Sustainable Production and Consumption 29 (2022) 215–227 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Sustainable Production and Consumption journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/spc Sustainability implications of transformation pathways for the bioeconomy Sascha Stark a,b,∗, Lisa Biber-Freudenberger a, Thomas Dietz c, Neus Escobar d, Jan Janosch Förster a, James Henderson a, Natalie Laibach e, Jan Börner a,f a Center for Development Research, University of Bonn, Genscherallee 3, 53113 Bonn, Germany b Bioeconomy Science Center (BioSC), c/o Forschungszentrum Jülich, 52425 Jülich, Germany c Institute of Political Science, University of Münster, Schlossplatz 2, 48149 Münster, Germany d Biodiversity and Natural Resources (BNR) Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Schlossplatz 1, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria e Center for Research in Agricultural Genomics (CRAG), Edifici C, Campus de Bellaterra (UAB), 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain f Institute for Food and Resource Economics, University of Bonn, Nussallee 21, 53115, Germany a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Countries around the world are devising and implementing bioeconomy strategies to initiate transforma- Received 30 April 2021 tion towards sustainable futures. Modern concepts of bioeconomy extend beyond bio-based energy provi- Revised 13 October 2021 sion and include: (1) the substitution of fossil resource-based inputs to various productive sectors, such as Accepted 15 October 2021 the chemical industry and the construction sector, (2) more efficient, including new and cascading uses of Available online 17 October 2021 biomass, and (3) a low bulk, but high-value biologisation of processes in agro-food, pharmaceutical, and Editor: Dr. Dennis Eversberg recycling industries. Outcomes of past attempts at engineering transformation, however, proved to be context-dependent and contingent on appropriate governance measures. In this paper we theoretically Keywords: Bioeconomy motivate and apply a system-level theory of change framework that identifies central mechanisms and Bio-based transformation four distinct pathways, through which bio-based transformation can generate positive or negative out- Transformation pathway comes in multiple domains of the Sustainable Development Goals. Based on emblematic examples from Sustainability three bio-based sectors, we apply the framework illustrating how case-specific mixes of transformation Governance pathways emerge and translate into outcomes. We find that the observed mixes of transformation path- ways evoke distinct mechanisms that link bioeconomic change to sustainability gains and losses. Based on this insight we derive four key lessons that can help to inform the design of strategies to enable and regulate sustainable bioeconomies. © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Institution of Chemical Engineers. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 1. Introduction must be informed by theory and guided by appropriate conceptual frameworks (Ostrom, 2009). The lack of interdisciplinary frame- A stronger reliance on the use of biological resources across all works that identify which components of economic, social, and economic sectors (i.e., a bio-based transformation) is often pro- environmental systems matter for bio-based transformation pro- posed as a green growth strategy. Besides non-bio-based renew- cesses and their outcomes constitutes a major research gap (El- able energy, green growth includes the technology-driven emer- Chichakli et al., 2016). In particular, we need to better understand gence of valuable alternatives to fossil resource-based products and what drives the emergence of key enabling technologies and what calls for new economic principles (Mathews, 2009; Borgström and combination of policy incentives is needed to promote sustainable Mauerhofer, 2016). Visions of the future bioeconomy, however, bioeconomic innovation processes under varying contextual condi- tend to rely on strong assumptions about the economic, social, tions (Dietz et al., 2018; Laibach et al., 2019). and environmental sustainability of bio-based technologies and Modern concepts of bioeconomy go far beyond the bioenergy models of development (Staffas et al., 2013). Research that scru- framing that dominated the discourse in the early 20 0 0s and in- tinizes whether and under what conditions such assumptions hold clude diverse applications, namely: (1) the substitution of fossil resource-based inputs in various productive sectors, such as the chemical and construction sectors (El Kadib and Bousmina, 2012; ∗ Corresponding author. Lelievre et al., 2014), (2) more efficient cascading uses of biomass E-mail address: sstark@uni-bonn.de (S. Stark). (Prins et al., 2006), and (3) a ‘biologization’ of processes in food, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.10.011 2352-5509/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Institution of Chemical Engineers. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) S. Stark, L. Biber-Freudenberger, T. Dietz et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 29 (2022) 215–227 pharmaceutical, and recycling industries that require low input acteristic real-world examples to explore its usefulness as an an- volumes and yield high-value outputs (German Bioeconomy Coun- alytical tool (Section 3). In Section 4 of the paper, we discuss our cil, 2016). As such, the dominant bioeconomy discourse embraces insights and extract lessons learned for sustainability governance. “efficiency” as a sustainability paradigm, but elements of consis- Section 5 concludes and gives an outlook for theory and practice. tency and sufficiency (D’Amato et al., 2017; Hausknost et al., 2017) are also increasingly entering the debates as the early hype cycle 2. A theory of change for bio-based transformation levels off (Biber-Freudenberger et al., 2020). The current bioeconomy already contributes significantly to na- The underlying idea of a theory of change follows the logic of tional economies around the world regardless of its transforma- a recursive impact analysis which is then depicted in a flowchart. tive potential. For example, in the European Union (EU), the bioe- In an early conceptualization originally designed for the evalu- conomy is estimated to generate a turnover of €2.2 trillion, a ation of comprehensive community initiatives, Weiss (1995) de- quarter of which comes from the food industry. Approximately fines the ToC as a theory of how and why an initiative works. 17.5 million people are employed in bio-based economic activ- Connell and Kubisch (1998) advance this definition by a system- ities, predominantly in the agricultural sector (KCB, 2020). The atic and cumulative approach to study the links between activi- bioeconomy in Argentina contributed 16.1% to the country’s GDP ties, outcomes, and contexts of change processes. Starting from an in 2017 (Lachman et al., 2020). In Malaysia, bio-based value- intended long-term outcome, preconditions or activities necessary added accounted for around 12% of the national GDP in 2016 to achieve this outcome are determined. In a next step, contex- (FAO, 2018). Clearly, countries differ in terms of natural resources tual factors are identified that may have an influence on the im- endowments and socioeconomic as well as technological devel- plementation of these activities and thus affect the intended out- opment trajectories. These contextual factors co-determine not comes. Anderson (2005) understands ToC as an explanation of how only stages and prospects of bioeconomic transformation (Biber- a group of stakeholders or analysts expect an intervention or a Freudenberger et al., 2018), they also result in different perceptions change process to reach a long-term goal. She emphasizes four of priorities among sustainability goals and options for technologi- core elements, including (1) a pathway of change that illustrates cal change (Laibach et al., 2019). the links between mid-term outcomes (preconditions) and long- A growing literature focuses on measuring or assessing sustain- term outcomes, (2) the definition of specific indicators to measure ability implications of bioeconomic change (Escobar et al., 2018; outcomes, (3) interventions used to bring the preconditions on the Haddad et al., 2019; Nong et al., 2020; Robert et al., 2020). Given pathway, and (4) assumptions that provide the background for the that bioeconomy strategies in the United States and EU initially theory. The ToC can thus be understood as an outline of the build- focused on the energy sector, much of the early contributions to ing blocks and relationships between them that would lead to an this literature looked at policies and technological solutions for outcome (Stein and Valters, 2012). bioenergy-based transformation processes, as well as their drivers and outcomes (Söderberg and Eckerberg, 2013; Popp et al., 2014a). In a review of early bioeconomy literature, Pfau et al. (2014) found 2.1. Outcomes that most contributions identify necessary conditions for bio-based transformation to result in sustainability gains. Such conditions ap- The framework proposed in Dietz et al. (2018) adopts the core ply to both political and technology-focused bioeconomy strategies elements of the ToC approach to identify key components and and often vary by context, which represents a significant challenge mechanisms that can work towards both sustainable and non- for anticipating and governing transformation. While being aware sustainable outcomes of bioeconomic transformations. Such out- of the debate on the governability of transitions, we adopt a nor- comes can, for example, be measured in terms of the Sustain- mative view of transformation and seek to identify entry points able Development Goals (SDG).1 , many of which are thought to for what has been called governance for and of transformations be directly or indirectly affected by bio-based transformation pro- (Patterson et al., 2017). cesses (UN General Assembly, 2015; El-Chichakli et al., 2016). We To analyze sustainability transformations, a number of different note that this does explicitly include the possibility of adverse out- analytical perspectives and theoretical frameworks have emerged comes. For example, multiple SDG outcome dimensions potentially in the literature to help structure the analysis of technologies or imply goal conflicts, such as competition between food and bioen- sectors and related transformation dynamics (Köhler et al., 2019; ergy or biomaterial production leading to indirect land use change Zolfagharian et al., 2019). The field of bioeconomy research is still (iLUC) or deforestation (Gerssen-Gondelach et al., 2014; Pfau et al., dominated by contributions with a sectoral or value-chain focused 2014; Cerri et al., 2018) and other forms of environmental degra- perspective (see Gottinger et al. (2020) for a systematic overview). dation or resource overuse (Sheppard et al., 2011; Pfau et al., Dietz et al. (2018) have proposed elements of a more general con- 2014; Kleinschmit et al., 2017; Zilberman et al., 2018). Beyond im- ceptual framework that can be used to characterize archetypical pacts on food markets, the mainstream bioeconomy literature has bio-based transformations. The framework follows an established so far rarely addressed social issues (D’Amato et al., 2017; Sanz- Theory of Change (ToC) logic (Thornton et al., 2017), which re- Hernández et al., 2019; Dieken et al., 2021). quires analysts to identify the drivers, contextual determinants, and causal mechanisms through which change processes result in 2.2. Transformation pathways both desirable and undesirable outcomes. Similar highly visible, but system-specific, contributions have recently been put forward The interventions or change processes necessary through which in the context of global food system transformation (Bhunnoo and outcomes materialize in the bioeconomy are represented by four Poppy, 2020; Herrero et al., 2020). The global food system can be transformation pathways (TP), which we describe in more detail understood as a subsystem of the bioeconomy. below. The TP typology arose from both theoretical considerations This paperś main contribution is to operationalize the frame- work proposed by Dietz et al. (2018). After summarizing its main 1 elements, we proceed in two steps: First, we theoretically explore Note that we understand the SDG here as a normative statement that reflects desirable outcomes as a result of a negotiation process among members of the how alternative configurations of the framework can result in dis- global community of nations. This statement is subject to ongoing and future de- tinct sustainable and non-sustainable transformation trajectories bate, but can serve here as a benchmark against which outcomes of bio-based (Section 2). And second, we apply the framework to three char- transformation processes can be evaluated. 