibility and cascading
• Consumer’s acceptability and market segmentation
• The (partly consequent) increase in the complexity of the value chains
• The growing relevance of system-level organisational concepts

The relevance of innovation for the Bioeconomy is paramount [ 19 , 23 ]. Most of the concrete policies active in the Bioeconomy sector are based on the promotion of research and innovation [ 8 ], or regulating property rights on new technologies. Innovation implies that technical relationships change rapidly over time, which reflects also in high variability of costs and profits. As a result, also uncertainty is very high. In addition, profits are highly linked to the ability to market innovation properly, and, in turn, values are highly attached to expectation and information. Innovation is not only important in changing input-output relationship, but also in affecting the separability points and the flexibility of the processes, hence having effects on all the following points in this section. Finally, innovation may translate in completely new products with an issue in establishing consumers’ preferences on these products.

Many technologies in the Bioeconomy however are more interesting for their separability implications. One of the main interesting strategies of the Bioeconomy is indeed in the process of breaking down biomass into very simple components and in the ability of recomposing them into a variety of compounds and final products. The study by Taylor et al. [ 24 ] is paradigmatic in this direction, showing how a wide variety of biomass sources can be used to generate two types of sugar molecules, that can then be used to obtain complex materials (Figure ​ (Figure1). 1 ). The increased separability of processes emphasises a direction of change of technology that is already under way, allowing higher specialisation of production and also higher complexity of the value chains.

Example of platform chemicals in the sugar sector. Source: Taylor et al. [ 24 ]

However, separability itself is not telling the whole story of Bioeconomy organisation. On the one hand, flexibility is a characteristic of growing importance especially at processing plant level. Flexibility in this context means the ability of a plant to work with different feedstocks, adapting to availability and costs. It may also mean for a processing plant to be able to process different types of products. This is also explicitly bringing to the emergence of the concepts of flexible biomass and flexible processing plants [ 10 , 29 ]. On the other hand, the current development of the Bioeconomy is dominated by the idea of a cascading approach, incorporated in the biorefinery concept [ 4 ]. The cascading approach implies in particular the ordered treatment of biomass to the extraction of most valuable compounds, down to the production of bioenergy, hence ensuring a complete and efficient use of biomasses available [ 16 ].

In this new context, consumers and consumptions decisions have clearly a paramount role, and this is connected to the mechanisms of preferences building, that is in turn connected to information [ 15 ]. Many Bioeconomy technologies are known for the debate they have brought concerning acceptability. The most well-known example is probably genetic modified organisms. The fact that many products of the Bioeconomy may bring process innovations with uncertain acceptability reflects in high instability of preferences and market, and an important role of information. Even more important, the growing variety of products with rather different acceptability properties and appreciation by different consumers is leading to an exponential segmentation of markets and consumers groups [ 9 ]. This implies not only acknowledging, but also exploiting or even encouraging differentiation of behaviour and consumption habits.

As an effect of the above, the evolution of value chains becomes important and goes in the direction of increasing interaction between different value chains and towards the need to go beyond the value chain concept itself, towards representing the Bioeconomy system rather as a web of relationships, with a much higher number of interactions (Figure ​ (Figure2). 2 ). Here the concept of value web seems a promising pathway to go beyond that of value chain, which is somehow insufficient to account for the increased degree of interaction [ 22 , 27 ]. This process is also functional to a better resilience of the system. From an economic point of view, it is clear that there are trade-offs with potential higher coordination costs and, in general, transaction costs.

Evolution from value chains to a web of relationships. Source: own figure

As for the primary sector, the transformations above imply a much higher substitutability of biomass that would be further emphasised by CE (see below). At the same time, however, the distinction between cultivated and natural environment is fading. Cultivation is growing (see forestry, aquaculture) and substituting pure harvesting (e.g. fishing). Humanity is taking a number of actions to manage the functioning of the ecosphere (one could now say that we are approaching a level where we “cultivate the ecosphere”). This is somehow reflecting the idea of Anthropocene in the field of the Bioeconomy.

The issues addressed above go in the direction of making the Bioeconomy a more and more complex system, not only involving the supply side but event more the integration of social and ecological system. For this reason, system-level organisational concepts are advocated to address the Bioeconomy. An area of attention is that of interpreting the Bioeconomy through the concept of socio-ecological systems [ 7 , 20 ]. Even wider approaches are being proposed in order to enlarge the concept further, taking explicitly into account technology and value flows, e.g. as in the SETVIEW model [ 26 ].

