Bio -based and A ppl ied Economics BAE Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 283-304, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-9534 Copyright: © 2021 I. Sotiropoulou, P. Deutz. Open access, article published by Firenze University Press under CC-BY-4.0 License. Firenze University Press | www.fupress.com/bae Citation: I. Sotiropoulou, P. Deutz (2021). Understanding the bioeconomy: a new sustainability economy in British and European public discourse. Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 283-304. doi: 10.36253/bae-9534 Received: August 9, 2020 Accepted: October 14, 2021 Published: March 31, 2022 Data Availability Statement: All rel- evant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. Competing Interests: The Author(s) declare(s) no conflict of interest. Editor: Fabio Gaetano Santeramo. ORCID IS: 0000-0003-2545-9611 PD: 0000-0002-9165-5322 Understanding the bioeconomy: a new sustainability economy in British and European public discourse Irene Sotiropoulou1, Pauline Deutz2 1 Independent Researcher, HU6 7RX, United Kingdom 2 Department of Geography, Geology & Environment, University of Hull, HU6 7RX, Unit- ed Kingdom *Corresponding author. E-mail: irene.sotiropoulou@gmail.com Abstract. Over the past decade, the term bioeconomy has emerged in both policy and academic discourse. Implying a technology-driven approach to wealth generation from organic materials, the term has taken hold with so far limited critical engagement. It is a contestable rather than contested term. Noting the rise of numerous other ‘econ- omies’ (blue, green, circular) on a similar timeframe, this paper undertakes a critical discourse analysis of academic literature and UK/EU policy documents using the term ‘bioeconomy’ to produce a contextualised understanding of how it is used in both the- oretical and practical contexts. Our analysis shows that bioeconomy, as with the other ‘sustainability’ economies, which we term the ‘S-economies’, prioritises the economy and the markets as the solution brokers for the environmental and economic problems they seek to address. The apparent fragmentation of the theory and policy concerning the environmental sustainability of economic activity is expressed through the variabil- ity of terms that aspire to establish multiple economies functioning at the same time. Limited empirical analysis of the existing ‘bioeconomy’ is symptomatic of the disso- ciation between theory and practice, emphasizing technological approaches favouring capital intensive approaches over local solutions. The S-economies, including the bio- economy, are an attempt to bypass economic structural realities that otherwise would need to be addressed. Keywords: bioeconomy, knowledge-based economy, green economy, circular econo- my, sustainable economy. JEL codes: L6, O1, O3, P2, P4, P5, Q1, Q2, Q5. 1. INTRODUCTION In this study we are critically analyzing the role of the bioeconomy as a term and practice in academia and policy. Broadly, ‘bioeconomy’ refers to economic activity directly drawing on biogenic material (derived from recently living plants and/or animal matter), to be distinguished from non- biogenic based resources and fossil fuels. Bioeconomy, or bio-based econ- omy, is an expression coined in recent years by experts and policy makers, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode 284 Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 283-304, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-9534 Irene Sotiropoulou, Pauline Deutz thereby integrating into a single term both the economic significance and awareness of the type of resources to be utilised (Albrecht et al., 2010; Begley et al., 2011; De Besi and McCormick, 2015; Allen et al., 2017; University of York, 2017; Bell et al., 2018; Aguilar and Patermann, 2018; Lewandowski et al., 2018). The bioeconomy has been represented as a way of addressing environmen- tal emergencies and socio-economic challenges at the same time (OECD, 2006, 2009, 2018; Benner and Lof- gren, 2007; Birch, 2007, 2017a; Cooper, 2007; Asveld et al., 2011; Kitchen and Marsden, 2011; Kircher, 2012; Arancibia, 2013; Hanlin et al., 2013; Kautto and McCor- mick, 2013; Arts et al., 2014; Barben et al., 2016; Viaggi, 2016; European Commission, 2018a, 2020a, 2020b). The bioeconomy has already had an important economic impact. For example, in 2018 in the UK the bioecono- my amounted to two hundred twenty (220) billion of pounds of Gross Value Added to the economy, support- ing more than five million jobs (HM Government 2018). In 2015 the bioeconomy in the European Union reached an added value of 1,460.6 billion euros, which is eleven percent (11%) of overall GDP (Kuosmanen et al. 2020). It may not be coincidental that the term has become prominent in an era of stagnating economies and high unemployment, following the financial crisis of 2008. Over this same timespan other ‘economies’ have become prominent too, including the green economy (UNEP, 2009; Pearce and Barbier, 2000; Bina, 2013; Baarsden et al., 2014; Antikainen et al., 2016; Viaggi, 2016; Ge and Zhi 2016; Ferreira Gregorio et al., 2018; Merino-Saum et al., 2020; Benson et al., 2021) promoted by the UN as an approach to implementing sustainable develop- ment (2012); the marine resources-based blue economy (UNCTAD 2014; Smith-Godfrey, 2016; Le Heron and Winder, 2017; Lee, Noh and Kim, 2020); the Circular Economy (promoted by the EU and others as a carbon control and competitiveness enhancing initiative; Euro- pean Commission, 2015). Other terms such as the low carbon economy (Stern 2007; HM Government, 2009; Zhang, 2010; Foxon, 2011; Lyu, Ngai and Wu 2019) are also seeking to use environmental investments to correct an economic imbalance – i.e., to promote growth and with assumed social benefits (i.e., usually employment). In this paper we examine how the term bioeconomy is used, how it is connected or situated in relation to other terms that represent various types of economic activ- ity with aspirations to deal better with nature and the resources nature offers to human societies, whilst pre- serving, if not promoting, economic growth. Drawing on analysis of policy and scientific docu- ments, this paper undertakes a critical discourse analy- sis of the use of the term bioeconomy in policy docu- ments alongside a comprehensive review of the social science academic literature relating to the bioeconomy in order to gain a contextualised understanding of how the term is being used both theoretically and in practi- cal terms. Research in critical discourse analysis stresses the significance of terms used in policy analysis as rep- resenting a social, political and economic context (Jes- sop, 2004; Farrelly, 2010; Farrelly et al., 2019). Certain expressions or forms of expression become accepted as ‘normal’ or inevitable, and this promotes ease of com- munication with groups who have the same understand- ings of the terms used. However, usage and the approach it represents may reinforce the exclusion of other inter- ests or groups, either by representing a barrier to entry in the dialogue or by perpetuating a policy that favours some interests over others. To achieve a contexualisa- tion of the bioeconomy, we examine the concept within the context of the other discursive attempts related to the sustainable types of economies proposed during the last decades, and we also consider the limitations of the scope of existing applications of the bioeconomy. The following section presents an outline of our approach and methods; section three examines the rise of the term bioeconomy since 1990s. Section four explores how the bioeconomy is used in policy discourse and the fifth section examines critically the academic discourse about the bioeconomy. Section six examines the various (aspiring to be) sustainable forms of econo- my that emerged in recent decades. The general discus- sion of our findings is presented in section seven and conclusions are presented in the final section eight. 2. APPROACHES AND METHODS This paper stems from the THYME project, which is a research consortium comprising the University of York, Teesside University and the University of Hull in order to investigate ways to support the local economy of the North East of England through the mobilisa- tion of bioeconomic processes. THYME project is, in other words, an umbrella project within which several approaches to the bioeconomy are used to develop new understandings, production processes and community engagement. The approaches are employed in sub-pro- jects, of which one example is the research project this paper stems from. In this paper we draw our methodology from two approaches. One is critical realism as a way to under- stand discourse and praxis in its historical context. Critical realism is the epistemological approach which acknowledges that ‘real’ events and processes may only 285Understanding the bioeconomy: a new sustainability economy in British and European public discourse Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 283-304, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-9534 be observable through perceptions; the scholar is com- mitted to what is possible to be known, while having in mind that this knowledge might not be perfect or objec- tive (Sayer, 2002). In critical realism, both the reality we perceive and the knowledge we have access to are thought of as historically constructed through the social, economic and political contexts we live in. Through this approach, we aspire to present a version of discursive reality that is well founded on actual uses of the term of the bioeconomy and we also aspire to think in terms of the actual economic and political conditions that affect the use of the term or made the use of the term possible in the first place (Archer et al., 1998; Birch, 2017b). We are aware that discourse is a political economic endeav- our and that, just like the people who have written about the bioeconomy until now, we also have a certain posi- tionality both as researchers and as human beings. This makes us ready to re-visit and refine our approach in the future, discard analyses that we now think are the best we can have given the limitations of our research and interpret both our data and our collection of data through new prisms if what we have at hand does not adequately provide us with the analytical and synthetic tools we need to understand our subject matter. Our second approach to the examination of the pol- icy documents as sources is informed by grounded theo- ry (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser and Strauss, 2006). Ground- ed theory is the epistemological approach according to which a research project can start without a pre-estab- lished or existing theory. Gathering data with attention to detail and having as a priority to describe reality as it is possible to be approached by the researcher means that theory is chosen while or after the analysis of data. In case there is no theory with analytical capacity to explain the phenomena that the research data reveal, the researcher will attempt to create a theory based on the data, if that is possible. A grounded theory does not aspire to universality, although it can give results that can be widely applied, and is always well connected to research findings. We use this approach to ensure that our arguments stay as connected as possible to the texts we use as sources. This aids the uncovering of social and political context of the documents in order to identify possible understandings and interpretations (as opposed to an interpretation reflecting a theoretical position). Concerning our sources: we used the existing aca- demic literature, public statements and official docu- ments, where “bioeconomy” as a term is mentioned. We use the search engines of Web Science, Scopus and Google scholar, and also using the snowballing meth- od to find references used in published papers to make sure that we have not missed references that the search engines might miss for technical reasons. We are not addressing the engineering or scientific papers which currently dominate the field. For a recent review of these in combination with the literature of social sciences see Bugge et al. (2016). The search was done in four lan- guages (English, French, Spanish, Greek). All lay arti- cles we found concerning the bioeconomy were written by experts (who were using their expertise credentials in the texts they were writing), and only in one case we found the use of the term to be related to a community practice (in Greece) about which there is no public fol- low-up or further replication of the use of the term. In