216 S. Stark, L. Biber-Freudenberger, T. Dietz et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 29 (2022) 215–227 and empirical observations. According to economic theory, fac- in agricultural productivity tend to reduce commodity prices and tor substitution and efficiency gains are key mechanisms through hence the demand for agricultural land – an effect commonly re- which resource scarcity and technological innovation can interact ferred to as the Borlaug hypothesis (Lobell et al., 2013). At na- to result in economic growth and related transformation processes tional or regional level, however, higher agricultural productivity (Ruttan, 20 0 0). Moreover, innovations based on biological princi- may lead to increased resource demand – i.e., rebound effects ples (e.g., to provide alternative sources of energy and materials) also known as the ‘Jevons Paradox’ – including land, with neg- or the use of biological components in pharmaceutical applications ative social and environmental consequences at agricultural fron- are frequently cited as key enabling technologies for bioeconomic tiers, for example, in the tropics (Angelsen and Kaimowitz, 2001; transformation (Wohlgemuth et al., 2021). If we consider the bioe- Ceddia et al., 2013; Villoria, 2019). Under this transformation path- conomy to consist of the sectors that produce, process, or other- way, market mechanisms and innovation transfers hence interact wise use bio-based resources, the four TP described below repre- in mediating behavioral change of economic actors. Technologi- sent a convenient (though clearly not exclusive) set of conceptual cal development and innovation transfer result in spatially hetero- pathways, through which economic activities may become ‘biolo- geneous patterns of agricultural productivity change, while mar- gized’. ket mechanisms mediate further adjustments in prices across both To validate this approach, we asked participants in a global commodity and factor markets. bioeconomy expert survey2 about promising technology fields for TP 3 - Increases in biomass use efficiency and new biomass uses: a sustainable bioeconomy. Respondents of the survey covered a A more efficient use of biomass by processing industries and end wide range of sectors relevant to bioeconomy such as agriculture, consumers can be driven by technological innovation and public biotechnology, energy, chemistry, forestry, food and nutrition, fish- policies, as well as through changes in societal norms and value eries, wood and paper, health and pharma, as well as the profes- systems (Batidzirai et al., 2013; Singh and Setiawan, 2013). It can sionals engaged in environmental settings or social sciences (see contribute to the reduction of (1) waste streams, e.g., through re- Delbrück et al. (2018) for more information on sample descrip- cycling, and (2) bio-based commodity prices by alleviating biomass tion and results). The large majority of responses could be sum- scarcity on local and global markets, and relates to the intersec- marized under the four complementary functional categories de- tion of bioeconomy and circular economy known as the Circular scribed in Dietz et al. (2018), which leads us to consider them here Bioeconomy (Carus and Dammer, 2018). If technological and in- as archetypical bioeconomic transformation pathways (TP): stitutional innovations create new forms of biomass-based appli- TP 1 - Substitution of fossil- by bio-based resources: This com- cations, such as material uses or conversion to platform chemi- paratively well-studied transformation pathway is driven by grow- cals, new or more complex value chains emerge with complex im- ing environmental concerns, mainly related to scarcity of fossil re- pacts on material flows (Berg et al., 2018). Depending on the na- sources, energy security, and climate change, together with pub- ture of demand for intermediate and end products from such value lic policies that shape production and consumption decisions, e.g. chains, increased biomass conversion efficiencies can increase the biofuel mandates (Sharman and Holmes, 2010; Adams et al., 2011; consumption of bio-based resources while generating unexpected Lin et al., 2011; Jeffers et al., 2013; Popp et al., 2014b). As a conse- rebound effects. As a result, it is difficult to predict the sustainabil- quence, a relatively large share of energy production relies on both ity outcomes mediated by policy, market, and innovation transfer agricultural crops and forest biomass as raw materials (OECD and in this important area of bio-based transformation. Uncertainties FAO, 2019; WBA, 2019). Additional concerns about waste genera- arise from the limited knowledge about (a) how new technologies tion and environmental pollution (e.g. plastic litter) have recently disseminate or perform at different scale, and (b) industries and motivated a growing interest in more advanced material applica- consumers’ responses to known products with new attributes or tions such as bioplastics (Gironi and Piemonte, 2011; Colwill et al., entirely new bio-based products and applications. 2012; Philp, 2014). The corresponding increase in intermediate de- TP 4 - Bio-based value added in low-volume/ high-value indus- mand for biomass affects factor markets (e.g., capital, labor, and tries: The introduction of biological principles in technical appli- land as inputs in bio-based primary sectors), which can result in cations, such as enzymatic synthesis, can produce bioeconomic expansion or intensification of agricultural activity depending on change with no or negligible impact on biomass flows (Jung et al., local context factors, such as factor endowments as well as me- 2012). This largely innovation-induced transformation pathway can diators including environmental policy effectiveness (Ceddia et al., reduce costs and increase added value in a potentially large range 2014; Hertel et al., 2019). Subsequent market-mediated responses of industry applications (Cockburn et al., 1999). However, this type can have detrimental effects on both environmental and social in- of bio-based added value is usually knowledge intensive and re- dicators depending on whether food and non-food biomass pro- quires high-skilled labor. For example, the biopharmaceutical in- duction compete for land and other natural resources such as wa- dustry is considered a science-based industry whose growth and ter (To and Grafton, 2015). The risk of such undesired outcomes, profitability is highly dependent on successful research carried out however, can eventually be reduced, though not eliminated, by by a high-skilled labor workforce (Giunta et al., 2016). Thus, eco- technological innovation in biomass production, processing, or uti- nomic and environmental benefits from this transformation path- lization, and related regulatory governance measures (Tokgoz and way are likely to accrue primarily, at least initially, in industrialized Laborde, 2014). economies with advanced science and education systems. Promot- TP 2 - Increases in primary sector productivity: Technological in- ing innovation transfers is crucial to alleviate future undesired so- novation is the main driver of productivity increases in bio-based cioeconomic effects from unequal access to technologies between primary sectors. Many countries implement science, education, and industrialized and developing economies. Access and benefit shar- agricultural extension policy programs to promote biomass produc- ing at the global scale will depend on effective market mechanisms tivity enhancing technological change. The EU and China, for exam- and knowledge, as well as technology transfer to developing coun- ple, have been implementing various policy reforms to improve the tries. total factor productivity in their agricultural sectors (Swinnen and Similar to the “visions” in the typology developed by Vranken, 2010; Deininger et al., 2014). On a global scale, increases Bugge et al. (2016) and applied in empirical research by Hausknost et al. (2017) and Peltomaa (2018), the four transforma- 2 tion pathways as outlined above are complementary rather than The survey was designed by part of the author team and organized by BIOCOM AG on behalf of the German Bioeconomy Council in the context of the Global Bioe- mutually exclusive as we show in Section 3. Importantly, however, conomy Summit 2018. they serve a different purpose. While Bugge et al.’s visions typol- 217 S. Stark, L. Biber-Freudenberger, T. Dietz et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 29 (2022) 215–227 Fig. 1. Enhancing (a, a’) and deteriorating (b, b’) sustainability dynamics in the four phases of bioeconomic transformation. Source: adapted from Rotmans et al. (2001). ogy is useful to explain the origin of alternative bioeconomy dis- Radical innovations emerge in technological niches that are largely courses, the TP framing can be used to identify the key techno- outside the general sphere of perception and are supported by a economic mechanisms (e.g. substitution, enhanced productivity or small number of individual, collective or corporate actors. These efficiency, product or process innovation) through which a given niches interact with given sociotechnical regimes which are char- change process unfolds. Once identified, these mechanisms can in- acterized by more or less consolidated actor constellations, rules form about potential causal relationships between drivers and out- and conventions, as well as economic and technical structures comes of transformation processes and provide entry points for and can experience occasional changes through niche innovations sustainability governance. and, vice versa, influence their development. The sociotechnical regimes, in turn, are embedded in more permanent overarching conditions, i.e. sociotechnical landscapes, that are beyond the di- 2.3. Drivers, context, and mediators rect influence of niche and regime actors, e.g. population growth, economic growth, consumer culture or climate change. Changes in Factors that determine the relative predominance of TP and the landscape level create pressure on the regime and can eventu- their potential outcomes are structured into drivers, context, and ally enable breakthrough of niche innovations in mainstream mar- mediators (see Fig. 1 in Dietz et al., 2018). Innovation is seen as kets (Geels and Schot, 2007). one of the main drivers of productivity, profitability, and compet- Demographic and economic development as well as, increas- itiveness in the agricultural sector (OECD, 2013a), is the main and ingly, climate change and consumer awareness, thus often act increasing source of growth in OECD countries (OECD, 2013b), and as underlying Drivers that trigger (or induce) proximate drivers can accelerate the transition towards a sustainable food system of change, such as technological innovation or policy programs (Herrero et al., 2020). Virtually all modern bioeconomy strategies that anticipate or respond to societal needs. Transformation out- focus on innovation as the central driving mechanism for sustain- comes on the other hand, are leveraged by Mediators, such as able transformation (Dietz et al., 2018). Induced innovation and in- market mechanisms and transfers of knowledge or technologies novation systems theory are two influential schools of thought that (Fig. 1, top) at multiple geographical scales, which result in behav- can explain how innovation comes to play a key role as a proxi- ioral changes of economic actors at different levels (Bisoffi, 2019; mate driver of bioeconomic transformation. Kardung et al., 2021). The predominance and exposure to drivers Induced innovation theory was first proposed by and mediators are subject to Context-specific characteristics, such Hicks (1932) and later restated by Porter (1991) in the con- as natural resource endowment, infrastructure, and science and text of environmental policy. The Porter hypothesis suggests that education systems (Biber-Freudenberger et al., 2018; Hertel et al., environmental regulations, along with resource prices, can be a 2019). source of technological change leading to advances in environ- As the ToC implies a temporal dimension with TP as inter- mental or energy-efficient technologies and lowering compliance mediate outcomes for long-term goals, Dietz et al. (2018) invoke costs. Environmental policy is an important factor to steer inno- a well-known multi-phase concept (Rotmans et al., 2001), which vations in desirable directions. Regulatory governance measures describes direction, speed and size of transformation in com- such as environmental taxes and regulations lead to reductions plex systems as a s-shaped curve that goes through four phases: in pollution by shifting behavior away from polluting activities Pre-Development, Take-Off, Acceleration, and Stabilization/Relapse and encourage the development of new technologies that make (Bosman and Rotmans, 2016; Göpel, 2016). The s-curve, however, pollution control less costly in the long run (Newell et al., 1999; may deceive by describing an ideal-type transformation in terms Popp, 2002; Popp, 2019). of a single outcome. Moreover, bio-based transformation may not Innovation systems theory provides a complementary founda- be the only possible response to the underlying drivers. It is thus tion for the underlying drivers and the different phases of bioe- necessary to discuss how alternative transformation dynamics can conomic transformation. The multi-level perspective emphasizes emerge depending on the interaction of drivers, context, and me- the inseparable and interlinked connections between technological, diators. economic, political and cultural processes of change (Geels, 2002). 