1 Towards sustainable business models in the circular bioeconomy: The case of bio-based 1 fertilizers 2 3 Viktorija Jankuloska*, Blagoja Mukanov, Angela Zhivachka, Jovana Milosavljeva, Mario 4 Petkovski, Tanja Popovska 5 AgFutura Technologies, Јurij Gagarin 45/1-1, 1000, Skopje, Republic of North Macedonia 6 *Corresponding author. E-mail: viktorija.jankuloska@agfutura.com 7 This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been 8 through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to 9 differences between this version and the Version of Record.Please cite this article as: 10 Jankuloska V., Mukanov B., Zhivachka A., Milosavljeva J., Petkovski M., Popovska T. (in press). 11 Towards sustainable business models in the circular bioeconomy: The case of bio-based fertilizers, 12 Just Accepted. DOI: 10.36253/bae-16752 13 14 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 15 This paper is carried out within the framework of the European Commission BBI JU project ‘Bio-16 based Fertilising products as the best practice for agricultural management sustainability 17 (BFERST)’. H2020-BBI-JTI-2018, Grant agreement ID: 837583. 18 19 20 21 mailto:viktorija.jankuloska@agfutura.com 2 Abstract. Bio-based fertilizers (BBFs) offer a sustainable solution to the environmental and 22 economic challenges of conventional fertilizers by enhancing nutrient recycling and soil health, 23 aligning with EU strategies. Despite the availability of frameworks like the Business Model 24 Canvas (BMC), these models have not been comprehensively applied in the context of BBFs. This 25 paper addresses this gap by using the BMC framework to provide a holistic overview of BBF 26 business models, integrating economic, environmental, and social dimensions. A comprehensive 27 literature review was conducted, focusing on studies examining specific aspects of BBF business 28 models, including value proposition, value creation and delivery, and value capture. The analysis 29 highlights key insights, such as BBFs’ potential to recycle waste, and enhance soil health, 30 alongside challenges like nutrient variability and market adoption barriers. These findings support 31 strategies for advancing sustainable circular bioeconomy practices, offering valuable guidance to 32 stakeholders in the fertilizer and agricultural sectors. 33 34 Keywords: circular bioeconomy, bio-based fertilizers, sustainable business model, Business 35 Model Canvas 36 JEL codes: M10, Q13, Q57 37 1. INTRODUCTION 38 1.1. Towards sustainable agriculture: From bio-waste to bio-based fertilizers 39 Agricultural production growth has relied heavily on chemical fertilizers and synthetic pesticides 40 (European Commission, 2019). However, excessive application of essential nutrients like nitrogen 41 (N) and phosphorus (P), combined with inefficient plant absorption, has caused air, soil, and water 42 pollution and has significantly reduced biodiversity in aquatic ecosystems (Juncal et al., 2023; 43 3 Yang et al., 2008). Similar to healthcare principles that warn against overuse, agronomy advocates 44 for limited fertilizer application to maintain ecological balance (Pandian et al., 2024). Moreover, 45 fertilizer production relies on finite fossil-based resources, such as natural gas, phosphate rock, 46 and potassium salts, which are depleting (Anlauf, 2023; Cordell et al., 2009). The European 47 agricultural sector, heavily dependent on imports of these essential raw materials, is vulnerable to 48 supply chain disruptions, threatening food security (Smol, 2021; de Ridder et al., 2012). This 49 dependency highlights the fertilizer industry’s critical challenge: efficient nutrient recycling 50 (Barquero et al., 2024). 51 Despite these issues, global chemical fertilizer use increased from 12 million tons in 1961 to over 52 110 million tons by 2018 (Rodríguez-Espinosa et al., 2023). The European Commission (EC) has 53 targeted a 50% reduction in nutrient losses while maintaining soil fertility (Heyl et al., 2023; 54 European Commission, 2020). The Common Agricultural Policy promotes precision agriculture to 55 improve nutrient efficiency (Álvarez Salas et al., 2024). Additionally, the EU’s Farm to Fork (F2F) 56 Strategy, part of the Green Deal, aims to reduce fertilizer use by 20% by 2030, promoting a shift 57 to circular bio-based production processes (European Commission, 2020). Supporting this goal, 58 the 2019 EU Fertilizing Product Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2019/2009), effective since May 59 2022, mandates circular and sustainable fertilizer systems by integrating organic and waste-60 derived fertilizers into the market. 61 The bioeconomy, encompassing sectors reliant on biological resources (Bröring and Vanacker, 62 2022), along with bio-based fertilizers (BBFs) as sustainable alternatives to synthetic fertilizers, 63 plays a crucial role in advancing a circular economy. A prominent initiative is the Circular Bio-64 based Europe Joint Undertaking (CBE JU), a public-private partnership between the EU and the 65 Bio-based Europe Joint Undertaking, with a €2 billion budget for 2021-2031 (Donner and De 66 4 Vries, 2023). In addition to CBE JU, initiatives such as Horizon Europe, the European Circular 67 Bioeconomy Fund (ECBF), the European Investment Bank (EIB), and national research and 68 innovation programs provide critical financial and strategic support for advancing BBFs 69 development and commercialization. BBFs offer sustainable alternatives by recycling bio-waste, 70 improving nutrient use efficiency, and reducing environmental impacts compared to traditional 71 fertilizers (Álvarez Salas et al., 2024). Although no standardized definition exists, efforts at 72 European level aim to establish one. BBFs are generally described as materials or products sourced 73 from biomaterials (such as plant, animal, or microbial sources, often including waste, residues or 74 by-products from agriculture, industry or society) containing bioavailable nutrients fit for use as 75 crop fertilizers (Arzeni et al., 2024). Examples of BBFs include compost-based fertilizers, manure-76 derived fertilizers, biochar, and nutrient-rich products from anaerobic digestion, such as digestate 77 or struvite (Kurniawati et al., 2023; Chojnacka et al., 2020). 78 1.2. The sustainable business model for bio-based fertilizers 79 Academic research on business models, stemming from foundational theories like Drucker’s 80 (1985), defines a business model as a structure detailing how a company creates, delivers, and 81 captures value (Teece, 2018; Osterwalder et al., 2005). The Business Model Canvas (BMC), 82 developed by Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010), remains the most widely adopted template, 83 comprising nine elements. Central to this model is the value proposition, which captures the unique 84 benefits a company offers to its customers. The market component (customer segments, channels, 85 and customer relationships) addresses external elements critical for reaching customers and 86 determining product desirability. The infrastructure component, which includes key activities, 87 resources, and partnerships, defines operational feasibility, while the financial component (cost 88 structure and revenue streams) ensures economic viability. 89 5 The concept of "bioeconomy," introduced by Christian Patermann, emphasizes using renewable 90 biological resources to meet societal needs with reduced environmental impact (Lange, 2022). 91 Transitioning to a bioeconomy requires substantial changes to existing business models (Reim et 92 al., 2019). Although the literature on bioeconomy business models often overlaps with circular 93 economy discussions, there are distinctions (Donner and De Vries, 2023). The bioeconomy 94 emphasizes replacing fossil resources with renewables, while the circular economy focuses on 95 cascading resource use (Bröring and Vanacker, 2022; Venkatesh, 2022). 96 Sustainable business models communicate value propositions that capture economic value while 97 maintaining or regenerating environmental, social, and economic capital (Schaltegger et al., 2016), 98 as outlined in the Triple Layered Business Model Canvas (TLBMC) by Joyce and Paquin (2016). 99 The TLBMC extends Osterwalder and Pigneur’s BMC by adding social and environmental layers, 100 providing a holistic view of value creation. While bioeconomy models have sustainability 101 potential, they are not inherently sustainable (De Keyser and Mathijs, 2023). Challenges such as 102 resource use, environmental impact, and social equity must be addressed for these models to 103 realize their sustainability potential. When sustainability is embedded in bioeconomy goals, it can 104 foster positive social and environmental impacts and stimulate economic growth through 105 innovation, particularly in agriculture and food production sectors (Pfau et al., 2014). 106 Research on sustainable business models, particularly within the agrifood sector, is still sparse 107 (Mili and Loukil, 2023; Bröring and Vanacker, 2022; Donner and de Vries, 2021; Salvador et al., 108 2023; Reim et al., 2019). While interest in the BMC has been growing, its application within the 109 agrifood sector is still limited. Only a few studies (e.g., Mili and Loukil, 2023; Basile, 2021; 110 Partalidou et al., 2018) have applied this model within this specific context, and none directly focus 111 on BBFs. The existing literature does touch upon various aspects of BBF business models (e.g., 112 6 Álvarez Salas et al., 2024; Garmendia-Lemus et al., 2024; Kvakkestad et al., 2023; Moshkin et al., 113 2023; Cazador et al., 2022; Chojnacka et al., 2020; Egan et al., 2022; Smol, 2021; Tur-Cardona et 114 al., 2018). However, to the best of the authors' knowledge, no study offers a comprehensive BMC 115 incorporating sustainability-oriented value propositions specific to BBFs. This study contributes 116 to the existing literature by applying the BMC framework to BBFs, offering a comprehensive 117 analysis of their commercialization pathways. Although not all elements of the BMC for BBFs are 118 addressed in current literature, broader bioeconomy studies and research on diverse business model 119 components provide valuable insights to guide the development of sustainable BBF business 120 models. Customer-related components, however, remain relatively underexplored (Hatvani et al., 121 2022). Conventional business model frameworks often underemphasize sustainability (França et 122 al., 2017). This paper seeks to address this by examining key elements for sustainable BBF 123 business models. 