Bioeconomy and Circular Economy

D’Amato et al. [ 5 ] analyse the concepts of CE and Bioeconomy together also with the concept of Green Economy (GE) by reviewing around two thousand scientific articles published in the last 30 years.

Looking at the main keywords and topics, the results of the analysis indicate that the concept of the CE is very homogenous when compared with the other two. It strongly and monolithically focuses on resource efficiency, with mostly an industrial perspective, and with little or no references to the social dimension of the problem. It became popular in the 1990s, and it is roughly based on the idea of setting up an economic system with no or little effect on the environment, by advocating the design of products that minimise both input use and waste. The corollary is a re-organisation of the economy characterised by a strong inter-sectorial cooperation and coordination.

The Bioeconomy idea puts a stronger emphasis on the use of renewable resources as both input and energy source in the industrial production process. Corollary to this idea is, on one hand, the crucial role of agriculture and forestry in providing the raw input needed and, on the other hand, the role of research and innovation to develop the technology needed for the transformational processes. The authors highlight the need for the Bioeconomy to embed the idea of circularity, that, if absent, as in much of the literature, would lead to a business as usual scenario.

The GE concept synthetises much of the previous ones but adds to them a relatively stronger focus on nature-based solution (e.g. the role of ecosystem services) and on the social dimension of the problem. In this prospect, the GE seems to work as an umbrella terms, covering many of the aspects developed by the other two ones. On the contrary, the point of intersections between CE and Bioeconomy are rather limited, even though there is an increasing consensus on the need to reconcile them.

A striking result from the literature review by D’Amato et al. [ 5 ] is that while all the three concepts are interdisciplinary in their nature, economics as a discipline has largely ignored them, with some exceptions related to the GE. This is also the result of the paper by Gregorio et al. [ 14 ] where the great bulk of the papers on the economic aspect of the problem are related to management rather than economics. As a consequence, formal models of CE or Bioeconomy are rather scarce.

One of the few economics perspectives on the CE is provided by George et al. [ 13 ]. Their focus is on the optimal path of economic growth when production inputs can be both a polluting resource (such as oil) and a recycled material. Pollution is generated by the use of the polluting resource or by the stock of product that is not consumed or recycled. The model results follow in a rather mechanistic way. Given the assumptions of the model, the growth rate of consumption increases with the recycling ratio (the exogenously determined capacity of the system to recycle), and society will substitute the polluting with the recycled one as the cost of the former increases. Similarly to George et al. [ 13 ], García-Barragán et al. [ 12 ] develop an economic growth model but with the objective to measure to what extent a path is circular rather than linear. A key feature of their model is that consumer preferences depend on the functionality of the foods rather than of the materials that compose them. Production inputs are here as well both virgin and recycled materials and both entail externalities. The optimum entails that the stream of materials of both types is such that the future and marginal benefits are equal to the social marginal cost of recycling. Given these features, “the circular activity of the economy is defined as the difference between the optimal recycling activity and the optimal linear activity penalised by intolerance factors” [ 12 ]. In line with the findings of the literature review by D’Amato et al. [ 5 ], the formal models addressing the CE revolve around the concept of recycling. In this prospect, an integration with the Bioeconomy perspective would be useful in adding two dimensions to the problem of circularity: (1) the nature of the raw material (whether is renewable or not) and (2) the costly research and development activities needed to develop the technologies required.

Moving to the Bioeconomy, Zilberman et al. [ 31 ] provide a simple and illustrative economic treatment of the idea. The authors sketch the main issues related to the share of renewable and non-renewable resources, taking energy production as an example. The use of non-renewable resources is characterised by high investment costs and very low variable costs that however increase over time as the resource becomes scarcer and scarcer. A technology that relies on renewable resources entails instead even higher investment costs, and low variable costs that might even decrease over time as the technology develops. As long as the exploitation of the resource does not exceed the rate of the regeneration, its use in the production activities can be sustained over time. More likely the two systems coexist, and the optimal share of the use of the two resources is given by the equalisation of the demand with their social marginal costs. The model depicted is rather simple and leaves out more questions than they solve.