218 S. Stark, L. Biber-Freudenberger, T. Dietz et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 29 (2022) 215–227 2.4. Transformation dynamics 3.1. Case 1: food and non-food biomass production Any system of TP and their drivers, context factors, and medi- Various countries including leading bioeconomies in South ators must be expected to potentially evolve towards both posi- America, such as Argentina, Paraguay, and Brazil, have embarked tive and negative sustainability outcomes vis-à-vis the status quo. on TP 2 (productivity increase) driven by technological innovation Naturally, system complexity increases with the number of drivers, in agriculture and mediated by increasing demand from trade part- mediators, and related actors involved (e.g. when moving from lo- ners engaged in TP 1 (substitution). cal to national or global scale) and so does the risk of unexpected outcomes (Liu et al., 2007). 3.1.1. Context For example, regional or national mixes of transformation path- From 1985 to 2018, total harvest area of soybeans increased ways and possible spill-over effects will largely depend on the by 135% (FAOSTAT3 ). This growth is particularly present in coun- way policy makers and technology developers respond to pres- tries with a rich natural resource endowment. The contextual fac- sures imposed by underlying drivers in a given national context tor is depicted by the Status-Quo (SQ, Phase 0) of the transforma- (Hertel et al., 2019). Specifically, country-specific context-factors, tion curve in Fig. 2a. In South American production countries, total such as comparative advantages in natural resource endowment harvest area increased by 399% in Argentina, 242% in Brazil, and or labor supply, and historically determined legal and institutional over 388% in Paraguay between the years 1985–2018 (FAOSTAT). path dependencies, can lock national bioeconomies into certain Soybeans are an important agricultural commodity used in ani- mixes of transformation pathways - at least in the medium term mal feed, human consumption, and industrial purposes globally. (van den Bergh and Kallis, 2013). These context factors will then Due to the versatile composition of soybeans (high oil and high also co-determine the nature of the bioeconomy strategies adopted protein content), they have also become an essential input to the by decision-makers, and thus influence how and which mediating global bioeconomy as an inexpensive protein source for produc- factors, such as trade with selected world regions, have a bearing ing bio-fuels, bio-composite building materials, adhesives, inks, lu- on sustainability outcomes. bricants, and solvents (Brentin, 2014). Soybean based food, fiber, Potential deviations from the stylized s-curve of transformation feed, and fuel have been heralded as a sustainable and to reduce are depicted in Fig. 1. Sustainable enhancing (deteriorating) devel- vulnerability to price fluctuations of non-renewable raw materi- opment dynamics – green (red) line segments – can result from als (United Soybean Board, 2018). Today, the potential of bio-based favorable (unfavorable) interactions between system dynamics and products to create new markets for soybeans is supported by gov- governance responses (or lack thereof). For example, if an econ- ernments and industry alike (Westcott and Hansen, 2016). omy has embarked on the solid green transformation curve (a) in the pre-development phase, it can be thrown onto a sustain- 3.1.2. Drivers & mediators ability deteriorating path (b’) if economic rebound effects set in Technological innovation, economic growth, and policy incen- during the take-off and acceleration phase. Alternatively, societies tives pushed the economy initially onto the solid green transforma- can take corrective action once they have entered the red trans- tion curve (Fig. 2a). Drivers on both the demand and supply side formation curve (b), which may enable a gradual switch back to a have led to a massive expansion of soybean production worldwide. more sustainability enhancing path (a’). Such adaptive governance Soybeans and their derivatives are the most traded agricultural of transformation processes, however, requires investments in pro- commodity in the world. In total, soybean-based products account cess monitoring capacity and advanced governance structures that for roughly 10% of global agricultural trade annually, and are pro- are capable to exert corrective action, ideally in a legitimized and jected to increase to 22% by 2025 (Westcott and Hansen, 2016) and acceptable way. Alignment of alternative sustainability governance to reach 23.5% by 2029 (Dohlmann et al., 2020). In the 2016/2017 modes depending on the state and corresponding outcome in a season, soybean production was estimated to reach 336.62 mil- given transformation process is necessary and will be subject of lion tons – 85% of which was processed into soybean meal and oil Section 4 after applying the ToC to real-world cases. (Lee, 2016). Strong supply boosts are mainly driven by technologi- cal development in production. For instance, the soy-based bioeco- nomic transformation in South America was mediated by the rapid transfer and dissemination of new GMO-based agricultural produc- 3. Applying the framework to ongoing bio-based tion technologies (Phase 1, Fig. 2a), such as no-till planting meth- transformations ods, that increased yields, but also allow for expansion to more marginal regions such as the Gran Chaco in South America (Le Po- We now turn to three examples of ongoing and potential bioe- lain de Waroux et al., 2016). Demand side drivers of soybean ex- conomic transformation processes to illustrate the application of pansion such as economic growth include the increasing global de- the ToC proposed above. The three cases were chosen to illus- mand for soybean-based animal feed in pork and poultry produc- trate how bio-based transformation can be framed in terms of the tion in China or Europe mediated by markets and trade (Phase 2, four pathways and their related key drivers and mediators. They Fig. 2a), as well as fossil fuel substitution policies in industrialized also represent bio-based sectors that are frequently referred to in countries (Westcott and Hansen, 2016; Turzi, 2017). the bioeconomy discourse and related political strategies (see e.g. Dietz et al., 2018). 3.1.3. Outcomes Following the conceptual elements of the ToC, we now re- This soy-based bioeconomic transformation can lead to both frain from the recursive logic that is characteristic to the ToC and positive and negative outcomes in terms of social and economic present each case iteratively by first outlining the specific Context (Phases 1 and 2), and environmental (Phase 3) dimensions. It factors under which a given combination of transformation path- has the potential to contribute positively to several SDGs in and ways has emerged and how case-specific combinations of Drivers beyond South American countries, for example, by bringing em- and Mediators interact over time, affecting key sustainability Out- ployment opportunities and economic development to rural areas comes of bio-based transformation. Each case ends with an as- or by reducing food prices for poor net-food consumers in de- sessment of how various forms of governance have contributed (or veloping countries (Richards et al., 2014; OECD and FAO, 2015). not) to enhancing the overall sustainability of the bio-based trans- formation described therein. 3 All FAOSTAT figures accessed in February 2020: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en 219 S. Stark, L. Biber-Freudenberger, T. Dietz et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 29 (2022) 215–227 Fig. 2a. Actual (solid line) sustainability enhancing (green)/ deteriorating (red) sustainability development from the Status Quo (SQ) in Phase 0 due to favorable (green circular) or unfavorable (red circular) interactions between system dynamics and governance responses (blue triangular) in the case of food and non-food biomass production. Source: own. However, an increasing amount of research also indicates neg- impact land use change dynamics in agricultural frontier regions. ative environmental and social outcomes of the rapid conver- This further complicates the delicate balance between positively sion of rural landscapes for soy production in South America in- contributing to the SDGs, while also making ecologically sensitive cluding deforestation and increasing inequality (Weinhold et al., areas more attractive to cropland expansion, as seen in the nascent 2013; Nascimento et al., 2019). The predominant agro-industrial soybean expansion occurring in the Paraguayan Chaco. soy production model in South America is driving a rapid con- version of both forest and smallholder farming areas in the Cer- 3.2. Case 2: biomaterials and land use rado, Pampa, and Campos grasslands, the Gran Chaco, as well as the Amazon and Atlantic forests, into soy production. This conver- Bio-based platform chemicals can be used in multiple applica- sion has myriad delayed impacts on the environment, livelihoods, tions such as bioplastics. Polylactic acid and ethanol are the two and social structures in production regions (Gibbs et al., 2010; main raw materials for bioplastic production (bio-PET and PLA, re- Gasparri and Le Waroux, 2015; Godar et al., 2015; Boerema et al., spectively) and account for the largest market shares, while ther- 2016; Siegel and Bastos Lima, 2020), leading to the solid red line moplastic starch (TPS) blends are important in the EU market and outweighing the initial positive outcomes (Phase 3, Fig. 2a). (Ifbb, 2019; de Jong et al., 2020). In this regard, the bioplastics sec- tor classifies as TP 1 (substitution), TP 3 (efficiency increase), and 3.1.4. Governance TP 4 (low volume – high value), depending on the specific feed- To mitigate the negative impacts of soybean expansion in South stocks and production technologies employed. America and to counter the deviations from the standard styl- ized transformation towards deteriorating sustainability dynamics (Phase 3, Fig. 2a), there have been several governance interven- 3.2.1. Context tions, depicted by the triangular (Phase 4) in Fig. 2a, to control Bioplastics have rapidly become a widely used commodity in or regulate land use by both governments and the private sector. various national economies as a partial substitute for conven- One of the most frequently cited supply chain interventions en- tional plastics whose application negatively impacts the environ- acted by the private sector is the 2006 Brazilian Soybean mora- ment (Aeschelmann and Carus, 2015; de Jong et al., 2020). Fa- torium whereby major soybean traders agreed to not purchase vorable infrastructure