addition, we are not incorporating papers that address “bioeconomic” phenomena without mentioning the term. Although we acknowledge the contribution of such papers to the understanding of related issues, this paper is specifically concerned with the use of the term “bioec- onomy”. This paper presents a major part of the theoreti- cal or desk-research section of our project. We have also conducted extensive field research about the farm- ers markets and open-air markets in East Yorkshire, through the use of ethnographic methods (observation, observation by participation, interviews, analysis of pub- lic material released by the markets). Our purpose is to document bioeconomic practices that do not belong to big industrial process, yet might be crucial for both environmental sustainability and social sustainability of a region. We are preparing detailed accounts of the field research findings in other studies. Table 1 shows the range of sources we have used in this paper. We categorised the papers according to their content in terms of discipline and not according to the discipline of the journal they are published in. In many cases, journals focused on technology or environmental sciences publish a study that belongs to another disci- pline, like a social science. For the table we used only the sources directly related to the bioeconomy and not other sources on peripheral topics. Our turn to official documents and policy decla- rations in addition to academic literature was made because it seems that the role of the states and interna- tional organisations is fundamental in the history and discourse of the bioeconomy. A governmental role in the development of the bioeconomy also seems to be expect- ed by both the private sector and academics (Brunori et al., 2011; Pavone, 2012; Gustavsson et al., 2013; Barben et al., 2016; BBIJU and SCAR, 2019). At this stage, we did not use linguistic quantitative methods, like corpus analysis, because we want to focus on notions themselves and how they are used within specific historically perceived political economic con- 286 Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 283-304, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-9534 Irene Sotiropoulou, Pauline Deutz texts. In other words, we examine the context of the use of each word, the positionality of the user and the pos- sible or intended effects of that use. 3. BIOECONOMY: RISE OF THE TERM BIOECONOMY IN THE 1990s AND BEYOND The term bioeconomy is quite new. It appears to have emerged from the pool of ideas and interactions associated with the Biotechnology and the Cell Fac- tory Key Action of the European Union (1998-2002), at least for the countries who were members of the Euro- pean Union (European Commission, 2007; Aguilar and Patermann, 2018). The term “biotechnology” was associ- ated with policies promoted through the perception of biological knowledge and know-how as a particular type of value in the economy, which were adopted before the emphasis on bio-materials emerged. Biotechnology refers to “the application of science and technology to living organisms, as well as parts, products and models thereof, to alter living or non-living materials for the production of knowledge, goods and services” (Arundel and Van Beuzekom, 2006: 7; Miller, 2007). Biotechnology is broadly used in combination with the terms bio-based economy and knowledge-based economy, explicitly mentioning nowadays bioeconom- ic sectors like pharmaceutics, well before being com- bined as the “knowledge-based bio-economy” appeared in EU and OECD documents (OECD et al. 1997; Neef, Siesfeld and Cefola 1998; European Commission, 2002; OECD 2002, 2005). The term (bio-based economy) is also used in OECD documents, but there is no informa- tion in OECD archives who or which country first used the term bio-based economy (Begley et al., 2011; Birch, 2017b; Aguilar and Patermann, 2018; Bell et al., 2018). Before that, based on our search in English-speaking lit- erature, we found the term “bioeconomy” only in a biol- ogy paper related to the behaviour of the house mouse (Berry and Bronson, 1992). Table 2 provides a timeline for the key terms addressed in this section. The major emphasis of the EU policy in the late 1990s-decade of 2000s was on biomass to be used as non-fossil fuel and on the production of food (wheth- er through agriculture or pasture/livestock produc- tion), including products that were not food but still were based on biological raw materials (Albrecht et al., 2010). A second sector that has been strongly linked to the bioeconomy was pharmaceutical research and pro- duction. The documents of the European Union use the latter as an option or direction of bioeconomic activ- ity with increasing momentum after 2010. A special emphasis on pharmaceutical aspects of the bioeconomy is also given by the OECD report on the bioeconomy, especially through the description of future crisis or disaster scenarios that the pharmaceutical bioeconomy would resolve (OECD, 2006, 2009, 2018; Albrect et al., 2010; Styhre and Sundgren, 2011; European Commis- sion, 2012, 2018a, 2020a, 2020b; Benini et al., 2013; Bell et al., 2018). The use of the term bio-economy within the phrase and/or acronym Knowledge-Based Bio-Economy (KBBE) was also linked to sustainability, though not as an inherent characteristic, but as a design element that can be possible, feasible and desirable, under certain pol- icy choices (Albrecht et al., 2010; Allen et al., 2017; Birch, 2017b). After the European Commission published their communication for sustainable growth in 2012 (Euro- pean Commission, 2012), the bioeconomy (or bio-econ- omy) became a prominent topic of debate concerning policies that can be related to improved economic path- ways for the European Union. The main idea was to use bioeconomy as an engine of economic sustainability, to support innovative solutions in a variety of sectors using policies that are coherent among each other. Bio- economy would be the umbrella term which would allow this coherence, or at least, this was the plan. Moreo- ver, the bioeconomy was supposed to provide answers to issues or provide opportunities that had emerged as a consequence of waste policies that were restrict- ing the landfilling of biodegradable waste (Girardin and Peigne, 2003; Taiwo, 2011; Cal et al., 2017). The wide- Table 1. Bioeconomy literature used in the paper. Sector of origin Author role Type of document Scope Number of texts Policy State Report Normative 6 International organisation Report Normative 4 Researcher Report Normative 2 Academia Researcher – academic Paper Policy- descriptive 16 Researcher- academic Paper Theory- descriptive 44 Researcher- academic Paper Theory- descriptive 1 Researcher – academic Paper Theory- empirical 10 Researcher- academic Book or edited book Theory- descriptive 3 Research – academic Paper Normative 3 Business Business Report Normative 2 287Understanding the bioeconomy: a new sustainability economy in British and European public discourse Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 283-304, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-9534 spread uptake of composting and anaerobic digestion in response to the Landfill Directive pointed to biodegrad- able residues as a valuable commodity, from which add- ed value could be extracted by the application of science and technology (Boons et al., 2015). Economically, in the 2000s the bioeconomy was represented as able to provide new investment oppor- tunities for the few who had access to capital and new job opportunities for the many who were experiencing a job market with high long-term unemployment rates and increasing employment instability at the same time (Albrecht et al., 2010; Styhre and Sundgren, 2011; Birch et al., 2012a, 2012b; Dallemand et al., 2015; Goven and Pavone, 2015). This provided an attraction for policy makers similarly to other economically-driven environ- mental approaches (further discussed in section 6). The widespread concerns relating to the social and environ- mental consequences of biofuels (displacement of food crops and consequent reduction in the affordability of food) resulted not in the abandonment of biofuels, but in the drive for a technological solution via a “second generation” of biofuels, that would be more sustainable or possible to be sustainably managed although they are more costly to produce (Boody et al., 2007; Jordan et al. 2007; Horlings and Marsden, 2011; Bhandary et al., 2013; Hanlin et al., 2013; Mohr and Raman, 2013; Eggert and Greaker, 2014; Lewandowski, 2015; Bell et al., 2018; Brent et al., 2019). One should note that up until now (2021), although different sectors of the bioeconomy are described as part of an integrated policy vision, questions of sustainabil- ity or the connections with other economic activities are not well developed in the literature or policy statements. In them, the economy is compartmentalised; the bio- economy is perceived more as an exogenous economic design rather than organic part of economic activity. Nonetheless, there is an implicit assumption that the wider economy can be made use of, with the addition of some technological solution, without an analysis of how the interconnection of the bio- and the wider economy might work or of what the consequences might be. Tech- nology is the assumed solution to problems of human societies; thus the problems faced by human commu- nities can be ameliorated by further technology-drive research. The use of the term bioeconomy in support of the economy as presently structured and in favour of the bioeconomy-investing companies means that the state authorities had a crucial role not only in shaping bioec- onomy as a notion but also in the creation of a bioeco- nomic market. No doubt, nation states were already in search of possible solutions to the problems and contra- dictions mentioned above. At the same time, their inter- vention was supported or even demanded by the bioeco- nomic industries in a straightforward way (Albrecht et al., 2010; Brunori et al., 2011; Pavone, 2012; Arancibia, 2013; Kautto and McCormick, 2013; Birch et al., 2014; Dallemand et al., 2015; Goven and Pavone, 2015; Barben et al., 2016). A prominent role was also undertaken by international organisations like the OECD and the Euro- pean Union who were trying to promote bioeconomic policies and support bioeconomic activity within this big business setting (OECD, 2006, 2009, 2018; European Commission, 2012, 2018a, 2020a, 2020b; FAO, 2018; US Department of Energy, 2016; BBIJU andSCAR, 2019). Given the rapid rate of diffusion to the term bioecono- my through national, EU, OECD policy documents, it is difficult now to trace the lines of influence between the different organisations. The following section examines in more detail the recent developments in the use of the term in the EU and the UK. 4. CURRENT USAGE OF THE BIOECONOMY IN POLICY DISCOURSE Having briefly examined the development of bio- economy as a policy in the EU, we now apply Critical Table 2. Bioeconomy timeline. This table summarises the key con- cepts relating to the bioeconomy to provide a timeline. For sources, see the text. Date Term Emphasis Late 1990s Biotechnology Economic benefits from the development of commercial application of biological research Early 2000s Biofuels Carbon reduction and energy security Later 2000s Bioeconomy Biofuels – second generation emerging Options for pharmaceutical industry emerging 2010 Social benefits considered (e.g., employment) 2012 Identified as sustainable growth strategy in the EU – but with economic emphasis focused on capital intensive industry 2010s Organic waste management potential and biorefining 2018 EC address wider sustainability benefits and refer to small scale bioeconomic activity Link made to circular economy UK re-emphasis the large-scale industry aspect 288 Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 283-304, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-9534 Irene Sotiropoulou, Pauline Deutz Discourse Analysis (CDA) to the text of key EU and UK policy documents. The original EU policy statement on the bioeconomy was the European Commission Joint Research Centre report (Benini et al., 2013), which shows how an interna- tional institution steps into the production of knowledge while creating policy at the same time. This report was a study made by the researchers of the Centre, which is a research facility under the auspices of the Europe- an Commission. Here we reproduce extracts (pp 18-20) to illustrate the aims and intentions for a bioeconomy [emphasis as in original text]: “Towards this end, management of the bio-econo- my would