The first point that must be addressed is the fact that while biological resources are renewable, they need land to be harvested and cultivated, and land is a finite resource. In this prospect, while biological resources can be sustained indefinitely, the marginal cost of using land might be increasing, as land with lower and lower quality is put into production. This raises another issue (raised by Zilberman et al. [ 31 ] too): the use of land for agriculture is in competition with ecosystem services and habitat, and the use of land for producing industrial inputs is in competition with food production [ 30 ].

Moreover, coordination among the sectors is not addressed while it seems to be a precondition for the emergence of the Bioeconomy [ 18 ]. In this prospect, however, the CE focus on recycling might be of help. Indeed, if the focus of Bioeconomy technologies revolves around the use of waste of food production, the aforementioned trade-offs are likely to be reduced, even though not to disappear. A cross-cutting issue is the role of research and development. The technology needed by the Bioeconomy revolution need to be developed through research. Research, however, is not a free lunch. From the economic point of view, an issue to be further deepened is the role of research funding for the development Bioeconomy technology and its relative added value to other mechanisms such as taxes in the reduction of negative externalities.

Moving from the theoretical analysis to the actions taken by actual firms, the need for the Bioeconomy to embed the notion of circularity at the core of the CE concept is highlighted by, e.g. Lokesh et al. [ 18 ]. In the framework of the Bioeconomy, however, some value chains cannot embrace circularity, as biomass used for energy delivery for example imply a dead-end. Lokesh et al. [ 18 ] map the potential value chains for which circularity can become a promising goal. D’Amato et al. [ 6 ] analyse to what extent companies involved in land use intensive sectors embrace the concepts aforementioned and use them to communicate their sustainability efforts. CE is by far the most dominant concepts across sectors and across continents. The Bioeconomy is the least used idea, and it is predominantly employed by firms located in Europe and in the forest sector. The notion of Bioeconomy and circularity entails substantial changes in the business model of the firms. Business models have been reviewed by Salvador et al. [ 21 ], who highlight several issues and hint at how to develop them for firms working in the circular-bioeconomy. Among the others, the development of new technologies is not itself a motive for success. This is especially true for the sector at stake, where the product itself is going to substitute existing ones, and thus it is difficult, and needed, to properly communicate the novelty of the product. Moreover, logistics is relatively more important for the circular Bioeconomy than for other traditional sectors, as transportation costs might represent a big share of total production costs. An attention to local markets, especially with respect to the input delivery, is of paramount importance.

Additional considerations of interest may be attached to the peculiarity of circularity related to biological resources. First, the fact that the biomass, sooner or later is degraded, implies that taking a system and time span large enough, the Bioeconomy cannot be completely circular. Second, circularity is connected to input availability and circularity (e.g. for fertilisers). Third, it is important the separation, but also the interplay, between circularity of biological and non-biological resources.

Towards a Framework for Circular Bioeconomy Organisation and Evaluation in the Post-COVID Era

There are several consequences of the trends illustrated above. We point here to three main relevant issues:

• The need to consider circular processes in the appropriate way, including related economic aspects
• The need to cast circularity in the increased complexity and interconnection of downstream and upstream markets
• The need for new forms of interaction between demand and supply

These topics have taken increasing importance over time for bio-based systems. However, the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemics has boosted their importance and the need for attention. In particular, the COVID-19 outbreak has pointed attention to the need for flexible and resilient systems, able to respond to totally unexpected situations. This goes beyond what has actually happened during the COVID outbreak, as attention now is not so much to the possible replication of this pandemic, but rather to the idea that completely new shocks may occur, possibly taking different (and unknown) forms and systems need to be ready for this uncertainty.

The need to consider circular processes through a proper economic analysis relates to the issue of addressing appropriately the economic aspects of circularity in the valuation. The main drawbacks are the lack of consideration of the distinction between renewable and non-renewable resources and the poor consideration of research and the dynamics of the optimal share of non-renewable resources. This is connected to management issues, such as the fact that production cost accounting with recycling requires appropriate approaches. The key background issue relates to the economic problem of taking into account or even evaluate the optimal level of recycling or of circularity in a system [ 17 , 28 ].