conditions, advanced technical know-how, soybeans grown in the Amazon biome on lands that were defor- and accompanying policy frameworks provide a fruitful basis for ested after 2008 (Gibbs et al., 2015). This policy was hailed as transformative change (Phase 0, Fig. 2b). In the case of Germany, a success for mitigating soybean-based deforestation in the Ama- Brazil, and many Asian countries, bioplastic producers have ben- zon region. However, feedback loops resulted in iLUC dynamics by efited from direct governmental support mainly in the form of pushing compliant soybean production to the neighboring biomes, funds for R&D and biotechnology clusters to attract production which fall outside of the moratorium, leading to deforestation in hubs. Additionally, countries such as Japan, South Korea, Singapore, other biomes, most notably the Cerrado region (Nepstad et al., Malaysia, Thailand and China, offer financial and non-financial in- 2019). Governments, such as the Paraguayan government’s 2004- centives to companies investing in research in bioplastic produc- deforestation ban in the Atlantic Forest region, have enacted sim- tion (OECD, 2013c). Due to favorable policy frameworks, Asian ilar regional based moratoria and bans. This policy drastically re- countries are better positioned for favorable access to bio-based duced high deforestation rates due to soybean and cattle expan- building blocks as a precursor for bio-based polymer production sion in Paraguay’s Atlantic Forest region, which in turn created (Aeschelmann and Carus, 2015). Additionally, Brazil has the po- pressures for increased deforestation in the Paraguayan Chaco re- tential for bioplastic production using existing sugarcane ethanol gion that fell outside of the deforestation ban via leakage effects plants, and could enhance feedstock use efficiency through the use (Baumann et al., 2017). The direct and indirect effects of gover- of integrated bio refineries (Escobar et al., 2018). Bio-ethylene pro- nance interventions depicted by phase 5 in Fig. 2a are illustrated duction, used as a building block for a variety of bulk materials, is by a gradual switch to a sustainability enhancing outcome due to already economically competitive in Brazil, as it is based on estab- corrective action, though less than desired as a result of iLUC. Thus, lished technologies; polylactic acid has the highest economic po- beyond bioeconomic transformations via technological advances, tential both now and in the long term (Gerssen-Gondelach et al., unintended consequences and perverse incentives created by en- 2014). So far, the production of second generation bioplastics from vironmental governance interventions, also have the potential to lignocellulosic feedstock (i.e., from wood or short rotation coppice) 220 S. Stark, L. Biber-Freudenberger, T. Dietz et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 29 (2022) 215–227 Fig. 2b. Actual (solid line) and potential (dashed line) sustainability enhancing (green)/ deteriorating (red) dynamics from the Status Quo (SQ) in Phase 0 due to favorable (green circular) or unfavorable (red circular) interactions between system dynamics and governance responses (blue triangular) in the case of biomaterials and land use. Source: own. outside the context of sugarcane biorefineries in Brazil and Thai- is a potential outcome (Phase 2, Fig. 2b). The differential effects land (i.e., from bagasse and molasses), is still far from being prof- of drivers and mediators (i.e., consumer preferences and innova- itable (Carus and Raschka, 2011; OECD, 2013c; Govil et al., 2020). tion transfer) depend largely on national political frameworks in producing and consuming countries, mainly in the field of R&D 3.2.2. Drivers & mediators and recycling. These frameworks can reduce market uncertainty The durability of non-biodegradable conventional plastics com- via feedback-loops, promote private investment for capacity expan- bined with inappropriate human behavior and limited waste treat- sion, and determine the stage of development of the bioplastic sec- ment capacities in many parts of the world, for example, contami- tor. At the same time, recycling fees and other legislative ad hoc nates terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems (e.g., plastic debris and measures (e.g., in Germany or Italy) can contribute to significant micro particles), with negative effects on wildlife (Ogunola et al., advancements in terms of biodegradability. 2018) and human health in both production and consumption re- gions (Thompson et al., 2009; Philp et al., 2013). With its sub- 3.2.3. Outcomes stitution possibilities, global bioplastic production is expanding A biomaterial-based transformation could produce sustainabil- substantially from 2 million tons in 2018, to a projected 2.4 ity gains in various SDG dimensions, such as health, sustainable million tons in 2024 with production capacity being largest in consumption and production, and terrestrial as well as aquatic life. Asia (45%), followed by Europe (25%), North America (18%) and More environmentally benign bioplastics that potentially encom- South America (12%) (European Bioplastics, 2019). More advanced pass new functionalities such as biodegradability, reduced life cy- technologies/methods, including biowaste valorization techniques cle of CO2 emissions, and reduced toxic runoff, could contribute to and identification, as well as classification of valuable compo- TP 1 (through raw material substitution), TP 3 (by way of biomass nents in the recycling streams, can produce high-value products waste stream recycling and uses of new biomass, such as wastewa- (Montoneri et al., 2011; Arancon et al., 2013). Additionally, new ter), and TP 4 (by adding value in industrial applications) transfor- technology also allows wastewater to be used as a renewable feed- mation pathways. Given conflicts with land-use and food produc- stock for bio-plastic production (Amulya et al., 2016). tion constitute possible feedback-loops that may lead to sustain- At its current, pre-transformational state, bioplastic production ability deteriorating dynamics. is largely driven by technological innovation in the private sec- Just like in first-generation biofuel production, a large-scale tor, regulatory arrangements, and behavioral change among en- substitution of fossil resource-based materials by bio-materials (TP vironmentally sensitized consumers that can influence firms’ de- 1) will directly and indirectly compete for land and water re- mand for plastics as an intermediate input (Dilkes-Hoffman et al., sources with food and feed production, unless second generation 2019), leading to the solid green line in Phase 1 (Fig. 2b). How- technologies are implemented on a commercial scale, and is thus ever, the material properties and performances of certain bioplas- not in the focus of future, global bioeconomy (Laibach et al., 2019). tic products depend on a specific biochemical formula. Many of Currently, the two main feedstocks used for bioplastic production the PLA- or PBS-based plastics do not yet match the properties of are corn and sugarcane (van Hilst et al., 2017; Ifbb, 2018). The land conventional plastics regarding durability, flexibility and rigidness footprint of polylactic acid, is around 0.37 ha and 0.16 ha per ton as exposed to variations in temperature, moisture and acidity lev- when corn and sugarcane are used, respectively. Although this im- els. They are thus compounded with conventional plastic reducing plies a reduction in footprint relative to diverting the same feed- the environmental benefits, including recyclability. Besides pack- stocks for fuel purposes (0.52 ha and 0.23 ha per ton of ethanol, aging, other prominent sectors, such as agriculture and medicine, respectively) (Ifbb, 2018), establishing a high-volume bio-based are expected soon to create further demand for bio-based and bio- economy, including bio-based plastics, composites, lubricants and degradable plastics (Globe Newswire, 2017; Schipfer et al., 2017; others, can tighten feedstock based land competition further. The Junginger et al., 2019). Thus, transformative change will likely development of options to produce biopolymers with lower im- hinge on mediators like further technology development and inno- pacts on land, i.e. from either perennial non-food crops or resid- vation transfer, the introduction of advanced and cascading waste ual organic materials is developing, as can be seen by an in- recycling streams, competitive supply of bio-based raw materials creasing number of studies evaluating their environmental impacts including increased international trade, and appropriate societal (Escobar and Laibach, 2021). At the same time, as different feed- and political support, here illustrated by the dashed green line in- stocks from algae over crop residues to organic waste are being dicating that the associated sustainability enhancing development tested to produce biopolymers, integrated facilities to conduct the 221 S. Stark, L. Biber-Freudenberger, T. Dietz et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 29 (2022) 215–227 conversion are being developed. In state-of-the art biorefinery de- a cascading exploitation of biomass (see Case 2) is already in the signs, options to produce high-value compounds in addition to proof-of-concept stage, although it may take some time to become bioplastic are reaching pilot project phases (Beltrán et al., 2019; profitable (González-García et al., 2016; García Prieto et al., 2017; Hassan et al., 2019; Escobar and Laibach, 2021). However, espe- Junker-Frohn et al., 2019; Escobar and Laibach, 2021). Additionally, cially with regards to feedstock flexibility and profitability, these even more future-oriented developments are expected with the us- processes still require interdisciplinary R&D and face scaling issues age of synthetic biology and biofoundries, which effectively design when moving from the lab to the market scale. Even though these microorganisms for medicinal applications and compound produc- technological developments are promising, to achieve sustainably tion (Ye, 2015; Jessop-Fabre and Sonnenschein, 2019; Kitney et al., produced and utilized bioplastics a behavioral change from con- 2019). sumers is needed (Laibach et al., 2019; Bröring et al., 2020). 3.3.2. Drivers & mediators 3.2.4. Governance Production of biopharmaceuticals has experienced fast tech- The use of low volume biomaterials in transformation TP 3 nological development in the last few decades, supporting mass and TP 4 may be less prone to direct natural resource compe- production and the utilization of new biomass inputs from var- tition, but require well-designed economic support and innova- ious plants and animals (Fischer et al., 2004; Butler, 2005; tion policies (Phase 3, Fig. 2b) to remain decoupled from primary Dickson, 2014). Factors driving the bio-based transformation of sector resource demand. Future sustainability dynamics depicted the pharmaceutical industry, leading to the green transformation by the dashed green and red lines (Phase 4, Fig. 2b) will ulti- curve (Phase 1) in Fig. 2c, include changes in demographic struc- mately depend on the specific feedstocks and production tech- tures and consumer preferences in industrialized and emerging nologies employed in its implementation, but also on the em- economies, as well as advances in biotechnology and medical re- ployed end-of-life options and behavioral change (Bröring et al., search. In response to growing middle-income classes and in- 2020). Meanwhile, policy and governance arrangements, also in ad- creased consumer awareness, companies have also increased re- dition to private corporate governance principles, need to set the search in “personalized” medical solutions (EC, 2014). Beyond bio- regulatory guardrails for such implementation (Dietz et al., 2018; pharmaceuticals, functional foods or nutraceuticals are also gain- Förster et al., 2020). Possible governance intervention should take ing traction, especially in wealthy countries where preventative the reduction of illegal cropland expansion in the tropics into ac- measures and a healthy lifestyle, especially plant-based food or count, promote sustainable intensification of agriculture (e.g. by cosmetic additives or compositions, are demanded (Bröring et al., using perennials growing on marginal soils), and reconsider reg- 2006; Khedkar et al., 2017). Knowledge and innovation transfer ulations affecting the