B i o - b a s e d a n d A p p l i e d E c o n o m i c s BAE Copyright: © 2022 N. Hatvani, M.J.A. van den Oever, K. Mateffy, A. Koos. Open access, article published by Firenze University Press under CC-BY-4.0 License. Firenze University Press | www.fupress.com/bae Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(3): 185-205, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6e172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10820 Citation: N. Hatvani, M.J.A. van den Oever, K. Mateffy, A. Koos (2022). Bio- based Business Models: specific and general learnings from recent good practice cases in different business sectors. Bio-based and Applied Eco- nomics 11(3): 185-205. doi: 10.36253/bae- 10820 Received: April 23, 2021 Accepted: May 31, 2022 Published: November 4, 2022 Data Availability Statement: All rel- evant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. Competing Interests: The Author(s) declare(s) no conflict of interest. Editor: Fabio Gaetano Santeramo. ORCID NH: 0000-0003-4031-1199 MJAvdO: 0000-0002-1587-5884 KM: 0000-0002-3104-006X AK: 0000-0002-1308-5256 Bio-based Business Models: specific and general learnings from recent good practice cases in different business sectors Nora Hatvani1,*, Martien J.A. van den Oever2, Kornel Mateffy1, Akos Koos1 1 Bay Zoltan Nonprofit Ltd, Derkovits fasor 2, 6726 Szeged, Hungary 2 Wageningen Food & Biobased Research, Bornse Weilanden 9, 6708 WG Wageningen, The Netherlands *Corresponding author. E-mail: nora.hatvani@bayzoltan.hu Abstract. Business models can be a perfect tool to meet the challenges in highlighting the competitiveness and sustainability potential of bio-based solutions, and facilitating primary producers to benefit from the opportunities offered by bioeconomy. In this work six concrete bio-based good practices that have succeeded in progressing from early ideas to products on the market were analysed. These examples pose new insights that can be used by a wide range of experts and stakeholders for the analysis of ben- efits and challenges of value chains in the bio-based economy sectors. It is concluded that the traditional Business Model Canvas needs to be extended with additional fac- tors related to sustainability and business ecosystem. In order to establish a practical framework promoting economic viability of bio-based business cases, the importance is highlighted for adjusting the exclusive focus on Technology Readiness Levels by introducing levels reflecting business or market readiness. Keywords: Bioeconomy, Business Modelling, Business Model Canvas, Bio-Based Industry, Business Readiness Level. JEL Codes: O31, O32, Q01, Q14, Q16, Q20, Q50, Q55, Q56. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Special role of business models in bioeconomy - dissemination of good prac- tices The shift towards a circular economy and bioeconomy is one of the main focuses of political initiatives aimed at replacing fossil feedstock by renew- able biological sources while still achieving economic growth.1 Awareness raising activities, highlighting the potential of bioeconomy for competitive- ness and sustainability are necessary for informing the general public as well as the different policy departments and business sectors.2 Bio-based business models, the importance of which is clearly stated in the updated Bioeconomy Strategy of the European Commission (EC),3 can be a perfect tool to meet http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode 186 Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(3): 185-205, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10820 Nora Hatvani, Martien J.A. van den Oever, Kornel Mateffy, Akos Koos this challenge. According to this strategy, bioeconomy is sustainable and circular, and includes, among oth- ers, “economic and industrial sectors that use biological resources and processes to produce food, feed, bio-based products, energy and services”. One of the “pilot actions” included in the European Bioeconomy Strategy aims to better link national bioec- onomy strategies and national strategic plans under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), in order to support inclusive bioeconomies in rural areas. It is also high- lighted at this action that dissemination of good practices is among the most important tools to foster the deploy- ment of the bioeconomy and enables primary producers to benefit from the opportunities offered by bioeconomy approaches.3 A strong support for economic information is imperative for enhancing the convergence between bioeconomy and the CAP or other relevant agricultural policies and priorities.4 When developing CAP strategic plans supporting the setting up of sustainable bioecono- my businesses in rural areas, particular attention has to be paid to primary producers because they play a key role in bioeconomy value chains. Countries with well-devel- oped primary sectors have certainly many opportunities to develop downstream value chains.5 The bioeconomy’s strength lies in its diversity, adaptability and close interactions with local and rural communities,2 and business modelling can represent all of these aspects in a unified structure, taking into con- sideration the local economic and social environment where the business operates. When talking about an innovative solution as part of the workflow in research and development (R&D) projects where companies or business oriented organi- zations (e.g. clusters, chambers) are involved, the first immediate question that arises on their part is whether deployment of the solution is economically viable. Fur- ther questions that arise are: What evidence underpins the real potential and economic feasibility of the tech- nology solution? Has the technological viability been already demonstrated? Has the technology been oper- ated on a large scale? How does the innovation fit into the business environment? No matter how eager the rep- resentatives of business-supporting organizations (e.  g. clusters, farmers’ associations, consultancy services, etc.) are to widely share the bioeconomy-related technologies and opportunities to their network, they are not able to make steps forward in qualitative terms without having answers to these questions above. Bearing in mind the precious trust gained from stakeholders they have been working with, representatives feeling responsible simply cannot afford to introduce these promising solutions, as long as it is not fully clear and proven that these inno- vations would not cause any economic disadvantage to these stakeholders. Involvement of farmers is especially essential, since this is the key to ensuring that farmers, instead of being mere biomass providers, benefit from the profit-creating value-addition that is achieved by the innovative transformation processes in bioeconomy businesses. The study on the participation of the agricultural sector in the Bio-Based Industries Joint Undertaking (BBI JU) emphasizes that business models in the bio- based sector are worth highlighting.6 An easy-to-under- stand business model is a great tool for several purposes, i.e.: awareness raising in different sectors, dissemination of bioeconomy good practices, involving primary pro- ducers. The model is expected to clearly explain the key components of a business and how they relate to each other in order to create value and a favorable balance of cost structure and revenue streams that can make the business model viable.7 This current work focuses on business aspects with- in the bioeconomy concept, which are of key importance for this industrial sector, and intends to show interlinks between these aspects and others considered essential for the successful implementation. The aim is to analyse real- life, concrete examples of ‘bio-based concepts’ that have succeeded in progressing from the early ideas to final products placed on the market, and assessing their busi- ness models, in order to provide learnings that can be used by experts of consultancy services and other busi- ness-supporting organizations, clusters, research organi- zations, legal authorities, etc., for the development of innovative companies. The results contribute to develop- ing a common and shared perspective of different sectors involved in bioeconomy developments, with special regard to academic or R&D organizations and industrial actors implementing bio-based industrial solutions in real life. 1.2 Business Model Canvas In very general terms, business models explain how enterprises work to deliver value to their customers. A competitive model represents a business activity that is better than the existing options or may offer more val- ue to a discrete group of customers or may even com- pletely replace the old way of doing things and become the standard for other entrepreneurs. Business Model Canvas (BMC) is a template framework identifying and addressing the nine most important so called building blocks of a business solution and its environment:8, 9 – Value proposition is the bundle of benefits that a company offers to customers. It is the concept at the heart of the model, including the product or service 187Bio-based Business Models: specific and general learnings from recent good practice cases in different business sectors Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(3): 185-205, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10820 itself (or the combination of these), and also value factors being the reasons behind the customer’s motivation to buy it. – Key partners, Key activities, Key resources are the internal building blocks that are mostly under direct control of the Value proposition’s owner, including all the operational components that make the Value proposition a reality. – Customer relationships, Channels, Customer seg- ments are the external building blocks, including all components related to the understanding and reach- ing people and companies representing the market. – Cost structure and Revenue streams are the finance- related building blocks, describing the financial via- bility and feasibility of the business. BMC is a useful tool for facilitating the entrepre- neurial process by breaking down the most relevant aspects of a business solution, and helping to understand and visualize the interplay of the different components creating value. While BMC might be helpful to under- stand existing business models, it is also suitable to design novel innovations.7 The internal building blocks of BMC can be more complex for bio-based industry than other industries. In most bio-based value chains biomass raw material comes from a sector different from the one where it is utilized in a bio-based process (Figure  1). This means that bioeconomy solutions evidently involve different sectors and thus require the cooperation of various and divergent players which rarely interacted so far, such as established chemical companies and small-scale farm- ers.10 Moreover, the bioeconomy concept, as all holistic innovation systems, needs to involve all groups of stake- holders according to the Quintuple Helix Approach: economic, education and political systems, civil society and natural environment.11 In 2017, a systematic literature review was con- ducted by Reim et al. on research articles describing bioeconomy-related forest-based business solutions.1,12 The review assessed to which level of detail the BMC building blocks were investigated in these studies. The building block that is extensively covered in literature is the Value proposition, mainly by describing existing or potential offers related to bioeconomy. Key activities and Key resources are also well-discussed. Customer relationships block often mentions the need for reliable information to convince potential customers, however, there is not much written explicitly about Customer relationships. Channels is the BMC building block that is least addressed. Details about the cost structure can also be found in literature even though detailed calcu- lations are currently missing. The most frequent explic- itly addressed cost is related to the cost of biomass or feedstock. 