124 2. METHODOLOGY 125 This study employs a qualitative approach, using a literature review as the foundation for analyzing 126 sustainable business models within the circular bioeconomy. The BMC framework was applied as 127 a conceptual framework for this study to evaluate and categorize key components of sustainable 128 business models, with a literature review serving as the primary method to populate and elaborate 129 on its components. While the TLBMC provides a framework to deepen insights into sustainability-130 specific dimensions, this study uses the BMC for its clear structure and broad applicability, serving 131 as a practical starting point for analyzing BBF commercialization. 132 The literature review was conducted using three primary academic databases: Scopus, Web of 133 Science, and Google Scholar. To ensure a comprehensive search, relevant keywords were used, 134 7 including "circular bioeconomy," "bio-based fertilizers," "sustainable business model," "Business 135 Model Canvas," "recycling-derived fertilizers (RDFs)," "waste-based fertilizers," and "bio-based 136 fertilizer products (BFPs)." Boolean operators such as AND and OR were applied to refine and 137 expand the search results. The search primarily targeted peer-reviewed articles, book chapters, and 138 reports published in English, with the majority dating from 2013 to 2024 to reflect recent 139 advancements and industry developments. Earlier studies were included when particularly relevant 140 to the research objectives. The selection process followed a systematic three-step approach. First, 141 titles and abstracts were screened to assess relevance to BBF business models and the BMC 142 framework. Next, studies passing the initial screening underwent a full-text review to ensure 143 alignment with the research objectives. Finally, studies providing insights into at least one of the 144 BMC components—value proposition, value creation and delivery, or value capture—were 145 included for analysis. Only high-quality sources, such as peer-reviewed journals and academic 146 publications, were considered to ensure reliability and rigor. To enhance the reliability and 147 robustness of the concepts presented, this study incorporates insights from real-world business 148 models drawn from the B-FERST project, which focuses on integrating bio-waste valorization into 149 fertilizer production, offering practical examples of sustainable business models in the 150 bioeconomy. Data extraction was performed manually, with insights mapped to the nine building 151 blocks of the BMC framework: value proposition, customer segments, channels, customer 152 relationships, key activities, key resources, key partners, revenue streams, and cost structure. These 153 elements were further grouped into three main BMC segments: value proposition, value creation 154 and delivery (market and infrastructure), and value capture (financial aspects) (Vehmas et al., 155 2024; Schaltegger et al., 2016; Richardson, 2008). The extracted data were synthesized 156 systematically to identify common themes, opportunities, and challenges associated with BBF 157 8 commercialization. To guarantee the quality of the included studies, criteria such as source 158 credibility, methodological rigor, and relevance to BBF business models were applied during the 159 review process. Studies contributing to BBF commercialization, circular bioeconomy frameworks, 160 and sustainability were prioritized, while those lacking sufficient methodological detail or 161 academic rigor were excluded. 162 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 163 The key components of the BMC applied to BBFs are summarized in Table 1, providing a 164 structured framework for analyzing their commercialization pathways. This table serves as a 165 foundation for the following discussion, outlining the critical aspects of value proposition, value 166 creation and delivery, and value capture. 167 168 169 9 Table 1. Business Model Canvas for Bio-Based Fertilizers: Key components and insights 170 Key Partners Suppliers: Farmers, waste management companies, and recycling firms that provide essential feedstocks for BBF production. Collaborators: Researchers, agricultural extension services, policymakers, NGOs, and media organizations driving innovation, knowledge dissemination, and regulatory support. Logistics Partners: Transport and distribution partners ensuring efficient supply chain operations and seamless delivery of raw materials and finished products. Key Activities Production: Nutrient recovery and fertilizer production. Logistics: Biomass collection, transport, storage, and quality control. R&D: Process optimization, scaling technologies, ensuring compatibility with existing infrastructure, and driving innovation in sustainable production. Value Proposition Economic Value: Comparable or superior plant growth and yields using recovered nutrients; Product-Service Systems. Environmental Value: Reduce reliance on fossil- based resources, recycle biowaste, cut GHG emissions and nutrient leaching, enhance soil health, and promote sustainable nutrient cycling. Social Value: Support local job creation, stimulate rural economies, foster community engagement, ensure fair competition, and improve health and safety through hygienized BBFs. Customer Relationships Co-Creation: Collaborate with farmers and researchers to improve products through shared expertise and feedback. Peer Influence: Leverage farmer networks to share knowledge and promote sustainable practices. Engagement: Build trust via education, and online communities. Customer Segments Primary Users: Farmers and nurserymen seeking sustainable alternatives to conventional fertilizers. Target Segments: Environmentally conscious and premium customers willing to pay for certified, eco-friendly products that align with their values. Adoption Opportunities: Eco-labelling, certification and branding strategies to build trust and market appeal. Address knowledge gaps and build confidence through education, technical support and demonstration trials to showcase BBFs effectiveness. Key Resources Tangible Resources: Biomass, biostimulants, biodegradable coatings. Intangible Resources: Research facilities, advanced technologies, and expertise. Human Resources: Skilled workforce and collaborative teams. Channels Traditional: Print media, agricultural fairs, posters, and field demonstrations. Digital: Social media, webinars, agricultural apps, and video content. Support: Efficient logistics, proper product handling, and after-sales technical assistance. Cost Structure Major Costs: Biomass sourcing, logistics, quality control, regulatory compliance, and navigating lengthy approval processes. Key Investments: Technology development, advanced nutrient recovery methods, strategic marketing, and premium packaging to differentiate BBFs. Cost Optimization: Leverage economies of scale, high-quality concentrated biobased materials, and innovative recovery technologies to streamline production and reduce costs. Revenue Streams Primary Revenue Streams: Fertilizer sales, soil testing, consulting, distribution, specialty products, and licensing. Pricing Strategies: Competitive pricing to drive market adoption and maximize share, or premium pricing to reflect quality, environmental benefits, and customization. Additional Revenue Streams: Value-added services (e.g., customer support and loyalty programs), subsidies, and EU funding to support R&D and commercialization efforts. 171 10 3.1. Value proposition in sustainable business models for BBFs 172 A value proposition encompasses the benefits a company offers its customers, including not only 173 product/service features that drive sales but also environmental and social values (Hatvani et al., 174 2022). Studies indicate that plant growth and yield potentials achieved with recovered nutrients 175 are comparable to or even surpass those of conventional fertilizers (Barquero et al., 2024). 176 Integrating services into business models is vital for the bioeconomy, enhancing value creation and 177 promoting bio-based solutions. Product-Service Systems (PSS) combine products with 178 complementary services, tailored to meet customer needs (Bröring and Vanacker, 2022). In BBF 179 context, service offerings could include nutrient management consulting, application services, 180 monitoring and analysis, product customization, and logistics solutions. 181 The environmental value of BBFs lies in their ability to address the ecological challenges posed 182 by conventional fertilizers. This value can be assessed using the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) 183 approach, which evaluates a product’s environmental impact through indicators such as CO₂ 184 emissions, energy use, resource depletion, and water consumption. By recycling bio-waste, BBFs 185 contribute to nutrient recovery, reduce dependence on finite fossil-based resources, and promote 186 circularity in agriculture. Furthermore, BBFs help minimize greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, 187 reduce nutrient leaching, and enhance soil health and quality. However, BBFs also present 188 environmental challenges that must be addressed to maximize their potential. Nutrient variability 189 in BBFs can impact their agronomic performance, often leading farmers to favor synthetic 190 fertilizers due to their predictability and immediate results (Bonnichsen et al., 2020). BBFs also 191 require mineralization for nutrients to become available to plants (Leytem et al., 2024). This 192 process may not always match crop growth cycles, leading to inefficient uptake, nitrate leaching, 193 eutrophication, and potential acidification. Additionally, BBFs derived from waste (e.g., manure 194 11 or sewage sludge) may contain pathogens or heavy metals, posing health and ecological risks if 195 not properly treated (Kurniawati et al., 2023). Effective mitigation strategies are essential to 196 manage these risks (Álvarez Salas et al., 2024). 197 BBFs also create significant social values related to stakeholder management approach, focusing 198 on indicators such as community engagement, labor conditions, health and safety, and fair 199 competition (Vidaurre et al., 2020; Rafiaani et al., 2018; Joyce and Paquin, 2016). By utilizing 200 local bio-waste as feedstock, BBF production supports local job creation and stimulates rural 201 economies (FAO, 2018). The involvement of local stakeholders, including farmers and waste 202 processors, fosters community engagement and strengthens local value chains. In terms of health 203 and safety, hygienization-focused BBFs mitigate health risks related to salt and heavy metal 204 accumulation from synthetic fertilizers, which can be absorbed by plants (Kurniawati et al., 2023; 205 Smol, 2021). BBFs further promote fair competition by offering sustainable alternatives to 206 synthetic fertilizers, empowering farmers to adopt environmentally friendly practices. 