© 2025 Author(s). Open access article published, except where otherwise noted, by Firenze University Press under CC-BY-4.0 License for content and CC0 1.0 Universal for metadata. Firenze University Press | www.fupress.com/bae Bio-based and Applied Economics BAE Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(2): 15-30, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-17326 Citation: Rinaldi, G. M., & Viaggi, D. (2025). Towards the knowledge and inno- vation system for the bioeconomy?. Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(2): 15-30. doi: 10.36253/bae-17326 Received: February, 18, 2025 Accepted: July, 17, 2025 Published: September 30, 2025 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 in chief: Silvia Coderoni ORCID GR: 0000-0002-1500-4579 DV: 0000-0001-9503-2977 Towards the knowledge and innovation system for the bioeconomy? Giacomo Maria Rinaldi*, Davide Viaggi Alma Mater Studiorum – University of Bologna, Via Zamboni 33, 40126, Bologna, Italy *Corresponding author. Email: giacomomaria.rinald2@unibo.it Abstract. The bioeconomy is a growing sector in both high- and low-income coun- tries, closely linked to innovation. However, knowledge creation and innovation flows remain underexplored due to their complexity. This study aims to introduce the Knowledge and Innovation System for the Bioeconomy (KISB) to analyze sector dynamics. A systematic literature review examined its application, revealing the need for both technology- and collaboration-focused approaches. Key findings emphasize the importance of multi-actor and multidisciplinary strategies, with recent research prioritizing collaboration over innovation. Ethical and market challenges were noted in commercialization. Additionally, the concept of microKISB, operating at an organ- izational level, offers potential in business and policy research. Ultimately, KISB and microKISB serve as tools for policymakers, businesses, and researchers to drive bioec- onomy advancements. Keywords: bioeconomy, innovation system, knowledge development, innovation flows. JEL codes: D85, O31, Q57. 1. INTRODUCTION The bioeconomy represents an important segment of the economy of both high-income and low-income countries (Johnson et al., 2022; M’barek and Wesseler, 2023), gaining increasing popularity in recent years (M’barek and Wesseler, 2023). As pointed out by the systemic literature review in Wei et al. (2022), four stages of bioeconomy research can be identified, namely: the Infancy stage (1998-2002); the Exploring stage (2003-2012); the Bloom- ing stage (2013-2017); and the Mature stage (2018-to date). Hence, the bio- economy research can be considered in its maturity. Moreover, even from a policy perspective, the bioeconomy is considered an established and no longer emerging sector, with more than 60 specific strategies around the world (GBS, 2024). Despite this maturity, the concept of bioeconomy is still subject to debate, both in policy and research fields (Vogelpohl and Töller, 2021; Wei et al., 2022), with different points of view that hinder a common vision (John- son et al., 2022; Lewandowski, 2018; Viaggi et al., 2021). The main issue is that, based on local characteristics, each country (but even each continent) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode https://www.fupress.com/bae https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-17326 https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-17326 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1500-4579 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9503-2977 mailto:giacomomaria.rinald2@unibo.it 16 Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(2): 15-30, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-17326 Giacomo Maria Rinaldi, Davide Viaggi pushes for a different interpretation of the bioeconomy (M’barek and Wesseler, 2023). Several papers have tried to aggregate the main visions and approaches of the bioeconomy (e.g. Bugge et al., 2016; Vivien et al., 2019; Wei et al., 2022). However, regardless of the vision tak- en, there are some elements that are transversal and accepted as intrinsic to the bioeconomy. One of these is innovation (Viaggi et al., 2021). Nevertheless, few stud- ies have focused on the innovative processes that regu- late the bioeconomy and, in most cases, they emphasized practical rather than theoretical implications (Bröring et al., 2020; Faulkner et al., 2024; Van Lancker et al., 2016). Among the few examples of theoretical advance- ment, one is given by Van Lancker et al. (2016), who identified five factors and outlined the key characteris- tics of the innovation process. The five factors, called by the Authors “contextual factors” and defined as factors that “impact the implementation and management of innovation development processes in the context of the bioeconomy” (Van Lancker et al., 2016: 61) are: Radi- cal Innovation (RI), Complex Knowledge Base (CKB), Fragmented Policy (FP), Challenging Commercialisation (CC), and Intense Cooperation (IC). These elements are considered by the authors as the basis on which innova- tion development processes are established, but they do not describe the wholeness of the development processes. A methodological approach that allows us to analyse, at the same time, the contextual factors and the develop- ment processes is that of Innovation Systems (IS). The IS perspective has its roots in the seminal works of Lund- vall (1985; 1992), Nelson (1988; 1993) and Dosi (Dosi et al., 1988), who started to switch from a technology-based to a knowledge-based approach (Godin, 2006), replac- ing, in this way, the firm-centred vision of innovation with a systemic vision. The concept of IS is nowadays well-established (Rubach et al., 2017), with extensive literature on the topic (Pyka and Scharnhorst, 2009). In this framework, the socio-economic context and the relationships among organisations are considered key areas of research (Beckenbach et al., 2009; Garud et al., 2013). Consequently, with the inclusion of new economic and social variables within the innovation processes, the number of disciplines involved in the study of IS nota- bly increased, moving the study of innovation into the domain of complexity science (Burmaoglu et al., 2019). Hence, in the last decades, following the varied back- grounds and the different research interests of the schol- ars, many different models to visualize innovation have been proposed. One of the first models, widely accepted was out- lined by Lundvall (1992), who introduced the concept of National Innovation Systems (NIS), shading the light on the impact of national institutions on the develop- ment of innovation processes (Russo and Rossi, 2009). Similarly, Cooke (1992) introduced the Regional Inno- vation Systems (RIS), underlining the local aspects of innovation and the importance of proximity (Boschma, 2004). Malerba (2002) focused on the Sectoral Systems of Innovation and Production. Merging the concepts of National and Sectoral Systems, Spielman and Birner (2008) developed a concept for a National Agricultural Innovation System, further developed by Klerkx et al. (2012) in the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS). Instead, focusing on the typologies of actors that interact within the system, Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000) identified three main categories, i.e. government, industry and academia, that establish mechanisms, more or less complex, of feedback and sup- port for innovation. Referring to the double helix model of DNA, the Authors metaphorically called this three- actor model Triple Helix. Afterwards, the diffusion of this model in the scientific and political fields brought scholars to consider new categories. Hence, Carayan- nis and Campbell, first added the media and culture, affirming the Quadruple Helix model (Carayannis and Campbell, 2009), and then, introducing the natural environment, proposed the Quintuple Helix (Carayan- nis and Campbell, 2010). Despite the academic debate toward these models, these theories have been favourably received by policy- makers (Aragón et al., 2012). Indeed, in the field of inno- vation policy, the systemic approach has found increas- ing success, following and proceeding in parallel with the scientific debate (Aragón et al., 2012; Enger, 2018; Protogerou et al., 2010). The aim of this paper is to identify if there is scope for a Knowledge and Innovation System for the Bioecon- omy (KISB) framework and which may be its peculiari- ties. To do so, we decided to first explore what types of IS were adopted to describe the bioeconomy, and then to outline the main common characteristics. Indeed, to the best of the Authors’ knowledge, there are no specific literature reviews that assess the state of the art of IS framework in the bioeconomy. The origi- nality of the present systematic literature review lies in its ability to assess, at the same time, the contextual fac- tors of Van Lancker et al. (2016) and IS frameworks that mostly characterize the innovation literature in the bio- economy. The final results highlight there is no unique IS for the bioeconomy – as it happens in other sectors, such as agriculture – and that the contextual factors of Van Lancker et al. seem to be deficient in describing the complexity of the current innovation context. 