Figure ​ Figure3 3 builds upon Zilberman et al. [ 31 ] and illustrates the economic forces at stake in determining the optimal amount of non-renewable resources, renewable ones and recycled resources. Assume that the demand of input does not distinguish among these typology of resources. On the other hand, each of the resource is delivered at different marginal costs, entailing different technologies. The figure depicts the social marginal costs for each of the resource typologies; such marginal costs include both the private one and the externalities associated with them. The optimal quantity is provided at the point where the demand is equal to the total marginal social costs ( MSC tot ) leading to a clearing price of p . The share of each of the resource typologies is found by intercrossing the price p with the respective MSC lines.

Optimal level of circularity with renewable, non-renewable and non-renewable recycled resources

Note that if the non-renewable resource was the only one available, the total social costs would be given by MSC nr , and the total quantity provided would be Q’ nr * . The introduction of the new technologies, recycling and the Bioeconomy has two effects. The first one is to increase the total supply of the resource, causing a reduction in the clearing price. The second one is a substantial reduction in the use of the non-renewable resource that is substituted with the other two. Simple comparative statics shows that a reduction in the marginal costs of any of the resource delivery has similar effects: an increase in the total supply, a reduction in the price of the resources, and an increase in the use of the resource for which the marginal costs has reduced and a parallel reduction in the use of the other resources.

Important pieces of information are however missing in this simple representation. Technology adoption entails (often high) fixed costs that, while do not affect input use at the margin, affect the adoption of the technology as a whole.

Assuming that higher circularity has a higher marginal cost (higher marginal costs of recycling technology and lower marginal environmental cost due to decrease pressure on the environment), it is likely that there will be a non-trivial issue in understanding what level of circularity is optimal and how it evolves over time. This needs to be further investigated upfront, in order to support meaningful (from an economic point view) transition processes. It however requires the consideration of multiple information and the evaluation of trustable marginal supply curve per technology. This is clearly a difficult area for economic valuation, but it is also the area likely allowing the higher benefit for the analysis of circular Bioeconomy systems.

All these problems were born to solve the problem of sustainability and of environmental degradation. But the technologies to solve this issues (recycling and Bioeconomy) need research that is not a free lunch. One could ask, for example, what is better: taxing polluting activities or investing in research, or both (with may be connected use of funding)?

As a second point of attention, the complexification of the system and the increasing number of separability points need to be considered together with the concept of circularity. In other words, circularity does not mean just re-using products prior to disposal, but exploiting the possibilities offered by the system in terms of connection among chains, or, where suitable, the degradation of the organic material to the most simple components in such a way to allow for the maximum usability in different options. This is also an aspect that allow higher level of flexibility in principle and hence potentially contribute to a system needing resilience. Together with resilience, however, it can bring also potential problems. One of them is the increase of interconnections among markets of different products that can increase volatility of prices, or unpredictability/volatility of economic performance for individual firms, due to interlinkages of shocks.

Summing up the two points above, we can imagine expanding the concept of Figure ​ Figure3 3 to a mix of tens or hundreds of potential sources of supply for the same product, interacting among each other, with a degree of flexibility and complexity exacerbated by circularity.

As a result of the above, top-down organisational solutions become less and less credible and in turn new forms of governance gain importance. This is also relevant for economic research and for the kind of contribution economics and management can give to the process. One of the most evident changes looking at the current trends in, e.g. research funding, is the move from cost analysis to business models. Far from being incidental, this move reflects the understanding that cost estimation is quickly obsolete and may require a number of assumptions. In addition, costs tend to look at the issue of drop-in products (product with same features from a new process), rather than looking at exploiting the potential of new products. Business models, on the contrary, look explicitly at the way to provide value for clients and society. On the other hand, business models are also difficult to study as they acknowledge the evolutions of contexts and companies, the potential for success and failure and the role of creativity and entrepreneurship, letting alone the role of context characteristics, heterogeneity and local adaptation.

Taking into account the need of flexibility and resilience in the post-COVID era, these trends offer clearly an opportunity to achieve a bioeconomy system able to face unexpected events and to react to shocks. However, flexibility may be costly either in terms of volatility or coordination costs and needs hence to be governed thorough appropriate processes.

In this direction, it is apparent how evaluation will become more important, but also more complex and difficult, due to the need to account for dynamic processes and a larger variety of interconnected markets. In addition, it will become more uncertain. As a consequence of the combination of high potential and high uncertainty, evaluation will need to become an inherent aspect of decision-making processes, more than in the past, but, at the same time, with a higher awareness of difficulties and limitations also by users of the evaluation. This entails the need to address evaluation having in mind a broader context than in the past, both in the sense of geographical scope and time horizon, but also in terms of the variety of the economic sectors considered.