utilization of organic waste as a resource have led to additional increases. Bio-pharmaceutical manufacturing (Bröring et al., 2020; Gerten et al., 2020; Nong et al., 2020). strongly relies on sophisticated R&D that requires considerable fi- Further suggestions from scientists are to implement monitoring nancial and human capital investments over long innovation cycles systems with consistent impact categories, sustainability-oriented (Deloitte, 2015). As a result, bio-technological advances from sev- product design approaches as well as producerś responsibilities be- eral decades ago, such as the monoclonal antibodies (MAb) market yond the product sale (Helander et al., 2019; Jarre et al., 2020; segment, dominated the global biopharmaceuticals market in 2018 Moosmann et al., 2020; Escobar and Laibach, 2021). Yet, even with about 33.2% market share (Globe Newswire, 2019). though circular, or at least cascading modes of bioplastic produc- tion are being more and more pursued, governance actions are re- quired to limit potential rebound effects of over-extensive produc- 3.3.3. Outcomes tion as profitability increases (Zink and Geyer, 2017). The functional diversification and increased effectiveness of medical treatments represent an obvious direct contribution of 3.3. Case 3: biopharmaceuticals biopharmaceutical transformations to sustainability, particularly to SDG 3, Good Health and Well-being. Positive secondary effects to The biopharmaceutical sector mainly classifies as TP 4 (low vol- achieve more SDGs (e.g., SDGs 4 and 8), are anticipated from po- ume – high value), as the intensity in the use of bio-based inputs tential related investments in educational and vocational training is extremely low per unit of output. It also relates to TP 2 (produc- programs and from increased employment opportunities in the tivity increase) due to fast technological development progress in sector. Given the incipient signs of a gradual shift in the geo- its production and TP 3 (efficiency increase) through the utilization graphical balance of the pharmaceutical market towards emerg- of new biomass inputs. ing economies (Efpia, 2015), such benefits may also potentially ac- crue in the developing world (Deloitte, 2015). Moreover, an in- 3.3.1. Context creasing demand for undiscovered natural substances as inputs to The pharmaceutical industry, particularly the EU pharmaceuti- bio-pharmaceutical research and production can further increase cal industry, is considered the technology sector with the high- biodiversity option values (Simpson et al., 1996). For instance, by est value-added per employee, and also the highest ratio of R&D re-discovering and re-focusing research on neglected plants be- investment to net sales (Efpia, 2018), and hence benefits from ing used for medicinal applications as in the case of the Chinese a sound infrastructure and science and education system (Phase Yam, the cascading use of plants to extract biopharmaceuticals fol- 0, Fig. 2c). Biopharmaceuticals include a wide range of products, lowed by subsequent utilization for food products, could decrease such as vaccines, therapeutic proteins, antibiotics, hormones, blood the need for conversion of fossil-based chemicals and increase crop and blood components, tissues, etc. which are derived from liv- diversity in agriculture (Epping and Laibach, 2020). ing material and are often genetically engineered production hosts (human, mammalian cell, animal, microorganism, plant or algae) 3.3.4. Governance (ITA, 2016). Algae or plant-based options are in continuous de- Innovative bio-pharmaceuticals (and also natural cosmetics, velopment, where transient expression systems, external stimula- medicinal, natural products, and botanicals) hinge inter alia on tion or cell-culture approaches are the most prominent alterna- Intellectual Property (IP) protection and enforcement (EC, 2014). tives to traditional cultivation of medicinal plants (Corbin et al., Nonetheless, significant future potential for economic growth is 2020; Moon et al., 2020). The use of plant residues or algae to expected from the development of “biosimilar” drugs with sur- extract compounds with pharmaceutical value in the beginning of rendered or lapsed patents and in developing and emerging 222 S. Stark, L. Biber-Freudenberger, T. Dietz et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 29 (2022) 215–227 Fig. 2c. Actual (solid line) and potential (dashed line) sustainability enhancing (green)/ deteriorating (red) development from the Status Quo (SQ) in Phase 0 due to favorable (green circular) or unfavorable (red circular) interactions between system dynamics and governance responses (blue triangular) in the case of biopharmaceuticals. Source: own. economies (Neville and Kenyon, 2011; ITA, 2016). The global mar- specific combinations of context factors as well as exposure to ket for medicinal, natural products is also expected to grow in the drivers and mediators determine, which mixes of TP emerge and near future (Laird and Wynberg, 2017). Regulation to keep biodi- how fast they translate into outcomes. At least four key lessons versity utilization within the boundaries of a functioning socio- emerge: ecological system might also entail hurdles for socioeconomic de- First, TP1 type of bio-based transformation comes with the risk velopment despite best intentions (ibid). This might translate into of causing environmental and other externalities. As shown in Case lengthy and costly administrative procedures, longer clinical trial 1 and 2, this risk increases if bio-based substitution involves in- phases, and higher production costs in general, while at the same ternationally traded feedstock, which can cause direct and indi- time providing a form of legislative protection of indigenous intel- rect land use changes mediated via agricultural input and out- lectual property rights and safeguarding biodiversity (Förster et al., put markets. The sustainability impacts of land use change are 2020). In the same vein, and with respect to using bioeconomy highly context dependent. If agriculture intensifies or expands in for rural development strategies, recent research from South Africa ecologically sensitive regions, such as tropical rainforests, peat- discovered that over-extensive regulations (Phase 3, Fig. 2c) in the lands, and savanna ecosystems, social marginalization of vulner- development of small-scale businesses for medicinal and natural able populations, biodiversity loss, and greenhouse gas emissions cosmetics impede small-scale and medium size entrepreneurs and can be substantial (Seymour and Harris, 2019). Recent evidence is, together with limited planning security provided by the gov- also suggests that tropical forest loss can negatively affect agricul- ernment, inhibiting a transformation of this sector (Förster et al., tural productivity at regional scales (Leite-Filho et al., 2021). On 2020) and slowing down the sustainability enhancing development the other hand, moderate intensification of extensively used an- (Phase 4, Fig. 2c). Conditional on the existence and enforcement thropogenically modified landscapes can be environmentally neu- of appropriate resource access rules and benefit sharing mecha- tral or even desirable depending on how and where it is done nisms, as well as the existence of constraining regulation to safe- (Tscharntke et al., 2012). guard the ecological functions of the biosphere (Phase 5, Fig. 2c), Second, TP2 and TP3 type of bio-based transformations will bio-pharmaceutical transformation might develop to contribute to not necessarily improve environmental outcomes via more efficient nature conservation and alternative employment opportunities in resource use. Case 1, illustrates that knowledge is highly mobile developing countries with abundant natural resources depicted and international innovation transfer implies that technologies that by the dashed-green line (Phase 6) in Fig. 2c. However, in some boost agricultural productivity may temporarily accelerate rather biomass producer countries of the global South, the discovery of than reduce the expansion of agriculture into ecologically sensi- active pharmaceutical ingredients in plant species have also led to tive ecosystems. This apparent contradiction of the “Borlaug hy- the over-harvesting of such species in the wild and can thus also pothesis” does not invalidate the idea that technological progress create adverse effects for biodiversity conservation (Crouch, 2018) in agriculture contributes reducing the global amount of land use as indicated by the dashed-red line segment (Phase 6) in Figure for food production (Hertel, 2018). It suggests, however, that pro- 3c. Despite these opportunities, the long-run sustainability dynam- ductivity boosting agricultural technology change can cause (irre- ics of bio-based transformations in the pharmaceutical sector will versible) net environmental damages, when it happens to occur at also depend on appropriate institutional preconditions and coordi- the world’s agricultural frontiers. Cases 1 and 2 further show that nated action at the international level to function effectively. How- combining TP1 with TP2 & TP3 type of transformations likely ag- ever, such transformations are also subject to national resources gravates the risks to result in non-sustainable outcomes, due to re- and capacities regarding regulation, implementation, and enforce- bound effects (García et al., 2020). Bio-based substitution, unless ment (Crouch et al., 2008), while they are also subject to the over- based on low value waste streams, increases the demand for bio- all socioeconomic and biophysical contexts in biodiversity-rich de- based feedstock. This makes rebound effects more likely to occur veloping countries of the global South (Förster et al., 2020). as a result of efficiency gains in primary biomass production and processing. 4. Discussion and implications for sustainability governance Third, TP4 type of bio-based transformation is least likely to backfire in terms of undesirable sustainability outcomes that The three cases analyzed above illustrate how the ToC frame- are mediated via international biomass trade. Other technology- work can explain both positive and negative sustainability out- specific risks may apply especially as a result of international tech- comes of real-world bioeconomic transformation processes. Case- nology transfer in combination with inappropriate use. However, 223 S. Stark, L. Biber-Freudenberger, T. Dietz et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 29 (2022) 215–227 Case 3 is also currently one of the few examples for broadly suc- Acknowledgements cessful TP4 type innovation processes. Given the possibility of dis- ruptive technological change, the sustainability impacts of future This work was supported by the German Federal Ministry of TP4 type transformation are thus inherently hard to predict. Education and Research [grant number 031B0019]; and the Min- Forth, governance is a necessary evil. Cases 1–3 show in line istry of Culture and Science of North Rhine-Westphalia within with literature and expert opinions (Biber-Freudenberger et al., the framework of the NRW Strategieprojekt BioSC [grant number 2020; Dietz et al., 2020) that a sustainable bioeconomy will only 313/323-40 0-0 0213]; and the German Research Foundation under come off the ground under appropriate governance arrangements. Germanyś Excellence Strategy [EXC-2070-390732324-PhenoRob]. However, Cases 1 & 3 also illustrate that poorly designed or in- effectively implemented attempts to govern transformation can do more damage than good. For example, adverse effects of the bio- References fuel boom in the early 20 0 0s on food markets and the environ- ment could have been much less pronounced without biofuel man- Adams, P.W., Hammond, G.P., McManus, M.C., Mezzullo, W.G., 2011. Barriers to and drivers for UK bioenergy development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15, dates in Europe and the US. 1217–1227. Taken together, these four insights can help to inform the de- Aeschelmann, F., Carus, M., 2015. Biobased building blocks and polymers in the sign of strategies to enable and regulate sustainable bioeconomies. world: capacities, production, and applications - status quo and trends towards 2020. Ind. Biotechnol. 