imply: i) optimizing resource allocation by addressing multi-dimensional and potentially conflict- ing issues (for example, the “food versus fuel” debate); ii) driving research and innovation in the primary produc- tion and processing sectors; iii) developing new industrial concepts and business models, and open new markets, iv) and the creation of new high-skill jobs. … While having research and development at its core, EU bio-economy strategy aims also to reconcile sustainable agriculture, forestry and fisheries, food production and industrial use of biological feedstock. In addition, EU Bio-economy Strategy stresses the crucial importance of non-technological factors, such as wide stakeholder involvement and partnering, and the necessity of develop- ing a coherently integrated EU policy framework for the bio-economy, including regional, agricultural, industrial, environmental and energy policy. The Action Plan focuses on three key pillars: i) Developing new technologies and processes for the bio-economy, by using R&D and innovation to produce renewable raw materials sustainably in agriculture, for- estry, fisheries and aquaculture, and to process renewable raw materials into value-added products in the bio-based sectors. ii) Developing markets and competitiveness in bio-based industries. Concrete actions include support for: devel- opment of new markets and bio-based value chains, and commercialization of new bio-based products; demon- stration plants and up-scaling facilities, and establishing R&D public-private partnerships. iii) Collaboration between policymakers and stakehold- ers by means of a more co-ordinated bio-economy gov- ernance mechanism (i.e. including CAP, CFP; RTD1 and innovation; industrial policy and competitiveness; employment; energy and public health policies; EU envi- ronmental policies on: resource efficiency, sustainable use of natural resources and protection of biodiversity).” 1 CAP: Common Agricultural Policy. CFP: Common Fisheries Policy. RTD: Research Training and Development, which is the EU Directorate General for Research and Innovation In these two passages the bioeconomy is used as a panacea to address and also interconnect other policies of the European Union. The emphasis is on the economy and how the economy can be supported by the bioec- onomy (see the frequent use of the word ‘competitive- ness’). The bioeconomy is expressly seen as being related to and covered by EU environmental policies. There is reference to coordination of policies, e.g., bioeconomy as aiding sustainability (e.g., of agriculture), but the docu- ment does not indicate how that might function in an environmental sense. Several references in the text are made to stakeholders – indicating that a common cause is sought with at least the business community, and rec- ognition that although policy makers and scientists may collaborate in research and development for policy pri- orities, the implementation requires active engagement from other sectors of society. The public is referred to implicitly as consumers, i.e., passive stakeholders who will respond to the policy and buy or use the products, but will not participate in the formulation of the policy. The document is more a future-research-oriented docu- ment rather than an appraisal of current bioeconomic processes. Even for the future, the focus is on certain industrial procedures and aims related to industry aspir- ing to development in biofuels and chemicals. The policy steps undertaken however, induce an effort to protect the food supply, thus tacitly acknowledging the issue of the first generation of biofuels i.e. the risk of competition for land with the potential to increase the price of food (Jordan et al. 2007; Ajanovic, 2011; Baldes et al., 2013; Brent et al., 2019). The EU approach to the bioeconomy has, however, changed since that initial report in 2013. In the 2018 report by the European Commission (2018a, A sustain- able bioeconomy for Europe) the discourse has greatly changed. We observe some indirect reference to sustain- ability with respect to production sectors like forestry, fisheries, food, and feedstock as well as to environmental or energy policies. Moreover, within a wider interpre- tative context the stakeholder engagement can be per- ceived as including community engagement procedures. The report, however, does not expand beyond a purely economy-focused approach. The wording would allow further sustainability negotiations or contestations, if the politics in the EU member states and institutions were to use this document as a starting point for a debate. In the European Commission (2018b) Staff Working Paper we can see that a major emphasis is given on sustainability and more details concerning how the bioeconomic pol- icy of the European Union can be deployed to support specific environmental and economic activities. How- ever, the disparity of the focus between the two docu- 289Understanding the bioeconomy: a new sustainability economy in British and European public discourse Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 283-304, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-9534 ments reveals the internal tensions within the Commis- sion. Some parts of the bioeconomic policy remain at wishful thinking or debate level in the Working Paper. The parts of the debate which are receiving a consensus are those appearing in the main policy document (Euro- pean Commission, 2018a). The same disconnection we observed between perceptions of farming policies and the role of the bioeconomy and the bio-based economy can also be observed in the more recent Farm to Fork Strategy of the EU (European Commission, 2020a, 2020b). There is a close association between the bioeconomy and circular economy. The latter refers to the maximi- sation of value from resources by design of products to promote longevity and recovery of materials at end of product life (European Commission, 2015; 2019). The principle of circularity can be applied to the bioecono- my as well as to non-biogenic resources. The European Commission Report about the sustainable bioconomy in Europe links bioeconomy to sustainability and circular- ity from the very first part of the Introductory section (European Commission, 2018a, p. 4), where in the box containing the definition of the term we read: “Sustainable & Circular: Bioeconomy the European way The bioeconomy covers all sectors and systems that rely on biological resources (animals, plants, micro-organisms and derived biomass, including organic waste), their func- tions and principles. It includes and interlinks: land and marine ecosystems and the services they provide; all pri- mary production sectors that use and produce biological resources (agriculture, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture); and all economic and industrial sectors that use biological resources and processes to produce food, feed, bio-based products, energy and services. To be successful, the European bioeconomy needs to have sustainability and circularity at its heart. This will drive the renewal of our industries, the modernisation of our primary produc- tion systems, the protection of the environment and will enhance biodiversity.” In this document responses to climate change and also the need to protect the economy (notwithstanding environmental constraints) are very visible. In the fol- lowing sections the linkages to the circular economy concept are represented as more or less overlapping actions that the bioeconomy can deliver better than cir- cular economy or at least more comprehensively than other alternatives (European Commission, 2018a: 5-14). Environmental constraints on the economy are per- ceived as an argument for more research and data col- lection for the bioeconomy in order to abide within those constraints (European Commission, 2018a: 15): “The Commission will implement an EU-wide, interna- tionally coherent monitoring system (Action 3.2) to track the progress towards a sustainable, circular bioeconomy in Europe and to underpin related policy areas. Knowl- edge gained will be used to provide voluntary guidance for operating the bioeconomy within safe ecological limits”. Contrary to that declaration, the report by the Brit- ish Government that very same year (HM Government, 2018) seems to express a more economic orientation, reflecting previous EU policies and statements. “What is the bioeconomy? The bioeconomy represents the economic potential of har- nessing the power of bioscience, using renewable biological resources to replace fossil resources in innovative prod- ucts, processes and services. The bioeconomy in the UK in 2014 has been estimated to have contributed to £220bn of output across the UK economy, supporting 5.2m jobs. Building a world-class bioeconomy will transform our economy by removing our dependence on finite fossil resources. Bioscience and biotechnology has the potential to create new solutions that are economically and envi- ronmentally sustainable as well as resource efficient. These solutions will help to tackle global challenges and create opportunities in agri-food, chemicals, materials, energy and fuel production, health and the environment.” (HM Government, 2018: 9). The economic orientation is not just a misrepresen- tation due to the short length of a definition. In pages 16-17 of the same report we read the goals of the bioeco- nomic policy [emphasis with bold is in the original text]: “Goals We have set out four high level goals, which are reflected in the actions of this strategy. 1. Capitalising on our world class R&D: We will contin- ue to advance our world class research, development and innovation base, leveraging greater investment to turn our cutting edge ideas into commercial success in the global marketplace. 2. Maximising productivity: We will maximise the potential of our bioeconomy assets right across the UK, making the most of our knowledge, facilities and people to increase productivity from our existing renewable bio- logical resources, 3. Delivering benefits: We will support Industry sectors to ensure that this strategy delivers real, measurable ben- efits for the UK, creating jobs, increasing productivity and doubling the size of the impact of the bioeconomy to £440bn by 2030. 4. Creating the right market conditions: We will cre- ate the right national and international market condi- tions to allow innovative bio-based products and services to thrive, raising public interest, increasing skills in the workplace and sales to the market.” 290 Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 283-304, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-9534 Irene Sotiropoulou, Pauline Deutz Searching to see what role has been assigned to sustainability in that same British Government report, we see that it is mostly linked to the plastic packaging policies but apart from that (plastic packaging), it is used in a generic, more aspirational than action-based and rather limited way. Sustainability does not seem to take central role in the design of the UK bioeconomic policy (HM Government, 2018: 4-5,10-12, 16, 24, 35, 37, 48, 51, 53-55). The difference in emphasis between the UK Gov- ernment and EU documents raises the question of the extent to which other member states have adopted the EU approach as opposed to devising their own variation, and indeed where the push for the EU approach came from. An example is the French bioeconomic strategy as it was announced in 2017 by the Ministère d’ Agricul- ture et Alimentation (2017). Sustainability issues, soci- ety’s involvement and even agroecology appear in the French Ministry’s leaflet. In the report of the German Bioeconomy Council (2019: 72-106) one can see the stark difference between the UK bioeconomic strategy and the strategies of other countries like Spain, Latvia, Italy, France and Norway. The UK focuses on the economy only (plus reduction of waste) while the other countries are explicit in connecting environmental sustainabil- ity and/or climate change to the bioeconomic activities. Nevertheless, the Bioeconomy Strategy adopted in Janu- ary 2020 by the German Government seems to be closer to the 2018 UK strategy, mentioning only the economic sustainability that the bioeconomy can bring and leaving as implicit or assumed any discussion about protection of the environment or environmental sustainability of the bioeconomic processes (Federal Government of Ger- many, 2020). As we have mentioned above in Section 3, the major effect of policy-makers and academics both being involved in the promotion and design of the bioecono- my has been that the term itself has been constructed around top-down