17Towards the knowledge and innovation system for the bioeconomy? Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(2): 15-30, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-17326 The paper is structured in the following way. In sec- tion 2, we present the material and methods adopted to carry out this study. In section 3, the results are report- ed in three main subsections, namely: general informa- tion about the papers; contextual factors identified; and categorization of the papers into four groups based on two dichotomies: collaborative-oriented vs. innovation- oriented and business-centred vs. policy-centred. These categories were then related to the contextual factors and the type of IS approach. In section 4 we discuss the results under the lens of a possible unique Knowledge and Innovation System for the Bioeconomy (KISB), simi- lar to what happens in agriculture with the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS). Finally, some conclusions are outlined in section 5. 2. MATERIAL AND METHODS The present paper is conducted following the PRIS- MA (Preferred Reporting Items for SysteMAtic reviews) approach (Moher et al., 2009). This approach foresees several consequential steps. First, the identification of what to investigate (research question), where (sourc- es, databases, etc.) and how to start (keywords, search strings, etc.). Second, the Authors determine specific preliminary criteria for including or excluding studies, for example, based on the typology of items (articles, reviews, book chapters, etc.) or only publications in a specific range of years. After that, a screening phase is carried out, reading titles and abstracts and identify- ing the match with the predetermined criteria. The final selection of the eligible articles is made by reading the full papers, rejecting the non-compliant ones that had passed the abstract-based selection. The last phase of the PRISMA approach is the qualitative review of the select- ed papers and the presentation of results. Our research was conducted in July 2024. Based on the research question, we conducted our search in the Scopus database1, using as a string: “(bioeconomy OR bio-based AND economy) AND innovation AND (sys- tem* OR network OR cluster)”. This first query returned 209 documents (Fig. 1). Hence, we filtered by subject area, keeping “Social Sciences”, “Business, Management and Accounting”, “Economics, Econometrics and Finance”, and “Multi- disciplinary.” Based on the document type, we kept only articles and reviews. Then, we excluded Chinese as a language. Finally, according to our research question and the explained background, we selected only papers 1 Scopus, Elsevier B.V., https://www.scopus.com/, last seen 04/02/2025 Figure 1. Overview of the process of document selection following the PRISMA method (Moher et al., 2009). https://www.scopus.com/ 18 Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(2): 15-30, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-17326 Giacomo Maria Rinaldi, Davide Viaggi from 2017 to 2024 – the so-called maturity stage of the bioeconomy (Wei et al., 2022). In this way, a subtotal of 56 documents was found. Based on the research question and the objective of this study, before starting to read titles, abstracts and, eventually, full papers, we defined some criteria: – no papers with no focus/analysis of innovation pro- cesses; – no papers on business opportunities/product-orient- ed (with no specific focuses on innovation systems); – no papers on sustainability assessment; – no papers on technology’s impact on sustainability; – no papers on circular economy with no reference to bioeconomy. After the exclusion of non-compliant papers based on abstracts or full-paper reading or because the docu- ment was not findable, we conducted our qualitative research on the final number of 24 papers. The qualitative analysis was conducted through four main steps: i. Identif ication of general information, namely: Nationality of the Institution(s) of the Author(s); Paper’s Topic; Sector(s) or Subsector(s) of the Bio- economy considered; Study reference Scale; Meth- odology applied; Innovation Systems Framework adopted; and whether Case Study or not (if yes, where); ii. Identification of the contextual factors (see Tab. 1 for the considered criteria); iii. Classification of the papers based on four categories, contrasting on the vertical axis the collaborative- oriented and innovation-oriented papers, while on the horizontal axis the business-centred and policy- centred ones (Fig. 2). The assignment of a paper to one of the categories was concerned primarily with the paper’s research objective. If the research objec- tive was not clear enough, and doubts persisted, the analysis moved to results, discussion and conclu- sion. However, based on the main focus, none of the papers fell into multiple categories; iv. Distribution of IS and contextual factors into the four previously identified groups. In greater detail, the criteria listed in Tab. 1 are extrapolated by Van Lancker et al. (2016). Hence, to assign one factor to one paper, one or more than one of the criteria must be directly addressed in at least one of the sections of the paper. Thus, for example, to assign “challenging commercialisation”, in at least one section there must be the identification of difficulties related to the commercialisation or adoption of bio-based products by other companies (B2B), by the final consumer (B2C) or both. The classification of papers based on the identi- fied four categories represents an original framework developed by the Authors. This framework, taking up the original distinction between technology-based and knowledge-based approaches, broadens its scope and contrasts innovation-oriented papers with collabora- tion-oriented ones. This choice was made to under- stand whether, in the study of the bioeconomy, linear approaches to innovation persist or whether, given the relatively recent birth of this sector, the collabora- tive and systemic model is prevalent in the analysis of the sector. Similarly, the contrast between firm/busi- ness-centred research and policy-centred research was adopted to understand the main point of view of today’s research on the topic of innovation in the bioeconomy. The main scope of this contrast was to understand the distinctions in perspectives between two economic Table 1. Criteria for selecting contextual factors. Contextual factor Criteria Radical innovation · Redesigned business models · Reconfigured supply chains · Setup new supply chains (new convergences of sectors) Complex knowledge base · Varieties of sciences and technologies Intense cooperation · Cooperation between different actors Challenging commercialisation and adoption · Challenging in B2B · Challenging in B2C Policy schemes fragmented · Different policy schemes · Different administrative levels · Legal limitations for biobased/ biomass applications Figure 2. Papers grouped by main orientation (Collaboration vs Innovation) and research field (Business vs Policy). 19Towards the knowledge and innovation system for the bioeconomy? Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(2): 15-30, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-17326 branches (namely, business economics and economic policy) and to identify which of the two prevails when it comes to innovation in the bioeconomy. Further- more, given the importance of these two perspectives, the analysis of the current literature on the topic pro- vides insights in terms of knowledge gaps and future research. Hence, by placing these two contrasts on two axes, four different quadrants were identified, and each of them was named depending on the two dimensions involved. The four quadrants are: I) Network Policy (collaboration-oriented and policy-centred); II) Business Environment (collaboration-oriented and business-cen- tred); III) Innovative Business (innovation-oriented and business-centred); and IV) Innovation Policy (innova- tion-oriented and policy-centred).Through these groups, it was possible to better understand the differences in IS framework adoption pathways and, focusing on the innovation process, the factors that characterise the bio- economy context. In the results section, after a general overview (sub- section 3.1) and a description of the contextual factors identified (subsection 3.2), the four groups are used as a lens (subsection 3.3) to explore the relationship among them and IS frameworks adopted by scholars (subsub- section 3.3.1) and among them and contextual factors emerging from the papers (subsubsection 3.3.2). 