207 3.2. Value creation and delivery in sustainable business models for BBFs 208 3.2.1. Market 209 Customers segments 210 Market segmentation divides the market into distinct groups with shared needs, enabling targeted 211 marketing strategies. Stimulating demand for BBFs requires a deep understanding of behavior 212 influenced by values, ethics, self-interest, product features, and policies. This complexity demands 213 an interdisciplinary approach involving psychology, economics, and sociology (Nejadrezaei et al., 214 2024). While farmers are primary BBF users, other groups, like nurserymen, also show interest in 215 adopting waste-based fertilizers, supporting the circular economy (Smol, 2021). Key product 216 12 attributes influencing BBF adoption among farmers include nutrient content, high organic matter, 217 cost, and ease of application (Kvakkestad et al., 2023; Egan et al., 2022; Tur-Cardona et al., 2018). 218 Generally, BBFs must offer comparable properties to mineral fertilizers at a competitive price. 219 As sustainable practices gain momentum, BBFs are becoming more desirable, especially among 220 environmentally conscious farmers seeking alternatives to mineral fertilizers (Tur-Cardona et al., 221 2018). However, a significant barrier is public knowledge and confidence, which can be addressed 222 through effective education and communication on the benefits of bio-economy products (Bröring 223 and Vanacker, 2022; Reim et al., 2019). Convincing consumers of BBF advantages remains 224 challenging, as many farmers prefer synthetic fertilizers for their quick results, despite the 225 availability of eco-friendly alternatives at similar prices (Ruth et al., 2020). Companies struggle to 226 measure and communicate sustainability due to limited data and tools (Bröring and Vanacker, 227 2022). Field trial data on nitrogen release from BBFs could significantly enhance adoption by 228 providing farmers with evidence of their performance and reliability (Kvakkestad et al., 2023). 229 Research by Morgan et al. (2015) highlights that anticipated financial gains and self-efficacy—230 farmers' belief in their ability to achieve desired outcomes—are key drivers for adopting Low-231 Emission Agricultural Practices (LEAP). This insight is highly relevant for BBFs, as improving 232 farmers' self-efficacy through targeted educational programs, technical support, and demonstration 233 trials could encourage their adoption. Morgan et al.'s study identifies four farmer categories—Non-234 Green Dismissive, Uncommitted, Green Adopters, and Profit-Driven Adopters—each with distinct 235 attitudes towards climate change, environmental values, time orientation, place attachment, and 236 knowledge self-efficacy. Tailored engagement strategies, such as showcasing the economic and 237 environmental benefits of BBFs to Profit-Driven Adopters or emphasizing sustainability to Green 238 Adopters, could help overcome resistance in different farmer groups. Similarly, Gazdecki et al. 239 13 (2021) categorize consumers by their sustainability approach into Doers, Conscious, and Reluctant 240 groups. These categories can be linked to BBF adoption by targeting Doers and Conscious 241 consumers—who are more inclined to adopt sustainable alternatives—through eco-labeling, 242 certification, and branding strategies that emphasize BBFs’ environmental value. Addressing the 243 concerns of Reluctant consumers through education and communication campaigns could further 244 strengthen market adoption. 245 Targeting “premium” segments willing to pay more for environmentally and socially valuable 246 products is essential (Reim et al., 2019). Studies identify a “green premium” where consumers pay 247 more for bio-based products, and a “certified green premium,” where willingness to pay (WTP) 248 increases for certified bio-based options (Morone et al., 2021). Standards, certifications, and eco-249 labeling could improve BBF market penetration by verifying sustainability, supporting green 250 purchasing, and reinforcing consumer trust (Reim et al., 2019; Yenipazarli, 2015). Branding also 251 affects BBF acceptance, as terms like “biosolids” over “treated sewage sludge” can positively 252 shape consumer perceptions (Álvarez Salas et al., 2024). 253 Channels 254 Market channels describe the pathways through which a company delivers its value proposition to 255 customers, yet they are relatively understudied in the bioeconomy context (Reim et al., 2018; 256 Coughlan, 2006). Channels can be direct, like company websites or stores, or indirect, such as 257 through retailers or distributors, and they comprise five phases: awareness, evaluation, purchase, 258 delivery, and after-sales support (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010). The shift from traditional media 259 to digital platforms has redefined how sustainable agricultural practices are promoted. A 260 comprehensive channel strategy for bioeconomy products should incorporate both traditional and 261 digital media to maximize reach. For farmers with limited digital access, traditional methods like 262 14 print, radio, agricultural fairs, posters, conferences, and field demonstrations remain effective. 263 Demonstrations, in particular, allow farmers to engage firsthand with new technologies and 264 practices (Sutherland and Marchand, 2021). Digital marketing, meanwhile, can reach a broader 265 audience via social media, influencer partnerships, email campaigns, webinars, and online 266 advertising. Additional tools include agricultural apps and video content, which provide interactive 267 and visual resources ideal for conveying complex information to farmers (Bentley et al., 2019). 268 Digital training programs that build on existing farmer knowledge and practices are crucial for 269 fostering adoption. These programs facilitate collaboration and knowledge co-creation by 270 integrating traditional, indigenous, and scientific expertise, along with the expertise of farmers 271 (Maurel et al., 2022). 272 Effective channel management also involves ensuring the timely delivery, proper handling, and 273 optimal storage of products to maintain quality (Remondino and Zanin, 2022; Behzadi et al., 2017; 274 Routroy and Behera, 2017). Efficient logistics and storage are necessary to handle the diverse and 275 bulky bio-based materials, facilitating smooth operations (Donner et al., 2021). After-sales 276 support, including technical assistance and application guidance, is essential to build trust and 277 loyalty, encouraging repeat purchases (Rebello et al., 2021). Training for distributors and retailers 278 is also vital, equipping them to effectively promote and sell BBFs, thus supporting wider adoption 279 among farmers. 280 Customer Relationships 281 Customer relationships outline how a company establishes and maintains connections with specific 282 segments to drive customer acquisition, retention, and sales growth. Many consumers are willing 283 to pay a premium for environmentally sustainable, organic, chemical-free, and locally sourced 284 products. Companies should identify these “bioeconomy customers” and tailor their offerings 285 15 accordingly (Hatvani et al., 2022). Consumers play multiple roles in advancing a sustainable 286 circular bioeconomy (Lang et al., 2023). As buyers they influence the market by selecting 287 fertilizers, encouraging BBF producers to adapt products to meet customer demands; as lobbyists 288 and influencers, they shape public perception; as partners they contribute to developing standards 289 for BBF usage; and as co-creators they actively participate in value creation, providing feedback 290 and ideas for product improvements. Farmers are increasingly recognized as vital co-creators in 291 developing sustainable agricultural practices and innovations. Their local knowledge and 292 experience make them essential in designing practical solutions. Researchers can also be involved 293 in the co-creation process, identifying gaps that farmers may not have the resources or expertise 294 to address (Ruth et al., 2020). 295 Effective customer relationship models require integrating information and communication 296 technology (ICT) to educate farmers on the benefits of BBFs through high-quality content and 297 examples of successful applications. Influencers can also promote sustainable practices by sharing 298 trusted recommendations and educating farmers (Vilkaite-Vaitone, 2024). However, research 299 shows that "peer farmers" are the most influential information source, as farmers often learn from 300 each other through conversations and by observing practices (e.g., roadside farming) (Sutherland 301 and Marchand, 2021). Peer influence, or the impact of social interactions within a group on 302 individual behavior, is significant in shaping farmers' sustainable behavior (Garmendia-Lemus et 303 al., 2024; Niu et al., 2022; Tran-Nam and Tiet, 2022; Bell et al., 2018). Translating traditional 304 customer relationships into the virtual marketplace by establishing and maintaining online 305 communities allows farmers to connect and share knowledge (Farquhar and Rowley, 2006). These 306 communities, a key form of customer relationship alongside personal assistance, dedicated 307 16 personal assistance, self-service, automated services, and co-creation, also help companies better 308 understand their customers (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010). 309 3.2.2. Infrastructure 310 Key activities 311 Key activities encompass essential tasks a business must execute to create, deliver, and sustain 312 value, generate revenue, and achieve its goals. In BBF production, key activities include raw 313 material collection, nutrient recovery, and fertiliser production (granulation stage, and addition of 314 non-microbial plant biostimulant (NMPB) or microbial plant biostimulant (MPB), with the 315 requirement of a coating stage when the biostimulant is MPB) (Cazador et al., 2022; B-FERST 316 Advanced Technology Brochure, 2024). Biostimulants improve nutrient efficiency, tolerance to 317 abiotic stress, and crop quality traits, independent of their nutrient content (du Jardin, 2015). In the 318 circular bioeconomy, particularly BBF production, core activities center on value recovery from 319 waste (waste valorization), converting organic waste into BBFs while maintaining sustainability 320 and resource efficiency. Production relies on secondary bio-based raw materials obtained through 321 methods like composting, anaerobic digestion, and fermentation. Efficient logistics, storage, and 322 quality control are essential for reusing byproducts and ensuring sufficient biomass supply (Reim 323 et al., 2018). Logistics and supply chain models for bio-based products are complex due to the 324 seasonal variability, dispersed distribution, and quality inconsistency of biomass sources. 