policies and big corporate structures as the most probable private agents of bioeconomic activity. From the excerpts and examples used in this section, we see that this direction is normalised in offi- cial documents. In the European Commission 2018 report, the word “small” referring to small farmers and businesses is used in a way that reflects more an awk- wardness that the EU policies have to take into account the small production modes and arrangements that exist in the continent rather than supporting them by priority or as an inherent characteristic of the regional economy. We have to comment, though, that the quest for bioec- onomic solutions that can be adapted to small produc- tion exists explicitly in the report although most of the details are placed in the Staff Working Paper (European Commission, 2018a: 11; 2018b: 46, 58, 60-62). Converse- ly, in the British government report the word “small” does not exist at all. The bioeconomic strategy in the UK seems to have been heavily influenced by industry perspectives and by the perception that it is the economy which is the first priority in the debate about the bioeconomy. It is indica- tive of this orientation that the British Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council has commissioned a private company named Capital Economics to prepare a report (2015) in order to assess the importance of the bioeconomy for the British economy. This shows that the prioritisation of the economy, especially the large indus- trial mass-production based economy, in perceiving the bioeconomy is a more or less political trend or medium- term occurrence in British research priorities. An example of prioritising large industrial mass- production in the bioeconomy is the THYME project itself, in which this paper originates. The project is the only major one that we could find, after searching the projects funded by the UK government until 2020. Sus- tainability as a goal of the project refers to the industries of the region and this is very understandable given that this industrial sustainability is the most common under- standing of the bioeconomy (Goven and Pavone, 2015; Aurambout et al., 2016; Mustalahti, 2018; University of York, 2017).). The local character of entrepreneuship is not taken into account by mainstream economic assess- ments of the regional economy (Charles and Hodgson, 2008, Viaggi, 2016; University of York, 2017) and our economic understandings/theories for this scale are very limited. The bioeconomic process of food production can thus have various aspects and it can be small scale and follow various routes of generating income for the producers. Those possibilities, however, are very rarely discussed as a possible and viable approach in national or supranational visions of the bioeconomy (Gustafsson et al., 2011). 5. ACADEMIC DISCOURSE ABOUT THE BIOECONOMY: A CRITICAL APPROACH We now turn to reviewing the academic literature on the bioeconomy, in order to see how the academics, some of whom in one or another advise or influence pol- icy-makers, perceive or develop the notion of the bioec- onomy. In most cases academic discussion of the bioecono- my is normative, i.e., relates to advancing the bioecon- omy through technological developments, whilst assum- ing those to be economically and/or environmentally 291Understanding the bioeconomy: a new sustainability economy in British and European public discourse Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 283-304, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-9534 beneficial (the distribution of those assumed benefits being unquestioned). The term, as we have already men- tioned, has been used extensively within a big-business and big-policy framework (OECD, 2006, 2009, 2018; European Commission, 2012, 2018a; HM Government, 2018; BBIJU, 2019). The big-industry orientation of the bioeconomy has been noted by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations in their relatively recent report about the bioeconomy (FAO, 2018). Scien- tific attention has been focused on specific technological advances e.g., the chemical engineering of biofuels, or derivation of high value constituents like pharmaceutical products (OECD, 2006, 2009, 2018; Albrecht et al., 2010; Asveld et al., 2011; Brown et al., 2011; Styhre and Sund- gren, 2011; Bringezu et al., 2012; European Commis- sion, 2012; Dallemand et al., 2015; Barben et al., 2016; Cal et al., 2017). In particular, the bioeconomy became the byword for people who wanted to believe, or actually believed, that mass production of biofuels would be the most effective solution to the problem of maintaining vehicle-dependence whilst reducing fossil fuel-related carbon emissions and also circumventing fuel security issues (Hilgartner, 2007; Jordan et al. 2007; Gustavsson et al., 2013; Lewandowski, 2015; Brent et al., 2019). This narrow focus on the bioeconomy as synonymous with technological advancements (i.e., biotechnology) over- looks the perceptions and practices related to the exist- ing economy that it was supposed to be connected with. The connection is seldom analysed, leaving at best a par- tial understanding of the likely and actual impact of bio- technology on the economy. For some time, the bioeconomy was perceived by academics precisely in the way that policy-makers do, i.e., an opportunity for capital-intensive economic devel- opment, as indicated by the technical literature (whether pharmaceutical or relating to enhancing the efficiency of technologies for extracting value from bio-residues). There are academic writings where the bioeconomy is a framework that is treated as known and non-problem- atic by the authors (Duchesne and Wetzel, 2003; Dech and Pocharel, 2011; Galt et al., 2017). This is also more often observed in papers that have more of a technical or engineering character (Chandra et al., 2011; Dech, 2011; Laserre et al., 2014; Achury et al., 2015; Le Heron and Winder, 2017). There were, however, voices who were critically assessing bioeconomy and were also offering to the debate other perceptions about it that went beyond the big corporation-oriented construction of a bioecon- omy (Helmreich, 2008; Pavone, 2012; Mustalahti, 2018). Critique in particular focused on how the bioeconomy was functioning as a discourse to engage broader audi- ences and various social groups into economic decisions that were made while taking as their first priority the securing of the profits for companies who would invest in research and development of bioeconomic products (Birch, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012; Larsen, 2007; Fumagalli and Morini, 2010; Brown et al., 2011; Birch and Tyfield, 2013; Arts et al., 2014; Goven and Pavone, 2015; Bell et al., 2018). The critique of the corporate orientation of the bio- economy is something we should delve into a bit further. First, the critique shows the impasses of this approach taken by both the private and public sectors with rela- tion to the bioeconomy and its use as a panacea for the environmental and economic problems of 21st capital- ist economies (Cooper, 2007; Hilgartner, 2007; Kitchen and Marsden, 2011; Arancibia, 2013; Birch and Tyfield, 2013; Goven and Pavone, 2015; Birch, 2017a). Second, the most important arguments were related to accelerating and intensifying the pace with which nature and knowl- edge are privatised, commoditised and assetised (Coop- er, 2007; Larsen, 2007; Helmreich, 2008; Fumagalli and Morini, 2010; Pavone, 2012; Hendrickx and Reis-Cas- tro, 2013; Goven and Pavone, 2015; Birch, 2017a, 2019). Third, some authors are severely critical about seeing all production processes and all natural materials as part of a scientifically organised profiteering and management process (Brown et al., 2011; Goven and Pavone, 2015). This scientised perception of production and nature is considered to turn all activity related to those pro- cesses and materials into a profit-making process based on values that have been defined in advance. Those same values are used as the targets and instruments of human activities that aspire to resolve the problems that the profit-making is creating (Larsen, 2007; Birch, 2012, 2019; Kitchen and Marsden, 2011; Hendrickx and Reis-Castro, 2013). Fourth, development of knowledge about nature and re-use of resources is a commod- ity that needs to be patented to become an asset, so that businesses can invest into that knowledge produc- tion by having secured that the knowledge or the prac- tical implications of it will be privately owned by them (Pavone, 2012; Birch 2017a). That this would favour the development of specific types of knowledge and technol- ogy and specific ways of using natural resources suggests that the needs of the ecosystems would not be a prior- ity or they would be subjected to the needs of the busi- nesses to profit economically instead of the other way round (Birch 2012; Goven and Pavone, 2015). As a con- sequence, the entire bioeconomic activity would not be sustainable or it would even harm further degraded eco- systems and problematic economies (Birch, 2007, 2019; Cooper, 2007; Hilgartner, 2007; Fumagalli and Morini, 2010; Arancibia, 2013; Birch and Tyfield, 2013; Delvenne 292 Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 283-304, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-9534 Irene Sotiropoulou, Pauline Deutz and Hendrickx, 2013; Delvenne et al., 2013; Hendrickx and Reis-Castro, 2013; Bugge et al., 2016; Gawel et al., 2016; Gawel et al., 2019). Sustainability, especially the environmental part of it, is perceived as being distinct from the bioeconomy. We saw this in policies providing nothing to ensure the short or longer term sustainability of the bioecono- my. And likewise in the academic literature, the bioec- onomy is seen as either sustainable or not without this ambivalence being thought of as problematic (Jordan et al. 2007; Baardsen et al., 2014; Dankbaar et al., 2014; Olikainen, 2014; Caivano et al., 2015; Sauvee and Viag- gi, 2016; Viaggi, 2016; Allen et al., 2017; Szekacs, 2017; Heijman and Shepman, 2018; OECD, 2018: 25-68). In most cases it is assumed implicitly that the bioeconomy could be sustainable if we do not have not evidence to the contrary (Passet, 2012; Kircher, 2012; Kautto and McCormick, 2013; Goven and Pavone, 2015; Lasserre et al., 2014; Aurambout et al., 2016; Ferreira Gregorio et al. 2018). And we note that there is very little research out- side of laboratories and academic spaces that attempts to judge the sustainability of the bioeconomy (Larsen, 2007; Fror et al., 2017). In other cases, the sustainability of the bioeconomy is conflated with the renewability of resources, and those two are both thought to be inter- changeable with the sustainability or renewability of capital (Gawel et al., 2019; Birch and Tyfield, 2013). In reality, the sustainability of capital is taken for granted and because capital can renew itself indefinitely in time (or so it is perceived to be able to do), nature and knowl- edge are also perceived to do the same. If they do not, it is because better (i.e. more intensive) management and resource utilisation is needed (Birch, 2007, 2012; Birch et al., 2010; Dankbaar et al., 2014; De Besi and McCormick, 2015; Gawel et al., 2016; Birner, 2018; Lewandowski, 2018; Pulzl and Ramcilovic-Suominen, 2018) rather than a radically different approach – such as potentially a less intensive use of resources. However, bioeconomy can be given other meanings than the ones that have been constructed through policy documents and many academic documents. Thus, we suggest it is a contested field for both theoretical debate and economic practice. Contrary to the big-corporation- oriented bioeconomy, there is the organic2 or agroeco- logical approach. With agroecology we mean that agri- cultural production is taking place in modes that sustain the local ecosystem and local natural resources with a 2 We do not conflate organic with agroecological. Those are two differ- ent approaches to agriculture and even if they sometimes overlap, they can be structured in various ways concerning their economic expres- sion. However, we use them here together in the way they are used in the academic literature, that we examine in this paragraph. long-term view (Altieri, 2009; Levidow et al., 2012; Mar- tinez-Torres and Rosset, 2012; Altieri et al., 2015, Bugge et al., 2016; Levidow, 2015). Agroecological practices also seek to provide adequate income to the producers through the production of quality agricultural products, mostly food. Given that agroecology focuses on syn- ergies between the ecosystem as such and the human communities that are producing