1.3 Extension of BMC to meet sustainability and business ecosystem aspects BMC is often chosen for business modelling, due to the ease of its practical application and worldwide rec- ognition. However, applying the principles of the circu- lar economy and bioeconomy exceeds the existing BMC components. The potential contribution of the bioeconomy to sustainability and its social value generation (e.  g. local employment, rural regeneration, energy security) are highly evident and well-described in the recent lit- erature.1 However, bioeconomy is not per se sustain- able just because it is based on renewable resources, and sometimes it even brings about new challenges, despite the fact that it can be a way to solve sustain- ability problems and may contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals defined by the United Nations.13 Besides competition with food and feed, increased use of biomass also has its effects on land use, water avail- Figure 1. Bio-based value chain structure demonstrating the stakeholders involved. 188 Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(3): 185-205, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10820 Nora Hatvani, Martien J.A. van den Oever, Kornel Mateffy, Akos Koos ability and on other sectors. For example, forest-based industries (such as production of pulp and paper, building materials, etc.) are affected by the increased use of wood for energy conversion.14 As already seen in the context of bioenergy, rise of the demand for bio- based products will increase the pressure on limited biomass and land resources and thus may cause several sustainability conflicts.13 To make sustainability as one of the key concepts behind bioeconomy supply chains noticeable, sustainability-related aspects can be added as extensions to the BMC. This extension enables the BMC to indicate/demonstrate that bio-based solutions are not aimed at merely replacing fossil resources by bio-based ones, but also generating societal and ecolog- ical values and contributing to a long-term structural change.13 Various models based on the original BMC have already been published which suggest to add fur- ther blocks to the top, side and/or bottom sections to reflect a wider perspective.15 An example is the frame- work presented by Antikainen and Valkokari, which shows how to create values also in environmental and social terms, which is particularly relevant in bioecono- my businesses requiring the cooperation of various and divergent players.16 2. METHODOLOGY 2.1 Selection and categorisation of bio-based solutions The starting point for the selection was a collection of nineteen bio-based solutions which were described in detail in a study in the framework of the POWER4BIO project.17 In the first step, this collection was screened to select good practice solutions having high techno- logical maturity (TRL8 or TRL9, the highest Technology Readiness Levels used in H2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation18) and proven business potential. Additionally, sufficient quality and quantity of the data of the solutions should be available. In this step, knowing a reliable contact person at the company owning the bio-based solution who had permission for sharing necessary and relevant information for all nine building blocks of the BMC was an important aspect. The third step was to identify different solutions to cov- er the four categories as defined by COWI, Bio-Based World News and Ecologic Institute:19 1. Final product (product that can be sold to the end consumer, without any further processing, e.g. table- ware, biofuel, mushroom grown on agricultural wastes, etc.); 2. Material (product that can be used as raw material to produce bio-based final products, e.g. bio-based fibers, bio-based foam for packaging applications, hemp-based insulation material for buildings, plant- based material for clothes, etc.); 3. General building block or biopolymer (chemical monomer or polymer to produce materials, e.g. bio- based 1,4-butanediol, an industrial chemical used as a building block for the production of plastics, elas- tic fibers and polyurethanes); 4. Technology licensing. The authors selected six recently developed bio- based good practice cases and described them following the BMC modelling system. 2.2 Data collection Intensive desk and literature research were car- ried out to extract the valuable information from pub- licly available sources such as webpages of the compa- nies, (bio)economy news portals, press releases issued by the companies, conference presentations, economi- cal/statistical databases, scientific articles, etc. Online or telephone interviews were conducted with the own- ers or experts of selected solutions. One person was interviewed per company. The company experts were informed of the aim and subject of the interviews in advance, during the appointment arrangement process. A set of relevant questions was compiled before the meetings, structured by the elements of BMC, to help covering all relevant details during the interviews. For the case when a company preferred to fill in a question- naire rather than giving an oral interview, this set of questions was sent to its representative expert. The col- lected data were processed and organized using BMC structure.8 Companies have checked and endorsed the business model descriptions. 2.3 Literature review To learn from previous experiences and take into consideration bio-based business models elaborated ear- lier, a literature review was made to obtain an overview about the work already performed in the field of appli- cation of bio-based industry business modelling meth- odologies, especially BMC. Based on this review, the cases presented in the following studies were included to develop learnings about the bio-based business models and their development, together with the good practice cases described in this paper: – The study on the participation of the agricultural sector in the BBI JU was carried out between March and August 2019.6 Fifteen business models from 189Bio-based Business Models: specific and general learnings from recent good practice cases in different business sectors Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(3): 185-205, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10820 European countries and five from non-European countries were studied. – BE-Rural project, funded under the same H2020 call topic as POWER4BIO, delivered a report in Novem- ber 2019, addressing business models for regional bioeconomies20 which analyses four models based on BMC. – In 2017 a one-day stakeholder workshop was organ- ized in Lleida, Spain in the AgriMax project fund- ed by BBI JU, to develop business models for val- orisation of agricultural and food-processing waste. Farmers, agricultural cooperatives, food producers, investors and other stakeholders were invited, and BMC was used to elaborate three case studies and map existing and innovative ways to create value for the new supply chains.15 – In 2019 a report was prepared for the EC by COWI Group, Bio-Based World News and Ecologic Insti- tute, in order to “provide concrete examples of ‘bio- based concepts’ that have succeeded in progressing from the early ideas to a final product placed on the market”, to a fully commercial level, or close to that. Fifteen success stories are presented in this report.19 2.4 Framework for the extension of BMC to meet sustain- ability and business ecosystem aspects In order to extend the traditional BMC with sustain- ability and business ecosystem aspects, authors used the framework offered by Antikainen and Valkokari,16 which complements current business model tools by integrat- ing the following additional factors: trends, drivers, stakeholder involvement (business ecosystem level), and environmental, social and business requirements and benefits (sustainability impact). A collection of exam- ples for these additional factors was compiled based on the authors’ own experiences and the work of Philp and Winickoff,21 Biber-Freudenberger et al.22 and Pavlovs- kaia,23 and categorised as follows: drivers and stakehold- er involvement tools; sustanability requirements; sus- tainability benefits. 3. RESULTS Table 1 summarizes the good practice cases present- ed in this article and Figure  2 shows the locations where these cases are being operated by the owner companies. Figures 3-8 present the business models in BMC format behind the analyzed solutions numbered S1, S2, S3, S4, S5 and S6, respectively. For each solution short addition- al background information is presented next. S1. Production of feed quality protein meal and oil with high nutritional value by the bioconversion of residual organic streams using Black Soldier Fly Lar- vae (Bestico, Berkel en Rodenrijs, The Netherlands) Bestico B.V. founded in 2013 focuses on the production and sales of Black Soldier Fly (BSF) (Hermetia illucens) larvae and their processing to protein for animal feed (especially aquaculture feed and pet food), insect oil and fertilizer agent (Figure 3). The efforts of Bestico B.V. are supported by its mother company, Koppert Biological Systems, an internationalized firm with subsidiaries in 27 countries which is a leading provider of arthropods and microbes for biological control of agricultural pests and has developed expertise in the production of insects since 1967. The company provides a tailored, scalable solution (being at TRL8 at the time of the interview) to use biomass by-products and convert this into feed-qual- ity protein and oil with high nutritional value. When the data collection was performed, the production rate was around 6-12 tonnes of fresh larvae per week. The grow- ing process takes about 14 days, and within this period the larvae reduce the feedstock weight by 40-60% while half of this, i.e., 20-30% of the feedstock weight is con- verted into larvae biomass, depending on the nutritional profile of the feedstock. S2. Local production of fresh oyster mushroom com- bined with the valorization of the coffee ground resi- dues (Rotterzwam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands) Rotterzwam B.V. is a private company, established in 2013. The company is dedicated to cultivation, produc- tion and sale of fresh edible mushrooms grown on cof- Figure 2. Locations of the companies operating the good practice cases listed in Table 1. 