3. RESULTS 3.1. General overview Considering the geographical location of the authors’ institutes, Europe has the most prominent role, with twenty papers out of twenty-four that involve only European institutes and two papers that involve Euro- pean and non-European entities (however, in both cases the first Author belongs to a European country). Only in two cases, the Authors are not European, i.e. in one case from Brazil and in the other from Brazil and Aus- tralia. At the country level, the most represented country is Germany with 10 contributions, followed by Finland with 5 papers. In terms of approach, the large majority of papers are applied research with eighteen of them that consider a case study. Lovrić et al. (2020) and Bueno et al. (2022) stand out as the sole studies where the Authors conduct- ed practical research without analysing a specific case. Among the remaining three, two are literature reviews (Lang et al., 2023; Salvador et al., 2021) and one is a commentary (Losacker et al., 2023). Moreover, in terms of methodology, the most used methods are qualitative ones, namely focus groups, semi-structured interviews and questionnaires. Other methods comprise analy- sis of research projects, social network analysis, system dynamics and innovation systems approaches. Looking at the reference scale, the National perspec- tive is the most addressed, with twelve papers, followed by the Global perspective with five papers. Other scales, such as Regional or Continental are addressed as well, but respectively in three and two cases. The Municipal and mixed scale (i.e. National plus Regional) are refer- enced in one article each. Regarding the bioeconomy sectors or subsectors considered in the papers, the main approach is that of considering the bioeconomy in its general complexity (Bogner and Dahlke, 2022; Chmielińskii and Wielicz- ko, 2022; Hurtado and Berbel, 2023; Lang et al., 2023; Losacker et al., 2023; Salvador et al., 2021), followed by forestry or wood-based bioeconomy (D’Amato et al., 2022; Giurca and Metz, 2018; Laasonen, 2023; Lovrić et al., 2020) and green chemistry or biofibre (Alfano et al., 2023; Kamath et al., 2023; Korhonen et al., 2020; Loos et al., 2018). Less common is the propensity to consider various sectors at the same time (Pyka, 2017; Scheiterle et al., 2018; Torre et al., 2023). 3.2. Contextual factors identified Identifying the contextual factors as outlined by Van Lancker et al. (2016), we found that the most common one is intensive cooperation, a concept that emerged in almost all the papers considered (Fig. 3). Even the com- plex knowledge base is a widespread factor, discussed or addressed in almost 75% of papers. Radical innovation is covered in just over half of the papers, while slightly less than half examines the challenging commercialisation. Figure 3. Contextual factors identified, in relative numbers, in the papers considered. Legend: RI = Radical Innovations; CKB = Com- plex Knowledge Base; FP = Fragmented Policy; CC = Challenging Commercialisation; IC = Intense Cooperation. 20 Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(2): 15-30, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-17326 Giacomo Maria Rinaldi, Davide Viaggi Finally, the least explored factor is that of fragmented pol- icy, with less than a quarter of the articles focusing on it. However, we also found some elements or critiques that, moving away from Van Lancker’s definitions, may deepen the knowledge of the innovative context in the bioeconomy. These aspects are further discussed in the following sections. 3.2.1. Intense cooperation This factor is the most addressed by different authors and no changes or modifications are reported in the concept: The idea of different actors that intense- ly cooperate in the bioeconomy innovation processes is widely perceived as one of the main characteristics of the sector. Furthermore, this result may suggest that, nowadays, the multi-stakeholder approach is perceived as more distinctive than the multidisciplinary approach (see next section on CKB). Bogner and Dahlke (2022) underline the importance of empowering and educating heterogeneous actors (different in age, gender, social and educational background) to stay actively engaged and participate in the innovation process with an ex-ante approach rather than an ex-post acceptance approach. However, D’Amato et al. (2022) report the diffi- culty in the Finnish Wood-based Bioeconomy (WBE) to engage in cross-sectoral and cross-discipline knowl- edge co-production, pointing out the lack of collabo- rative skills, and organisational differences. Similarly, Laasonen (2023) highlights the positive effects of well- developed relational capabilities, and, on the other hand, the negative impact of their lack on the whole innovation system. A solution to these problems is pointed out by Alfano et al. (2023), which observe the role of clusters in aggregating different actors, that could act as intermedi- aries and help to overcome the collaboration issues. Donner and de Vries (2023) underline the impor- tance of small-scale initiatives in the circular bioecono- my business models and the role of geographical embed- dedness and the relational proximity of actors. In this vein, the local-based innovation and the importance of local actors are pointed out also by Torre et al. (2023), in their study on rural development, and by Taffuri et al. (2021) in their paper on the urban management of bio- waste. In the former, the Authors underline the effective- ness of knowledge exchange that the multi-level coordi- nation (from national to local) made and the importance of long-term research programs to keep local actors embedded and aware of how collaborative research works. In the latter, the Authors highlight the complex web of stakeholders involved in the CBE paradigm even at the municipality level. However, in some cases, the difference between IC and CKB is blurred. This is the case with some emerg- ing concepts, such as living labs, where, in the case of Losacker et al. (2023), they are interpreted as places of interdisciplinary interaction, while in the case of Don- ner and de Vries (2023), they are seen, more in general, as “joint systemic co-creation approaches” (Donner and de Vries, 2023: 13). However, in both cases, the living labs are cited in the “future research” section, underlin- ing the absence of studies in the direction of stable and, more or less, informal collaborations in the bioeconomy. 3.2.2. Complex knowledge base Although the complex knowledge base of the bio- economy is widely recognised (e.g. Bogner and Dahlke, 2022; Loos et al., 2018; Scheiterle et al., 2018) and still remains one of the peculiarities of this sector, the papers considered a greater tendency to identify this concept with the terms multi- or interdisciplinarity emerges (see for example Chmielińskii and Wieliczko, 2022; Orozco and Grundmann, 2022; Torre et al., 2023). Chmielińskii and Wieliczko (2022) identify interdisciplinary as a way to catch the overall complexity of the bioeconomy and render a holistic vision. This complexity is also point- ed out when addressing the issue of lacking knowledge or capacity. For example, the case of Loos et al. (2018) points out the lack of capacity of the national system for the implementation of a biomass-based value web that involves several professionals and different know-how. In particular, the authors underline the poor awareness and evaluation of by-products as a resource and the need for coordination and support from public institutions. The latter should facilitate innovation diffusion, support applied R&D, and align institutions toward the commer- cialisation of plantain fibre (the byproduct analysed in the paper). Similarly, Drejerska et al. (2020), point out the lack of managerial know-how in implementing circular biowaste management. These two examples demonstrate how, through a systemic analysis, factors emerge that are difficult to identify in a mere technology-oriented or based on a linear approach. In this vein, in recent years some connected concepts are often addressed together with knowledge base, such as skills (e.g. Alfano et al., 2023) or education (e.g. Chmielińskii and Wieliczko, 2022; Hurtado and Berbel, 2023). 3.2.3. Radical innovation In their paper, Van Lancker et al. (2016) state that “although some existing products and processes may 21Towards the knowledge and innovation system for the bioeconomy? Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(2): 15-30, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-17326 only need some incremental, gradual innovations, the transition [towards the bioeconomy] will mainly require diverse, radically new and disruptive innovations” (Van Lancker et al., 2016: 61). This contrast between a more radical and a more moderate approach to innovation often emerges in the papers analysed, although with varying terminology. For example, Taffuri et al. (2021) apply an “improvement” perspective, by introducing bio-waste valorisation possibilities within the current Metropolitan Solid Waste Management System of a city in northern Italy (i.e. Turin). Kamath et al. (2023) con- trast the “path-modernisation” with the “path-creation.” The range of different types of innovation is also part of the work of Orozco and Grundmann (2022), who out- line the variation from incremental to disruptive inno- vations. This latter concept, gains a wide consensus. Indeed, also Lovrić et al. (2020), Bueno et al. (2022), and Losacker et al. (2023) use the term “disruptive” to identify the most radical innovations. However, it is important to underline that, although both radical and disruptive are concepts that imply a deep change, they slightly differ from each other. In fact, the concept of disruptive innovation implies a modification of market dynamics through novel business models and low-end market capture, while the concept of radical innova- tion is more related to groundbreaking technological advancements (completely new ideas or products) that cause significant organizational transformations within companies (Hopp et al., 2018). Closer to the concept of “radical” is the concept of “transformative knowledge” explored by Bogner and Dahlke (2022) in their paper on the German bioecono- my policy. Indeed, also in this case the main focus is on the policy side. However, the transition from “innova- tion” to “knowledge” implies a broadening of the overall vision of the phenomenon, with further dimensions ana- lysed, such as “system knowledge”, “normative knowl- edge”, “techno-economic knowledge” and “transforma- tive knowledge.” Furthermore, this approach reconnects the concept of RI with that of CKB. In the papers analysed, radical innovation is also seen from the business side, as emerged with the concept of disruptive innovation. In this field, Giurca and Metz (2018) consider the market formation, while Lazarevic et al. (2020) consider a niche market. Lang et al. (2023) underline the important connection between trans- formative innovation and the involvement of consumers in bio-based business models. Hence, even from a more business-oriented perspective, the importance of a sys- temic vision may help (e.g. the business model canvas developed by Salvador et al., 2021). 3.2.4. Challenging commercialisation The aspect of how challenging is the commercialisa- tion of innovations both for B2B and B2C is addressed both directly and indirectly in the papers considered. For example, Bogner and Dahlke (2022) indirectly address the problem by considering the projects that took place in Germany, documenting a strong focus on the market acceptance of products and processes related to the bioeconomy. Chmielińskii and Wieliczko (2022) underline the dif- ficulties that findings from research encounter in com- mercialisation. However, in their statement, the authors do not only imply the importance of convincing potential buyers, but they also call for engaging stakeholders across business, scientific, governmental, and consumer sectors and for using better education at all levels. In this way, they mix business and policy recommendations to sys- tematically enhance the national bioeconomy. Losacker (2023), more in line with van Lancker, refer to “technology legitimization.” However, this con- cept encompasses social acceptability and broadens the discussion to a legal aspect. Moreover, Lang et al. (2023) discuss the active role of consumers in influenc- ing business models, while, Korhonen et al. 2020 face the problem of the performativity of biomaterials compared to other materials and the importance of this issue in health risks for humans and the environment, stating that in some cases “it makes sense to use the most dura- ble materials available, regardless of the material’s envi- ronmental performance.” In other words, due to the large number of ethical challenges that the innovation processes have to face in the bioeconomy, it seems that the specific focus on the commercialisation side limits the capacity of this factor to describe the bioeconomy innovation context. 3.2.5. Fragmented policy Due to the sectors convergence that characterise the bioeconomy (Lazarevic et al., 2020) the optimisa- tion of policies still represents an issue (e.g. Korhonen et al., 2020). Anyhow, in addition to the low rate of papers that directly address this factor, we found that three policy issues are perceived as more compelling. First, a need for targeted policy interventions (Giurca and Metz, 2018), that implement the nowadays well-established and structured strategies for the bioeconomy (Bog- ner and Dahlke, 2022; Hurtado and Berbel, 2023). This is the case of the EU, where in addition to the strategy pointed out by the Commission (EC, 2018), almost all MS developed their own strategy (Joint Research Centre 22 Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(2): 15-30, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-17326 Giacomo Maria Rinaldi, Davide Viaggi European Commission, 2022). An example of successful policy intervention is outlined by Lovrić et al. (2020) in the case of Finnish WBE. In this context, the incremen- tal change from a forestry to a wood-based bioeconomy policy has been perceived as a success for the stakehold- ers involved thanks to the reduced policy fragmentation. The second policy issue is the lack of specific funds, considered under several aspects: D’Amato et al. (2022) indicate the limited funding opportunities for cooperat- ing in cross-sectoral initiatives as one of the main ten- sion factors in the Finnish WBE; in Laasonen (2023), the Finnish regional and business development agencies and the research and education organisations point out the need for external funding for R&D activities with other partners as one of the element to keep vital collabora- tions; Alfano et al. (2023) show that only a small per- centage of the green investments made by Italian firms belonging to a biocluster is supported by public funds, with the highest percentage of investments financed by venture capital or traditional bank financing. The third policy issue is a lack of legal frameworks for new technologies or services in the field of the bioec- onomy, as emerged in the challenging commercialisation (see specific section). Based on these findings, the fragmented policy fac- tor does not describe the overall complexity of policy frameworks in the bioeconomy. 3.3. Papers classification The highest number of papers belongs to the cate- gory of Business environment, with nine papers, followed by Network policy with eight (Fig. 4). The Innovation Policy group and Innovative Business follow with, respectively, four and three papers. Hence, looking at the four dimensions considered, we found a higher number of papers directly focused on collabora- tion (seventeen papers) rather than innovation (seven articles), while between business and policy-centred papers we found a balance of twelve papers each. 3.3.1. Groups and Innovation Systems Although the identification of the Innovation Sys- tems (IS) Framework for each category did not yield significant results, some remarks can be made. In gen- eral, there is a wide range of frameworks adopted by different authors . In the first period (2017-2020) we notice a greater diffusion of innovation systems most known in the literature on innovation, i.e. National Innovation Systems (NIS), Regional Innovation Sys- tems (RIS) and Technology Innovation Systems (TIS); while in a second phase (2020-2023) we notice a decline in these systems in favour of other frameworks, such as knowledge-based systems (e.g. Bogner and Figure 4. The selected papers classified based on the four different groups. 23Towards the knowledge and innovation system for the bioeconomy? Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(2): 15-30, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-17326 Dahlke, 2022; D’Amato et al., 2022) or stakeholders analysis (Taffuri et al., 2021). More in detail, looking at the several IS frameworks, the NIS was more adopted in the business-centred (Loos et al., 2018; Scheiterle et al., 2018), TIS in policy-centred papers (Giurca and Metz, 2018; Lazarevic et al., 2020) and RIS in collab- oration-oriented studies (Hurtado and Berbel, 2023; Kamath et al., 2023). No specific IS are adopted on the innovation-oriented side. Delving into the specific groups, no remarks emerge from the Innovative Business and Innovation Policy, while in the case of Business Environment and Network Policy, we notice two peculiarities. In the Business Envi- ronment case, there is a tendency to focus with greater detail on sub-groups of the whole IS, adopting concepts like networks (Bueno et al, 2022) or bioclusters (Alfano et al., 2023; Kamath et al., 2023). Instead, the Network Policy group’s peculiarity is the broadening of the vision towards a systemic approach of both innovation and knowledge. Indeed, only in this group, the concept of knowledge is used as a discriminant. For example, Bog- ner and Dahlke (2022) use different knowledge (i.e. transformative knowledge, system knowledge, normative knowledge and techno-economic knowledge) to identify the different types of policies, while D’Amato et al (2022) discuss the Knowledge co-production within the Finnish WBE. Finally, Chmielińskii and Wieliczko (2022) adopt the framework of Innovation and Knowledge Systems, which can be linked to the broad literature on Knowl- edge and Innovation Systems (KIS). 