their food/agricultural products within it, it is more labour intensive than the big bioeconomic industries, but its mode of production is the one of the small farmer or the small producer in general. The specificity of ecosystems (soil, geography, climatic conditions, availability of local seeds, fauna of the region that feeds off or uses agricultural fields for habitat) does not allow sweeping decisions about prac- tices and it requires adaptation of the production pro- cesses to the conditions of each place/community. In this framework, the production of food is the core activ- ity of the bioeconomic process. Organic agriculture and agroecology are perceived as methods of cooperating with nature to produce adequately, instead of perceiving nature as a space from which resources are extracted. In that way the mode of production is adapted to this production of food within the context of the local eco- systems (Kitchen and Marsden, 2011; Birch et al., 2012a, 2012b; Levidow et al., 2012; Esposti, 2012; Levidow, 2015; Bugge et al., 2016; Viaggi, 2016; Hausknost, 2017). We need to note here that bioeconomic processes, such as anaerobic digestion, or value-added approaches to dealing with agricultural waste have proven so far to be quite beneficial to farming and food production on a big scale (De Meester et al., 2012). Farming and the ‘official’ view of the bioeconomy are not totally divorced from each other and given that policies are constructed through the official corporate-oriented view of the bio- economy, the bioeconomic influence on farming is also corporate-based. We would need more research and a longer-term experience to have a sound conclusion about the interconnection of bioeconomic processes used to reduce waste and environmental degradation in farming. Moreover, we would need a more holistic approach to assess the potential of the technological bioeconomy to decide whether as a production process is more ecologi- cally sound than other ways of production. The published critique of the bioeconomy is very much an academic debate; it seems not to have been enjoined by practitioners or social movements. From all online investigations we have conducted (July 2019, October 2019, December 2019, April 2020), it seems that, to the best of our knowledge, the term bioeconomy is not used broadly by grassroots initiatives in their public activity, much less by people who might be small produc- 293Understanding the bioeconomy: a new sustainability economy in British and European public discourse Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 283-304, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-9534 ers, even if they practically follow bioeconomic processes in their activities. Furthermore, the academic literature largely overlooks small scale activities which might be construed as part of the bioeconomy. We have found very few mentions of farmers’ markets, for example. Thus, so far academic consideration of the bioeconomy is mirror- ing the policy focus on technology-driven, capital-inten- sive approaches to the economic opportunities arising from organic resources. We consider this further below, but first address the bioeconomy in the context of other approaches to addressing economic benefits. 6. SUSTAINABILITY ECONOMIES To understand better the context of the use of the term bioeconomy, we turn to the other types of econo- mies that have emerged during the last decade or two as policy options. These concepts including (the bio- , green, blue, low carbon, and circular economies) we term the sustainability or S-economies (see Table 4 later in this section for a summary of the features of a non- exhaustive list of these economies). The S-economies are named types of economic activity favoured by policy makers as offering potential for a better, or at least dif- ferent, connection between the natural and human envi- ronment via focusing on particular activities as a route to value creation. In many cases, they are represented as attempting to achieve environmental sustainability, although the perceptions of sustainability to which each type of economy is connected might differ. In all cases, the debate that connects those economies to sustainable arrangements is being developed within the confines of the capitalist economy, i.e., to achieve economic growth whilst balancing environmental and social priorities in a manner protective of future generations’ abilities to do the same (following on from the WCED in 1987 with Brundtland Report). We have already mentioned that the bioeconomy emerged initially under the rubric knowledge-based bio- economy. Knowledge (-based) economy was a term that the European states were using for some decades before the bioeconomy emerged as a term. The term was not just implying that the economy has parts where knowl- edge, or advances to it, were less significant, but also that people should continuously receive training (for which they should be paying, i.e. they should become clients of educational services providers) in order to adapt to the needs of the markets, i.e. unemployment and low wages were constructed as the result of lack of knowledge on the part of the workers and the businesses (OECD 2002, 2005; Olssen and Peters, 2005; OECD et al. 1997; Jessop and Sum, 2013; Birch et al., 2014; Birch, 2017a, 2017b). Nevertheless, the knowledge-based economy can also be interpreted as an attempt by the capitalist economy to recognise and handle profitably the changes to the econ- omy, brought about by the advance of information and communication technologies and by the creation of new jobs and new demand for advanced or new skills. By the time the bioeconomy arose as a policy con- cept, the idea that knowledge itself is a panacea to a stagnating economy was already a well-established one (Godin, 2006; Brine, 2006). The bioeconomy arrives to highlight that with new research and development of more intensive use of biogenic resources we can solve at once both the problem of production costs and job availability and the problems of waste management and environmental degradation. Similarly, the green and blue economies, which were boosted in prominence by the Rio 2012 summit, were seen as means to reignite the faltering global efforts for sustainability. The green econ- omy argues for economic and social benefits to accrue from environmentally focused and social equitable investments, with the blue variant emphasizing marine- based economic opportunities (UNEP, 2009; Bina 2013; UNCTAD, 2014; Smith-Godfrey, 2016; Lee, Noh and Kim 2020; Benson et al., 2021). In practice green econo- my policies have tended to favour the more mainstream solutions over the more adventurous, socially progres- sive options (e.g., in building design; Pearce and Bar- bier, 2000; Gibbs and O’Neill, 2015; Ge and Zhi 2016; Ferreira Gregorio et al. 2018; Merino-Saum et al., 2020). Approaches ostensibly designed to protect the environ- Table 3. Academic discourse on the bioeconomy. This table is a visual presentation of basic perceptions of the bioeconomy as pre- sented in academic literature. For sources, see the text. Perception Focuses on Tries to attract Normative Technology Big businesses, policy- makers Given-Not discussed Technology Big businesses, policy- makers, greater audience Panacea Environment Economy Knowledge Big businesses, policy- makers, greater audience, environmentally aware individuals and groups Sustainable Renewability of resources Renewability of capital Efficiency Big businesses, policy- makers, greater audience Organic Agroecological Agriculture Food Big and small businesses, policy-makers, greater audience, food producers and farmers 294 Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 283-304, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-9534 Irene Sotiropoulou, Pauline Deutz ment by slowing consumption (e.g., bike share schemes) can nonetheless primarily benefit those financially bet- ter able to consume (Médard de Chardon, 2019). These outcomes may reflect the contradiction of an apparently anti-consumption policy being driven nonetheless by the profit motive. The circular economy is a further S-economy, which has risen rapidly to prominence in policy and academic circles in the last few years and which promotes sustain- able resource use via design for longevity of product/ material use recovery at end of life (Bocken et al., 2016; Geissdoerfer et al. 2017). As discussed above, the bio- economy and circular economy are closely associated with each other in EU policy debates. The bioeconomy highlights a specific resource type and certain technolo- gies for utilisation, whilst the circular economy proposes principles for using any resources. The circular economy for example favours design for sustainability over mar- ginal improvements to recovery at end of life, but is nonetheless fundamentally seen as a strategy for eco- nomic growth by policy makers (European Commission, 2015; 2019). Whilst understandings of the circular econ- omy vary considerably in their degree of social emphasis (e.g., Kirchherr et al., 2017), its origins lie with explic- itly corporate-oriented approaches to resource efficien- cies such as industrial ecology and industrial symbiosis (Mathews and Tan, 2011; Lieder and Rashid, 2016). The efficient use of raw materials and the recovery of materi- als from waste, residues and production by-products are the central argument. Industrial ecology and industrial symbiosis are approaches to economic-environmental benefits that argue for the ability of companies to collaboratively (through networks or business clusters) or collectively (as sectors) produce the necessary technology for avoid- ing a negative impact on the environment. Business models have to evolve to suit not only changes of tech- nology and social demands but also to be capable of surviving as businesses in a turbulent economic frame- work (Boons et al., 2015; Cecchin et al., 2020). Industrial symbiosis therefore can be seen as a transition technol- ogy on the way to more profound solutions. By contrast, some understandings of the circular economy (e.g., Ellen Macarthur Foundation, 2015) favour renewable resource use, as opposed to more efficient use of non-renewable resources prominently discussed in industrial ecology. The implied shift towards the bioeconomy is assumed by circular economy discussion to promote sustainability. We have argued, though, that bioeconomy policy and theory does not engage prominently with sustainability debates – leaving the outcome of expanding the use of bio-resources as uncertain. Notably, though, bioeconomy literature has also called the adoption of circular prac- tices (e.g., industrial symbiosis-style use of residues pro- duce other products that could have economic value) (Viaggi, 2016; Sariatli, 2017; Allen et al., 2017; Pulzl and Ramcilovic Suominen, 2018). Lately, the term of smart economy has emerged as a way to show that the economy as we know it can be better organised in order to become sustainable or more sustainable, by using technologies, especially the digital technologies that have been developed during the last decades (Bronstein, 2009; Caragliu et al. 2011; Kumar, 2017; Ruhlandt, 2018). Again, we see the same pattern, of knowledge and advanced technology been assigned the role of the quasi-deus ex machina to save both the envi- ronment and the economy. Within the broad remit of sustainability, the relative emphasis of the different pillars of sustainability varies between these different initiatives (Cecchin et al., 2020). The bioeconomy, and mainstream understandings of the circular economy, can be seen as examples of ecological modernisation, the idea that policy-driven technologi- cal change can foster economic and environmental ben- efit (Huber, 2008; Horlings and Marsden, 2011). That is, with a suitable regulatory framework, industry can make profit out of meeting the environmental needs of our societies –creating a win-win situation where the envi- ronment would not be harmed and the economic activ- ity would continue unabated. That is, sustainability of the economy and the sustainability of nature are firmly entwined (Pearce and Barbier 2000; Olikainen, 2014; Dankbaar et al., 2014; Antikainen et al., 2016; Allen et al., 2017). Notably the same vision of the green economy is understood differently, along with more radical per- spectives on the circular economy, which tend towards the field of degrowth (e.g., Latouche, 2009, Cecchin et al., 2020) increasingly discussed academically though hardly a serious policy contender. The economies we have described in this section have important differences between them. For example, the