190 Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(3): 185-205, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10820 Nora Hatvani, Martien J.A. van den Oever, Kornel Mateffy, Akos Koos fee grounds and its application in other related products (Figure 4). Its mushroom nursery is the largest coffee ground-based mushroom farm in Europe and the com- pany aims to develop it to be energy neutral and CO2 negative. The cultivation units contain a modular and sustainable climate system, which is fully optimized for mushroom cultivation. These units, which are especial- ly designed for an urban environment, can also be very well used in remote rural areas. Rotterzwam also pro- vides services like workshops, educational activities and consultancy in the field of urban management through the radical renewal of chains. They work with local partners to find new ways to put products derived from coffee grounds and oyster mushrooms into the market, developing products such as oyster mushroom vegetar- ian snacks and beer. S3. Natural insulation material produced using hemp hurds and own-produced limestone-based binder (Hempire, Ukraine) Hempire is a company based in Ukraine and having a site in California, USA as well. The company was estab- lished to provide insulation technology based on hemp and lime (Figure 5). In the last few years, the company has been involved in more thatn 60 building construction projects and successfully developed its own lime-based binder material called “Fifth Element” which does not contain cement, sand or toxic components. The binder material is produced in the company’s own facilities, both in Ukraine and in the USA. Through extensive R&D the company has created a very light insulation mate- rial called “Hempire Mix”. This highly energy efficient material consists of three components, which are mixed on the construction sites using a special mixer: hemp hurds, water and the special proprietary binder men- tioned above. Hempire Mix is applied on the walls and it can be used to insulate any wall, floor and roof inside a new or an existing building. It contains only non-toxic components and has numerous benefits: insulation act- ing as humidity and temperature regulator in the build- ing; excellent thermal insulation properties resulting in significant savings on heating and cooling all year round; with vapor permeable walls there is no need to install a ventilation system; high thermal mass and thermal iner- tia help prevent temperature f luctuations; no rotting but protecting walls from fungus due to the regulation of humidity; excellent acoustic absorption due to high porosity; non-flammable material which repels rodents. Table 1. Summary of the bio-based solutions selected for this study. Product types, defined in Section 2.1, are as follows: 1: Final product, 2: Material, 3: Building block or polymer, 4: Technology licensing. No. of solution Name of solution Bio-based product(s) Product type Company (country) Mode of data collection S1 Production of feed quality protein meal and oil with high nutritional value by the bioconversion of residual organic streams using Black Soldier Fly (BSF) Larvae feed quality protein meal, oil with high nutritional value; fertiliser 1 Bestico (The Netherlands) personal interview (08.01.2020); desk research S2 Local production of fresh oyster mushroom combined with the valorisation of the coffee ground residues fresh oyster mushroom and processed products 1 Rotterzwam (The Netherlands) desk research, email discussion S3 Natural insulation material produced using hemp hurds and own-produced limestone-based binder insulation material based on hemp hurd 2, 4 Hempire (Ukraine) personal interview (11.11.2019); desk research S4 Meadow grass silage biorefinery producing grass fibre reinforced plastic composite granulates and bio-based insulation material, combined with biogas plant producing electrical energy from grass juice and food residues grass fibre reinforced plastic granulates, natural insulation material, electrical energy from biogas, organic fertiliser 2 Biowert (Germany) data and descriptions provided by the company in written form by filling a questionnaire; desk research S5 Production of bio-based chemicals, high- quality natural lignin, biogas and biofuels from 2nd generation biomass by cracking technology biochemicals, natural lignin, biogas, biofuels 3, 4 LXP Group (Germany) personal interview (24.02.2020) and email discussion; desk research; content of slides used by the company at public presentations S6 Production of polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) using waste cooking oil polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) 3, 4 Nafigate Corporation (Czech Republic) personal interview (06.12.2019), followed by email discussion; desk research 191Bio-based Business Models: specific and general learnings from recent good practice cases in different business sectors Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(3): 185-205, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10820 Figure 3. BMC of solution ‘S1’ (Bestico, The Netherlands). Key Partnerships · raw material providers ensuring biomass feedstock of appropriate quality · industrial and academic partners to increase TRL and to find new applications for BSF larvae products and side streams Key Activities · feedstock reception (GMP+ grade for feed application) and strict quality control upon receipt (dry matter content, free of pesticides/insecticides) · primary production of insects · processing insects into concentrated protein meal, insect oil and natural fertilizer · adapting the technology to fit into existing operations (scale-up of current process) · continuous R&D for cost effective and higher quality production Value Proposition · tailored sustainable solutions for growing and processing insects · scalable solution to utilise excess biomass from potato industry, beer and alcohol industry into valuable feed-quality and storable protein and oil with high nutritional value · protein from BSF (with protein content up to 60%) suitable for farmed fish, poultry and other livestock, providing essential amino acids which are low in feeds produced from plant origin and which are easily digested by most animals · substrate remaining after isolation of protein and oil has value as fertiliser · automated processing secures consistent and safe products · BSF larvae system is adaptable to a wide range of residual organic streams, making food chain more sustainable Customer Relationships · Business to Business (B2B) and Business to Customers sales strategies · using a sales force of 3-5 persons in Europe (France, United Kingdom, The Netherlands) Customer Segments · pet food industry · pet food consumers · aquaculture · animal feed industry (farm animals) Key Resources · raw material feedstock (e.g. vegetable waste coming from potato and alcohol industries) of appropriate quality (very low content of insecticides) and uniform in physical and nutritional properties affecting the time required to larvae growth · infrastructure for feedstock storage and quality control · facilities comprising conditioned rearing cells and equipment for feeding of the insects · equipment to isolate protein meal and insect oil · know-how on BSF eggs production and insects growing · sales competences Channels · reaching customers by company website, social media and YouTube channels · conferences and presentations at fairs and other events · cooperation projects Cost Structure · CAPEX is estimated in the range between 3-5 million EUR; · main long-term expenses: plant and equipment purchases, building and improvements, instrumentation and automation of the process; · most important operational expenses: feedstock, energy/utilities and labour costs, with equal shares within OPEX being in the range of 3-5 million EUR/year Revenue Streams · sales of dry insects for animal feed and pet food; · estimated price of dry BSF larvae as animal feed: 1-3 EUR/kg; price of pet food: 15-40 EUR/kg (based on the retail prices in the webshop) 192 Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(3): 185-205, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10820 Nora Hatvani, Martien J.A. van den Oever, Kornel Mateffy, Akos Koos S4. Meadow grass silage biorefinery producing grass fiber reinforced plastic composite granulates and bio- based insulation material, combined with biogas plant producing electrical energy from grass juice and food residues (Biowert, Germany) Biowert Industrie GmbH was founded in 2000 as a Swiss-German company. The first Biowert grass refin- ery which started its operation in 2007 is located in Key Partnerships · local coffee grounds providers · local industries for the development of new products: partners cooperating in the development and sales of products listed at the Value proposition (restaurants, supermarkets, breweries, bakeries etc.) Key Activities · collection of coffee grounds from companies or organizations that use at least 50 kg of coffee beans per month · cultivation, storage and packaging of oyster mushrooms · sales and marketing of fresh oyster processed products · activities related to the development of processed products and to the services provided Value Proposition · valorisation of coffee residues on a local scale into the best possible uses such as food products · production of fresh oyster mushrooms · mushroom-based and coffee ground-based processed products (beer, snacks, soap, fertiliser etc.) · growkit for common people to convert their own coffee grounds into oyster mushrooms · substrate remaining after mushroom production can be used as soil improver Customer Relationships · direct sales to local people, restaurants and shops · attracting new customers and engaging entrepreneurs interested in mushroom growing and utilisation of coffee grounds · unique marketing strategy and communication package on valorisation of coffee ground Customer Segments · strong focus on the citizens of the local municipality · local shops, restaurants and markets · local hospitality sector (food category) · green consumers or entrepreneurs, with preference for local food production, environmentally friendly products and consumption of proteins of non-animal origin and concerned about the environment Key Resources · coffee ground material as the main feedstock · know how on oyster mushrooms cultivation techniques on coffee grounds · cultivation container units optimized for mushroom cultivation, especially designed for an urban environment · infrastructure and adapted facilities for production of mushrooms · vehicles for the collection and transport of coffee grounds and mushrooms Channels · company’s own website and Facebook site · online shops · catering wholesalers offering oyster mushrooms snacks · network of local mushroom nurseries promoting the growkit · social and traditional media · online e-learning courses and seminars, presentations, workshops · factory visits Cost Structure · 400 000 EUR from crowdfunding (Symbid) in 2018 to build the site; · shares of investments: 34% for breeding units (8 containers), including climate system and installation; 16% for substrate preparation area, mixer, packaging machine, office space, cold room; 7% for installation of solar panels on the entire nursery; 7% for roll out quasi franchise; 8% for R&D; 8% branding and marketing campaign; 8% accelerated sales & rollout of new products and 12% for the other costs · shares of the different costs within the OPEX structure are the following: staff costs: 33%, cost of sales: 29%, other operating costs: 34%, depreciation and financial expenses: 4% Revenue Streams · producers of coffee ground material pay for its collection (15 EUR/kg) · fresh oyster mushrooms sales (8,5-10 EUR/kg) · sales of processed products (beer – 9 EUR/litre; vegetarian snacks etc.) · growkit for people to convert their own coffee grounds into oyster mushrooms: 15 EUR per kit · E-learning courses and seminars on mushrooms growing (50- 350 EUR per module) Figure 4. BMC of solution ‘S2’ (Rotterzwam B.V., The Netherlands). 