325 Challenges include biomass deterioration, diverse conversion technologies, and interdependencies 326 among logistics operations (Stellingwerf et al., 2022). Resource volumes, particularly feedstocks 327 from agriculture, can vary significantly, posing a challenge for markets like chemicals that are not 328 typically exposed to such fluctuations (Hatvani et al., 2022). Collection across vast regions with 329 varying quantities necessitates logistical adjustments and strategic planning (Bröring and 330 17 Vanacker, 2022; Donner et al., 2021). Furthermore, nutrient recovery technologies in BBF 331 production must address the inherent variability in product qualities, as BBFs need to meet diverse 332 agronomic requirements and cater to a wide range of application contexts. This variability 333 highlights the importance of technological flexibility and adaptability in production processes to 334 ensure consistency and efficacy across different products. Future fertilizer plants must 335 accommodate multiple biomass feedstocks using either single or a combination of integrated 336 processes. Recycling and waste utilization require careful planning regarding collection, storage, 337 transport, and pretreatment, depending on biomass volume and location (Cazador et al., 2022). 338 Ongoing R&D is crucial for cost-effective and high-quality production. Optimizing BBF 339 production processes ensures efficiency, adaptability, and minimal environmental impact. In the 340 bioeconomy—a sector characterized by high innovation and intensive research—advancements in 341 new product applications, sidestream uses, and innovations toward bio-based and renewable 342 resources play a critical role (Salvador et al., 2023). Scaling up newly developed technological 343 solutions presents significant challenges. New technologies must be compatible with existing 344 fossil-based infrastructure to ensure value creation. Additionally, navigating complex intellectual 345 property issues, which can be costly and time-consuming, is essential for technology development 346 (Bröring and Vanacker, 2022). Transitioning to a bioeconomy also involves internal 347 transformation, requiring a cultural shift within established companies. Ongoing innovation and 348 business model evaluation are critical for success (Reim et al., 2019). 349 Key resources 350 The key resources block identifies essential assets for a business model’s success, encompassing 351 tangible (e.g., financial, physical), intangible (e.g., technology, reputation), and human resources 352 (e.g., skills, expertise) (Näyhä, 2020). The European Union relies heavily on externally sourced, 353 18 non-renewable raw materials for fertilizer production, with natural gas as the primary energy 354 source (B-Ferst Advanced Technology Brochure, 2024). Fertilizer production is highly energy-355 intensive, relying on fossil fuels (such as the Haber–Bosch process for nitrogen fertilizers) or fossil 356 ore deposits (such as phosphate rock) (Chojnacka et al., 2020). Phosphate rock needed for 357 production of phosphorus-based fertilizers is a finite and irreplaceable resource, concentrated in a 358 few countries worldwide. Inefficient phosphorus use has pushed it beyond the planet's safe limits, 359 and continued reliance on primary phosphorus resources threatens agricultural sustainability 360 (Magaya et al., 2024). This underscores the urgent need for nutrient recovery from alternative 361 sources. 362 Wastes, especially biomass, offer a large reservoir of materials that can be converted into fertilizers 363 through various technologies. High-potential bio-wastes for BBF production include agricultural 364 waste, food waste, sewage sludge, and plant residues (Chojnacka et al., 2019; 2020). Agricultural 365 by-products like crop residues, plant trimmings and compost provide sources of essential nutrients. 366 Animal by-products, such as manure and offal, and agri-food industry waste (e.g., fruit and 367 vegetable peels, pulp, seeds) also serve as valuable inputs. Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) 368 sewage sludge, or the organic material left after wastewater treatment processes, such as ashes and 369 struvite as a source of P and K, is another nutrient source. Factors such as quality, regulation, 370 processing feasibility, logistics, product stability, economic feasibility and carbon footprint 371 influence the viability of these biowastes (Cazador et al., 2022). 372 Bioeconomy business models encounter challenges with biomass quality and availability. The 373 unsuitability or seasonality of raw materials, along with inadequate infrastructure and capacity, 374 can make biomass supply unreliable, disrupting the value generation process. Furthermore, various 375 industries compete for the same biomass resources. The heterogeneity of these raw materials, 376 19 particularly when using harvest residues, affects the consistency and quality of the final product 377 (Bröring and Vanacker, 2022). Biostimulants, which enhance plant growth and soil health, are key 378 resources in BBF production (Soltaniband et al., 2022). These include both microbial and non-379 microbial biostimulants. Biodegradable biopolymer coatings can be used to guarantee the 380 performance of certain biostimulants and enhance the performance of BBFs, ensuring controlled 381 nutrient release and increased agronomic efficiency (Cazador et al., 2022; B-FERST Advanced 382 Technology Brochure, 2024). 383 Intangible and human resources play a vital role in the shift toward a circular bioeconomy. An 384 innovative, adaptable, motivating organizational culture driven by "power people" and non-385 hierarchical leadership is essential. Communication, marketing skills, and team-driven innovations 386 supported by diverse expertise are also critical (Näyhä, 2020). Many organizations struggle with 387 implementing new business models due to the dominance of established frameworks and a lack of 388 absorptive capacity to acquire new knowledge and skills that may relate to distant sectors. 389 Additionally, business models requiring new skills face obstacles such as skilled workforce 390 shortages or limited research facility access (Bröring and Vanacker, 2022). Advanced bio-based, 391 product-oriented technologies are frequently required to facilitate new and complex conversion 392 processes (Donner et al., 2021). Laboratories are also considered as a key resource or a key 393 partnership, since bioeconomy is a highly innovative and research-intensive sector. Laboratories 394 and pilot facilities, essential in the highly innovative and research-intensive bioeconomy sector, 395 are key resources or partnerships for evaluating and scaling diverse nutrient recovery methods to 396 produce high-quality BBFs tailored to varied market demands (Hatvani et al., 2022). 397 20 Key partners 398 The key partnerships block details the network of suppliers and collaborators essential for effective 399 business operations. Partnerships allow companies to optimize operations, reduce risks, and access 400 external resources and capabilities (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010). Unlike traditional models 401 focused on shareholders and suppliers, sustainable business models broaden the partnership scope 402 to include stakeholders who add economic, environmental, and social value. The bioeconomy 403 demands high levels of collaboration, with value chains requiring alignment and proactive 404 coordination among diverse stakeholders (Bröring and Vanacker, 2022). The Quintuple Helix 405 Approach provides a framework for understanding this collaboration by incorporating five key 406 sectors: economic actors, educational and research institutions, policymakers, civil society, and the 407 natural environment (Hatvani et al., 2022). Key stakeholders in the BBF market include livestock 408 and crop farmers, waste management firms, recycling fertilizer companies, garden owners, 409 horticultural producers, governments, NGOs, investors, and scientists, all of whom contribute to 410 raw material supply, technological development, and BBF commercialization (Álvarez Salas et al., 411 2024; De Keyser and Mathijs, 2023). 412 Securing a reliable biomass supply and managing logistics are vital for bio-based companies, often 413 requiring partnerships across previously unconnected sectors, such as chemical companies and 414 small-scale farmers. Primary producers are central to bioeconomy value chains, making 415 collaboration between the agricultural and fertilizer sectors essential for developing sustainable 416 management practices (Cazador et al., 2022). Strong relationships with farmers, supported by 417 secure payments, timely transport, and financial support for infrastructure, are crucial for success 418 (Hatvani et al., 2022). Engaging and benefiting biomass producers not only supports the supply 419 chain but is also key to achieving social sustainability in the bioeconomy (Lange et al., 2021). 420 21 Farmers’ influence on BBF supply and demand varies; livestock farmers are incentivized to use 421 excess manure, while crop farmers hold more power, selectively accepting or rejecting recycled 422 products based on their preferences (Álvarez Salas et al., 2024). 423 Transportation and logistics partners maintain a smooth supply chain, ensuring the delivery of raw 424 materials to production facilities and fertilizers to distributors and retailers. Research institutions 425 play a crucial role by collaborating on scientific studies and field research to foster trust and 426 promote new solutions (Moshkin et al., 2023). Agricultural extension services are vital for 427 supporting farmers in adopting BBFs and ensuring proper application, maximizing their value 428 (Kvakkestad et al., 2023). Policymakers establish regulatory frameworks for BBF production and 429 marketing, ensuring safety and environmental standards compliance (Ruth et al., 2020). Media and 430 NGOs play a significant role in shaping consumer perceptions. Although farmers may be open to 431 using recycled nutrients, skepticism from consumers and the food industry can hinder broader 432 adoption. Educating consumers on the environmental benefits of BBFs is therefore essential to 433 increase acceptance (Álvarez Salas et al., 2024). 