11, 154–159. As pointed out in Dietz et al. (2018), the current generation of Amulya, K., Reddy, M.V., Rohit, M.V., Mohan, S.V., 2016. Wastewater as renewable national bioeconomy strategies focusses on what the authors call feedstock for bioplastics production: understanding the role of reactor microen- “enabling governance”. This form of strategic governance has also vironment and system pH. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 4618–4627. Anderson, A.A., 2005. The Community Builderś Approach to Theory of Change. The been called “governance for transformation” (Patterson et al., 2017) Aspen Institute, New York https://www.theoryofchange.org/pdf/TOC_fac_guide. and includes policy mixes with the normative intent to promote pdf. transformative behavior as documented in Cases 1 and 3. However, Angelsen, A., Kaimowitz, D., 2001. Agricultural Technologies and Tropical Deforesta- tion. CABi, Wallingford, p. 422. Case 1 and 2 also illustrate that this form of nationally motivated Arancon, R.A.D., Lin, C.S.K., Chan, K.M., Kwan, T.H., Luque, R., 2013. Advances on enabling governance inevitable produces global externalities in a waste valorization: new horizons for a more sustainable society. Energy Sci. Eng. world with international trade and innovation transfer. 1, 53–71. Batidzirai, B., Mignot, A., Schakel, W.B., Junginger, H.M., Faaij, A.B., 2013. Biomass Regulatory governance or “governance of transformation” torrefaction technology: techno-economic status and future prospects. Energy (Patterson et al., 2017) thus ideally becomes part of any attempt to (Oxford) 62, 196–214. steer bio-based sustainability transformations. This second mode of Baumann, M., Israel, C., Piquer-Rodríguez, M., Gavier-Pizarro, G., Volante, J.N., Kuem- governance stands for steering and possibly readjusting dynamics merle, T., 2017. Deforestation and cattle expansion in the Paraguayan Chaco 1987–2012. Reg. Environ. Change 17, 1179–1191. of both intentional and unintentional transformative change. This Beltrán, F.R., Barrio, I., Lorenzo, V., Del Río, B., Martínez Urreaga, J., La Orden, M.U.de, involves the adaptation of existing policy instruments and gover- 2019. Valorization of poly(lactic acid) wastes via mechanical recycling: improve- nance modes to cater for processes already set in motion, or to ment of the properties of the recycled polymer. Waste Manag. Res. 37, 135–141. Berg, S., Cloutier, L.M., Bröring, S., 2018. Collective stakeholder representations and develop additional legislation, as demonstrated in Case 1. How- perceptions of drivers of novel biomass-based value chains. J. Clean. Prod. 200, ever, doing so requires domain-specific foresight and monitoring 231–241. capacities as well as implementation structures (Wesseler and von Bhunnoo, R., Poppy, G.M., 2020. A national approach for transformation of the UK food system. Nat. Food 1, 6–8. Braun, 2017). Such structures are generally less well-developed in Biber-Freudenberger, L., Basukala, A., Bruckner, M., Börner, J., 2018. Sustainability developing and emerging economies than in the industrialized re- performance of national bio-economies. Sustainability 10, 2705. gions of the world that currently invest most in enabling their Biber-Freudenberger, L., Ergeneman, C., Förster, J.J., Dietz, T., Börner, J., 2020. Bioe- conomy futures: expectation patterns of scientists and practitioners on the sus- bioeconomies (Bracco et al., 2019; Förster et al., 2020). tainability of bio-based transformation. Sustainable Dev. 28, 1220–1235. Purposefully steering the global bioeconomy towards sustain- Bisoffi, S., 2019. A meta-analysis of recent foresight documents in sup- able outcomes thus becomes a global collective action dilemma, port of the 5th SCAR Foresight Exercise: study carried out under the Project “Support Action to a common agricultural and wider bioecon- requiring what Patterson et al. (2017) call “transformation of gov- omy research agenda. CASA. https://scar-europe.org/images/FORESIGHT/ ernance”. Transforming the currently fragmented and incoherent CASA- Study- Meta- Analysis- Foresight- SUB.pdf. global governance system entails changes on the structural level Boerema, A., Peeters, A., Swolfs, S., Vandevenne, F., Jacobs, S., Staes, J., Meire, P., of policy, legislation, and the institutional and organizational ar- 2016. Soybean trade: balancing environmental and socio-economic impacts of an intercontinental market. PLoS ONE 11, e0155222. chitecture readjusting legally binding regulations and incentives Borgström, S., Mauerhofer, V., 2016. Developing law for the bioeconomy. J. Energy to enable or constrain bioeconomic transformations. This is not Nat. Resour. Law 34, 373–406. a new proposition. In fact, the concept of “earth system gover- Bosman, R., Rotmans, J., 2016. Transition governance towards a bioeconomy: a com- parison of Finland and The Netherlands. Sustainability 8, 1017. nance” is being discussed among governance scholars more than Bracco, S., Tani, A., Çalıcıoğlu, Ö., Gomez San Juan, M., Bogdanski, A., 2019. Indicators a decade (Burch et al., 2019). Making the global governance sys- to Monitor and Evaluate the Sustainability of bioeconomy: Overview and a Pro- tem fit for bioeconomic transformation also hardly requires radi- posed Way Forward. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, p. 127. cally new concepts or instruments. Rather, the opportunities and Brentin, R.P., 2014. Soy-based Chemicals and Materials. American Chemical Society, risks associated with bioeconomic transformation represent an ad- Washington, DC. ditional reason for countries to (1) engage in international environ- Bröring, S., Laibach, N., Wustmans, M., 2020. Innovation types in the bioeconomy. J. Clean. Prod. 266, 121939. mental agreements, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity Bröring, S., Martin Cloutier, L., Leker, J., 2006. The front end of innovation in an era and the Paris Agreement, (2) push for binding sustainability safe- of industry convergence: evidence from nutraceuticals and functional foods. R guards in bi- and multilateral trade agreements, and (3) invest in D Manag. (R&D Management) 36, 487–498. Bugge, M., Hansen, T., Klitkou, A., 2016. What Is the Bioeconomy? A Review of the international compensation mechanisms that contribute to socially Literature. Sustainability 8, 691. acceptable forms of sharing the benefits and inevitable burdens in- Burch, S., Gupta, A., Inoue, C.Y., Kalfagianni, A., Persson, Å., Gerlak, A.K., Ishii, A., volved in any transformation process. Patterson, J., Pickering, J., Scobie, M., van der Heijden, J., Vervoort, J., Adler, C., Bloomfield, M., Djalante, R., Dryzek, J., Galaz, V., Gordon, C., Harmon, R., Jin- nah, S., Kim, R.E., Olsson, L., van Leeuwen, J., Ramasar, V., Wapner, P., Zonder- Declaration of Competing Interest van, R., 2019. New directions in earth system governance research. Earth Syst. Governance 1, 10 0 0 06. The authors declare that they have no known competing finan- Butler, M., 2005. Animal cell cultures: recent achievements and perspectives in the production of biopharmaceuticals. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 68, 283–291. cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to Carus, M., Raschka, A., 2011. Agricultural resources for bioplastics: feedstock for influence the work reported in this paper. biobased plastics today and tomorrow. Bioplastics Mag. 44–46. 224 S. Stark, L. Biber-Freudenberger, T. Dietz et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 29 (2022) 215–227 Ceddia, M.G., Bardsley, N.O., Gomez-y-Paloma, S., Sedlacek, S., 2014. Governance, view of process-based and life cycle approaches. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. agricultural intensification, and land sparing in tropical South America. Proc. 135, 110213. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A 111, 7242–7247. European Bioplastics, 2019. Bioplastics market data. https://www. Ceddia, M.G., Sedlacek, S., Bardsley, N.O., Gomez-y-Paloma, S., 2013. Sustainable european-bioplastics.org/market/. Accessed 19 February 2020. agricultural intensification or Jevons paradox? The role of public governance in FAO, 2018. Assessing the Contribution of Bioeconomy to Countries’ Economy: a Brief tropical South America. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 1052–1063. Review of National Frameworks. http://www.fao.org/3/I9580EN/i9580en.pdf. Ac- Cerri, C.E.P., Cerri, C.C., Maia, S.M.F., Cherubin, M.R., Feigl, B.J., Lal, R., 2018. Reduc- cessed 13 February 2020. ing Amazon Deforestation through Agricultural Intensification in the Cerrado for Fischer, R., Stoger, E., Schillberg, S., Christou, P., Twyman, R.M., 2004. Plant-based Advancing Food Security and Mitigating Climate Change. Sustainability 10, 989. production of biopharmaceuticals. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 7, 152–158. Cockburn, I., Henderson, R., Orsenigo, L., Pisano, G., 1999. Pharmaceuticals and Förster, J.J., Downsborough, L., Kelboro, G.M., Börner, J., 2020. Exploring criteria for biotechnology. In: Mowery, D.C. (Ed.), U.S. Industry in 2000. Studies in Competi- transformative policy capacity in the context of South Africa’s biodiversity econ- tive Performance. National Academy Press, Washington D.C., pp. 363–398. omy. Policy Sci 1–29. Colwill, J.A., Wright, E.I., Rahimifard, S., Clegg, A.J., 2012. Bio-plastics in the context García, V.R., Gaspart, F., Kastner, T., Meyfroidt, P., 2020. Agricultural intensification of competing demands on agricultural land in 2050. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 5, 3–16. and land use change: assessing country-level induced intensification, land spar- Connell, J.P., Kubisch, A.C., 1998. Applying a theory of change approach to the eval- ing and rebound effect. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 85007. uation of comprehensive community initiatives: progress, prospects, and prob- García Prieto, C.V., Ramos, F.D., Estrada, V., Villar, M.A., Diaz, M.S., 2017. Optimiza- lems, 2nd ed. tion of an integrated algae-based biorefinery for the production of biodiesel, Corbin, J.M., McNulty, M.J., Macharoen, K., McDonald, K.A., Nandi, S., 2020. Tech- astaxanthin and PHB. Energy 139, 1159–1172. noeconomic analysis of semicontinuous bioreactor production of biopharma- Gasparri, N.I., Le Waroux, Y.P.de, 2015. The coupling of South American soybean ceuticals in transgenic rice cell suspension cultures. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 117, and cattle production frontiers: new challenges for conservation policy and land 3053–3065. change science. Conserv. Lett. 8, 290–298. Crouch, N.R., 2018. A SANBI Perspective On Sector growth, Economic Value Addi- Geels, F.W., 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration pro- tion and Investment attraction: Presentation during the 3rd Biodiversity Econ- cesses: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res. Policy 31, 1257–1274. omy Indaba. East London, South Africa https://www.environment.gov.za/event/ Geels, F.W., Schot, J., 2007. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Res. Pol- deptactivity/3rdbiodiversity_economyindaba. icy 36, 399–417. Crouch, N.R., Douwes, Errol: Wolfson, Maureen, M., Smith, G.F., Edwards, T.J., 2008. German Bioeconomy Council, 2016. Weiterentwicklung der „Nationalen South Africa’s bioprospecting, access and benefit-sharing legislation: current re- Forschungsstrategie Bioökonomie 2030“. German Bioecon. Council. alities, future complications, and a proposed alternative. S. Afr. J. Sci. 104. https://biooekonomierat.de/fileadmin/Publikationen/empfehlungen/181116_ D’Amato, D., Droste, N., Allen, B., Kettunen, M., Lähtinen, K., Korhonen, J., Leski- Ratsempfelungen_fu__r_die_Weiterentwicklung_der_Forschungsstrategie_final. nen, P., Matthies, B.D., Toppinen, A., 2017. Green, circular, bio economy: a com- pdf. Accessed 3 February 2020. parative analysis of sustainability avenues. J. Clean. Prod. 168, 716–734. Gerssen-Gondelach, S.J., Saygin, D., Wicke, B., Patel, M.K., Faaij, A., 2014. Competing de Jong, E., Stichnothe, H., Bell, G., Jørgensen, H., 2020. Bio-Based Chem- uses of biomass: assessment and comparison of the performance of bio-based icals: A 2020 Update. Report IEA Bioenergy: Task 42: 2020: 01, Paris heat, power, fuels and materials. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 40, 964–998. (France). https://www.