knowledge-based economy and smart economy are mostly oriented towards technological solutions that are directly invented in laboratories and research centres. The green economy and ecological modernisation are very much practice-oriented, with a special emphasis on the business activities that will define aims for research and also disseminate the new sustainable technologies through the market. Circular economy and the bioecon- omy stand between the two groups, attempting to com- bine both a strong scientific component with a major role for the business world. Some conceptualisations of the circular economy share the visions of the green economy that seek bottom up, even degrowth, approach- 295Understanding the bioeconomy: a new sustainability economy in British and European public discourse Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 283-304, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-9534 es. We argue also that the bioeconomy could be under- stood as contributing in this area, albeit this aspect has so far been overlooked. Despite these differences, we cannot ignore the similarities among those types of economies and how they emerged at similar histori- cal and geographical points in contemporary economic history, with significantly overlapping aims and inten- tions. The central aims and economic scope of the vari- ous types of sustainable economies are shown in Table 4, along with key policy documents and references to the related academic literature. From the above we see that the use of the term of bioeconomy, and related ones like green economy, cir- cular economy, or sustainable economy, reveals a com- monly accepted, although implicit, assumption that 1) the economy cannot address its own problems but that 2) with some change of emphasis solutions can be found within that same growth-oriented economic approach. The proliferation of terms reveals the pressure to dis- tinguish the contemporary proposals for solutions from recent previous solutions that are facing challenges. Alternatively, the terms imply targeting a different par- tial approach to promoting growth (with sustainability priorities embedded to various degrees), without consid- eration of the interrelatedness of different aspects of the economy. An analysis of the terminology might reveal the intertwined character of the roles undertaken by state institutions, businesses and academia to promote each and all of those terms/economies and how this intertwinedness can have a potential for both achieve- ments and failures, exactly because the spreading of the use of a certain discourse arguably frames the issues in ways that the various actors and social groups involved with them cannot address effectively from the within the frame/discourse (Birch, 2007, 2012). This is a hypothesis, though, that will be the scope of another paper. 7. DISCUSSION: REFLECTIONS ON THE MEANING(S) OF THE BIOECONOMY The bioeconomy as a discourse and industrial sector can be credited to the authorities and policy makers who have been steering it over the years since its identifica- tion (Benner and Lofgren, 2007; Birch et al., 2010; Birch, 2012, 2017a, 2019; Pavone, 2012; Esposti, 2012; Birch and Tyfield, 2013; Gustavsson et al., 2013; Caivano et al., 2015). Discourse is coming from policy-makers and academics, often in documents that explicitly combine both policy and scientific expertise, i.e. the experts are assigned by the states to provide policy-making advice on the bioeconomy. From our literature review and to the best of our knowledge it seems that questions like “Why bioec- onomy? Why bio-? Why biological? What is new about it? Didn’t we have any bioeconomies before 1990?” have not be considered in the literature. The question that any broad definition of bioeconomy raises is whether this type of economy is different from the economy in general, if we accept definitions which state that all biological material is perceived as raw material in the bioeconomy (Albrecht et al., 2010). Apart from seeing such statements as problematic (because they identify all biological substances and all organisms primarily as production inputs), we need to clarify here that not all raw materials are biological materials. Nevertheless, all raw materials are originating in nature ultimately, even if they have been produced in a laboratory or factory. In all cases, human production is based on taking resourc- es from plants and animals. This human production can also be done through the destruction of an ecosystem (e.g. the cutting of a forest) in order to extract minerals from the Earth or the diversion of essential parts of that ecosystem, like water, to benefit human activity instead of the water being available to plants and animals. In other words, whether we choose to deplete or not to overuse the water of a river, we are still (co-)producing the ecosystem. Although the use of non-biological resources impacts on nature (as above), it could nonetheless still useful to distinguish a specifically ‘bio’-aspect as dis- tinct from the wider economy. Destruction is very dif- ferent to using ‘nature’ to produce resources. The latter may equally be destructive of habitats but it is not always inherently destructive. The discourse of ecological mod- ernisation has been based on the assumption that more management can be considered as the solution to a lack of sustainable outcomes. The previous section about sus- tainability economies gave some examples for this use of discourse. The question is whether we need the “bio-” component of the name to stay aware of this use of natu- ral resources. Furthermore, the bioeconomy, like all S-economies, is vested in the implication that the previous (if recent) economies were based on beliefs and lack of scientific knowledge, or that they were somehow non-, or not adequately, green or sustainable. These hidden critiques concerning the previous economies might have some seeds of truth. But one cannot help recognising that the critiques overlook efforts by several social groups or regions to be less linear and unsustainable through the use of local knowledge and inventiveness. Despite that, the environmental knowledge of those communities has recently begun to be appreciated when the environ- 296 Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 283-304, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-9534 Irene Sotiropoulou, Pauline Deutz mental management techniques originating in capitalist economies cannot tackle the implications of the envi- ronmental degradation associated with those economies (Berkes and Parlee, 2006; Goodall, 2008). What also needs to be further examined is the variability of types of economies that have been marginalised in the public discourse but still existed and might have been experi- menting with smart, green, sustainable and production- symbiotic solutions. The interaction of these margin- alised (‘grassroots’, ‘alternative’) economies with the mainstream economy, their coordination and potential lessons for sustainability needs much more examination. Table 4. A non-exhaustive list of what we term the Sustainability or S economies. These various expressions have been adopted to promote a particular economic activity as approaches to value generation. The decade of origin and key policy and academic references are provided. Name Aims – Vision Scope Since Know-how Reference Bioeconomy Support economic sustainability through capital-intensive use of organic resources Big industries, biotechnology, pharmaceutics, Energy, waste Efficiency-oriented Mid-2000s Edge-research based. Laboratories, industrial applications OECD 2009, Lewandowski 2018 European Commission 2018 Ferreira Gregorio et al. 2018 Blue economy Sustainable management of marine resources Profit making from marine nature can be sustainable Small & big production. Closely associated with to island and coastal economies 2010s Research & business based Aspects of community economies UNCTAD 2014 Smith-Godfrey 2016 Le Heron & Winder 2017 Lee, Noh & Kim 2020 Circular economy Instead of resource depletion & accumulation of waste, design for reuse, repair, upcycling of products and byproducts of each supply chain All sectors of the economy, but very important for industrial products the raw materials of which are not renewable & after use they cannot be degraded in nature 1990s, but prominent since 2015 Research-based, laboratory-oriented, industrial & consumer orientation Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2015 European Comission 2015 Bocken et al. 2016 Allen et al. 2016 Geissdoerfer et al. 2017 Cecchin et al. 2020 Green economy Sustainable solutions that can be profitable – profit making can be sustainable for the environment; some visions emphasise social benefits e.g., via community scale initiatives, and resemble degrowth initiatives All sectors of the economy 1990s, but prominent since 2000s Economic & environmental research, industrial applications are preferred, even for the banking sector Pearce & Barbier 2000 UNEP 2009 Bina 2013 Gibbs & O’Neill 2015 Antikainen et al. 2016 Ge & Zhi 2016 Allen et al. 2017 Ferreira Gregorio et al. 2018 Merino-Saum et al. 2020 Benson et al. 2021 Knowledge- based economy Make profit out of using advances in research and technology, along with better management of human knowledge All sectors of the economy, emphasis on industrial sectors and on digital technologies 1990s Research-based OECD et al. 1997 Neef, Siesfeld & Cefola 1998 OECD 2002, OECD 2005 Olssen & Peters 2005 Godin 2006 Albrecht et al. 2010 Jessop & Sum 2013 Low carbon economy Reduce emissions of carbon in production & distribution chains without disturbing profit flow All sectors of the economy, but mostly industrial plants & other work spaces, food production, transport 2000s Research-based, business oriented Stern 2007 HM Government 2009 Zhang 2010 Foxon 2011 Luy, Ngai and Wu 2019 Smart economy Organise the economy through digital technologies so that costs are minimised and production is more efficient and profitable All sectors of the economy, emphasis on ICT sector 2010s (or late 2000s). Research-based, very technology oriented Kumar 2017 Bronstein 2009 Caragliu et al. 2011 Ruhlandt 2018 (Olikainen 2014) 297Understanding the bioeconomy: a new sustainability economy in British and European public discourse Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 283-304, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-9534 8. CONCLUSIONS For the purposes of this paper, the bioeconomy lit- erature was critically examined in order to investigate how policy-makers and academics perceive economic activity involving the production, use and/or disposal or re-use (whether through upcycling or downcycling) of plant-based products, or products containing substanc- es extracted from plants and animals. We stick with a very broad definition of the bioeconomy and do not assign any inherent sustainability goals to it. Rather than assuming that the bioeconomy is inherently sustainable, we suggest that it can display various characteristics depending on its economic and political context. What we have seen from the examination of the policy documents and the academic literature is that for the policy-makers and for most academics, the bio- economy is perceived as a dissociated activity from what everyday people do and from how they understand their relationship to natural materials used for production. At the same time, in cases like the United Kingdom gov- ernment (or the German government in 2020), the bio- economy is perceived in a very narrow way which gives emphasis to the economy and sees sustainability as a mainly or only an economic problem. In other words, the corporate direction that the bioeconomy took since its beginning reflected neither the potential of the term nor the bioeconomies that already exist and are largely absent from policy documents and the academic writ- ings relating to the term. We also showed that the bioeconomy has been developed within a broader context of various named ‘economies’ (which we call S-economies). These are pre- sented by policy-makers, and analysed by academics, as possibilities for more sustainable economic activity. Ironically, the periodic (if rather frequent) appearance of a new S-economy term in recent decades presents the solutions as something novel, despite that they are all based on common assumptions. Each is aiming to identify a particular field of activity which can generate value within the capitalist economy by offering both a competitive edge and a perceived sustainability advan- tage (e.g., avoiding fossil fuels). However, the sustainability credentials may