While this is challenging, these trends also bring certainly opportunities linked to the growing demand for evaluation and valuation, as well as demands for methodological innovation. The concept of business model already goes in the direction of exploring value creation with a view at the interconnection between demand and supply. Key to this innovation will be the combination of new evaluation needs, higher computational needs and new data availability landscape brought by the process of digitalisation.

An aspect of this is also a renewed attention to the mechanisms related to the creation of value, with different branches of the literature pointing in turn to either the new promissory economies linked to innovation and financial markets [ 1 , 2 ] or to new concepts of values due to the use of living organisms, such as the biovalue [ 3 ].

Discussion and Final Remarks

The development of a CBE is certainly bringing several challenges, still to some extent hidden by the partial understating of the current social and economic transition. In this paper we have attempted to provide a framework to address the issue of Bioeconomy and circularity in the post-COVID era, building on a classical comparative statics framework. We show how circularity contributes to the increase of connections among markets and how this interacts with separability in boosting the complexification of the Bioeconomy system. It also contributes, at the same time, to flexibility and uncertainty. As a result, moving to CBE also requires attention to appropriate economic organisation concepts and evaluation procedures, allowing to address novel concepts such as flexibility, resilience and complex systems rather than mere advocacy and description of value chains. In this direction, it is also apparent how evaluation will become more important, but also more complex and difficult, due to the need to account for dynamic processes and a larger variety of interconnected markets.

These issues are particularly relevant for the primary sector, because the increased flexibility and variety of processing approaches also reflect in higher substitutability among biomass sources, hence high competition and volatility of markets, as well as the need of providing clear anchoring between territory and chains based on socio-economic structures rather than physical constraints.

Finally this process is probably further promoted by the effects of the pandemics, calling for an increase in flexibility, resilience and preparedness to future (unknown) shocks. In the context of the pandemics, however, it is likely that the potential trade-offs between flexibility and fairness will be more balanced, due to the high social attention for the topic.

The main limitations of this paper rest in the lack of empirical application and in the simplified qualitative elaboration on alternative organisational pathways. On the other hand, these limitation hint at pathways for future research and improved approach to policy and actors support. Two clear directions for further research are related to: (a) the investigation of system-level organisational models, properly accounting for value web structures, and (b) evolution of business models research in the direction of better incorporating the interaction with these networks.

Author Contribution

The paper is a common work of the authors that jointly conceptualised, planned and revised the text. Davide Viaggi wrote the “Main Conceptual, Technological and Organisational Issues in the Bioeconomy” section; Matteo Zavalloni wrote the “Bioeconomy and Circular Economy” section; the “Introduction and Objectives”, “Towards a Framework for Circular Bioeconomy Organisation and Evaluation in the Post-COVID Era” and “Discussion and Final Remarks” sections were jointly written by the authors.

Open access funding provided by Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.

Code Availability

Data availability, declarations.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Advertisement

Supported by

Henry Louis Gates Jr. Unpacks Black Literature’s ‘Black Box’

In his latest book, the Harvard scholar shows how African American writers have used the written word to shape their reality despite constraints imposed on them from outside.

• Share full article

By Tope Folarin

Tope Folarin is a writer and critic. He is the executive director of the Institute for Policy Studies and the author of the novel “A Particular Kind of Black Man.”

THE BLACK BOX: Writing the Race , by Henry Louis Gates Jr.

By way of explaining the metaphor that serves as the title of his latest book, “The Black Box,” the Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. transcribes a conversation he had with his son-in-law after the birth of his granddaughter 10 years ago:

“Did you check the box?” I asked, apropos of nothing we had just discussed. Without missing a beat, my good son-in-law responded, “Yes, sir. I did.” “Very good,” I responded, as I poured a second shot of Pappy Van Winkle.

The box that Gates’s son-in-law checked on a birth registration form indicates that his granddaughter is Black, even though his daughter’s genetic admixture is 75 percent European, and his son-in-law is 100 percent European. In other words, as Gates notes, his granddaughter “will test about 87.5 percent European when she spits in the test tube.”