3.3.2. Groups and Contextual Factors Apart from Intense cooperation, which is the most addressed factor in each category, other contextual fac- tors are mostly in line with the IS frameworks outlined above (Fig. 5). Indeed, Complex Knowledge Base is the most repre- sented factor in collaborative-oriented research, in par- ticular in the Network Policy group, where it is at the same level of Intense Cooperation and this confirms the aforementioned interest in the concept of knowledge in this group. Instead, in innovation-oriented studies, Radi- cal Innovation has a prominent role in the Innovation Policy group, while in Innovative Business, it shares the same rate with Complex Knowledge Base and Challenging Commercialisation. In particular, this latter factor char- acterises innovation-oriented research more than collab- Figure 5. Contextual factors identified, in relative terms, in the four groups of papers considered. 24 Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(2): 15-30, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-17326 Giacomo Maria Rinaldi, Davide Viaggi orative-oriented one. The Fragmented Policy is addressed almost only in the policy-centred papers. 4. DISCUSSION The variety of frameworks applied to describe the IS in the bioeconomy hinders the identification of a sin- gular and unified framework. While this abundance of methodologies allows for the analysis of innovative systems from multiple perspectives, moving toward a unique, widely accepted IS may provide some advan- tages. An example might be provided by one of the most known and successful IS, the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) (Germundsson and Nor- rman, 2023; Ingram and Maye, 2020; Klerkx and Bege- mann, 2020). Rooted in the studies of Röling (Röling, 1988; Röling and Wagemakers, 1998), Arnold and Bell (2001) and Spielman and Birner (2008), the AKIS framework was supported by various supranational bod- ies, such as OECD (2012), World Bank (Julio and Ger- man, 2001), and EU (EU-SCAR, 2012, 2015, 2019). The latter, in particular, after a gradual introduction of this framework as a policy tool (EU-SCAR, 2012, 2015, 2019), decided to highlight the role of the AKIS introducing it in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) 2023-2027 (European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2021) and asking MS to assess how the different actors that compose the national AKIS interact and sup- port the production and use of knowledge and innova- tion (EU CAP Network, 2023). Although this concept is still perceived by many political and administrative decision-makers as vague and there is difficulty in fully understanding it (Knierim and Birke, 2023), a well-func- tioning AKIS is seen as a way to strengthen the impact of funds and policy interventions, avoiding duplica- tions and saving costs (EU-SCAR, 2019). In this sense, a unique IS for the bioeconomy, as the Knowledge and Innovation System for the Bioeconomy (KISB) proposed by Esposti (2012), might represent a way to determine coherent fund allocations and policy interventions, ful- filling the requests in this direction that we found in this review. In general, this vision might overcome the frag- mented and sectorial policy framework that persists in the current bioeconomy. Furthermore, such a tool might be useful not only for policymakers but also for all the other components of the system (Knierim and Birke, 2023). For example, through the analysis of the KISB, several gaps in the system may emerge (e.g. missed bro- kers or missed technologies) and this may provide to extension services and firms interesting niche markets. Nevertheless, it is fundamental to keep in mind that some profound differences persist between AKIS and KISB. First, due to its modernizing mission and its focus on increasing the sustainability of the rural world, AKIS’s core components are practitioners, i.e. farm- ers, foresters, fishers, and food processors (Knierim and Birke, 2023), seen as implementers of practices that have a direct effect on the environment (Schmidt et al., 2022). Instead, as we saw in our findings, the current bioecon- omy implies a vision that even overcomes Van Lancker’s Complex Knowledge Base, incorporating knowledge- intensive, high-tech and high organisational and imple- mentation skills. In this sense, the different typologies of practitioners involved in the bioeconomy (e.g. bioma- terial producers, bioenergy producers, etc.) expands the audience of stakeholders involved, each with particu- lar needs linked to their own area of interest and refer- ence market. In addition, as we found in this review, the active role of primary producers in the innovation pro- cesses of KISB is little explored and, therefore, consid- ered marginal. Second, the current AKIS literature and the actual policy implementation are mainly focused on extension services (Amerani et al., 2024; Knierim and Birke, 2023), especially in their role as innovation brokers. Based on the papers we considered, this aspect cannot be focal of KISB nowadays because of the current lack of specific research on advisory services in the bioeconomy innova- tion process. Indeed, to date, research is mainly based on the helix approaches (triple, quadruple and rarely quintu- ple), considering only the main actors (e.g. business, aca- demia and policymakers) and not connection figures. In this sense, it is not clear whether firms are directly linked to research institutions – with no need for intermediaries –, or if the high-tech innovations in the bioeconomy sec- tor have equipped firms’ in-house R&D with the neces- sary skills to avoid external advisory services. Third, AKIS can be considered part of KISB if we consider that agriculture is part of the bioeconomy. Any- how, the study of the interactions between these two sys- tems is still in its infancy (Chmielińskii and Wieliczko, 2022; Vilkė and Gedminaitė-Raudonė, 2020), with sever- al aspects to be further explored, such as the importance of the national AKIS within a national KISB or the inter- actions between AKIS and the other IS to form KISB. In particular, can we consider one system overarching the other, or are they synergistic or complementary? Fourth, the different roles and importance of con- sumers. On this aspect, the KISB perspective gives a complexity that the contextual factors identified by Van Lancker et al. (2016) do not catch completely. Indeed, both the Challenging Commercialisation and Intense Cooperation do not focus directly on the challenging aspects that characterise the whole innovation process 25Towards the knowledge and innovation system for the bioeconomy? Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(2): 15-30, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-17326 in the bioeconomy. For example, sustainability and cir- cularity concepts are nowadays considered paramount for the bioeconomy (D’Amato and Korhonen, 2021; Drejerska et al., 2020; Lang et al., 2023; Salvador et al., 2021). In this vein, the use of biological resources inevi- tably raises ethical dilemmas (Viaggi, 2018; Viaggi et al., 2021). An example of this is the possible contrast between food production and the production of other crops (e.g. for biofibres or bioenergy), which is known as the competing dilemma (Asada et al., 2020). Another example is the well-known debate around genetic modi- fications (Hartung and Schiemann, 2014; Jacobsen et al., 2013; Weisenfeld et al., 2023), which strongly affects the biotechnological component of the bioeconomy (Wei et al., 2022). These two examples give an idea of the importance of stakeholders’ engagement in the innova- tion development, in particular consumers, citizens and end-users. This could be also the reason why the Intense cooperation is the most accepted contextual factor as emerged from our results. However, many aspects of this cooperation are still unclear. Just to cite some unan- swered questions: What are, nowadays, the main drivers? What bottom-up mechanisms characterize cooperation for innovation in the bioeconomy? Is this cooperation market-pushed or policy-driven? How does consumer behaviour influence the whole system in the transition towards new bio-products? What is the role and how do local actors contribute to the implementation of new bio- economic value chains? This latter aspect raises questions regarding the dis- pute that we found among researchers around the issue of Radical innovation. As we saw, researchers are mainly divided between a more moderate and incremental vision of how to implement the bioeconomy (e.g. Taffuri et al., 2021) and a more intense and radical one (e.g. Bogner and Dahlke, 2022). Although opposed, from a KISB per- spective these two positions can be reconciled. Indeed, the path-modernisation and the path-creation (Kamath et al., 2023) are both part of the knowledge and innova- tion processes, with their own actors, mechanisms and