be unin- vestigated or in any case contingent on circumstances. Placing the bioeconomy within the broader context of the S-economies makes visible the potential of the bio- economy to provide at least some environmental benefit, whilst indicating its economic and social limitations. Nei- ther the bioeconomy or other S-economies can overcome the internal contradictions of capitalism. They may gener- ate new opportunities for investment, but also new areas for competition, which may favour some locations/people and may rearrange rather than eliminate inequalities (e.g., Deutz, 2014). It would be the purpose of a future study to investigate 1) how the biotechnology economy articulates with the wider bioeconomy and 2) how the bioeconomy articulates with the wider economy, alongside the other comparable initiatives, which we term the S-economies. The bioeconomy is generally under-researched as a concept and even more as an economic practice. Some of the literature is descriptive rather than presenting a critical exploration, or incorporates policy-related wish- ful thinking and academic visions rather than actual findings from the field. We note that there are few pol- icy documents referring to the bioeconomy, and these share a representation of bioeconomic governance as top-down. This lack of extensive academic and politi- cal debate and contestation on the concept of bioecon- omy obscures the struggle that is taking place among the various social groups who promote and practice the bioeconomy. These we are exploring in further research, especially as relates to small scale, grass-roots practices of the bioeconomy. Our sub-project within THYME investigates the farmers markets in East Yorkshire as small-scale bioeconomic practices on a local collective level. More details about the research findings from that field research will be considered in subsequent papers in order to explore the variety of notions and practices that the bioeconomy can include. Through our research we have reached the conclu- sion that the bioeconomy is a contested concept. This is despite fact that it was constructed within a certain geo- graphical and socio-economic framework that was prior- itizing corporate and top-down understandings of bioec- onomic processes. We also showed that the role of states and international organisations is prominent in this construction of meanings, although a detailed examina- tion of this role should be the focus of future research. Finally, we also showed that evolving perceptions of the bioeconomy, especially in the policy documents, indi- cate that if we want to develop a sustainable bioecono- my, we need to start considering limitations from the side of both ecosystems and our economies. Our paper contributes to a more critical perception and use of the term bioeconomy. which we hope can inform decision- making for both policy-makers and experts. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS & FUNDING This paper stems from THYME Project, which is funded by Research England’s Connecting Capability Fund. 298 Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 283-304, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-9534 Irene Sotiropoulou, Pauline Deutz No other funding or conflict of interest exists for this paper and the research in which it originates. We are grateful to the organisers and participants of the 4th International Conference on Cultural Politi- cal Economy (Staffordshire University 9-10.1.2020) for their insightful questions and comments on a previous version of this paper and to two anonymous referees for their detailed feedback and advice in order that this paper is improved. All deficiencies of this paper are the sole responsibility of the authors. BIBLIOGRAPHY Achury, C., Florez, A., Gomes, C.M., Jaffe, K., Jaffe, R., Manzanares, M. and Rodriguez, D. (2015). On the bioeconomics of shame and guilt. Journal of Bioeco- nomics 17: 137-149. Aguilar, A. and Patermann, C. (2018). The origins of the bioeconomy in the European Union. New Biotechnol- ogy 40: 20-24. Ajanovic, A. (2011). Biofuels versus food production: Does biofuels production increase food prices?. Ener- gy 36: 2070-2075. Albrecht, J., Carrez, D., Carus, M., Cunningham, P., Dareda, L., Mancia, R., Mathe, L., Piotrowski, S. and Raschka, A. (2010). The knowledge-based bio-econ- omy (KBBE) in Europe – Achievements and chal- lenges. Report, 14.9.2010, European Commission and Belgian Presidency, Brussels. Allen, B., D’Amato, D., Droste, N. Kettunenen, M., Korhonen, J., Lohtinen, K., Leskinen P., Matthies B.D. and Toppinen A. (2017). Green, circular, bioecono- my: A comparative analysis of sustainability avenues. Journal of Cleaner Production 168:716-734. Altieri, M.A. (2009). Agroecology, small farms and food sovereignty. Monthly Review 61 (3): 102-113. Altieri, M.A., Henao, A., Lana, M.A. and Nicholls, C.I. (2015). Agroecoloy and the design of climate change- resilient farming systems. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 35: 869-890. Antikainen, R., Droste, N., Hanjurgens, B., Kuikman, P., Leskinen, P., Loiseau, E., Pitkanen, K., Saikku, L. and Thomsen, M. (2016). Green economy and related concepts: An overview. Journal of Cleaner Production 134: 361-371. Arancibia, F. (2013). Challenging the bioeconomy: The dynamic of collective action in Argentina. Technology in Society 35: 79-92. Archer M., Bhaskar, R., Collier A., Lawson, T. and Nor- rie, A. (eds). (1998). Critical realism – Essential read- ings. London & New York: Routledge. Arts, B., Kleinschmit, D. and Pülzl, H. (2014). Bioecon- omy – An emerging meta-discourse affecting forest discourses? Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 29 (4): 386-393. Arundel, A. and Van Beuzekom, B. (2006). OECD Bio- technology Statistics- 2006. Paris: OECD. Asveld, L., Stemerding, D. and Van Est, R. (eds). (2011). Getting to the core of the bioeconomy? A perspective of the sustainable promise of biomass. The Hague: Roth- enau Institute. Aurambout, J.P., Cristobal, J., Kavalov, B., Manfredi, S., and Matos, C.T. (2016). Environmental sustainability assessment of bioeconomy value chains. Biomass and Bioenergy 89: 159-171. Baardsen, S., Hauger, L.B., Jellesmark, T.B., Klein- schmit, D. and Roos, A. (2014). Shades of green: A social scientific view on bioeconomy in the forest sector. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 29 (4): 402-410. Baldes, U., Hertel, T. and Steinbuks, J. (2013). Competi- tion for land in the global bioeconomy. Agricultural Economics 44 (Supplement): 129-138. Barben, D., El-Chichakli, B., Lang, C., Von Braun, J. and Philp, J. (2016). Five cornerstones of a global bioec- onomy. Nature 535 (14.7.2016): 221-223. Begley, C., Gillispie, I., Hirsch, M. and Sheppard, A.W. (2011). Biosecurity and sustainability within the growing global bioeconomy. Current Opinion in Envi- ronmental Sustainability 3 (4): 4-10. Bell, J., Campos, P., Dodd, T., Mega, V., Nanou, C., Nem- eth, S. and Paula, L. (2018). EU’s ambition to build the world’s leading bioeconomy – Uncertain times demand innovative and sustainable solutions. New Biotechnology 40: 25-30. Benini, L., Ciupagea, C., Kavalov, B., Nita, V. and Pelle- tier, N. (2013). Bio-economy and sustainability: A potential contribution to the Bio-Economy Observa- tory. European Commission Joint Research Centre – Institute for Environment and Sustainability, EUR 25743. Brussels: European Commission. Benner, M. and Lofgren, H. (2007). The bio-economy and the competition state: Transcending the dichotomy between coordinated and liberal market economies. New Political Science 29 (1): 77-95. Benson, D., Fairbrass JM, Lorenzoni I., O’Riordan T., and Russell, D. (2021). The green economy: Chang- ing meanings in a changing world. In Fairbrass JM, Vasilakos, N (Eds) (2021) Emerging governance of a green economy: cases of European implementation. Cambridge, UK: CUP: 14-33. Berkes, F. and Parlee, B. (2006). Indigenous knowledge of economic variability and commons management. A 299Understanding the bioeconomy: a new sustainability economy in British and European public discourse Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 283-304, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-9534 case study on berry harvesting from Northern Cana- da. Human Ecology 34: 515-528. Berry, R.J. and Bronson, F.H. (1992). Life history and bio- economy of the house mouse. Biological Reviews 67: 519-550. Bhandary, P., Rosegrant, M.W., Ringler, C., Tokgoz, S. and Zhu, T. (2013). Water and food in the bioeconomy: Challenges and opportunities for development. Agri- cultural Economics 44: 139-150. Bina, O. (2013). The green economy and sustainable development: an uneasy balance? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 31: 1023 – 1047. Bio-based Industries Joint Undertaking (BBIJU) & Stand- ing Committee on Agricultural Research (SCAR). (2019). Lessons learned and recommendations for developing clusters in the bioeconomy. Workshop report: Advancing the creation of regional bioecon- omy clusters in Europe. SCAR BSW & BBIJU Joint Workshop, 14.3.2019, Brussels. Birch, K. (2006). The neoliberal underpinnings of the bioeconomy: the ideological discourses and practices of economic competitiveness. Genomics, Society & Policy 2 (3): 1-15. Birch, K. (2007). The virtual bioeconomy – The “failure” of performativity and the implications for bioeco- nomics. Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory 8 (1): 83-99. Birch, K. (2009). The knowledge-space dynamic in the UK bioeconomy. Area 41 (3): 273-284. Birch, K. (2012). Knowledge, place and power: Geogra- phies of value in the bioeconomy. New Genetics and Society 31 (2): 183-201. Birch, K. (2017a). Rethinking value in the bioeconomy: Finance, assetization and the management of value. Science, Technology and Human Values 42 (3): 460- 490. Birch, K. (2017b). The problem of bioconcepts: Biopoli- tics, bioeconomy and the political economy of noth- ing. Cultural Studies of Science Education 12: 915-927. Birch, K. (2019). Technoscience rent: Toward a theory of rentiership for technoscientific capitalism. Science, Technology and Human Values 44 (1): 1-31. Birch, K., Levidow, L. and Papaioannou, T. (2010). Sus- tainable capital? The neoliberalization of nature and knowledge in the European “Knowledge-based bio- economy”. Sustainability 2: 2898-2918. Birch, K., Levidow, L. and Papaioannou, T. (2012a). EU agri-innovation policy: two contending visions of the bio-economy. Critical Policy Studies 6 (1): 40-65. Birch, K., Levidow, L. and Papaioannou, T. (2012b). Divergent paradigms of European agro-food innova- tion: The Knowledge based bio-economy (KBBE) as an R & D agenda. Science, Technology and Human Values 38(1): 94-125. Birch, K., Levidow, L. and Papaioannou, T. (2014). Self- fulfilling prophecies of the European Knowledge- Based Bio-Economy: The discursive shaping of insti- tutional and policy frameworks in the bio-pharma- ceutical sector. Journal of Knowledge Economy 5(1): 1-18. Birch, K. and Tyfield, D. (2013). Theorizing the bioec- onomy: Biovalue, biocapital, bioeconomis or… what? Science, Technology & Human Values 38 (3): 299-327. Birner, R. (2018). Bioeconomy concepts. In Lewandowski, I. (ed.). Bioeconomy – Shaping the transition to a sus- tainable, biobased economy. Stuttgart: University of Hohenheim & Springer: 17-37. Bocken, N.M.P., De Pauw, I., Bakker, C. and Van der Grinten, B. (2016). Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy, Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 33:5, 308-320, DOI: 10.1080/21681015.2016.1172124 Boody, G., Broussard, W., Glover, J.D., Jordan, N., Keeney, D., McGown, B.H., McIsaac, G., Muller, M., Mur- ray, H., Neal, J., Pansing, C., Turner, R.E., Warner, K., Wyse, D. (2007). Sustainable development of the agri- cultural bioeconomy. Science 316 (5831): 1570-1571. Boons, F., Spekkink, W., Isenmann, R., Baas, L., Eklund, M., Brullot, S., Deutz, P., Gibbs, D., Massard, G., Arozamena Romero, E., Ruiz Puente, C., Verguts, V., Davis, C., Korevaar, G., Costa, I. and Baumann, H. (2015). Comparing industrial symbiosis in Europe: Towards a conceptual framework and research meth- odology. In D. Lyons and J. Bi (eds) International Per- spectives on Industrial Ecology. Cheltenham UK and Northampton MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing: 69-88. Brent, A.C., Lotter, G.A., Stafford, W.H.L. and Von Malt- itz, G.P. (2019). Biofuels technology development in Southern Africa. Development Southern Africa 36 (2): 155-174. Brine, J. (2006). Lifelong learning and the knowledge economy: those that know and those that do not— the discourse of the European Union. British Educa- tional Research Journal 32 (5-October): 649-665. Bringezu, S., O’Brien, M., and Schutz, H. (2012). Beyond biofuels: Assessing global land use for domestic con- sumption of biomass – A conceptual and empirical contribution to sustainable management of global resources. Land Use Policy 29 (1): 224-232. Bronstein, Z. (2009). Industry and the smart city. Dissent: 27-34. Brown, N., Machin, L. and McLead, D. (2011). Immu- nitary bioeconomy: The economisation of life in the 300 Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 283-304, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-9534 Irene Sotiropoulou, Pauline Deutz international cord blood market. Social Science & Medicine 72: 1115-1122. Bugge, M.M., Hansen, T. and Klitkou, A. (2016). What is the bioeconomy? A review of the literature. Sustain- ability 8: 691-712. Caivano, A., Ferrari, E., M’barek, R., Philippidis, G., Ronzon, T., Sanjuan Lopez, A., Santini, F., Suta, C., Vinyes, C. (2015). Observing and analysing the bio- economy in the EU – Adapting data and tools to new questions and challenges. Bio-based and Applied Eco- nomics 3 (1): 83-91. Cal, A.J., Morse, M.C. and Pieja, A.J. (2017). Methane to bioproducts: the future of the bioeconomy. Current Opinion in Chemical Biology 41: 123-131. Capital Economics. 