193Bio-based Business Models: specific and general learnings from recent good practice cases in different business sectors Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(3): 185-205, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10820 Brensbach, Germany. The “grass factory” system com- bines the biorefinery process, the multistage produc- tion of innovative bio-based materials and an affiliated anaerobic digestion facility with a CHP plant produc- ing green electricity (Figure 6). The biorefinery is fed by meadow grass from their own permanent pasture- land and arable land for crop production, and produc- es different innovative biomaterials: a fire safe blow- in insulation material for wall, roof and floor cavities which naturally controls the absorption and release of water vapor to ensure the ideal building environment and safe from rodents, insects and mould (AgriCell), Key Partnerships · raw material providers: hemp growers and lime provider · logistic partners Key Activities · feedstock transport and storage · producing lime-based binder · binder transport · mixing binder, water and hemp hurds on the construction site · close cooperation with hemp growers · design, planning and implementation services · technology development for more cost effective and higher quantity production Value Proposition · natural hemp-based insulation solutions using local ingredients for environment- friendly buildings · building and energy cost-effective construction solution · special lime-based binder material (free from cement, sand or toxic components) for the on-site production of insulation material · processes to be done on the construction sites are easy-to-learn and do not require high level of skills · wide range of services: consultation, services related to insulation, design, planning and implementation, quality control Customer Relationships · direct relationship and close cooperation with customers · B2B and B2C sales strategies · providing technical support · informing the public about new buildings and construction solutions, to add more visibility to the solution Customer Segments · private persons, organizations, business companies, communities interested in making a hemp-based building · consulting services: architects, designers, builders, contractors and other actors in the construction industry Key Resources · estate for the buildings and feedstock storage · buildings and machinery for lime-based binder production · high quality raw materials: hemp and lime (dust content of the hemp has to be as low as possible, it can’t be mouldy or wet, hurd particles shall be 1-4 cm long) · vehicles for feedstock and product transport and handling · know-how and knowledge for optimization based on own experiences Channels · marketing: company’s own website, Facebook site · presentations and workshops to inform stakeholders about the company’s activities and current developments · staying in contact with former customers Cost Structure · CAPEX: building and equipment for a new facility: 2 million USD in USA or Canada, while around 1 million USD in Europe or Ukraine · OPEX: price of raw materials: hemp hurds as main feedstock (120 EUR/t) and lime; energy costs; labour costs (4 people in the binder production facility and other 4 people working at the construction site); general & administrative expenses Revenue Streams · sale of binder material: 12 EUR per one bag, which contains 25 kg (480 EUR/t) and for a retail price of 32 USD per one bag, which contains 23 kg (1 390 USD/t) in the USA · revenues from sale of insulation material (180 EUR/m3) and insulation services · revenues from consultation and other services mentioned at Value Proposition Figure 5. BMC of solution ‘S3’ (Hempire, Ukraine). 194 Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(3): 185-205, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10820 Nora Hatvani, Martien J.A. van den Oever, Kornel Mateffy, Akos Koos Key Partnerships · raw material providers: local farmers · partners for transporting feedstock and products · waste material handling companies to provide organic wastes feeding the biogas plant Key Activities · feedstock transport and storage (seasonality: meadow grass grows in spring and early summer, it can be harvested up to 4 times a year, but ensiling makes it durable, so it is available all year round) · biorefinery process: cellulose fibres are separated from the grass using mechanical processing and then dried · processing of the fibres into plastic based granulates or insulation material, using recycled plastic · electricity and heat production by the biogas plant · processing of digestate to a concentrated organic fertilizer · keeping regular contacts with industrial customers and local farmers Value Proposition · meadow grass processed into materials by a biorefinery process and green energy by an affiliated biogas plant, using food residues, other organic wastes and grass juice, ensuring energy needs (e.g. drying of cellulose fibres) · products: grass fibre reinforced plastic granulates, insulation material, organic fertiliser · positive environmental impacts: reducing the use of fossil-based plastics; reducing CO2 footprint by using grass being a natural CO2 adsorber; energy produced from wastes; agricultural and food industrial waste reduction Customer Relationships · sales strategy: B2B relations with industrial partners · cooperation with local farmers Customer Segments · grass fibre reinforced plastic granulates: industrial customers in a wide range · insulation material: construction industry · electricity and heat: own use and local electric service provider · organic fertiliser: local farmers · licensing the solution to actors interested in technology implementation Key Resources · suitable biomass feedstock (mainly meadow grass, harvested before the panicle is pushed and ensiled, at a dry matter content of 25-30%) · estate for the buildings and feedstock storage · buildings and machinery for technology processes listed under Key Activities · know-how and optimization based on own experience, included in patents as well · specific-skilled workforce and high-quality experts Channels · marketing: company’s own website and Facebook site · presentations and workshops to inform stakeholders Cost Structure · CAPEX cost estimated: 7-10 million EUR for biorefinery and 8 million EUR for biogas plant · 18-24 months long period needed to install and optimise the technology (related costs also have to be taken into account) · OPEX: feedstock (meadow grass: 140 EUR/tonne dry matter), energy and labour costs, general and administrative expenses · energy costs depend on the share provided by the biogas plant Revenue Streams · selling of grass fibre reinforced plastic granulates (2 500 t/ year produced; price: 1,95-3,50 EUR/kg, depending on additives and final recipe) · selling of insulation material (1 400 t/year produced; 1,38 EUR/kg) · energy sold to the local electric service provider, (price set by feed-in tariffs; CHP plant produces 5,2 GWh/year, the energy need of the biorefinery is 2,5-3 GWh/year, thus the surplus can be sold) · by-product of the biogas plant is a nitrogen-rich material, sold as organic fertiliser (11 000 t/year) · indirect revenue: waste management costs are lower, as by-product of the biorefinery (e. g. grass juice wastewater, 2 000 t/year) is processed in the biogas plant Figure 6. BMC of solution ‘S4’ (Biowert, Germany). 195Bio-based Business Models: specific and general learnings from recent good practice cases in different business sectors Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(3): 185-205, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10820 a light, dimensionally stable and temperature resistant fiber-reinforced composite material with 30 to 75% nat- ural fibers (AgriPlast) and an organic fertilizer made from biogas digestate (AgriFer). The facility has an annual throughput of about 2  000 tonnes of dry matter (equivalent to 8  000 tonnes of grass per year at 25–30% dry matter content). Grass juice, as waste of the biore- finery process and other co-substrates (biogenic resid- ual materials such as local food waste, 15  000 tonnes/ year) are used for biogas production (1  340  000 m3/ year) in the anaerobic digestion facility. This solution is a good example of the case being quite specific for the circular bio-based business models, when the producer and converter of the biomass are one and the same party, i.e., producer directly uses its by- product as a feedstock for a bio-based process. S5. Production of bio-based chemicals, high-quality natural lignin, biogas and biofuels from 2nd generation biomass by cracking technology (LXP Group GmbH, Straubing, Germany) The goal of the company, founded in 2009 is to optimize 2nd generation biomass value chains. They have devel- oped and patented a pre-treatment technology (LX-Pro- cess) that “gently cracks” the lignin strands in 2nd gen- eration biomasses (such as agricultural residues, forest materials, energy grasses, organic municipal solid waste, fibrous portion of digestate from biogas plants) into oli- gosaccharides, lignin, cellulose and other polysaccha- rides which are available for further processing in fer- mentation processes (Figure 7). Since no inhibitors are left after the cracking process, downstream fermentation does not require expensive, custom-tailored enzymes for hydrolysis. To be economically feasible, the capacity of the plant has to be at least 10 kilotonne dry matter of processed biomass per year. The LX Pre-treatment plants can serve as raw material producers for the chemical industry or the energy sector. The first industrial LX Demonstration plant is located near Straubing, Bavaria, Germany, it was inaugurated in February of 2020 and has a planned maximum capacity of 500 tonnes (dry matter) of biomass. Initially the plant processes biogas digestate and will test additional biomass types to prove that lignocellulosic biomass from agriculture, forestry and municipal waste are also suitable for the LX Tech- nology. German-funded projects and an EU-funded pro- ject helped the development of the technical solution. The company is interested in own technology implemen- tation (Product type 3) as well as licensing the optimized technology solution to other companies (Product type 4). The model presented on Figure  7 describes the own technology implementation activity. S6: Production of polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) using waste cooking oil (NAFIGATE, Czech Republic) NAFIGATE Corporation, a knowledge-based company founded in 2011 has developed HYDAL Biotechnology. This technology, as the first in the world on the indus- trial scale, uses waste cooking oil (mostly a mixture of different plant oils such as rapeseed and sunflower oil) to produce polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) by using a bacte- rial fermentation process (Figure 8). The pilot PHA pro- duction started in 2013 and the pilot of the downstream process (isolation of the polymer from microbial cells) in 2015. In 2019 the suitability of sludge palm oil was also verified by the company’s research activity for PHA pro- duction. The PHA family of biopolymers is unique to plas- tics from renewable resources, as it comprises the only group of polymers converted from raw materials into their final form directly by microorganisms. Polyhy- droxybutyrate (PHB), a specific type of PHA is simi- lar in its material properties to polystyrene, has a good resistance to moisture and aroma barrier properties. It has a unique position in the PHA family, as it biode- grades within a reasonable timescale in a wide range of microbiologically active environments24 such as soils, fresh water, aerobic and anaerobic composting, waste- water treatment plants. Currently, the PHB biopoly- mer’s application is multifaceted, it can replace toxic substances in UV filters; microplastics in e. g. cosmetic industry, healthcare products or medical applications (e.g., covering for capsules, stitching of wounds, bone implants); synthetic plastics in different applications such as bottles, disposable cups, cutlery, lamination foils etc.; and materials in the agriculture sector for the slow release of fertilizers, insecticides, pesticides or fungi- cides in the soil.25 Poly-3-hydroxybutyrate (P3HB), the final desired biopolymer has a purity higher than 99% and high molecular weight. NAFIGATE uses pure P3HB powder in cosmetic products (shower milk, sunscreen, etc.) which are sold by their sales and marketing partner company established in 2015. NAFIGATE is working on broadening the use of biopolymer into the medical and agricultural sector. In the context of the extension of traditional BMC, Table 2 shows examples for the three additional factors16 (left column) and good practice examples identified by authors in the reviewed business cases (right column). 