characterising factors. Hence, both these two streams of research can contribute to a better understanding of the complexity of innovation in the bioeconomy. Moreover, all the underlined aspects can benefit both from business-centred and policy-centred research. The business-centred research can largely contribute, through its attitude toward the stakeholder concept (Taf- furi et al., 2021; Korhonen et al., 2020) and the sub-sys- tems description (bioclusters, networks, etc.) (Alfano et al. 2023; Bueno et al., 2022; Kamath et al., 2023). Even in this case, the AKIS literature may provide a frame- work to explore many of the aspects underlined in the previous questions: microAKIS (Sutherland et al., 2023). This framework focuses on the innovation subset of the whole AKIS that operates at the farm’s individual level or, using the description provided by Sutherland et al. (2022), “the sources of knowledge that farmers person- ally develop to pursue innovations and to manage their farms” (Sutherland et al., 2022: 40). The possibility of exploring the microKISB opens the room to further analysis in the business research, such as new business models, business environment and market creation with a firm-centred systemic perspective. It also allows for considerations in the field of policy-centred research. This stream of research can benefit from the micro- KISB perspective to draw conclusions about the role of local actors in the transition from national strategies to local implementations. Furthermore, the lack of analy- sis of the mechanisms of knowledge transmission in the whole system and the pressing requests to combine policy interventions and funds allocations – short and medium-term perspective – with bioeconomy strategies – long-term perspective – also questions the wider KISB perspective (more national-oriented). An example is pro- vided by the emerging issue of education and training in the bioeconomy (Chmielińskii and Wieliczko, 2022; Hurtado and Berbel, 2023; Laasonen, 2023), which rep- resents an interesting point of view for policy considera- tions to optimize the system’s ability to absorb or gen- erate knowledge (Buchmann and Pyka, 2015; Kurtsal et al., 2024). In this sense, the policy-centred research may merge Intense cooperation with Fragmented policy, showing that the system perspective can, at the same time, explain the mechanisms and propose pathways, as occurs in the study by Hurtado and Berbel (2023). Hence, both KISB and microKISB can contribute to answering the unanswered questions, combining differ- ent levels of research (national, regional, local, etc.), and, at the same time, explaining the mechanisms that regu- late all the contextual factors, taken both individually and together. Finally, considering the least adopted contextual fac- tors, i.e. CC and FP, we saw that in both cases they were limited in their ability to describe the overall complexity of the innovation development processes in the bioecon- omy. This may partly explain why they are less explored by the papers considered. Hence, our suggestion is to enlarge both the concepts. The CC should become com- mercialisation dilemmas (or ethical and market challeng- es in commercialisation), extending the concept to the ethical aspects of the commercialisation of bioproducts. Instead, the FP should become a complex policy and legal framework, underlining the large mix of different levels of policies and norms that characterize the bioeconomy. 26 Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(2): 15-30, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-17326 Giacomo Maria Rinaldi, Davide Viaggi However, this study has some limitations. Exclud- ing the linear approach of innovation from research cri- teria, part of the innovation processes are excluded. In this sense, future research may include this approach to enlarge the vision of the innovation processes. Simi- larly, future research may include contributions provid- ed before 2017, the year we chose as the lower limit of our study. Indeed, earlier studies from the Infancy and Exploring stages of the bioeconomy literature may pro- vide further insights for theoretical advancements in knowledge creation and innovation development in the field of bioeconomy. Furthermore, no specific analysis has been conduct- ed in terms of the current level of innovation in the field of the bioeconomy system. Specific research on this topic is deemed necessary in the future for a better knowledge of the sector and to understand how the bioeconomy fits into the main modern technological processes (e.g. digi- talisation, nature-based solutions, etc.). Finally, consulting a single scientific database (i.e. Scopus) can be considered a limitation of this research, which future research on the topic could overcome by consulting more databases. 5. CONCLUSION In this study, we conducted a systematic literature review to explore the application of the IS framework in the field of the bioeconomy. In particular, the aim was to identify the scope and the characteristics of a KISB framework. We found that a unique framework is nowadays missed. Several approaches were adopted, but rarely with the aim of a theoretical advancement for the whole bioeconomy literature. Indeed, often the approach adopted was the one best fitting for the purpose of the research, with rare examples of the opposite, i.e. to seek a holistic framework that describes innovation processes within the bioeconomy. However, one of the main results of this study is the possibility of applying and benefiting from a specific KISB. In fact, the mechanisms and dynamics examined in this study go further beyond the simple technology-oriented or linear approach to innovation, as we saw considering the complex amount of skills and professionals needed to implement bioeconomy processes (e.g. in biowaste man- agement). Hence, based on the examined papers, some peculiarities should characterise the KISB. First, based on the result that Intense Cooperation (IC) and Complex Knowledge Base (CKB) are the most common factors, we outlined how the multi-actor and multidisciplinary approaches are fundamental in the bioeconomy innova- tion processes, and it is not possible to exclude them in the KISB. Second, we found a more intense stream of research in the field of collaborations rather than innovations. In this sense, the efforts made by scholars can strongly con- tribute to outlining a KISB, for example including the analysis of knowledge development. Third, even if less represented, the innovation-oriented papers add insights in terms of challenging aspects of commercialisation in the bioeconomy. Finally, we found that there is a wide scope for KISB and the connected concept of microKISB (i.e. the innovation subset of the whole KISB that operates at the organisation’s individual level) in both business- centred and policy-centred research. Therefore, KISB and microKISB must be designed in such a way that they can represent an interesting and useful tool for all the actors involved in the bioeconomy innovation process, mainly policymakers, business actors, and researchers. Furthermore, similarly to AKIS in the current CAP, even KISB may become a policy objective transversal to all the sectors involved. This would make all the opera- tors aware of the actors involved in the knowledge and innovation system, and, on the other hand, the bioecon- omy would benefit from a more systemic promotion and sharing of knowledge. Moreover, looking at the contextual factors of Van Lancker et al. (2017), our suggestion is to enlarge the two less-represented concepts, i.e. challenging commer- cialization (CC) and fragmented policy (FP). The CC should become commercialisation dilemmas (or ethical and market challenges in commercialisation), extending the concept to the ethical aspects of the commerciali- sation of bioproducts. Instead, the FP should become a complex policy and legal framework, underlining the large mix of different levels of policies and norms that characterize the bioeconomy. 6. REFERENCES Alfano, M. R., Cantabene, C., Lepore, A., and Palermo, S. (2023). The green to circular bioeconomy transi- tion: Innovation and resilience among Italian enter- prises. Business Strategy and the Environment 32: 6094–6105. Amerani, E., Nastis, S., Loizou, E., and Michailidis, A. (2024). Cross-Analysis of Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System of Actors’ Interactions in Greece. Journal of Agricultural Extension 28: 9–23. Aragón, C., Aranguren, M. J., Iturrioz, C., and Wilson, J. R. (2012). A social capital approach for network policy learning: The case of an established cluster initiative. European Urban and Regional Studies 21: 128–145. 27Towards the knowledge and innovation system for the bioeconomy? Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(2): 15-30, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-17326 Arnold, E., and Bell, M. (2001). Some New Ideas About Research for Development. Partnership at the Lead- ing Edge: A Danish Vision for Knowledge, Research and Development: 278–316. Asada, R., Cardellini, G., Mair-Bauernfeind, C., Wenger, J., Haas, V., Holzer, D., and Stern, T. (2020). Effec- tive bioeconomy? a MRIO-based socioeconomic and environmental impact assessment of generic sectoral innovations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 153: 119946. Beckenbach, F., Briegel, R., and Daskalakis, M. (2009). Innovation Networks. In Pyka, A. and Scharnhorst, A. (eds), Innovation Networks - Understanding com- plex systems. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Bogner, K., and Dahlke, J. (2022). Born to transform? German bioeconomy policy and research projects for transformations towards sustainability. Ecological Economics 195: 107366. Boschma, R. (2004). Competitiveness of Regions from an Evolutionary Perspective. Regional Studies 38: 1001– 1014. Bröring, S., Laibach, N., and Wustmans, M. (2020). Inno- vation types in the bioeconomy. Journal of Cleaner Production 266: 121939. Buchmann, T., and Pyka, A. (2015). The evolution of innovation networks: An automotive case study. In The Evolution of Innovation Networks: An Automo- tive Case Study. Bueno, C. da S., Masago, F. K., da Silveira, J. M. F. J., Moraes, B. de S., Mendes, L. B. B., and Luna, I. R. (2022). Bioenergy emerging paradigm: Collaborative networks and determinants in the upgrading process of technological frontiers. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development 14: 1413– 1428. Bugge, M., Hansen, T., and Klitkou, A. (2016). What Is the Bioeconomy? A Review of the Literature. Sustain- ability 8: 691. Burmaoglu, S., Sartenaer, O., Porter, A., and Li, M. (2019). Analysing the theoretical roots of technology emergence: an evolutionary perspective. Scientomet- rics 119: 97–118. Carayannis, E. G., and Campbell, D. F. J. (2009). ‘Mode 3’ and ‘Quadruple Helix’: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Tech- nology Management 46: 201. Carayannis, E. G., and Campbell, D. F. J. (2010). Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix and Quintuple Helix and How Do Knowledge, Innovation and the Environment Relate To Each Other? International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development 1: 41–69. Chmielińskii, P., and Wieliczko, B. (2022). Research and innovation challenges for better policies in food sys- tems and bioeconomy transitions – evidence from Poland. International Food and Agribusiness Man- agement Review 25: 789–801. Cooke, P. (1992). Regional innovation systems: Com- petitive regulation in the new Europe. Geoforum 23: 365–382. D’Amato, D., Korhonen-Kurki, K., Lyytikainen, V., Mat- thies, B. D., and Horcea-Milcu, A. I. (2022). Circular bioeconomy: Actors and dynamics of knowledge co- production in Finland. Forest Policy and Economics 144: 102820. D’Amato, D., and Korhonen, J. (2021). Integrating the green economy, circular economy and bioeconomy in a strategic sustainability framework. Ecological Eco- nomics 188: 107143. Donner, M., and de Vries, H. (2023). Innovative Business Models for a Sustainable Circular Bioeconomy in the French Agrifood Domain. Sustainability (Switzer- land) 15: 1–29. Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R., Silverberg, G., and Soete, L. (1988). Technical Change and Economic Theory , G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelson, G. Silver- berg, & L. Soete (eds.). Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy. Drejerska, N., Vrontis, D., Siachou, E., and Golebiewski, J. (2020). System solutions for the circular economy on the regional level: The case of Green Lungs of Poland. Journal for Global Business Advancement 13: 447–468. Enger, S. G. (2018). Closed clubs: Network centrality and participation in Horizon 2020. Science and Public Policy 45: 884–896. Esposti, R. (2012). Knowledge, technology and inno- vations for a bio-based economy: Lessons from the past, challenges for the future. Bio-Based and Applied Economics 1: 235–268. Etzkowitz, H., and Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy 29: 109–123. EU-SCAR. (2012). Agricultural knowledge and innova- tion systems in transition: a reflection paper. Publica- tions Office. EU-SCAR. (2015). Agricultural knowledge and innovation systems towards the future – a foresight paper. Brussels. EU-SCAR. (2019). Preparing for Future AKIS in Europe. Brussels, Belgium.: EU CAP Network. (2023). Learning Portal - Assessing AKIS. https://eu-cap-network.ec.europa.eu/training/ https://eu-cap-network.ec.europa.eu/training/evaluation-learning-portal/learning-portal-assessing-akis_en 28 Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(2): 15-30, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-17326 Giacomo Maria Rinaldi, Davide Viaggi evaluation-learning-portal/learning-portal-assessing- akis_en European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. (2021). Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Partliament and of the Council. Official Journal of the European Union 2021: 435/1-435/186. Faulkner, J. P., Murphy, E., and Scott, M. (2024). Bioec- onomy, Planning and Sustainable Development: A Theoretical Framework. Sustainability (Switzerland) 16: 1–14. Garud, R., Tuertscher, P., and Van De Ven, A. H. (2013). Perspectives on innovation processes. Academy of Management Annals 7: 775–819. GBS. (2024). IACGB Communiqué. Nairobi, Kenya.: https://gbs2024.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/ IACGB-Communique-24October2024.pdf Germundsson, L. B., and Norrman, C. (2023). Market Formation and the Role of the Farmer in a Micro- level Agri-food Innovation System. International Journal on Food System Dynamics 14: 394–406. Giurca, A., and Metz, T. (2018). A social network analysis of Germany’s wood-based bioeconomy: Social capital and shared beliefs. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 26: 1–14. Godin, B. (2006). The Linear Model of Innovation. Sci- ence, Technology, & Human Values 31: 639–667. Hartung, F., and Schiemann, J. (2014). Precise plant breeding using new genome editing techniques: Opportunities, safety and regulation in the EU. Plant Journal 78: 742–752. Hopp, C., Antons, D., Kaminski, J., and Salge, T. O. (2018). The Topic Landscape of Disruption Research—A Call for Consolidation, Reconciliation, and Generalization. Journal of Product Innovation Management 35: 458–487. Hurtado, A. R., and Berbel, J. (2023). Learning, knowl- edge, and the role of government: a qualitative system dynamics analysis of Andalusia’s circular bioeconomy. Bio-Based and Applied Economics 12: 141–164. Ingram, J., and Maye, D. (2020). What Are the Implica- tions of Digitalisation for Agricultural Knowledge? Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 4. Jacobsen, S. E., Sørensen, M., Pedersen, S. M., and Wein- er, J. (2013). Feeding the world: Genetically modified crops versus agricultural biodiversity. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 33: 651–662. Johnson, F. X ., Canales, N., Fielding, M., Gladkykh, G., Aung, M. T., Bailis, R., Ogeya, M., and Olsson, O. (2022). A comparative analysis of bioeconomy visions and pathways based on stakeholder dialogues in Colombia, Rwanda, Sweden, and Thailand. Jour- nal of Environmental Policy & Planning 24: 680–700. Joint Research Centre European Commission. (2022). Bioeconomy strategy development in EU regions , M. Borzacchiello, J. Sanchez Lopez, & M. Avraamides (eds.). Publications Office of the European Union. Julio, A. B., and German, E. (2001). Agricultural knowl- edge and information systems and poverty reduction. The World Bank: 45. Kamath, R., Elola, A., and Hermans, F. (2023). The green-restructuring of clusters: investigating a bio- cluster’s transition using a complex adaptive system model. European Planning Studies 31: 1842–1867. Klerkx, L., and Begemann, S. (2020). Supporting food systems transformation: The what, why, who, where and how of mission-oriented agricultural innovation systems. Agricultural Systems 184. Klerkx, L., Van Mierlo, B., and Leeuwis, C. (2012). Evolution of systems approaches to agricultural innovation: Con- cepts, analysis and interventions. In Farming Systems Research into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic. Knierim, A., and Birke, F. M. (2023). Visualised AKIS Diagnosis – an Instrumental Approach to Support AKIS Appraisal. EuroChoices 22: 59–70. Korhonen, J., Koskivaara, A., and Toppinen, A. (2020). Riding a Trojan horse? Future pathways of the fiber- based packaging industry in the bioeconomy. Forest Policy and Economics 110. Kurtsal, Y., Rinaldi, G. M., Savini, F., Sirri, R., Melin, M., Pacetti, E., De Cesare, A., Fioravanti, M., Luppi, E., Manfreda, G., and Viaggi, D. (2024). Improving the Education and Training Policies of the Agri-Food and Forestry Sectors: Identifying New Strategies to Meet the Needs of the Sector and Farm-to-Fork Pri- orities. Sustainability (Switzerland) 16. Laasonen, V. (2023). Exposing the role of relational capa- bilities in business–research–government coopera- tion: examples from the transition towards a bioec- onomy in Finland. European Planning Studies 31: 1226–1246. Lang, S., Minnucci, G., Mueller, M., and Schlaile, M. P. (2023). The Role of Consumers in Business Model Innovations for a Sustainable Circular Bioeconomy. Sustainability (Switzerland) 15: 1–19. Lazarevic, D., Kautto, P., and Antikainen, R. (2020). Fin- land’s wood-frame multi-storey construction innova- tion system: Analysing motors of creative destruc- tion. Forest Policy and Economics 110: 101861. Lewandowski, I. (2018). Bioeconomy , I. Lewandowski (ed.). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Loos, T. K., Hoppe, M., Dzomeku, B. M., and Scheiterle, L. (2018). The potential of plantain residues for the ghanaian bioeconomy-assessing the current fiber val- ue web. Sustainability (Switzerland) 10. https://eu-cap-network.ec.europa.eu/training/evaluation-learning-portal/learning-portal-assessing-akis_en https://eu-cap-network.ec.europa.eu/training/evaluation-learning-portal/learning-portal-assessing-akis_en https://gbs2024.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/IACGB-Communique-24October2024.pdf https://gbs2024.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/IACGB-Communique-24October2024.pdf 29Towards the knowledge and innovation system for the bioeconomy? Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(2): 15-30, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-17326 Losacker, S., Heiden, S., Liefner, I., and Lucas, H. (2023). Rethinking bioeconomy innovation in sustainability transitions. Technology in Society 74: 102291. Lovrić, N., Lovrić, M., and Mavsar, R. (2020). Factors behind development of innovations in European for- est-based bioeconomy. Forest Policy and Economics 111. Lundvall, B.-Å. (1985). Product Innovation and User- Producer Interaction Product Innovation and User- Producer Interaction. In Product Innovation and User-Producer Interaction (Issue January 1985). Lundvall, B.-Å. (1992). User-Producer Relationships, National Systems of Innovation and Internationalisa- tion. In Lundvall, Bengt-Åke (ed.), National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. Pinter Publishers, 45–67. M’barek, R., and Wesseler, J. (2023). The Rapid Devel- opment of Bioeconomy Policies in the EU and other Regions of the World. EuroChoices 22: 5–12. Malerba, F. (2002). Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Research Policy 31: 247–264. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., and Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine 6: e1000097. Nelson, R., Freeman, C., Lundvall, B.-A., and Pelikan, P. (1988). Part V - National Systems of innovation. In Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R., Silverberg, G., and Soete, L. (eds), Technical Change and Economic Theory. Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy, 309–398. Nelson, R. R. (1993). National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford University Press. OECD. (2012). Improving Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems. In Improving Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems. Orozco, R., and Grundmann, P. (2022). Readiness for Innovation of Emerging Grass-Based Businesses. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 8: 180. Protogerou, A., Caloghirou, Y., and Siokas, E. (2010). The impact of EU policy-driven research networks on the diffusion and deployment of innovation at the national level: The case of Greece. Science and Pub- lic Policy 37: 283–296. Pyka, A. (2017). Dedicated innovation systems to support the transformation towards sustainability: Creating income opportunities and employment in the knowl- edge-based digital bioeconomy. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 3: 1–18. Pyka, A., and Scharnhorst, A. (2009). Innovation Net- works , A. Pyka & A. Scharnhorst (eds.). Berlin, Hei- delberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Röling, N. G. (1988). Extension science: Information sys- tems in agricultural development. CUP Archive. Röling, N., and Wagemakers, A. (1998). Facilitating sus- tainable agriculture: participatory learning and adap- tive management in times of environmental uncer- tainty. , N. Roling & A. Wagemakers (eds.). United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Rubach, S., Hoholm, T., and Håkansson, H. (2017). Inno- vation networks or innovation within networks. IMP Journal 11: 178–206. Russo, M., and Rossi, F. (2009). Cooperation networks and innovation: A complex systems perspective to the analysis and evaluation of a regional innovation policy programme. Evaluation 15: 75–99. Salvador, R., Puglieri, F. N., Halog, A., Andrade, F. G. d., Piekarski, C. M., and De Francisco, A. C. (2021). Key aspects for designing business models for a circu- lar bioeconomy. Journal of Cleaner Production 278: 124341. Scheiterle, L., Ulmer, A., Birner, R., and Pyka, A. (2018). From commodity-based value chains to biomass- based value webs: The case of sugarcane in Brazil’s bioeconomy. Journal of Cleaner Production 172: 3851–3863. Schmidt, P. G., Díaz-Puente, J. M., and Bettoni, M. (2022). How rurality influences interactive innova- tion processes: lessons learnt from 15 case studies in 12 countries. European Planning Studies 30: 2595– 2617. Spielman, D. J., and Birner, R. (2008). How innovative is your agriculture?: Using innovation indicators and benchmarks to strengthen national agricultural inno- vation systems. World Bank Washington, DC, USA. Sutherland, L. A., Adamsone-Fiskovica, A., Elzen, B., Koutsouris, A., Laurent, C., Stræte, E. P., and Labar- the, P. (2023). Advancing AKIS with assemblage thinking. Journal of Rural Studies 97: 57–69. Sutherland, L. A., Madureira, L., Elzen, B., Noble, C., Bechtet, N., Townsend, L., Zarokosta, E., and Tri- boulet, P. (2022). What Can We Learn from Drop- pers and Non-adopters About the Role of Advice in Agricultural Innovation? EuroChoices 21: 40–49. Taffuri, A., Sciullo, A., Diemer, A., and Nedelciu, C. E. (2021). Integrating circular bioeconomy and urban dynamics to define an innovative management of bio-waste: The study case of turin. Sustainability (Switzerland) 13. Torre, A., Wallet, F., and Huang, J. (2023). A collaborative and multidisciplinary approach to knowledge-based 30 Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(2): 15-30, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-17326 Giacomo Maria Rinaldi, Davide Viaggi rural development: 25 years of the PSDR program in France. Journal of Rural Studies 97: 428–437. Van Lancker, J., Wauters, E., and Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2016). Managing innovation in the bioeconomy: An open innovation perspective. Biomass and Bioenergy 90: 60–69. Viaggi, D. (2018). The bioeconomy: delivering sustain- able green growth , D. Hemming (ed.). Oxfordshire, UK ; Boston, MA: CABI. Viaggi, D. ., Bartolini, F., and Raggi, M. (2021). The Bio- economy in economic literature: looking back, look- ing ahead. Bio-Based and Applied Economics 10: 169–184. Vilkė, R., and Gedminaitė-Raudonė, Ž. (2020). Col- laboration between government and agribusiness for biogas production: Balanced development of rural sustainability. Public Policy and Administration 19: 298–313. Vivien, F.-D., Nieddu, M., Befort, N., Debref, R., and Giampietro, M. (2019). The Hijacking of the Bioec- onomy. Ecological Economics 159: 189–197. Vogelpohl, T., and Töller, A. E. (2021). Perspectives on the bioeconomy as an emerging policy field. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 23: 143–151. Wei, X., Liu, Q., Pu, A., Wang, S., Chen, F., Zhang, L., Zhang, Y., Dong, Z., and Wan, X. (2022). Knowledge Mapping of bioeconomy: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production 373: 133824. Weisenfeld, U., Hauerwaas, A., Elshiewy, O., Halder, P., Wesseler, J., Cingiz, K., and Broer, I. (2023). Beyond plastic – Consumers prefer food packaging derived from genetically modified plants. Research Policy 52: 104883. Reflections and new directions: An editorial retrospective and the launch of our new Policy Paper section Silvia Coderoni, Fabio Bartolini Where is the Italian agriculture heading? A discussion in light of the prospects for the future CAP Filippo Arfini1*, Fabio Bartolini2, Anna Carbone3, Tatiana Castellotti4, Silvia Coderoni5, Raffaele Cortignani6, Raffaele D’Annolfo4, Giovanni Dara Guccione4, Michele Donati1, Francesca Galli7, Roberto Henke4, Giampiero Mazzocchi4, Alessandro Monteleone4, Towards the knowledge and innovation system for the bioeconomy? Giacomo Maria Rinaldi*, Davide Viaggi Impact of weather variability on crop yields and land use dynamics in Eastern India: Short- and long-term effects Pratap Kumar Jena1, Kirtti Ranjan Paltasingh2, Souryabrata Mohapatra3,,*, Ashok Mishra4 Rebuilding strategies for food self-sufficiency: Portugal’s past patterns and future ambitions Alexandre Macedo João1, Dulce Freire2, Humberto Rocha3, Joana Dias4 From subsidy to land rent: how production-linked payments shape factor remuneration in agriculture Adrian Sadłowski Expenditure allocation for Rural Development interventions: main trends and patterns in the choices of the Italian Regions under the CAP 2023-2027 Tobia Minuzzo, Francesco Pagliacci*