434 3.3. Value capture in sustainable business models for BBFs 435 3.3.1. Finance 436 Revenue Streams 437 The revenue stream block defines cash flows from each customer segment, essential for 438 profitability (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010). Primary revenue streams in the fertilizer industry 439 include fertilizer sales, soil testing, agricultural consulting, distribution, specialty fertilizers, and 440 licensing. For BBFs, revenue relies on pricing strategies and competitive positioning compared to 441 mineral fertilizers, shaped by market demand, product availability, logistics, regulatory conditions, 442 22 and regional fertilization practices (Álvarez Salas et al., 2024). Price reflects product quality and 443 brand positioning, and must match customer expectations and willingness to pay. To facilitate 444 market adoption and maximize market share, BBFs must be competitively priced. Research 445 suggests pricing BBFs below mineral fertilizers to attract farmers; Tur-Cardona et al. (2018) 446 recommend pricing BBFs at approximately 65% of the cost of mineral fertilizers. Similarly, 447 Bonnichsen et al. (2020) found that farmers would prefer a price reduction of up to 50% compared 448 to current mineral fertilizers. Moshkin et al. (2023), however, found that significant price 449 reductions might primarily be needed for rapid market uptake rather than overall revenue 450 maximization. Alternatively, pricing BBFs at levels similar to mineral fertilizers could maximize 451 revenue even if initial market penetration is slower, provided marketing strategies effectively 452 address customers' willingness to pay. Premium pricing can be an effective approach for bio-based 453 products, especially when highlighting their environmental value, such as reducing reliance on 454 fossil fuels. By positioning waste recovery as a value-added service and reducing production costs 455 through waste inputs, BBFs can justify premium pricing due to their environmental benefits 456 (Salvador et al., 2023). Market data indicate that while BBFs currently contribute a smaller share 457 of global fertilizer revenue compared to mineral fertilizers, their market share is expected to grow 458 steadily as demand for sustainable agricultural practices increases (Joshi and Gauraha, 2022). In 459 2023, the global biofertilizers market was valued at approximately USD 2.31 billion and is 460 projected to reach USD 4.77 billion by 2032, reflecting a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) 461 of 8.5% (Global Market Insights, 2024). In contrast, the overall global fertilizer market, valued at 462 USD 202.20 billion in 2023, is projected to reach around USD 276.92 billion by 2034, with a 463 CAGR of 2.9% from 2024 to 2034 (Precedence Research, 2024). Additionally, environmentally 464 conscious consumers are willing to pay a higher but competitive price if the products not only 465 23 deliver similar functionality but also address their unique demands and preferences (Hatvani et al., 466 2022). 467 Beyond fertilizer sales, additional revenue streams can be derived from value-added services, such 468 as customer support, loyalty programs, and product optimization services. Subsidies can support 469 revenue, but they should underscore long-term benefits, proving bioeconomy products’ 470 profitability beyond public funding reliance (Reim et al., 2018). Effective use of subsidies and 471 taxes should reflect the socio-economic and environmental advantages not captured in market 472 pricing. Larger companies often integrate bio-based products into their broader product range, 473 enabling them to leverage internal financing from other profitable business areas. These firms also 474 benefit from EU funds during the early development stages, supporting essential R&D efforts 475 needed for future industrial-scale investments (COWI, Bio-Based World News and Ecologic 476 Institute, 2019). 477 Cost Structure 478 To maximize growth and profitability, it is essential to understand cost structures, including both 479 fixed and variable costs. Companies may adopt cost-driven models focused on efficiency or value-480 driven models that prioritize value creation and high-quality products, even at higher costs. In the 481 bioeconomy, production costs and market feasibility are influenced by several factors, primarily 482 the cost of biomass or feedstock, which must be procured competitively amid competition from 483 other industries. Maintaining quality control and regulatory compliance also challenges BBFs’ cost 484 competitiveness with conventional fertilizers, highlighting the need for industry standardization. 485 A major challenge for new bioeconomy business models is the high opportunity cost of substantial 486 initial investments in technology development, with operations often remaining costly due to low 487 production volumes and competition for limited resources (Reim et al., 2019). Many bio-based 488 24 products lack economies of scale, limiting their competitiveness with fossil-based alternatives and 489 slowing return on investment (Bröring and Vanacker, 2022). 490 The cost structure of BBFs varies significantly based on the technologies employed, such as 491 composting, thermal processing, nutrient recovery, and advanced coating technologies. Each 492 technology presents unique cost drivers, including energy use, material requirements, and 493 regulatory compliance. Sourcing large quantities of bio-based materials from diverse locations 494 introduces logistical challenges, complicating supply chains and driving up costs, particularly 495 when production rates at specific sites are limited (e.g., struvite) (Bröring and Vanacker, 2022). 496 Additionally, navigating varied European safety and logistics regulations increases operational 497 expenses, impacting overall economic feasibility. The commercialization of BBFs entails a lengthy 498 approval process, requiring extensive scientific data collection that adds to operational costs 499 (Giuliani, 2023). Technology development must be complemented by strategic marketing, public 500 relations, and specialized sales to emphasize product benefits, with marketing costs often 501 exceeding development expenses but frequently overlooked in cost analyses (Hatvani et al., 2022). 502 Packaging costs are also significant, especially when designing premium packaging to differentiate 503 BBFs from conventional fertilizers. On a positive note, efficient production strategies can create 504 economies of scale, reducing per-unit costs and boosting profitability. Using high-quality, 505 concentrated biobased materials can streamline production processes, potentially minimizing costs 506 associated with quality control and material waste (Cazador et al., 2022). Currently, phosphorus 507 recovery is expensive and energy-intensive, involving high-temperature processes and costly 508 reagents (Giuliani, 2023). Technological innovation, especially in developing cost-effective 509 nutrient recovery methods, such as for phosphorus, can also optimize costs. By optimizing 510 25 production and logistics, companies can reduce costs, enhance profitability, and support 511 competitive pricing. 512 4. CONCLUSIONS 513 This paper addresses the research gap on sustainable business models for BBFs by applying the 514 BMC framework to provide a comprehensive overview of key elements and considerations related 515 to BBF business models, integrating economic, environmental, and social dimensions. It highlights 516 the significant environmental impact of conventional chemical fertilizers and the need for 517 sustainable alternatives, as underscored by EU strategies like Farm to Fork and the EU Fertilizing 518 Product Regulation. BBFs offer potential solutions through nutrient recycling and soil health 519 improvement, but a transition to bioeconomy requires substantial business model transformation, 520 with sustainability as a core objective. 521 The BMC framework facilitates a structured analysis of value proposition, value creation and 522 delivery, and value capture specific to BBFs (Table 1). The value proposition of BBFs combines 523 economic, environmental, and social benefits. BBFs support comparable or superior plant growth 524 to conventional fertilizers while integrating services like nutrient management and logistics to 525 enhance adoption. Environmentally, BBFs reduce reliance on fossil-based resources, recycle bio-526 waste, lower GHG emissions, and improve soil health, addressing ecological challenges in 527 agriculture. Socially, BBFs foster local job creation, stimulate rural economies, and enhance health 528 and safety through hygienization processes. However, challenges such as nutrient variability, 529 timing of nutrient availability, and potential health risks require mitigation strategies to maximize 530 their potential as sustainable fertilizer alternatives. 531 26 Market blocks, as critical components of value creation and delivery, play a pivotal role in driving 532 the adoption of BBFs. Market adoption requires understanding behavioral drivers, including 533 financial motivations, self-efficacy, attitudes toward climate change, and the key product attributes 534 like nutrient content, organic matter, cost, and ease of application. Targeted marketing, 535 certification, eco-labeling, and branding are essential for building trust, particularly among 536 environmentally aware consumers. Effective channel management, combining traditional and 537 digital media, training programs based on farmers’ existing knowledge and practices, and tailored 538 after-sales support are key to enhancing product awareness, market adoption and customer loyalty. 