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/ Gerten, D., Heck, V., Jägermeyr, J., Bodirsky, B.L., Fetzer, I., Jalava, M., Kummu, M., Bio- based- chemicals- a- 2020- update- final- 200213.pdf. Accessed 15 Novem- Lucht, W., Rockström, J., Schaphoff, S., Schellnhuber, H.J., 2020. Feeding ten bil- ber 2020. lion people is possible within four terrestrial planetary boundaries. Nat. Sustain Deininger, K., Jin, S., Xia, F., Huang, J., 2014. Moving off the farm: land institutions 3, 200–208. to facilitate structural transformation and agricultural productivity growth in Gibbs, H.K., Rausch, L., Munger, J., Schelly, I., Morton, D.C., Noojipady, P., Soares– China. World Dev 59, 505–520. Filho, B., Barreto, P., Micol, L., Walker, N.F., 2015. Environment and development. Delbrück, S., Griestop, L., Hamm, U., 2018. Future Opportunities and Developments Brazil’s Soy Moratorium. Science 347, 377–378. in the Bioeconomy - A Global Expert Survey. German Bioeconomy Council, Gibbs, H.K., Ruesch, A.S., Achard, F., Clayton, M.K., Holmgren, P., Ramankutty, N., Fo- Berlin (Germany). ley, J.A., 2010. Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land Deloitte, 2015. Advanced Biopharmaceutical Manufactur- in the 1980s and 1990s. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A 107, 16732–16737. ing: an Evolution Underway. https://www2.deloitte.com/ Gironi, F., Piemonte, V., 2011. Bioplastics and petroleum-based plastics: strengths content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/life- sciences- health- care/ and weaknesses. Energy Source Part A 33, 1949–1959. us- lshc- advanced- biopharmaceutical- manufacturing- white- paper- 051515.pdf. Giunta, A., Pericoli, F.M., Pierucci, E., 2016. University–industry collaboration in the Accessed 20 January 2020. biopharmaceuticals: the Italian case. J. Technol. Transf. 41, 818–840. Dickson, A.J., 2014. Enhancement of production of protein biopharmaceuticals by Globe Newswire, 2017. Global Biodegradable Plastics Market 2016 - 2022. Globe mammalian cell cultures: the metabolomics perspective. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. Newswire https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2017/04/17/961228/0/ 30, 73–79. en/Global- Biodegradable- Plastics- Market- 2016- 2022.html. Dieken, S., Dallendörfer, M., Henseleit, M., Siekmann, F., Venghaus, S., 2021. The Globe Newswire, 2019. Global Biopharmaceuticals Market multitudes of bioeconomies: a systematic review of stakeholders’ bioeconomy Overview, 2018-2019 & Forecast to 2025. https://www. perceptions. Sustainable Prod. Consumption 27, 1703–1717. globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/07/19/1885192/0/en/ Dietz, T., Börner, J., Förster, J., von Braun, J., 2018. Governance of the bioeconomy: Global- Biopharmaceuticals- Market- Overview- 2018- 2019- Forecast- to- 2025. a global comparative study of national bioeconomy strategies. Sustainability 10, html. Accessed 2 February 2020. 3190. Godar, J., Persson, U.M., Tizado, E.J., Meyfroidt, P., 2015. Towards more accurate and Dietz, T., Rubio, K., Börner, J., 2020. Designing Sustainability Governance for the policy relevant footprint analyses: tracing fine-scale socio-environmental im- Bioeconomy – a Global Expert Survey. Int. Advisory Council Global Bioeconomy, pacts of production to consumption. Ecol. Econ. 112, 25–35. Berlin (Germany). https://gbs2020.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/GBS-2020_ González-García, S., Gullón, B., Rivas, S., Feijoo, G., Moreira, M.T., 2016. Environmen- Expert-Survey_web.pdf. Accessed 25 November 2020. tal performance of biomass refining into high-added value compounds. J. Clean. Dilkes-Hoffman, L., Ashworth, P., Laycock, B., Pratt, S., Lant, P., 2019. Public attitudes Prod. 120, 170–180. towards bioplastics – knowledge, perception and end-of-life management. Re- Göpel, M., 2016. The Great Mindshift: How a New Economic Paradigm and Sus- sour. Conserv. Recy. 151, 104479. tainability Transformations Go Hand in Hand. Springer International Publishing, Dohlmann, E., Hansen, J., Boussios, D., 2020. USDA Agricultural Projections to 2029. Cham. USDA Economic Research Service, Washington D.C. https://www.ers.usda.gov/ Gottinger, A., Ladu, L., Quitzow, R., 2020. Studying the transition towards a circular publications/pub-details/?pubid=95911. bioeconomy - a systematic literature review on transition studies and existing EC, 2014. Pharmaceutical Industry: A Strategic Sector for the European Economy: barriers. Sustainability 12, 8990. Commission Staff Working Document. European Commission, Brussels https:// Govil, T., Wang, J., Samanta, D., David, A., Tripathi, A., Rauniyar, S., Salem, D.R., ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/7649. Sani, R.K., 2020. Lignocellulosic feedstock: a review of a sustainable platform Efpia, 2015. The Pharmaceutical Industry in Figures: Key Data 2015. European for cleaner production of nature’s plastics. J. Clean. Prod. 270, 122521. Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations https://www.efpia.eu/ Haddad, S., Britz, W., Börner, J., 2019. Economic impacts and land use change from media/25822/2015- the- pharmaceutical- industry- in- figures.pdf. increasing demand for forest products in the European bioeconomy: a general Efpia, 2018. The Pharmaceutical Industry in Figures: Key Data 2018. European equilibrium based sensitivity analysis. Forests 10, 52. Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations https://www.efpia.eu/ Hassan, S.S., Williams, G.A., Jaiswal, A.K., 2019. Lignocellulosic biorefineries in Eu- media/361960/efpia- pharmafigures2018_v07- hq.pdf. rope: current state and prospects. Trends Biotechnol 37, 231–234. El Kadib, A., Bousmina, M., 2012. Chitosan bio-based organic-inorganic hybrid aero- Hausknost, D., Schriefl, E., Lauk, C., Kalt, G., 2017. A Transition to Which Bioe- gel microspheres. Chemistry (Easton) 18, 8264–8277. conomy? An Exploration of Diverging Techno-Political Choices. Sustainability 9, El-Chichakli, B., von Braun, J., Lang, C., Barben, D., Philp, J., 2016. Policy: five corner- 669. stones of a global bioeconomy. Nature 535, 221–223. Helander, H., Petit-Boix, A., Leipold, S., Bringezu, S., 2019. How to monitor environ- Epping, J., Laibach, N., 2020. An underutilized orphan tuber crop - Chinese yam: a mental pressures of a circular economy: an assessment of indicators. J. Ind. Ecol. review. Planta 252, 58. (Journal of Industrial Ecology) 23, 1278–1291. Escobar, N., Haddad, S., Börner, J., Britz, W., 2018. Land use mediated GHG emissions Herrero, M., Thornton, P.K., Mason-D’Croz, D., Palmer, J., Benton, T.G., Bodirsky, B.L., and spillovers from increased consumption of bioplastics. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, Bogard, J.R., Hall, A., Lee, B., Nyborg, K., Pradhan, P., Bonnett, G.D., Bryan, B.A., 125005. Campbell, B.M., Christensen, S., Clark, M., Cook, M.T., Boer, I.J.M.de, Downs, C., Escobar, N., Laibach, N., 2021. Sustainability check for bio-based technologies: a re- Dizyee, K., Folberth, C., Godde, C.M., Gerber, J.S., Grundy, M., Havlik, P., Jarvis, A., King, R., Loboguerrero, A.M., Lopes, M.A., McIntyre, C.L., Naylor, R., Navarro, J., 225 S. Stark, L. Biber-Freudenberger, T. Dietz et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 29 (2022) 215–227 Obersteiner, M., Parodi, A., Peoples, M.B., Pikaar, I., Popp, A., Rockström, J., Lin, L., Cunshan, Z., Vittayapadung, S., Xiangqian, S., Mingdong, D., 2011. Opportuni- Robertson, M.J., Smith, P., Stehfest, E., Swain, S.M., Valin, H., van Wijk, M., van ties and challenges for biodiesel fuel. Appl. Energy 88, 1020–1031. Zanten, H.H.E., Vermeulen, S., Vervoort, J., West, P.C., 2020. Innovation can ac- Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S.R., Alberti, M., Folke, C., Moran, E., Pell, A.N., Dead- celerate the transition towards a sustainable food system. Nat. Food 1, 266–272. man, P., Kratz, T., Lubchenco, J., Ostrom, E., Ouyang, Z., Provencher, W., Red- Hertel, T.W., 2018. Economic perspectives on land use change and leakage. Environ. man, C.L., Schneider, S.H., Taylor, W.W., 2007. Complexity of coupled human and Res. Lett. 13, 75012. natural systems. Science 317, 1513–1516. Hertel, T.W., West, T.A.P., Börner, J., Villoria, N.B., 2019. A review of global-local– Lobell, D.B., Baldos, U.L.C., Hertel, T.W., 2013. Climate adaptation as mitigation: the global linkages in economic land-use/cover change models. Environ. Res. Lett. case of agricultural investments. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 15012. 14, 53003. Mathews, J.A., 2009. From the petroeconomy to the bioeconomy: integrating Hicks, J.R., 1932. THe Theory of Wages. Macmillan, London. bioenergy production with agricultural demands. Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 3, Ifbb, 2018. Biopolymers facts and statistics 2018. Institute for Bioplastics and 613–632. Biocomposites. https://www.ifbb-hannover.de/files/IfBB/downloads/faltblaetter_ Montoneri, E., Mainero, D., Boffa, V., Perrone, D.G., Montoneri, C., 2011. Biochemen- broschueren/Biopolymers- Facts- Statistics- 2018.pdf. Accessed 10 February 2020. ergy: a project to turn an urban wastes treatment plant into biorefinery for the Ifbb, 2019. Biopolymers facts and statistics 2019. Institute for Bioplastics and production of energy, chemicals and consumer’s products with friendly envi- Biocomposites. https://www.ifbb-hannover.de/files/IfBB/downloads/faltblaetter_ ronmental impact. Int. J. Glob. Env. Issues 11, 170–196. broschueren/f+s/Biopolymers- Facts- Statistics- 2019.pdf. Accessed 24 February Moon, K.-.B., Park, J.-.S., Park, Y.-.I., Song, I.-.J., Lee, H.-.J., Cho, H.S., Jeon, J.-.H., 2020. Kim, .H..-S., 2020. Development of systems for the production of plant-derived ITA, 2016. 2016 Top Markets Report Pharmaceuticals: a Market Assessment Tool biopharmaceuticals. Plants (Basel, Switzerland) 9, 30. for U.S. Exporters. International Trade Administration. https://legacy.trade.gov/ Moosmann, D., Majer, S., Ugarte, S., Ladu, L., Wurster, S., Thrän, D., 2020. Strengths topmarkets/pdf/Pharmaceuticals_Top_Markets_Reports.pdf. Accessed 5 March and gaps of the EU frameworks for the sustainability assessment of bio-based 2020. products and bioenergy. Energy Sust. Soc. 10, 1–19. Jarre, M., Petit-Boix, A., Priefer, C., Meyer, R., Leipold, S., 2020. Transforming the Nascimento, N., West, T.A.P., Biber-Freudenberger, L., Sousa-Neto, E.R.de, Ometto, J., bio-based sector towards a circular economy - what can we learn from wood Börner, J., 2019. A Bayesian network approach to modelling land-use decisions cascading? Forest Policy Econ. 110, 101872. under environmental policy incentives in the Brazilian Amazon. J. Land Use Sci. Jeffers, R.F., Jacobson, J.J., Searcy, E.M., 2013. Dynamic analysis of policy drivers for 1–15. bioenergy commodity markets. Energy Policy 52, 249–263. Nepstad, L.S., Gerber, J.S., Hill, J.D., Dias, L.C.P., Costa, M.H., West, P.C., 2019. Pathways Jessop-Fabre, M.M., Sonnenschein, N., 2019. Improving reproducibility in synthetic for recent Cerrado soybean expansion: extending the soy moratorium and im- biology. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 7, 18. plementing integrated crop livestock systems with soybeans. Environ. Res. Lett. Jung, H., Lee, Y., Kim, D., Han, S.O., Kim, S.W., Lee, J., Kim, Y.H., Park, C., 2012. En- 14, 44029. zymatic production of glycerol carbonate from by-product after biodiesel man- Neville, D., Kenyon, A.D., 2011. Analysis of Biopharmaceuticals to Con- ufacturing process. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 51, 143–147. form to ICHQ6B. Reading Sci. Serv.. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7bde/ Junginger, H.M., Mai-Moulin, T., Daioglou, V., Fritsche, U., Guisson, R., Hennig, C., b7eba7cfa21fd016329dae4bab6f3906cbe7.pdf. Thrän, D., Heinimö, J., Hess, J.R., Lamers, P., Li, C., Kwant, K., Olsson, O., Prosku- Newell, R.G., Jaffe, A.B., Stavins, R.N., 1999. The induced innovation hypothesis and rina, S., Ranta, T., Schipfer, F., Wild, M., 2019. The future of biomass and bioen- energy-saving technological change. Q. J. Econ. 114, 941–975. ergy deployment and trade: a synthesis of 15 years IEA Bioenergy Task 40 on Nong, D., Escobar, N., Britz, W., Börner, J., 2020. Long-term impacts of bio-based sustainable bioenergy trade. Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 13, 247–266. innovation in the chemical sector: a dynamic global perspective. J. Clean. Prod. Junker-Frohn, L.V., Lück, M., Schmittgen, S., Wensing, J., Carraresi, L., Thiele, B., Gro- 272, 122738. her, T., Reimer, J.J., Bröring, S., Noga, G., Jupke, A., Schurr, U., Usadel, B., Wiese-K- OECD, 2013a. Agricultural Innovation Systems: A Framework For Analysing the Role linkenberg, A., Wormit, A., 2019. Tomato’s green gold: bioeconomy potential of of the Government. OECD Publishing. residual tomato leaf biomass as a novel source for the secondary metabolite , 2013b. Regions and innovation: Collaborating across Borders. OECD Publishing, rutin. ACS omega 4, 19071–19080. Paris, p. 229. Kardung, M., Cingiz, K., Costenoble, O., Delahaye, R., Heijman, W., Lovrić, M., van OECD, 2013c. Policies For Bioplastics in the Context of a Bioeconomy. OECD Science, Leeuwen, M., M’Barek, R., van Meijl, H., Piotrowski, S., Ronzon, T., Sauer, J., Ver- Technology and Industry Policy Papers 10. OECD, OECD Publishing Paris doi:10. hoog, D., Verkerk, P.J., Vrachioli, M., Wesseler, J.H.H., Zhu, B.X., 2021. Develop- 1787/5k3xpf9rrw6d-en. ment of the Circular Bioeconomy: drivers and Indicators. Sustainability 13, 413. OECD and FAO, 2015. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2015. OECD Publishing, Paris. KCB, 2020. Brief On Jobs and Growth Oftheeubioeconomy 2008-2017. Knowledge OECD and FAO, 2019. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2019. OECD Publishing, Paris. Center For Bioeconomy. European Commission Joint Research Center https://ec. Ogunola, O.S., Onada, O.A., Falaye, A.E., 2018. Mitigation measures to avert the europa.eu/jrc/sites/default/files/kcb_brief_bioeconomics_2008-2017.pdf. impacts of plastics and microplastics in the marine environment (a review). Khedkar, S., Carraresi, L., Bröring, S., 2017. Food or pharmaceuticals? Consumers’ Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. (Environmental Science and Pollution Research) 25, perception of health-related borderline products. PharmaNutrition 5, 133–140. 9293–9310. Kitney, R., Adeogun, M., Fujishima, Y., Goñi-Moreno, Á., Johnson, R., Maxon, M., Ostrom, E., 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecolog- Steedman, S., Ward, S., Winickoff, D., Philp, J., 2019. Enabling the Advanced Bioe- ical systems. Science 325, 419–422. conomy through Public Policy Supporting Biofoundries and Engineering Biology. Patterson, J., Schulz, K., Vervoort, J., van der Hel, S., Widerberg, O., Adler, C., Hurl- Trends Biotechnol. 37, 917–920. bert, M., Anderton, K., Sethi, M., Barau, A., 2017. Exploring the governance and Kleinschmit, D., Arts, B., Giurca, A., Mustalahti, I., Sergent, A., Pülzl, H., 2017. politics of transformations towards sustainability. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. Environmental Concerns in Political Bioeconomy Discourses. Commonwealth 24, 1–16. Forestry Association. Peltomaa, J., 2018. Drumming the Barrels of Hope? Bioeconomy Narratives in the Köhler, J., Geels, F.W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., Alkemade, F., Media. Sustainability 10, 4278. Avelino, F., Bergek, A., Boons, F., Fünfschilling, L., Hess, D., Holtz, G., Hyysalo, S., Pfau, S., Hagens, J., Dankbaar, B., Smits, A., 2014. Visions of sustainability in bioe- Jenkins, K., Kivimaa, P., Martiskainen, M., McMeekin, A., Mühlemeier, M.S., conomy research. Sustainability 6, 1222–1249. Nykvist, B., Pel, B., Raven, R., Rohracher, H., Sandén, B., Schot, J., Sovacool, B., Philp, J., 2014. OECD policies for bioplastics in the context of a bioeconomy, 2013. Turnheim, B., Welch, D., Wells, P., 2019. An agenda for sustainability transitions Ind. Biotechnol. 10, 19–21. research: state of the art and future directions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 31, Philp, J.C., Ritchie, R.J., Guy, K., 2013. Biobased plastics in a bioeconomy. Trends 1–32. Biotechnol. 31, 65–67. Lachman, J., Bisang, R., Obschatko, E.S.de, Trigo, E., 2020. Bioeconomía: Una Estrate- Popp, A., Rose, S.K., Calvin, K., van Vuuren, D.P., Dietrich, J.P., Wise, M., Stehfest, E., gia De Desarrollo Para La Argentina del Siglo XXI Por IICA Se Encuentra bajo. Humpenöder, F., Kyle, P., van Vliet, J., Bauer, N., Lotze-Campen, H., Klein, D., Instituto Interamericano De Cooperación para La Agricultura. Buenos Aires, Ar- Kriegler, E., 2014a. Land-use transition for bioenergy and climate stabilization: gentina. model comparison of drivers, impacts and interactions with other land use Laibach, N., Börner, J., Bröring, S., 2019. Exploring the future of the bioeconomy: based mitigation options. Clim. Change 123, 495–509. an expert-based scoping study examining key enabling technology fields with Popp, D., 2002. Induced innovation and energy prices. Am. Econ. Rev. 92, 160–180. potential to foster the transition toward a bio-based economy. Technol. Soc. 58, Popp, D., 2019. NBER Working Paper Series Working Paper 25631. 101118. Popp, J., Lakner, Z., Harangi-Rákos, M., Fári, M., 2014b. The effect of bioenergy Laird, S.A., Wynberg, R.P., 2017. Access and Benefit Sharing in a Time of Scientific, expansion: food, energy, and environment. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 32, Technological and Market Change: essential Lessons for Policy-Makers. 559–578. Le Polain de Waroux, Y., Garrett, R.D., Heilmayr, R., Lambin, E.F., 2016. Land-use poli- Porter, M.E., 1991. Americaś green strategy. Sci. Am. 264, 168. cies and corporate investments in agriculture in the Gran Chaco and Chiquitano. Prins, M.J., Ptasinski, K.J., Janssen, F.J., 2006. More efficient biomass gasification via Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A 113, 4021–4026. torrefaction. Energy 31, 3458–3470. Lee, D.-.H., 2016. Bio-based economies in Asia: economic analysis of development Richards, P., Pellegrina, H., VanWey, L., Spera, S., 2014. Soybean development: the of bio-based industry in China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia and Taiwan. Int. J. impact of a decade of agricultural change on urban and economic growth in Hydrog. Energy 41, 4333–4346. Mato Grosso. Brazil. PloS one 10, e0122510. Leite-Filho, A.T., Soares-Filho, B.S., Davis, J.L., Abrahão, G.M., Börner, J., 2021. Defor- Robert, N., Giuntoli, J., Araujo, R., Avraamides, M., Balzi, E., Barredo, J.I., Baruth, B., estation reduces rainfall and agricultural revenues in the Brazilian Amazon. Nat Becker, W., Borzacchiello, M.T., Bulgheroni, C., Camia, A., Fiore, G., Follador, M., Commun 12, 2591. Gurria, P., La Notte, A., Lusser, M., Marelli, L., M’Barek, R., Parisi, C., Philip- Lelievre, D., Colinart, T., Glouannec, P., 2014. Hygrothermal behavior of bio-based pidis, G., Ronzon, T., Sala, S., Sanchez Lopez, J., Mubareka, S., 2020. Development building materials including hysteresis effects: experimental and numerical of a bioeconomy monitoring framework for the European Union: an integrative analyses. Energy Build 84, 617–627. and collaborative approach. N. Biotechnol. 59, 10–19. 226 S. Stark, L. Biber-Freudenberger, T. Dietz et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 29 (2022) 215–227 Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., van Asselt, M., 2001. More evolution than revolution: transi- Tokgoz, S., Laborde, D., 2014. Indirect land use change debate: what did we learn? tion management in public policy. Foresight 3, 15–31. Curr. Sustain. Renew. Energy Rep. 1, 104–110. Ruttan, V.W., 20 0 0. Technology, Growth and development: An induced Innovation Tscharntke, T., Clough, Y., Wanger, T.C., Jackson, L., Motzke, I., Perfecto, I., Vander- Perspective /Vernon W. Ruttan. Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford. meer, J., Whitbread, A., 2012. Global food security, biodiversity conservation and Sanz-Hernández, A., Esteban, E., Garrido, P., 2019. Transition to a bioeconomy: per- the future of agricultural intensification. Biol. Conserv. 151, 53–59. spectives from social sciences. J. Clean. Prod. 224, 107–119. Turzi, M., 2017. The Political Economy of Agricultural Booms. Springer International Schipfer, F., Kranzl, L., Leclère, D., Sylvain, L., Forsell, N., Valin, H., 2017. Advanced Publishing, Cham. biomaterials scenarios for the EU28 up to 2050 and their respective biomass UN General Assembly, 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda demand. Biomass Bioenerg. 96, 19–27. for Sustainable Development. Report No. A/RES/70/1. United Nations. Seymour, F., Harris, N.L., 2019. Reducing tropical deforestation. Science 365, https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E. 756–757. United Soybean Board, 2018. Industrial uses of soy. https://www.unitedsoybean.org/ Sharman, A., Holmes, J., 2010. Evidence-based policy or policy-based evidence gath- media- center/issue- briefs/industrial/. Accessed 18 February 2020. ering? Biofuels, the EU and the 10% target. Env. Pol. Gov. 20, 309–321. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., Kallis, G., 2013. A survey of evolutionary policy: normative Sheppard, A.W., Gillespie, I., Hirsch, M., Begley, C., 2011. Biosecurity and sustainabil- and positive dimensions. J. Bioecon. 15, 281–303. ity within the growing global bioeconomy. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 3, 4–10. van Hilst, F., Hoefnagels, R., Junginger, M., Shen, L., Wicke, B., 2017. Sustainable Siegel, K.M., Bastos Lima, M.G., 2020. When international sustainability frameworks biomass for energy and materials: a greenhouse gas emission perspective. encounter domestic politics: the sustainable development goals and agri-food Working Paper: Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development Working Paper, governance in South America. World Dev. 135, 105053. Utrecht. Simpson, R.D., Sedjo, R.A., Reid, J.W., 1996. Valuing biodiversity for use in pharma- Villoria, N.B., 2019. Technology spillovers and land use change: empirical evidence ceutical research. J. Polit. Econ. 104, 163–185. from global agriculture. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 101, 870–893. Singh, R., Setiawan, A.D., 2013. Biomass energy policies and strategies: harvesting WBA, 2019. Global Bioenergy Statistics 2019. World Bioenergy Association https:// potential in India and Indonesia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 22, 332–345. worldbioenergy.org/uploads/191129%20WBA%20GBS%202019_LQ.pdf. Söderberg, C., Eckerberg, K., 2013. Rising policy conflicts in Europe over bioenergy Weinhold, D., Killick, E., Reis, E.J., 2013. Soybeans, poverty and inequality in the and forestry. For. Policy Econ. 33, 112–119. brazilian amazon. World Dev. 52, 132–143. Staffas, L., Gustavsson, M., McCormick, K., 2013. Strategies and policies for the bioe- Weiss, C.H., 1995. Nothing as practical as good theory: exploring theory-based eval- conomy and bio-based economy: an analysis of official national approaches. uation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families, 1st Sustainability 5, 2751–2769. ed. Stein, D., Valters, C., 2012. Understanding Theory of Change in International Devel- Wesseler, J., von Braun, J., 2017. Measuring the bioeconomy: economics and policies. opment. Justice and Security Research Programme, International Development Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 9, 275–298. Department, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK. Westcott, P., Hansen, J., 2016. USDA Agricultural Projections to 2025. USDA Eco- Swinnen, J.F.M., Vranken, L., 2010. Reforms and agricultural productivity in Central nomic Research Service, Washington, D.C. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/ and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Republics: 1989–2005. J. Prod. Anal. publications/37809/56729_oce- 2016- 1.pdf?v=42508. 33, 241–258. Wohlgemuth, R., Twardowski, T., Aguilar, A., 2021. Bioeconomy moving forward step Thompson, R.C., Moore, C.J., vom Saal, F.S., Swan, S.H., 2009. Plastics, the environ- by step - A global journey. N. Biotechnol. 61, 22–28. ment and human health: current consensus and future trends. Philos. Trans. R. Ye, L., 2015. Synthetic strategies in molecular imprinting. Adv. Biochem. Eng. Soc. London Ser. B 364, 2153–2166. Biotechnol. 127–141. Thornton, P.K., Schuetz, T., Förch, W., Cramer, L., Abreu, D., Vermeulen, S., Camp- Zilberman, D., Gordon, B., Hochman, G., Wesseler, J., 2018. Economics of Sustainable bell, B.M., 2017. Responding to global change: a theory of change approach to Development and the Bioeconomy. Appl Econ Perspect Policy 40, 22–37. making agricultural research for development outcome-based. Agric Syst 152, Zink, T., Geyer, R., 2017. Circular Economy Rebound. J. Ind. Ecol. (Journal of Industrial 145–153. Ecology) 21, 593–602. To, H., Grafton, R.Q., 2015. Oil prices, biofuels production and food security: past Zolfagharian, M., Walrave, B., Raven, R., Romme, A.G.L., 2019. Studying transitions: trends and future challenges. Food Sec 7, 323–336. past, present, and future. Res. Policy 48, 103788. 227