196 Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(3): 185-205, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10820 Nora Hatvani, Martien J.A. van den Oever, Kornel Mateffy, Akos Koos Key Partnerships · raw material providers · sales partners · partners in waste management · R&D partners cooperating in successful plant operation · financial advisory service, investors Key Activities · feedstock transport and storage · technology steps: LX chemical pre-treatment process, precipitation of cellulose and lignin, separation / filtration of each component · enzymatic hydrolysis · recovery of solvent and precipitant · technical problem solving · product transport · technology optimization and design for scale up Value Proposition · production of wide range of bio-based chemicals, non-toxic, sulphur-free, high- quality natural lignin, biofuels and biogas · high feedstock flexibility: any lignocellulosic raw material can be processed (using only non-food biomass), meaning that the plant is not fixed to a single feedstock · using the output materials from LX-Process technology, bio-processing plants can produce sugars by enzymatic hydrolysis which can be then converted through microbial fermentation processes into a multitude of valuable end products (e.g. biogas, ethanol, lactic acid, etc.) · LX-Process leaves little inhibitors (such as furfural or formic acid) the presence of which is a principle hurdle faced in downstream bioprocessing, as they cannot not be removed economically · simple, modular technology system · decentralized bio-based production is possible · circular bioeconomy approach supported by legislation on EU and national level · GHG reduction Customer Relationships · B2B sales strategy · operating a large-scale pilot plant · personal follow- up contacts with stakeholders showing interest after presentations at conferences or website visits Customer Segments · chemical industrial enterprises interested in 2nd generation bio- chemicals · key players in development of bio-based, “drop- in” replacement of petrochemicals · customers seeking natural lignin of unique quality · cosmetic industry · 3D printing market · sectors of construction industry interested in green construction materials · producers of biopolymers (resins, plastics) and adhesives · bioethanol and biogas consumers Key Resources · regionally available biomass feedstock (biogas digestate, agricultural and forestry residues) · estate for the buildings and feedstock storage · buildings and machinery for processes listed under Key Activities · vehicles for transport and handling of feedstock and products · specific-skilled workforce and their technical experiences Channels · marketing: company website · presentations and workshops to inform stakeholders · demonstration activities performed in the large-scale pilot plant Cost Structure · CAPEX costs highly depend on scale and integration scenario · main OPEX items: feedstock, energy (heat / electricity) · feedstock price: as cheap as possible, but up to 100 EUR/tonne · simplicity of the process keeps operational costs low: low temperature, around 70°C, enabling use of residual waste heat; normal atmospheric pressure/tolerance/corrosiveness Revenue Streams · sales of the materials produced by LX-Process technology · bulk products as lignin, cellulose, sugars generate revenue with relatively good margins but can also benefit from a wide market of niche products, such as vanillin, which generate high margins but in much lower volume markets · 6-7 years long payback time is estimated for a plant with a capacity of 25 kt dry matter processed biomass per year · deployment of the technology is already economical from ca. 10 000 tonnes of throughput (dry matter biomass) per year Figure 7. BMC of solution ‘S5’ (LXP Group, Germany). 197Bio-based Business Models: specific and general learnings from recent good practice cases in different business sectors Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(3): 185-205, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10820 4. DISCUSSION 4.1 Cross-cutting analysis Based on the internal building blocks in the busi- ness models of bio-based solutions in Table 1 and described in the reports listed in Section 2.3, the follow- ing points were identified as especially important cross- cutting elements and also as factors that are specific to the bio-based industry in several aspects: – Biomass feedstock as a key resource, local biomass suppliers as key partners and maintaining good rela- tionships with them as a key activity, since the con- stant availability of biomass and solving the related logistic issues are of key importance. For bio-based companies it is essential to have close relation with farmers by offering them reliable and convenient services, e.  g. secure and regular payments irrespec- tive of harvest time, assurance of timely transport Key Partnerships · industrial feedstock providers ensuring large amount of waste cooking oil · sales partner · R&D partners providing laboratories and equipment needed for the production (if these resources are not owned by the producer) Key Activities · feedstock transport to the production site · technology steps: microbial fermentation (transforming waste cooking oil into a PHA biopolymer, stored inside the bacterial cell); isolation of polymer from microbial cells; mixing with additives for stabilization · production of cosmetics from P3HB · product transport · product selling activities · continuous technology development and optimisation Value Proposition · HYDAL biotechnology producing biodegradable PHA (polyhydroxyalkanoates) from waste cooking oils · PHA: raw material in cosmetic or medicine industry for biodegradable microbeads, UV filter in sunscreens or bioplastics · PHA product of the highest priority: poly-3- hydroxybutyrate (P3HB) · production of cosmetics (e.g. peeling shower milk, sunscreen) from P3HB · the technology does not use crops or other feedstock produced on agricultural land · the technology contributes to reducing pollution caused by plastics and microplastics and to solving the problem of waste cooking oil utilization as well, and, at the same time requires less water and energy compared to PHB production from sugar beet, potato, wheat or corn Customer Relationships · close cooperation with industrial customers using PHA · B2B and B2C sales strategies · close cooperation with sales partners Customer Segments · PHA, P3HB: industrial customers (cosmetic and medicine industry, agriculture sector) · cosmetics: supermarket chains, wholesalers and retail customers · licences and know- hows: market actors interested in large scale PHA production Key Resources · buildings, laboratories and equipment for processes listed under Key Activities · know-how related to the specific bacterial fermentation process, based on own experience · high quality experts and specific-skilled workforce Channels · webshop of NAFIGATE Cosmetics to reach retail consumers directly · marketing: company’s own website, Facebook site · press releases, presentations and workshops to inform stakeholders Cost Structure · technology development was financed by own investment and public funding · relatively high CAPEX costs purchasing equipment (new facility producing PHA on industrial scale would cost around 9 million EUR, according to the company’s estimation) · OPEX: cost of waste cooking oil as main feedstock (0,6 EUR/kg); rental costs of laboratory and equipment; energy costs; service costs (including the high cost of laboratory testing services that has to be purchased to provide certificates for cosmetics); labour costs; general and administrative expenses Revenue Streams · revenues from PHA, PH3B sales · selling of cosmetics (60 EUR/litre, based on retail prices in the webshop) · licensing of know-how Figure 8. BMC of solution ‘S6’ (NAFIGATE Corporation, Czech Republic). 198 Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(3): 185-205, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10820 Nora Hatvani, Martien J.A. van den Oever, Kornel Mateffy, Akos Koos before new crop needs planting, access to financing opportunities within the business group to support farmers investing in e.g. storage facilities.15 – Logistic and quality assurance partnerships and activities, since keeping transport costs low is cru- cial for costs-efficiency, and so are the activities ensuring adequate biomass supply (e.g. handling seasonality and perishability, quality monitoring etc.). Volumes of resources, especially feedstocks from agricultural production can fluctuate, which represents a constraint for markets traditionally not subjected to large fluctuations in feedstock supply, like for chemical products, hence issues in logistics, storage and quality preservation should be constant- ly addressed.26 Steady supply of the required sea- sonal feedstock, which may increase storage costs, is often reported as a weakness.18 Challenges from seasonality are tackled by building appropriate stor- Table 2. Examples for additional factors to extend the traditional BMC, and good practices identified in bio-based business models for these factors. Examples for the additional factors to extend the traditional BMC Concrete good practice examples of bio-based business models Additional factor: Drivers and stakeholder involvement tools · identifying and informing “opinion formers” in different stakeholder groups · active participation and support of regional or industrial clusters, advocacy forums and other organisations in stakeholder involvement, by action platforms to promote new technologies and innovations · knowledge exchange and development through networks and across value chains, involving learning activities, mostly on the emerging technologies · market formation involving activities that contribute to the creation of a demand for the emerging technology (e. g. taxation, procurement) · general policy instruments (e. g. long-term public strategies on industry regulations, incentives for product labelling, consumer information, industry collaboration) · public funding for early-stage research and competence building · LXP Group: cooperation with Chemie-Cluster Bayern, a market- oriented development network of entrepreneurs and research institutions in the Bavarian chemical industry, acting as a catalyst facilitating the diffusion of innovative products into new markets17 · Rotterzwam: cooperation with many local partners to find new ways for marketing products from coffee grounds and oyster mushrooms17 · Wilson Bio-Chemical: partnerships increasingly strengthened through R&D into higher value applications, anticipating delivering more economic, technical, environmental and social benefits15 · AF Biomass: strengthening the supply chain network by exploring new end-markets such as for linseed straw in the paper industry in Spain and with a new straw pelleting plant in the UK15 · Bio-Lutions received grant from the German government for upscaling their technology20 · NAFIGATE Corporation started its operation with low investment amount and public support (most of these funds spent on R&D activities and know-how development)17 Additional factor: Sustainability requirements · energy and materials are conserved during the production process and the form of energy and materials applied are most appropriate for the desired result · work practices (including the use of chemical substances, physical agents or technologies) that present hazards to human health or the environment are continuously reduced or eliminated · products (including their packaging) and services are designed to be safe and ecologically sound throughout their life cycle · wastes and ecologically incompatible by-products are continuously reduced, eliminated, or recycled · non-food-competitive land use · biodegradability of bio-based materials in industrial, soil, or marine environments · avoiding health and ecological risks caused by improper use of technologies · management of companies is committed to an open, participatory process of continuous evaluation and improvement, focused on the long-term economic performance · NAFIGATE Corporation: HYDAL technology transforming waste cooking oil into high-value biomaterial polymers does not use crops or other feedstock produced on agricultural land, moreover, requires less water and energy compared to PHB production from sugar beet, potato, wheat or corn17 · LXP Group: LX-Process can be readily adapted for large-scale 2nd generation ethanol manufacturing17 · Biowert Industrie GmbH: ‘grass refinery’ solution using agricultural and food