539 Peer influence and online communities also play crucial roles in customer relationship 540 management by promoting knowledge exchange, collaboration and co-creation. Key activities like 541 nutrient recovery, ongoing R&D, and logistical management are critical for BBF production, while 542 resources—including biowaste, biostimulants, coatings tailored for controlled nutrient release, 543 flexible nutrient recovery technologies, skilled expertise, research facilities, funds, and innovative 544 organizational culture—are essential for the model's success. Diverse and adaptable nutrient 545 recovery methods must address the variability in waste sources and product qualities, ensuring 546 consistent performance across varied agricultural applications. Collaborations with stakeholders 547 like farmers, policymakers, researchers, and NGOs support resource acquisition, technology 548 development, and BBF commercialization. Partnerships between the fertilizer and biomass-549 supplying sectors are crucial for value chain coordination. Competitive pricing relative to mineral 550 fertilizers supports market penetration, while premium pricing can be justified by emphasizing 551 BBFs' environmental benefits. Additional revenue sources, including value-added services and 552 subsidies, are important for long-term sustainability, helping make bio-based products financially 553 27 viable. To remain competitive, companies must optimize production processes and logistics, use 554 high quality concentrated biobased material and innovate cost-effective nutrient recovery methods. 555 This paper contributes to the literature by presenting the BMC as a comprehensive tool to examine 556 the status of all key aspects and considerations related to commercialization of BBFs, integrating 557 a holistic perspective on value proposition, value creation and delivery, and value capture with 558 sustainability as a central objective. It has potential for providing valuable insights for stakeholders 559 in the fertilizer and agricultural sectors, policymakers, and the research community, providing a 560 foundation for developing strategies to transition towards sustainable circular bioeconomy. Future 561 studies should explore the entire TLBMC in the context of BBFs to integrate sustainability 562 principles. Since the market-related segments of the BMC are less explored in bioeconomy 563 literature, further research could focus on these areas, leveraging behavioral economics to provide 564 deeper insights into farmer adoption behavior. Finally, developing effective education and training 565 programs that build upon farmers' existing knowledge and practices to improve BBF adoption, 566 remains a vital avenue for future exploration. An effective educational approach is necessary not 567 only for farmers but also for the broader public, including policymakers, businesses, and citizens. 568 As Christian Patermann, widely recognized as the “father of the bioeconomy,” highlights, the 569 greatest challenge in advancing the bioeconomy is its inherent complexity and the need to translate 570 this complexity into accessible understanding (Giuliani, 2022). 571 REFERENCES 572 1. Abitabile, C., Arzeni, A., Cisilino, F., Orlando, M .(2024). Building sustainable futures: 573 the bio-based fertilizer case-study, Bio-Based and Applied Economics, Just Accepted. 574 DOI: 10.36253/bae-15786. 575 28 2. Álvarez Salas, M., Sica, P., Rydgård, M., Sitzmann, T. J., Nyang’au, J. O., El Mahdi, J., 576 Moshkin, E., de Castro e Silva, H. L., Chrysanthopoulos, S., Kopp, C., Wali, K., Zireeni, 577 Y., Ural-Janssen, A., El Hajj Hassan, S., Kebalo, L. F., Chadwick, D., and Jensen, L. S. 578 (2024). Current challenges on the widespread adoption of new bio-based fertilizers: 579 Insights to move forward toward more circular food systems. Frontiers in Sustainable Food 580 Systems, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1386680. 581 3. Anlauf, A. (2023). An extractive bioeconomy? Phosphate mining, fertilizer commodity 582 chains, and alternative technologies. Sustainability Science, 18: 633–644. 583 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01234-8. 584 4. B-Ferst Advanced Technology Brochure (2024). From waste to growth: Sustainable 585 agriculture with B-FERST. Available at: https://bferst.eu/wp-586 content/uploads/2024/07/BFerst_advanced-technology-brochure_30july.pdf. (Accessed 587 10 October 2024). 588 5. Barquero, M., Cazador C., Ortiz-Liébana, N., Zotti, M., Brañas, J., and González-Andrés, 589 F. (2024). Fertilising Maize with Bio-Based Mineral Fertilisers Gives Similar Growth to 590 Conventional Fertilisers and Does Not Alter Soil Microbiome. Agronomy, 14(5): 916. 591 https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14050916. 592 6. Basile, V. (2021). The triple layered business model canvas in smart agriculture: the case 593 of Evja startup. Piccola Impresa Small Business, (2). https://doi.org/10.14596/pisb.2844. 594 7. Behzadi, G., O'Sullivan, M.J., Olsen, T.L., and Zhang, A. (2017). Agribusiness supply 595 chain risk management: A review of quantitative decision models, Omega 79: 21–42. 596 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2017.07.005. 597 https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1386680 https://bferst.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/BFerst_advanced-technology-brochure_30july.pdf https://bferst.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/BFerst_advanced-technology-brochure_30july.pdf https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14050916 29 8. Bell, A. R., Zavaleta Cheek, J., Mataya, F., and Ward, P. S. (2018). Do As They Did: Peer 598 Effects Explain Adoption of Conservation Agriculture in Malawi. Water, 10(1): 51. 599 https://doi.org/10.3390/w10010051. 600 9. Bentley, J. W., Van Mele, P., Barres, N. F., Okry, F., and Wanvoeke, J. (2019). Smallholders 601 download and share videos from the Internet to learn about sustainable agriculture. 602 International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 17(1): 92–107. 603 https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2019.1567246. 604 10. Bonnichsen, O., Jacobsen, B. H., and Tur-Cardona, J. (2020). Danish farmers’ preferences 605 for bio-based fertilisers – a choice experiment. IFRO Working Paper No. 2020/15. 606 Available at: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/227738/1/1743137117.pdf 607 (Accessed 12 September 2024). 608 11. Bröring, S., and Vanacker, A. (2022). Designing Business Models for the Bioeconomy: 609 What are the major challenges? EFB Bioeconomy Journal, 2. 610 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioeco.2022.100032. 611 12. Cazador, C., Morán, A., San Mart︠ín, I., Serrano, E., Monsalvo, V., Ezquerra, J., and Brañas, 612 J. (2022). Advances in commercial scale production of bio-based NPK fertilisers form 613 waste streams. International Fertiliser Society. Available at: https://bferst.eu/wp-614 content/uploads/2023/01/Biobased-fertilisers-from-waste_IFS-conference.pdf (Accessed 615 23 September 2024). 616 13. Chojnacka, K., Moustakas, K., and Witek-Krowiak, A. (2020). Bio-based fertilizers: A 617 practical approach towards circular economy. Bioresource Technology, 295. 618 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122223. 619 https://doi.org/10.3390/w10010051 https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/227738/1/1743137117.pdf https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioeco.2022.100032 https://bferst.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Biobased-fertilisers-from-waste_IFS-conference.pdf https://bferst.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Biobased-fertilisers-from-waste_IFS-conference.pdf https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122223 30 14. Chojnacka, K., Gorazda, K., Witek-Krowiak, A., and Moustakas, K. (2019). Recovery of 620 fertilizer nutrients from materials - Contradictions, mistakes and future trends. Renewable 621 and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 110: 485–498. 622 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.04.063. 623 15. Cordell, D., Drangert, J., and White, S. (2009). The Story of Phosphorus: Global Food 624 Security and Food for Thought. Global Environmental Change, 19: 292-305. 625 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.009. 626 16. Coughlan, A. T. (2006). Marketing Channels. Pearson/Prentice Hall. 627 17. COWI, Bio-Based World News, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 628 (European Commission), and Ecologic Institute. (2019). Bio-based products - from idea to 629 market “15 EU success stories”. Publications Office of the European Union. Available at: 630 https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/305874 (Accessed 19 September 2024). 631 18. De Keyser, E., and Mathijs, E. (2023). A typology of sustainable circular business models 632 with applications in the bioeconomy. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 6 (January). 633 https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.1028877. 634 19. de Ridder, M., de Jong, S., Polchar, J., and Lingemann, S. (2012). Risks and Opportunities 635 in the Global Phosphate Rock Market. The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies (HCSS) 636 Rapport No 17 | 12 | 12 ISBN/EAN: 978-94-91040-69-6 Available at: 637 https://www.phosphorusplatform.eu/images/download/HCSS_17_12_12_Phosphate.pdf 638 (Accessed 19 September 2024). 639 20. Donner, M., and De Vries, H. (2023). Innovative Business Models for a Sustainable 640 Circular Bioeconomy in the French Agrifood Domain. Sustainability, 15(6). 641 https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065499. 642 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.04.063 https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/305874 https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.1028877 https://www.phosphorusplatform.eu/images/download/HCSS_17_12_12_Phosphate.pdf https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065499 31 21. Donner, M., Verniquet, A., Broeze, J., Kayser, K., and De Vries, H. (2021). Critical success 643 and risk factors for circular business models valorising agricultural waste and by-products. 644 Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 165. 645 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105236. 646 22. Donner, M., and De Vries, H. (2021). How to innovate business models for a circular bio‐647 economy?. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(4): 1932–1947. 648 https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2725. 649 23. Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practices and Principles. Harper and 650 Row, New York. 651 24. Du Jardin, P. (2015). Plant biostimulants: Definition, concept, main categories and 652 regulation. Scientia Horticulturae, 196: 3–14. 653 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2015.09.021. 654 25. Egan, A., Saju, A., Sigurnjak, I., Meers, E., and Power, N. (2022). What are the desired 655 properties of recycling-derived fertilisers from an end-user perspective? Cleaner and 656 Responsible Consumption, 5. 657 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666784322000110. 