Gates offers this anecdote to suggest the arbitrariness of racial categories, and to focus our attention on the image of the box — a container that can function simultaneously as a “circumscribed enclosure” and a zone in which the confined can create a thriving “social and cultural world.”

For Gates, the box is a supple concept. Not only does it appear with surprising frequency in literature by Black Americans — from the fugitive slave author Henry Box Brown (who escaped slavery in a box) to Booker T. Washington (who described the box as a barrel) to the contemporary poet Terrance Hayes — but Gates extends the metaphor to other kinds of boxes that relate to Black experience, to ordeals withstood and survived. He cites an airplane’s flight recorder box, a device that “preserves a record of the truth amid disastrous circumstances,” and the slave ship, before arriving at his thesis: African Americans have consistently relied on the written word to express and shape their reality despite the constraints imposed on them from outside, which they have endured since they were first brought to this continent.

“The Black Box” is based on lectures Gates has delivered for many years in his Introduction to African American Studies class at Harvard. From the beginning, he shows, African Americans have turned to literary forms to validate their humanity. He quickly sketches the childhood of Phillis Wheatley — her journey to America via slave ship, her rapid mastery of English — and the varied responses to her poetry, which she began to publish as a precocious teenager.

Wheatley’s success undermined the prevailing sentiment that Black Americans were less intelligent than their white counterparts, and in response to her art some thinkers, such as Voltaire, revised their formerly negative perspectives on Black people, while others, including Thomas Jefferson, remained steadfast in their views. (Jefferson on Wheatley: “The compositions published under her name are below the dignity of criticism.”)

Gates traces the history of slave narratives, a genre that “always told the story” of how enslaved authors “learned to read and write, and always, always, of course, of their escape to freedom.” And he describes the intense conversations within the Black American community around self-definition: “They stood on uncertain ground. Were they Africans, Americans, both, or neither?” In each of these instances, as throughout his book, Gates adroitly demonstrates how literature served as a site of self-interrogation and a pathway to liberation.

In other chapters, Gates writes about the manifold contributions of W.E.B. Du Bois; the boldness and flair of the Harlem Renaissance generation; the fierce debate between Zora Neale Hurston and Richard Wright over the proper way to represent the Black experience in literature; and the politics of passing.

Many of these ideas will be familiar to readers — Gates has written about them before. The allure of this book, and the reason for its existence, are the narrative links he draws among these people and events, and his insistence that a survey of African American history is incomplete without a special consideration of how writing has undergirded and powered it. This is a literary history of Black America, but it is also an argument that African American history is inextricable from the history of African American literature.

“The Black Box” arrives at an auspicious moment. This year marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of a great man of American and African American letters: James Baldwin. Next year marks the 100th anniversary of the publication of “The New Negro,” an anthology of fiction, poetry, art and essays edited by Alain Locke that is widely regarded as a defining text of the Harlem Renaissance.

This is also a moment when many politicians are hard at work revising our shared history in order to justify present-day policy agendas. Gates addresses this phenomenon in his concluding chapter, portions of which appeared in The New York Times a year ago. He invokes the story of Mildred Lewis Rutherford, the historian general of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, who argued throughout her career that the Civil War was simply “the War Between the States,” and had nothing to do with slavery.

As Gates notes, it is important to repeat the truth about history as often as possible, and to repel efforts to redefine it, because “what is inscribed on the blackboard translates directly to social practices unfolding on the street.”

THE BLACK BOX : Writing the Race | By Henry Louis Gates Jr. | Penguin Press | 262 pp. | $30

Explore More in Books

Want to know about the best books to read and the latest news start here..

You never know what’s going to go wrong in these graphic novels, where Circus tigers, giant spiders, shifting borders and motherhood all threaten to end life as we know it .

When the author Tommy Orange received an impassioned email from a teacher in the Bronx, he dropped everything to visit the students  who inspired it.

A few years ago, Harvard acquired the archive of Candida Royalle, a porn star turned pioneering director. Now, the collection has inspired a new book , challenging the conventional history of the sexual revolution.

Gabriel García Márquez wanted his final novel to be destroyed. Its publication this month  may stir questions about posthumous releases.

Do you want to be a better reader?   Here’s some helpful advice to show you how to get the most out of your literary endeavor .

Each week, top authors and critics join the Book Review’s podcast to talk about the latest news in the literary world. Listen here .