industrial wastes17 · Bestico: BSF larvae can transform nearly any kind of organic waste into high-quality protein17 · Wilson Bio-Chemical: downstream reprocessing of recyclables15 · AF Biomass: growing use of biomass for energy can positively contribute to energy security, the low carbon economy and ‘green’ jobs15 · Hédinn protein plant: process requiring less water and energy than comparable technologies and thus economically and environmentally beneficial20 · Spawnfoam renewable biocomposite: By creating sustainable and biodegradable products, fossil-based products are substituted20 · Bio-Lutions: using local resources to produce biodegradable products, based on raw material being outside of the human food chain and other value chains20 199Bio-based Business Models: specific and general learnings from recent good practice cases in different business sectors Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(3): 185-205, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10820 age capacity and technologies converting perishable biomass to a stable feedstock (e.g. ensiling). – Research background (laboratories as a key resource or a key partnership, research-based developments as a key activity), since bioeconomy and industrial biotechnology are highly innovative and research- intensive sectors. Continuous R&D is part of busi- ness models for more cost effective and higher quali- ty production as well as developing new applications for products and sidestreams. The Value proposition is versatile since it can be extended to include social and environmental values besides the economic value the business creates. For exam- ple, in bioenergy producing solutions, the local production strengthens the local economy and reduces the depend- ence from fossil fuels at the same time.27 Values that are generally recognized in all the business cases reviewed in this study include: valorization of wastes or untapped feed- stocks; creation of more sustainable products; mitigating dependence from fossil fuels in the case of energy-pro- ducing solutions; local value creation by using locally pro- duced feedstock; local job and income creation. Public and private partners from diverse sectors need to be involved in order to establish strategic collabora- tions for bioeconomy initiatives.26 For example, a biorefin- ery evolves in a territory with an economic, political and social identity, thus, the success of such a business model depends on the ability to form partnerships and collabo- rate with local players: (large number of) primary produc- ers, agricultural cooperatives, industries, educational and research organizations, local authorities.26 Showing them the environmental, social and business benefits as part of sustainability impact that the biorefinery project can bring to their local level can greatly improve this ability, and thus the chance for a successful and profitable pro- ject implementation. Business support organisations such as development authorities and clusters acting in the field of regional development or a specific industrial sector can play a key role in this integration process. Examples for the additional factors to extend the traditional BMC Concrete good practice examples of bio-based business models Additional factor: Sustainability benefits · valorisation of biomass which would otherwise end up as waste · higher recycling rates · novel energy sources for households · increasing food production and lowering production costs · reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution · decreasing the use of pesticides · generation of livelihood opportunities and income sources for farmers · health benefits due to medical applications · benefits in terms of energy provisioning and food security, for example, using waste as feedstock for insects or algae which are subsequently used as feedstock for further applications · Rotterzwam: oyster mushrooms grown on coffee grounds, as source of proteins of non-animal origin with minimal footprint and food miles17 · LXP Group: LX-Process reduces GHG emissions and enables 1st generation biorefineries and biogas plants to convert to 2nd generation feedstocks, thus reducing required acreage for 1st generation feedstocks17 · Hempire: hemp-based building material reduces energy required for heating/cooling; 1 m3 of Hempire Mix locks up 165 kg of CO2 (negative carbon footprint)17 · Biowert Industrie GmbH: their solution reduces CO2 footprint by using grass as a natural CO2 adsorber and the use of fossil-based plastics as well (and thus the consumption of fossil raw materials)17 · Bestico: low environmental footprint of producing alternative protein sources for animal feeds by BSF larvae17 · Wilson Bio-Chemical: biodegradable waste fraction diverted from landfill, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and freeing up land for other purposes whilst producing feedstock for renewable energy15 · Soldebre: use of olive kernels as a low-carbon biofuel, environmental impacts are reduced such as achieving a reduction in carbon emissions by using less fossil fuel15 · Small-scale pellet production: local pellet production reduces the dependence from fossil fuels, replaces them in households and CHP plants, etc., thus reducing overall logistics costs and emissions from fossil fuels20 · Hédinn protein plant: more targeted fishing of cyprinids helps to reduce eutrophication which may have positive environmental impacts while supporting rural development at the same time20 · Spawnfoam renewable biocomposite: solution facilitates defossilisation for a range of products, reduces GHG emissions and prevents the deposit of waste in landfills or in the seas20 Table 2. (Continued). 200 Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(3): 185-205, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10820 Nora Hatvani, Martien J.A. van den Oever, Kornel Mateffy, Akos Koos 4.2. Readiness level of value proposition The solutions analyzed in the present study comprise a technology and its bio-based product with just enough features to be subjected to customer feedback (i.e., suita- ble to build a demo plant on it or to be offered to custom- ers) and to gain experiences in connection with actual market needs, forming the basis for future developments. The level of development of these solutions more or less corresponds to the stage of the “Minimum Viable Prod- uct” (MVP), a concept from Lean Startup that stresses the impact of learning for further product development. E. Ries defined an MVP as such version of a new product which may lack some or many features that may prove essential later on but allows the development team to col- lect the maximum amount of validated learning about customers with the least effort.28 The initial MVP and the abovementioned customer feedback loops with new versions of the MVP, developed in accordance with the feedbacks to the initial MVP, are two consecutive levels of the Business Readiness Level (BRL) scale defined by R. Ramsden; this scale can be used to benchmark the current status of a business prop- osition, from concept to mature business fully embedded in the market29 Although TRL scale18 is widely used to understand the current status of a technical innovation, even TRL9 does not entail by itself that the technol- ogy is ready for market. This is because business-related aspects are not necessarily taken into account when TRL is defined for a technology, moreover, TRL classification can be subjective. As put eloquently in a report produced under the framework of Access2EIC, the official network for H2020 National Contact Points for the new Europe- an Innovation Council:30 “TRL level as commonly used in H2020 can be used to define if a technology is ready to go to market or not, but it does not capture properly how ‘ready’ is the business based on such technology to go to market.” That is why it is useful to adjust the focus generally being on TRLs and involve BRLs when consid- ering a technology being part of the Value proposition, in order to measure readiness in terms of creating real customer value in an objective manner. 4.3 Customer-related building blocks: Customer segments, Channels, Customer relationships The customer-related building blocks can be a weak point of the business cases described. These building blocks could not be described properly in several cases in the BMCs due to the lack of relevant information, not because of insufficient data provision but because the owner of the Value proposition has not mapped all the possible segments yet. Grant-based subsidies covering the innovation costs as well as not fully market-driven developments focusing on increasing the TRL of R&D results mainly aim at the optimization of technology processes and reaching the MVP but fail to pay sufficient attention to customer-related building blocks, if any. The results of a survey conducted with the participa- tion of 66 companies from South-East Finland in 201231 clearly support the importance of external building blocks in bio-based industry: they show that two of the six measures investigated, i.e., “Customer value-added” and “Supply chain collaboration” had statistically sig- nificant effects on business performance, while the other four (i.e., “Opportunities from business environment”, “Business forces”, “Innovations”, “R&D collaboration”) did not show any remarkable statistical effect on expect- ed business performance.31 This finding demonstrates that it is useful to start the development of the BMC at the Customer segments building block where the Value proposition can be delivered to. Once there is a clear and thorough knowledge and understanding regarding who the customers are and what problems or needs they have, it is easier to define the Value proposition which is the value that can be added to these customers’ activities. Customer relationships building block includes, among others, identifying and tracking the specific customer segments and the customers’ needs. Many customers are willing to pay slightly more for environ- mentally friendly, natural, chemical-free, local products, which aspects are easily discernible for products of bio- based solutions. Accordingly, companies clearly need to identify these segments12 and products need to be tai- lored to “bioeconomy customers” identified. Word-of-mouth promotion by personal contacts and providing continuously updated content online via e.  g. company website, social media, blogs, newsletters sent by email proved to be crucial for the bio-based industry to deliver, communicate and sell value propositions and to raise the customer awareness of a company’s products and services. However, Channels is the least addressed building block in the analysed models, probably because many applications for bioeconomy have not yet reached a stage where attention to distribution channels can no longer be ignored. 