658 26. European Commission. (2020). F2F Action Plan 2020 Strategy Info. Available at: 659 https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-05/f2f_action-plan_2020_strategy-660 info_en.pdf (Accessed 29 October 2024). 661 27. European Commission. (2019). Market brief: Fertilisers. Available at: 662 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2019-07/market-brief-663 fertilisers_june2019_en_0.pdf (Accessed 29 September 2024). 664 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105236 https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2725 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2015.09.021 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666784322000110 https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-05/f2f_action-plan_2020_strategy-info_en.pdf https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-05/f2f_action-plan_2020_strategy-info_en.pdf https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2019-07/market-brief-fertilisers_june2019_en_0.pdf https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2019-07/market-brief-fertilisers_june2019_en_0.pdf 32 28. FAO. (2018). Assessing the contribution of bioeconomy to countries’ economy: A brief 665 review of national frameworks. Available at: 666 https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/31f2ed11-64ea-4d16-a8f8-667 a1323e1f31dd/content (Accessed 19 December 2024). 668 29. Farquhar, J., and Rowley, J. (2006). Relationships and online consumer communities. 669 Business Process Management Journal, 12(2): 162–177. 670 https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150610657512. 671 30. França, C. L., Broman, G., Robèrt, K., Basile, G., and Trygg, L. (2017). An approach to 672 business model innovation and design for strategic sustainable development. Journal of 673 Cleaner Production, 140(1) : 155-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.124. 674 31. Garmendia-Lemus, S., Moshkin, E., Hung, Y., Tack, J., and Buysse, J. (2024). European 675 Farmers’ Perceptions and Intentions to Use Bio-Based Fertilisers: Insights from the Theory 676 of Planned Behaviour and Perceived Utility. Journal of Cleaner Production, 434. 677 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139755. 678 32. Gazdecki, M., Goryńska-Goldmann, E., Kiss, M., and Szakály, Z. (2021). Segmentation of 679 Food Consumers Based on Their Sustainable Attitude. Energies, 14(11). 680 https://doi.org/10.3390/en14113179. 681 33. Giuliani, D. (2023). Recovering nutrients to save the planet: The fertilizer challenge. 682 Available at: https://bferst.eu/news/recovering-nutrients-to-save-the-planet-the-fertilizer-683 challenge/ (Accessed 20 September 2024). 684 34. Giuliani, D. (2022). In difficult times the bioeconomy is not a luxury, but a real opportunity. 685 Available at: https://bferst.eu/news/in-difficult-times-the-bioeconomy-is-not-a-luxury-but-686 a-real-opportunity/ (Accessed 21 October 2024). 687 https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/31f2ed11-64ea-4d16-a8f8-a1323e1f31dd/content https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/31f2ed11-64ea-4d16-a8f8-a1323e1f31dd/content https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150610657512 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.124 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139755 https://doi.org/10.3390/en14113179 https://bferst.eu/news/recovering-nutrients-to-save-the-planet-the-fertilizer-challenge/ https://bferst.eu/news/recovering-nutrients-to-save-the-planet-the-fertilizer-challenge/ https://bferst.eu/news/in-difficult-times-the-bioeconomy-is-not-a-luxury-but-a-real-opportunity/ https://bferst.eu/news/in-difficult-times-the-bioeconomy-is-not-a-luxury-but-a-real-opportunity/ 33 35. Global Market Insights. (2024). Biofertilizers Market Size By Product (Nitrogen-fixing, 688 Phosphate-solubilizing, Potash-mobilizing, Others), By Crop (Cereals & Grains, Pulses & 689 Oil, Seeds Fruits & Vegetables), By Form (Dry, Liquid), By Application & Forecast, 2024 690 – 2032. Available at: https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/biofertilizers-market 691 (Accessed 15 February 2025). 692 36. Hatvani, N., Van den Oever, M., Mátéffy, K., and Koós, Á. (2022). Bio-based Business 693 Models: specific and general learnings from recent good practice cases in different business 694 sectors. Bio-Based and Applied Economics, 11(3) : 185–205. https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-695 10820. 696 37. Heyl, K., Ekardt, F., Roos, P., and Garske, B. (2023). Achieving the nutrient reduction 697 objective of the Farm to Fork Strategy. An assessment of CAP subsidies for precision 698 fertilization and sustainable agricultural practices in Germany. Frontiers in Sustainable 699 Food Systems, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1088640. 700 38. Jensen, L. S., Oelofse, M., ten Hoeve, M., and Bruun, S. (2020). Environmental impact 701 assessment on the production and use of biobased fertilizers. Meers, E., Velthof, G., 702 Michels, E., and Rietra, R. (eds.). Biorefinery of Inorganics: Recovering Mineral Nutrients 703 from Biomass and Organic Waste. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 704 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118921487.ch7-1. 705 39. Joshi, S. K., and Gauraha, A. K. (2022). Global biofertilizer market: Emerging trends and 706 opportunities. Soni, R., Suyal, D., Yadav, A. and Goel, R. (eds.). Developments in Applied 707 Microbiology and Biotechnology: Trends of applied microbiology for sustainable 708 economy. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-91595-3.00024-0 709 https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-10820 https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-10820 https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1088640 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118921487.ch7-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-91595-3.00024-0 34 40. Joyce, A., and Paquin, R. L. (2016). The triple layered business model canvas: A tool to 710 design more sustainable business models. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135: 1474–1486. 711 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.067. 712 41. Juncal, M. J. L., Masino, P., Bertone, E., and Stewart, R. (2023). Towards nutrient 713 neutrality: A review of agricultural runoff mitigation strategies and the development of a 714 decision-making framework. Science of The Total Environment, 874. 715 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162408. 716 42. Kurniawati, A., Toth, G., Ylivainio, K., and Toth, Z. (2023). Opportunities and challenges 717 of bio-based fertilizers utilization for improving soil health. Organic Agriculture, 13(4) : 718 335–350 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-023-00432-7. 719 43. Kvakkestad, V., Brod, E., Flø, B. E., Hanserud, O., and Helgesen, H. (2023). Circulation 720 of nutrients through bio-based fertilizer products: Perspectives from farmers, suppliers, and 721 civil society. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 7. 722 https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1239353. 723 44. Lang, S., Minnucci, G., Mueller, M., and Schlaile, M. P. (2023). The Role of Consumers 724 in Business Model Innovations for a Sustainable Circular Bioeconomy. Sustainability, 725 15(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129573. 726 45. Lange, L., Connor, K. O., Arason, S., Bundgård-Jørgensen, U., Canalis, A., Carrez, D., 727 Gallagher, J., Gøtke, N., Huyghe, C., Jarry, B., Llorente, P., Marinova, M., Martins, L. O., 728 Mengal, P., Paiano, P., Panoutsou, C., Rodrigues, L., Stengel, D. B., van der Meer, Y., and 729 Vieira, H. (2021). Developing a Sustainable and Circular Bio-Based Economy in EU: By 730 Partnering Across Sectors, Upscaling and Using New Knowledge Faster, and For the 731 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.067 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162408 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-023-00432-7 https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1239353 https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129573 35 Benefit of Climate, Environment and Biodiversity, and People and Business. Frontiers in 732 Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2020.619066. 733 46. Leytem, A. B., Moore, A. D., Rogers, C. W., and Dungan, R. S. (2024). Predicting nitrogen 734 mineralization from dairy manure and broadleaf residue in a semiarid cropping system. 735 Soil Science Society of America Journal, 88(1): 71–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/saj2.20599 736 47. Magaya, S., Magid, J., Hermann, L., and Schulp, C. J. E. (2024). Phosphorus removal and 737 use in organic crop farming in the EU. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems. 738 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-024-10379-0. 739 48. Maurel, V. B., Brossard, L., Garcia, F., Mitton, N., and Termier, A. (2022). Agriculture and 740 Digital Technology, 1-185. https://doi.org/10.17180/wmkb-ty56-en. 741 49. Mili, S., and Loukil, T. (2023). Enhancing sustainability with the triple-layered business 742 model canvas: Insights from the fruit and vegetable industry in Spain. Sustainability, 743 15(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086501. 744 50. Morgan, M. I., Hine, D. W., Bhullar, N., and Loi, N. M. (2015). Landholder adoption of 745 low emission agricultural practices: A profiling approach. Journal of Environmental 746 Psychology, 41: 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.004. 747 51. Morone, P., Caferra, R., D’Adamo, I., Falcone, P. M., Imbert, E., and Morone, A. (2021). 748 Consumer willingness to pay for bio-based products: Do certifications matter? 749 International Journal of Production Economics, 240. 750 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108248. 751 52. Moshkin, E., Lemus, S.G., Bamelis, L., and Buysse, J. (2023). Assessment of willingness-752 to-pay for bio-based fertilisers among farmers and agricultural advisors in the EU. Journal 753 of Cleaner Production, 414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137548. 754 https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2020.619066 https://doi.org/10.1002/saj2.20599 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-024-10379-0 https://doi.org/10.17180/wmkb-ty56-en https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086501 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108248 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137548 36 53. Näyhä, A. (2020). Finnish forest-based companies in transition to the circular 755 bioeconomy—Drivers, organizational resources and innovations. Forest Policy and 756 Economics, 110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.05.022. 757 54. Nejadrezaei, N., Henchion, M., and O’Neill, E. (2024). Consumers perspectives on 758 biobased products: A scoping review. Cleaner Production Letters, 7. 759 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clpl.2024.100073. 760 55. Niu, Z., Chen, C., Gao, Y., Wang, Y., Chen, Y., and Zhao, K. (2022). Peer effects, attention 761 allocation and farmers’ adoption of cleaner production technology: Taking green control 762 techniques as an example. Journal of Cleaner Production, 339. 763 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130700. 764 56. Osterwalder, A., and Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business Model Generation: A Handbook for 765 Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers. Wiley. 766 57. Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., and Tucci, C. L. (2005). Clarifying Business Models: Origins, 767 Present, and Future of the Concept. Communications of the Association for Information 768 Systems, 16: 1-25. 769 58. Pandian, K., Mustaffa, M. R. A. F., Mahalingam, G., Paramasivam, A., Prince, A. J., 770 Gajendiren, M., Mohammad, A. R. R., and Varanasi, S. T. (2024). Synergistic conservation 771 approaches for nurturing soil, food security, and human health towards sustainable 772 development goals. Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances, 16. 773 59. Partalidou, M., Paltaki, A., Lazaridou, D., Vieri, M., Lombardo, S., and Michailidis, A. 774 (2021). Business model canvas analysis on Greek farms implementing Precision 775 Agriculture. Agricultural Economics Review, 19(2): 28-45. 776 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.05.022 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clpl.2024.100073 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130700 37 60. Pfau, S. F., Hagens, J. E., Dankbaar, B., and Smits, A. J. M. (2014). Visions of sustainability 777 in bioeconomy research. Sustainability, 6(3): 1222–1249. 778 https://doi.org/10.3390/su6031222. 779 61. Precedence Research. (2024). Fertilizer Market Size to Worth Around USD 276.92 Billion 780 by 2034. Available at: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-781 release/2024/10/08/2959512/0/en/Fertilizer-Market-Size-to-Worth-Around-USD-276-92-782 Billion-by-2034.html (Accessed 15 February 2025). 783 62. Rafiaani, P., Kuppens, T., Dael, M. V., Azadi, H., Lebailly, P., and Passel, S. V. (2018). 784 Social sustainability assessments in the biobased economy: Towards a systemic approach. 785 Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 82(2): 1839–1853. 786 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.118. 787 63. Rebelo, C.G.S., Pereira, M.T., Silva, J.F.G., Ferreira, L.P., Sá, J.C., and Mota, A.M. (2021). 788 After sales service: key settings for improving profitability and customer satisfaction. 789 Procedia Manufacturing, 55: 463-470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2021.10.063. 790 64. Reim, W., Parida, V., and Sjödin, D. R. (2019). Circular Business Models for the Bio-791 Economy: A Review and New Directions for Future Research. Sustainability, 11(9). 792 https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092558. 793 65. Reim, W., Sjödin, D., Parida, V., Rova, U., and Christakopoulos, P. (2017). Bio-economy 794 based business models for the forest sector- A systematic literature review. Proceedings of 795 International Scientific Conference “Rural Development 2017”, Aleksandras Stulginskis 796 University, Lithuania. https://doi.org/10.15544/RD.2017.109. 797 https://doi.org/10.3390/su6031222 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.118 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2021.10.063 https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092558 https://doi.org/10.15544/RD.2017.109 38 66. Remondino, M., and Zanin, A. (2022). Logistics and Agri-Food: Digitization to Increase 798 Competitive Advantage and Sustainability. Literature Review and the Case of Italy. 799 Sustainability, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020787. 800 67. Richardson, J. (2008). The business model: An integrative framework for strategy 801 execution. Strategic Change, 17(5–6): 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.821. 802 68. Rodríguez-Espinosa, T., Papamichael, I., Voukkali, I., Pérez Gimeno, A., Almendro 803 Candel, M. B., Navarro-Pedreño, J., Zorpas, A. A., and Gómez Lucas, I. (2023). Nitrogen 804 management in farming systems under the use of agricultural wastes and circular economy. 805 Science of the total environment, 876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162666. 806 69. Routroy, S., and Behera, A. (2017). Agriculture supply chain: A systematic literature 807 review and implications for future research. Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and 808 Emerging Economies, 7(3): 275-302. https://doi.org/10.1108/JADEE-06-2016-0039. 809 70. Ruth, N., Handayati, Y., Simatupang, T. M., and Siallagan, M. (2020). Understanding 810 circular economy implementation in the agri-food supply chain: The case of an Indonesian 811 organic fertiliser producer. Agriculture and Food Security, 9(1). 812 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-020-00264-8. 813 71. Salvador, R., Barros, M. V., Pieroni, M., Lopes Silva, D. A., Freire, F., and De Francisco, 814 A. C. (2023). Overarching Business Models for a Circular Bioeconomy: Systematising 815 archetypes. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 43: 349–362. 816 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2023.11.010. 817 72. Smol, M. (2021). Transition to Circular Economy in the Fertilizer Sector—Analysis of 818 Recommended Directions and End-Users’ Perception of Waste-Based Products in Poland. 819 Energies, 14(14). https://doi.org/10.3390/en14144312. 820 https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020787 https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.821 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162666 https://doi.org/10.1108/JADEE-06-2016-0039 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-020-00264-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2023.11.010 https://doi.org/10.3390/en14144312 39 73. Soltaniband, V., Brégard, A., Gaudreau, L., and Dorais, M. (2022). Biostimulants Promote 821 Plant Development, Crop Productivity, and Fruit Quality of Protected Strawberries. 822 Agronomy, 12(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12071684. 823 74. Stellingwerf, H. M., Guo, X., Annevelink, E., and Behdani, B. (2022). Logistics and Supply 824 Chain Modelling for the Biobased Economy: A Systematic Literature Review and Research 825 Agenda. Frontiers in Chemical Engineering, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fceng.2022.778315. 826 75. Sutherland, L.A., and Marchand, F. (2021). On-farm demonstration: Enabling peer-to-peer 827 learning. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 27(5): 573–590. 828 https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2021.1959716. 829 76. Teece, D. J. (2018). Business Models and Dynamic Capabilities. Long Range Planning, 830 51(1): 40-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.06.007. 831 77. Tran-Nam, Q., and Tiet, T. (2022). The role of peer influence and norms in organic farming 832 adoption: Accounting for farmers’ heterogeneity. Journal of Environmental Management, 833 320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115909. 834 78. Tur-Cardona, J., Bonnichsen, O., Speelman, S., Verspecht, A., Carpentier, L., Debruyne, 835 L., Marchand, F., Jacobsen, B. H., and Buysse, J. (2018). Farmers' reasons to accept bio-836 based fertilizers: A choice experiment in seven different European countries. Journal of 837 Cleaner Production, 197(1): 406-416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.172. 838 79. Vaneeckhaute, C., Meers, E., Michels, E., Buysse, J., and Tack, F. M. G. (2013). Ecological 839 and economic benefits of the application of bio-based mineral fertilizers in modern 840 agriculture. Biomass and Bioenergy, 49: 239-248. 10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.12.036. 841 https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12071684 https://doi.org/10.3389/fceng.2022.778315 https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2021.1959716 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.06.007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115909 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.172 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.12.036 40 80. Venkatesh, G. (2022). Circular bio-economy-Paradigm for the future: Systematic Review 842 of Scientific Journal Publications from 2015 to 2021. Circular Economy and Sustainability, 843 2: 231-279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00084-3. 844 81. Vehmas, K., Bocken, N., and Tuovila, H. (2024). Understanding Consumer Attitudes 845 Towards Sustainable Business Models-A Qualitative Study with Finnish Consumers. 846 Circular Economy and Sustainability, 4: 1487-1512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-023-847 00338-2. 848 82. Vidaurre, N. A. M., Vargas-Carpintero, R., Wagner, M., Lask, J., and Lewandowski, I. 849 (2020). Social Aspects in the Assessment of Biobased Value Chains. Sustainability, 12(23). 850 https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239843. 851 83. Vilkaite-Vaitone, N. (2024). From Likes to Sustainability: How Social Media Influencers 852 Are Changing the Way We Consume. Sustainability, 16(4). 853 https://doi.org/10.3390/su16041393. 854 84. Yang, X. E., Wu, X., Hao, H. L., and He, Z. L. (2008). Mechanisms and assessment of 855 water eutrophication. Journal of Zhejiang University Science B, 9(3): 197-209. 856 https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.B0710626. 857 85. Yenipazarli, A. (2015). The economics of eco-labeling: Standards, costs and prices. 858 International Journal of Production Economics, 170(A): 275–286. 859 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.09.032. 860 https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00084-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-023-00338-2 https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-023-00338-2 https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239843 https://doi.org/10.3390/su16041393 https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.B0710626 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.09.032