4.4 Finance-related building blocks: Cost structure, Rev- enue streams From the business models described in Section 3, it appears that the main drivers for the innovation develop- ment from lower TRLs to the stage where the level of tech- nology readiness allows the introduction of an MVP are: 201Bio-based Business Models: specific and general learnings from recent good practice cases in different business sectors Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(3): 185-205, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10820 – financial resources available to cover several CAPEX items, which can come from different sources, i.e. external ones such as EU funds or governmental support and the profit of the business, but for the majority of solutions presented in Section 3 it has been some kind of public subsidy so far; – the cheap biomass feedstock material ensuring low- er OPEX, meaning that the low price has to include logistic costs already. The availability of the financing needed for the main CAPEX items is a determining factor because the devel- opment and implementation of new technologies in the bioeconomy in most cases requires large upfront invest- ments. Moreover, uncertainties inherent to bioeconomy hinder these investments,1 that is why many initiatives in this sector are dependent on grant subsidies. For example, Clariant is investing more than 100 million EUR in a commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol produc- tion plant in Podari, Romania and this plant receives more than 40 million EUR funding32 from the EU and BBI JU within SUNLIQUID and LIGNOFLAG projects, although this multinational large company has been suc- cessfully operating a first pilot plant since 2009 and a large-scale pre-commercial plant in Straubing, Germany since 2012.33 When the COWI report was launched in 2019, 13 out of the 15 technologies mentioned were at TRL9, meaning an actual system proven in operational envi- ronment,18 or about to reach that level in the very near future.19 Among these 13 bio-based solutions, only 3 success stories were characterized by an investment requirement below 5 million EUR, while the success of 2 companies out of these 3 was based on financial sup- port from H2020 SME Instrument funding and Euro- pean Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF). Most of the large companies involved in the study developed their bio-based product as an addition to a wider set of products, and they have thus been able to mobilize the finance internally through leveraging on profits gen- erated elsewhere in the business. All these large com- panies are reported not having received public fund- ing for the set-up of the bio-based production plants, but all of them have benefited from EU funds in the initial phase of their bio-based developments (the bio- based development included in the report and/or oth- ers) which funds have been available to support R&D phases preparing the ground for the investment in the industrial scale plant.19 Utmost attention should be paid to logistic costs among OPEX items, as most waste and by-product streams used as feedstock for bio-based processes are bulky, making transportation a significant cost driver.34 The largest distance for profitable transportation of raw materials to a bio-based industrial plant depends on the density of the feedstock and the actual products pro- duced out of it. However, based on our own development activities and also participation at relevant workshops, the highest distance from which the transport of raw materials to the bio-based industrial plant is profitable is maximum 60 km. This relatively low value means that the place of a new plant has to be very carefully planned, in consideration for the logistic aspects. In many cases, the production of value-added prod- ucts from specific agricultural wastes and by-products may not be economically feasible mainly because of the low quantities and seasonality, high transportation costs, water content of raw materials and low market price of products. In order to overcome these problems, bio- based sidestreams can be treated on-site by the same producing industry, in order to produce intermediate products that can be more easily stored than the origi- nal raw material and more economically transported to the place of further processing.34 For example, Hédinn protein plant can be run by fisheries or fish processing companies; in this case, products are processed at the feedstock source and sold on-site to customers.20 Anoth- er example is Melodea technology producing ‘Cellulose Nano Crystals’, which can be deployed at on-site pulp mills, where the feedstock, the necessary infrastructure and utilities are already in place.19 The outcome of a good practice case, even if the solution is technologically mature enough, cannot be turned into a real consumer product without marketing and public relation (PR) activities like e.g., a campaign including advertising, promoting by social media, press releases etc. The costs that have to be allocated for mar- keting and PR activities often exceed by a factor of sev- eral times the technology development costs. However, usually neither activities nor actors related to marketing and PR do appear in the Key activities and Key partners blocks, respectively. Furthermore, the related costs are not indicated in Cost structure, because solution own- ers give low priorities to sales development activities and customer segment analyses. (See also Section 4.3 for this weak point of the business models.) As a basic principle, a long-term sustainable bioec- onomy needs to be economically self-sustaining through the provision of marketable products that are independ- ent from long-term subsidies.13 Currently, many ongoing bioeconomy-related development activities are heavily dependent on grants and other subsidies, especially for SMEs, and they are quite far from reaching economic profitability, even if their bio-based technology is report- 202 Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(3): 185-205, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10820 Nora Hatvani, Martien J.A. van den Oever, Kornel Mateffy, Akos Koos ed to be on high TRL and BRL. Generally, the income from bio-based product sales is quite low, at least dur- ing the initial stages of market introduction, especially if compared with the total development and investment costs. A typical indirect revenue resulting from the bio- based industrial processes comes from the utilization of wastes produced by other activities of the same company E. g. by-product of the Biowert biorefinery is processed in their biogas plant (S4 in Section 3 and Figure 7), and thus decreasing costs associated with the disposal of these wastes. It is relevant to add here that waste management costs are often reduced on the side of feedstock providers, such as the olive-producing farmers selling olive stones to Cooperativa La Carrera (Spain) using this feedstock as fuel for biomass heaters.6 This saving on the feedstock provider’s side can be included in the Value proposi- tion, as in the business model of Hédinn protein plant described in the BE-Rural project, though Value propo- sition is meant to be delivered for Customers, not Key partners, so this aspect is difficult to interpret by BMC. It is mentioned in the BMC of Hédinn plant that fisher- ies, processing industries, etc. can save on their fish waste disposal costs.20 However, these feedstock producers are key partners in this model, so this saving can be regard- ed as an indirect revenue only when the protein plant is run by the feedstock producer itself, using its own wastes. When it comes to revenues, it is often stated that the products connected to bioeconomy are not profit- able as long as they have to be sold at the same price as the non-bio-based product. Higher price of bio-based products compared to fossil-based solutions causing a deficient market pull is one of the most important basic limitations to the bioeconomy development.6 It can be difficult to justify higher market prices for bio-based products, since many of them are commodity products and end-consumers rarely care where the original raw material comes from. Moreover, even if they are con- scious “bioeconomy customers”, they cannot distinguish the end-product from earlier, non-bio-based products. In this regard, products need to be tailored to these cus- tomers, and this specific customer segment has to be kept in the focus, since they are willing to pay higher but competitive price if the products fulfil their special demands while achieving similar functionality.31 Simi- larly to farmers, brand owners are are less involved in the development of the bio-based economy. However, they consider climate challenges, sustainable produc- tion and consumption to an increasing extent35, and can play a key role in supporting market uptake of bio-based products and to influence consumer choices in relation to these products.36 With a very few exceptions, only large companies have the financial means to develop the technology, invest in the necessary infrastructure and commercial- ize the product exclusively through internal financing, and without putting the entire company at risk.19 Size of the company can be a determining factor when defining internal building blocks Key resources and Key partner- ships: larger companies are usually able to finance the human and financial resources to do long-term devel- opment work in-house concerning their products and processes, while SMEs’ ability to extend their knowl- edge and competence base is significantly more limited. Smaller companies are much more dependent on exter- nal networks and the ability to create such networks,31 which is reflected in their cost structure as well. Bio-based solutions have to be market-driven in order to achieve market viability, become independent from external financing in the long-term and that subsi- dies should focus on providing a learning curve in order to establish competitive business. 5. CONCLUSIONS Assessment of six bio-based solutions using BMC allows to present all general or sector-specific business- related aspects to interested stakeholders in an easy-to- understand way. This way of presenting provides new insights for the relevant stakeholders in the bio-based economy and facilitates mutual understanding by differ- ent bioeconomy actors which often operate in different sectors like agriculture, industry, government or R&D. Increased understanding of how bioeconomy businesses work not only facilitates SMEs and large enterprises to benefit from replicating bio-based businesses, but oppor- tunities for other type of stakeholders increase as well: – producers of bio-based wastes or by-products can transfer these materials to bio-based industry, thus reducing their waste management costs or even gen- erating income; – rural communities benefit from local industrial development, job creation and local renewable bio- energy or food production; – investors may profit from mapping attractive invest- ment opportunities as they can be instrumental in meeting environmental and climate challenges; – policy makers may benefit from identifying indus- trial initiatives supporting their existing objectives related to sustainability and climate policies. This study shows that many bioeconomy business models developed thus far have in common that espe- 203Bio-based Business Models: specific and general learnings from recent good practice cases in different business sectors Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(3): 185-205, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10820 cially the customer-related building blocks have been weakly elaborated. At the supplier end, involvement of ‘rural entrepreneurs’ like primary agricultural produc- ers, forest owners, their associations and other small rural businesses is prerequisite for success of the emerg- ing bio-based economy. As proven economic feasibility is essential for acceptance of innovative solutions, well- developed, easy-to-understand business models such as those presented in this article can serve as a helpful tool to bring the good practice cases closer to primary pro- ducers, by making these cases more comprehensible and realistic. At the same time, BMC can serve as a useful and effective tool for enhancing the replication of existing good practice cases, even if the business model always needs to be individually tailored to each local deploy- ment situation. For such tailoring, the business models have to be elaborated in much more detail than present- ed in this study. These findings point to the usability of BMC to identify strengths and weaknesses in the business con- cept at early stages of business planning. Near market introduction, scaling systems such as BRL can facili- tate linking technology innovation (as the main part of Value proposition) and the often under-elaborated Cus- tomer segments. BRL can be difficult to define, but it can describe the actual business potential of bio-based solu- tions in a more exact and objective manner, reflecting to which extent the customer may be willing to pay for the Value proposition. The introduction of a scaling system such as BRLs in the assessment of bioeconomy solutions and alignment of TRLs and BRLs can create a practical framework to direct the development of bio-based start- up companies as well as funding instruments for tech- nology developments and business acceleration. The traditional BMC benefits from extending with additional factors related to sustainability requirements and benefits as well as factors related to the business ecosystem such as drivers and stakeholder involvement tools. The additional factors can show how to create short-term or longer term structural values also in envi- ronmental and social terms, which is particularly rel- evant in bioeconomy businesses requiring the coopera- tion of various and divergent players. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was funded by the POWER4BIO pro- ject (“emPOWERing regional stakeholders for real- izing the full potential of European BIOe-conomy”) which has received funding from the EU’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (topic: RUR-09- 2018 – “Realising the potential of regional and local bio- based economies”) under Grant Agreement No. 818351. M.v.d.O was co-funded by Dutch TKI-T&U under grant no. EU-19038 (BO-57-101-001). (This article reflects the views only of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the EU. Neither EU institutions and bodies nor any person acting on their behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein.) The authors thank the colleagues in the POWER- 4BIO project team for their work related to the Deliver- able 4.1 which provided idea and knowledge base to this article, their help in contacting companies, their useful comments and the careful correcting of the texts. The authors would like to thank also Harriëtte Bos (Wagen- ingen Food and Biobased Research, The Netherlands) for her many useful comments and suggestions. The authors would like to express their great appreciation to the representatives of the companies owning the solutions described in this article, for their valuable and construc- tive suggestions and willingness to give their time dur- ing the data collection process. The authors declare no conf lict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results. REFERENCES 1. Reim, W., Parida, V., Sjödin, D.R. 2019. Circular Business Models for the Bioeconomy: A Review and New Directions for Future Research. Sustainability, 11:2558. DOI: 10.3390/su11092558 2. Communiqué of the Global Bioeconomy Sum- mit, 2020. Expanding the Sustainable Bioeconomy – Vision and Way Forward. https://gbs2020.net/wp- content/uploads/2020/11/GBS2020_IACGB-Commu- nique.pdf 3. European Commission. 2018. A sustainable bioec- onomy for Europe: strengthening the connection between economy, society and the environment - Updated Bioeconomy Strategy. DOI: 10.2777/792130 4. Viaggi, D. 2018. Bioeconomy and the Common Agri- cultural Policy: will a strategy in search of policies meet a policy in search of strategies? Bio-based and Applied Economics, 7(2): 179-190. DOI: 10.13128/ bae-7674 5. Ronzon, T., Piotrowski, S., M’Barek, R., Carus, M. 2017. A systematic approach to understanding and 204 Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(3): 185-205, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10820 Nora Hatvani, Martien J.A. van den Oever, Kornel Mateffy, Akos Koos quantifying the EU’s bioeconomy. Bio-based and Applied Economics, 6(1):1-17. DOI: 10.13128/BAE- 20567 6. Folkeson-Lillo, C., Diaz, I.P., Calvo, M.H. 2019. Study on the participation of the agricultural sector in the BBI JU: Business models, challenges and recommen- dations to enhance the impact on rural development. Study carried out by INNOVARUM (Eurizon S.L.) under BBI JU Tender BBI.2019.SC.01, 2019. DOI: 10.2884/371672 7. Kuckertz, A., Berger, E.S.C., Morales Reyes, C. A. 2018. Entrepreneurial Ventures and the Bioecono- my. In Lewandowski, I. (ed.): Bioeconomy - Shap- ing the Transition to a Sustainable, Biobased Econ- omy (pp. 273-284). Springer, Cham. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-319-68152-8 8. Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y. 2010. Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers (pp. 21-46). John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00977_2.x 9. Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Tucci, C. L. 2005. Clarifying business models: origins, present, and future of the concept. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16(1):1-25. DOI:10.17705/1CAIS.01601 10. Kindervater, R., Göttert, U., Patzelt, D. 2018. Biobased Value Chains and Networks. In Lewandowski, I. (ed.): Bioeconomy - Shaping the Transition to a Sustainable, Biobased Economy (pp. 87-95). Springer, Cham. htt- ps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68152-8 11. Carayannis, E. G., Barth, T. D., Campbell, D. F. 2012. The Quintuple Helix innovation model: global warm- ing as a challenge and driver for innovation. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 1:2. https://doi. org/10.1186/2192-5372-1-2 12. Reim, W., Sjödin, D., Parida, V., Rova, U., Christako- poulos, P. Bioeconomy based business models for the forest sector – A systematic literature review. 2017. In Bioeconomy Challenges: Proceedings of the 8th International Scientific Conference Rural Develop- ment, Akademija, Lithuania, pp. 775-780. http://doi. org/10.15544/RD.2017.109 13. Gawel, E., Pannicke, N., Nina Hagemann, A. 2019. Path Transition Towards a Bioeconomy—The Crucial Role of Sustainability. Sustainability, 11:3005. DOI: 10.3390/su11113005 14. Popp, J., Lakner, Z., Harangi-Rákos, M., Fáric, M. 2014. The effect of bioenergy expansion: Food, ener- gy, and environment. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 32:559-578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. rser.2014.01.056 15. Velenturf, A.P.M., Jensen, P.D. 2017. Proceedings on the stakeholder workshop on agri-food process- ing waste sustainable supply chains. AgriMax project Deliverable 8.5. https://agromax.iris.cat/wp-content/ uploads/2017/05/AgriMAX-Stakeholder-Workshop- Proceedings_final.pdf 16. Antikainen, M., Valkokari, K. 2016. A framework for sustainable circular business model innovation. Tech- nology Innovation Management Review, 6(7):5–12. 17. POWER4BIO project: Examples of regional bio-based business models. https://power4bio.eu/new-delivera- ble-examples-of-regional-bio-based-business-models 18. European Commission. 2019.Technology readiness levels (TRL). Annex G in Part 19. (General Annexes) of EC Decision C(2014)4995 amending Implement- ing Decision C(2013)8631 adopting the 2014-2015 work programme in the framework of the Specif- ic Programme Implementing Horizon 2020 – The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020). 19. COWI, Bio-Based World News and Ecologic Institute 2019. Bio-based products – from idea to market. 15 EU success stories. https://op.europa.eu/en/publica- tion-detail/-/publication/23ab58e0-3011-11e9-8d04- 01aa75ed71a1. DOI: 10.2777/305874 20. Colmorgen, F., Khawaja, C. 2019. Business mod- els for regional bioeconomies. BE-Rural project Deliverable 2.4, https://be-rural.eu/wp-content/ uploads/2019/12/BE-Rural_D2.4_Regional_business_ models.pdf 21. Philp, J.C., Winickoff, D.E. 2019. Innovation Ecosys- tems in the Bioeconomy. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 76. DOI: 10.1787/ e2e3d8a1-en 22. Biber-Freudenberger, L., Ergeneman, C., Förster, J.J., Dietz, T., Börner, J. 2020. Bioeconomy futures: Expectation patterns of scientists and practitioners on the sustainability of bio-based transformation. Sustainable Development, 28(5):1220-1235. https:// doi.org/10.1002/sd.2072 23. Pavlovskaia, E. 2014. Sustainability criteria: their indicators, control, and monitoring (with exam- ples from the biofuel sector). Environmental Sciences Europe, 26:17. DOI:10.1186/s12302-014-0017-2 24. McAdam, B., Brennan Fournet, M., McDonald, P., Mojicevic, M. 2020. Production of polyhydroxybu- tyrate (PHB) and factors impacting its chemical and mechanical characteristics. Polymers, 12:2908. https:// doi.org/10.3390/polym12122908 25. Mehnaz, S., Javaid, A. 2020. Microbes and plastic waste management. Environmental Sustainability, 3:337-339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42398-020-00149-3 205Bio-based Business Models: specific and general learnings from recent good practice cases in different business sectors Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(3): 185-205, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10820 26. Donner, M., Gohier, R., de Vries, H. A new cir- cular business model typology for creating value from agrowaste. 2020. Science of the Total Environ- ment, 716:137065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scito- tenv.2020.137065 27. D’Amato, D., Veijonaho, S., Toppinen, A. Towards sustainability? Forest-based circular bioeconomy business models in Finnish SMEs. 2020. Forest Policy and Economics, 110:101848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. forpol.2018.12.004 28. Ries, E. 2011. The lean startup: How today’s entrepre- neurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses (pp. 82, 96). Crown Business Publishing, New York, USA. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540- 5885.2012.00920_2.x 29. Ramsden, R. 2018. Using Business Readiness Level (BRL) to understand uncertainty in new business innovations. https://web.archive.org/ web/20210125105545/https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ using-business-readiness-level-brl-understand-new- richie-ramsden (archived on 25.01.2021) 30. Luis Guerra, E.C., Carbone, A. Toolbox for research - output-based businesses. Access2EIC project Deliverable 4.1. https://access2eic.eu/wp-content/ uploads/2020/09/A2EIC-Toolbox-Guidelines.pdf 31. Jernström, E., Karvonen, V., Kässi, T., Kraslawski, A., Hallikas, J. 2017. The main factors affecting the entry of SMEs into bio-based industry. Journal of Clean- er Production, 141:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2016.08.165 32. Welcome at Clariant in Romania - Commercial-scale flagship plant for the production of cellulosic etha- nol. http://web.archive.org/save/https://www.clariant. com/en/Company/Contacts-and-Locations/Key-Sites/ Romania (archived on 27.01.2021) 33. Sunliquid - Cellulosic ethanol from agricultural resi- dues. http://web.archive.org/save/https://www.clari- ant.com/en/Business-Units/New-Businesses/Biotech- and-Biobased-Chemicals/Sunliquid (archived on 27.01.2021) 34. Bedoić, R., Ćosić, B., Duić, N. 2019. Technical potential and geographic distribution of agricul- tural residues, co-products and by-products in the European Union. Science of the Total Environ- ment, 686:568–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scito- tenv.2019.05.219 35. Overbeek, G., Hoes, A.C. 2018. Synthesis of market perspectives to develop bio-based value chains. BIO- VOICES Deliverable 3.1. Retrieved on 16.05.2022 from http://www.biovoices.eu/results/public-results 36. Gaffey, J., McMahon, H., Marsh, E., Vos, J. 2021. Switching to Biobased Products - The Brand Owner Perspective. Industrial biotechnology, 17(3): 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1089/ind.2021.29246.jga Volume 11, Issue 3 - 2022 Firenze University Press Bio-based Business Models: specific and general learnings from recent good practice cases in different business sectors Nora Hatvani1,*, Martien J.A. van den Oever2, Kornel Mateffy1, Akos Koos1 Food loss and waste accounting: the case of the Philippine food supply chain Anieluz Pastolero*, Maria Sassi The role of network characteristics of the innovation spreaders in agriculture Antonio Lopolito1,*, Angela Barbuto2, Fabio Gaetano Santeramo2 The co-evolution of policy support and farmers behaviour. An investigation on Italian agriculture over the 2008-2019 period Roberto Esposti Price dependence of biofuels and agricultural products on selected examples Wioleta Sobczak*, Jarosław Gołębiewski