2015. The British Bioeconomy – An assessment of the impact of the bioeconomy on the United Kingdom economy. London, 11.6.2015. Com- missioned by the UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, available at https://bbsrc. ukri.org/research/briefings/bioeconomy/ Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C. and Nijkamp, P. (2011). Smart cities in Europe. Journal of Urban Technology vol. 18 no. 2: 65-82. Cecchin, A., Cutaia, L., Deutz, P., Raggi, A. and Salo- mone, R. (2020). Relating industrial symbiosis and circular economy to the sustainable development debate. In Cecchin A., Cutaia L., Deutz P., Raggi A. and Salomone R. (editors): Industrial Symbiosis for the Circular Economy – Operational experiences, best practices and obstacles to a collaborative business approach. London & New York: Springer, pp. 1-25. Chandra, R., Mabee, W.E. and Mirck, J. (2011). Energy from forest biomass in Ontario: Getting beyond the promise. The Forestry Chronicle 87 (1): 61-70. Charles, D. and Hodgson, C. (2008). Case study North East England (UK). Work package 4: Structural change & globalization, prepared for the European Commission – DG Regional Policy. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory – A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage publications. Cooper, M. (2007). Life, autopoiesis, debt – Inventing the bioeconomy. Distinktion: Scandinacian Journal of Social Theory 8 (1): 25-43. Dallemand, J.-F., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Scarlat, N. and Nita, V. (2015). The role of biomass and bioenergy in a future bioeconomy: Policies and facts. Environmen- tal Development 15: 3-34. Dankbaar, B., Hagens, J.E., Pfau, S.E. and Smiths, A.J.M. (2014). Visions of sustainability in bioeconomy research. Sustainability 6: 1222-1249. De Besi, M. and MacCormick, K. (2015). Towards a bio- economy in Europe: National, regional and instustrial strategies. Sustainability 7: 10461-10478. De Meester, S., Demeyer, J., Dewulf, J., Peene, A., Van Langenhove, H. and & Velge, F. (2012). The environ- mental sustainability of anaerobic digestion as a bio- mass valorization technology. Bioresource Technology 121: 396-403. Dech, J.P. (2011). Finding the way forward in the new forest bioeconomy. Forestry Chronicle 87 (1): 3-7. Dech, J.P. and Pohkarel, B. (2011). An ecological land clas- sification approach to modelling the production of forest biomass. The Forestry Chronicle 87 (1): 23-32. Delvenne, P. and Hendrickx, K. (2013). The multifaceted struggle for power in the bioeconomy: Introduction to the special issue. Technology in Society 35: 75-78. Delvenne, P., Vara, A.M., Vasen, F. (2013). The “soy-iza- tion” of Argentina: The dynamics of the “globalized” privatization regime in a peripheral context. Technol- ogy in Society 35: 153-162. Deutz, P. (2014) A class-based analysis of sustainable development: developing a radical perspective on environmental justice. Sustainable Development 22: 243-252. Duchesne, L.C. and Wetzel, S. (2003). The bioeconomy and the forestry sector: Changing markets and new opportunities. The Forestry Chronicle 79 (5): 860-864. Eggert, H. and Greaker, M. (2014). Promoting Second Generation Biofuels: Does the First Generation Pave the Road? Energies 7: 4430-4445. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2015). Delivering the Cir- cular Economy: A Toolkit for Policymakers; Ellen MacArthur Foundation: Cowes, UK. Esposti, R. (2012). Knowledge, technology and innova- tion for a bio-based economy: Lessons from the past, challenges for the future. Bio-based and Applied Eco- nomics 1 (3): 235-268. European Commission. (2002). Life sciences and bio- technology – A strategy for Europe. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Com- mittee and the Committee of the Regions. COM (2002) 27. Brussels: European Commission. European Commission. (2007). Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parlia- ment, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the mid term review of the Strategy on Life Sciences and Biotech- nology. COM (2007) 175 final. Brussels: European Commission. European Commission. (2012). Innovating for sustainable growth – A bioeconomy for Europe. DG for Research & Innovation. Brussels: European Commission. 301Understanding the bioeconomy: a new sustainability economy in British and European public discourse Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 283-304, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-9534 European Commission (2015) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Coun- cil, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee on an EU action plan for the cir- cular economy.COM (2015) 614 final . Brussels. .European Commission. (2018a). A sustainable bioec- onomy for Europe: Strengthening the connection between economy, society and the environment. Updated Bioeconomy Strategy, DG for Research & Innovation, October 2018. Brussels: European Com- mission. European Commission. (2018b). Commission Staff Working Paper – Action Plan 2018. Brussels: Euro- pean Commission. European Commission (2019) Report from the Commis- sion to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the implementation of the Circular Economy Action Plan. http://ec.europa. eu/environment/circu-lar-economy/pdf/report_ implementation_circular_economy_action_plan.pdf Accessed 30 July 2020. European Commission (2020a). Farm to Fork Strategy – For a fair, healthy and environmentally friendly food system. Brussels: European Commission. European Commission (2020b). Commission Staff Working Document - Analysis of links between CAP reform and Green Deal, SWD (2020) 93 final, 20.5.2020. Brussels: European Commission. FAO (2018). Assessing the contribution of the bioecono- my to countries’ economy – A brief review of nation- al frameworks, FAO, Rome. Farrelly, M. (2010). Critical Discourse Analysis in Politi- cal Studies: An Illustrative Analysis of the ‘Empower- ment’ Agenda. Politics 30 (2): 98-104. Farrelly, M., Montesano Montessori, N. and Mulberrig, J. (2019). Introduction. In Farrelly M., Montesano Montessori N. and Mulderrig J. (eds): Critical Policy Discourse Analysis. Cheltenham UK & Northampton MA: Edward Elgar Publishing: 1-22. Federal Government of Germany. (2020). For an econ- omy based on resource cycle management – Cabi- net adopts Bioeconomy Strategy. Berlin, 15.1.2020. accessed on 2.4.2020 at https://www.bundesre- gierung.de/breg-en/news/biooekonomie-1712668 Ferreira Gregorio, V., Pie L. and Terceno, A. (2018). A sys- tematic literature review of bio, green and circular economy trends in publications in the field of econom- ics and business management. Sustainability 10: 4232. Foxon, T.J. (2011). A coevolutionary framework for ana- lysing a transition to a sustainable low carbon econo- my. Ecological Economics 20: 2258-2267. Fror, O., Jorissen, J. and Priefer, C. (2017). Pathways to shape the bioeconomy. Resources 6 (10): 1-23. Fumagalli, A. and Morini, C. (2010). Life put to work: Towards a life theory of value (transl. by Emanuele Leonardi). Ephemera – Theory & Politics in Organiza- tion 10 (3-4): 234-252. Galt, R.E., Guthman, J., Huber, M., Mansfield, B., Rome- ro, A.M. and Sawyer, S. (2017). Chemical Geogra- phies. GeoHumanities 3 (1): 158-177. Gawel, E., Hagemann, N., Hauck, J., Pannicke, N., Purkus, A. (2016). Possible futures towards a wood- based bioeconomy: A scenario analysis for Germany. Sustainability 8: 98-121. Gawel, E., Hagemman, N. and Pannicke, N. (2019). A path transition towards a bioeconomy – The crucial role of sustainability. Sustainability 11: 3005-3027. Ge, Y. and Zhi, Q. (2016). Literature review: The green economy, green energy policy and employment. Energy Procedia 88: 257-264. Geissdoerfer, M., Savagen, P., Bocken, N.M.P. and Hultink, E.J. (2017). The Circular Economy - A new sustainability paradigm?. The Journal of cleaner pro- duction, 143: 757-768. German Bioeconomy Council. (2019). Bioeconomy Policy Part III: Update report of national strategies around the world. Berlin: Biookonomierat. Gibbs, D. and O’Neill, K. (2015). Building a green econo- my? Sustainability transitions in the UK building sec- tor, Geoforum, 59, 133-141. Girardin, P. and Peigne, J. (2003). Environmental impacts of farm-scale composting practices. Water, Air & Soil Pollution, no. 153: 45-68. Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (2006) (1967). The dis- covery of grounded theory – Strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick & London: Aldine Transac- tion Publishers. Godin, B. (2006). The knowledge-based economy: Con- ceptual framework or buzzword? Journal of Technol- ogy Transfer 31: 17-30. Goven, J. and Pavone, V. (2015). The bioeconomy as a political project: A Polanyian analysis. Science, Tech- nology & Human Values 40 (3): 302-337. Goodall, H. (2008). Riding the tide: Indigenous knowl- edge, history and water in a changing Australia. Envi- ronment & History 14 (3): 355-384. Gustafsson, M., Stoor, R. and Tsvetkova, A. (2011). Sus- tainable bio-economy: Potential, challenges and opportunities in Finland. PBI Research Institute. Sitra Studies 51. March 2011. Helsinki. Gustavsson, M., McCormick, K. and Staffas, L. (2013). Strategies and policies for the Bioeconomy and the Bio-based Economy: An analysis of official national 302 Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 283-304, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-9534 Irene Sotiropoulou, Pauline Deutz approaches. Sustainability 5: 2751-2769. Hanlin, R., Mittra, J., Smith, J. and Wield, D. (2013). Twenty-first century bioeconomy: Global challenges of biological knowledge for health and agriculture. Science and Public Policy 40 (1): 17-24. Hausknost, D., Kalt, G., Lank, C. and Schriefl, E. (2017). A transition to which bioeconomy? An exploration of diverging techno-political choices. Sustainability 9: 669-691. Heijman, W. and Schepman, T. (2018). Measuring the size of the Dutch bio-economy. Visegrad Journal on the Bioeconomy and Sustainable Development 7 (2): 67-72. Helmreich, S. (2008). Species of biocapital. Science as Cul- ture 17 (4): 463-478. Hendrickx, K. and Reis-Castro, L. (2013). Winged prom- ises: Exploring the discourse on transgenic mosqui- toes in Brazil. Technology in Society 35: 118-128. Hilgartner, S. (2007). Making the bioeconomy measur- able: Politics of an emerging anticipatory machinery. Biosocieties 2: 382-386. HM Government (2009). The UK low carbon transition plan – National strategy for climate and energy. Lon- don. HM Government (2018). Growing the bioeconomy – Improving lives and strengthening the bioeconomy: A national bioeconomy strategy to 2030. Full report & Summary. London. . Horlings, L.G. and Marsden, T.K. (2011). Towards the real green revolution? Exploring the conceptual dimensions of a new ecological modernisation of agriculture that could “feed the world”. Global Envi- ronmental Change 21: 441-452. Huber, J. (2008). Pioneer countries and the global diffu- sion of environmental innovations: Theses from the viewpoint of ecological modernisation theory. Global Environmental Change 18: 360-367. Jessop, B. and Sum, N.-L. (2013). Competitiveness, the Knowledge-Based Economy and Higher Education. Journal of Knowledge Economy 4 (1): 24-44. Jessop, B. (2004). Critical semiotic analysis and cultural polit- ical economy. Critical Discourse Studies 1(2): 159-174. Jordan, N., Boody, G. Broussard, W., Glover,J.D., Keeney,D., McCown, B.H., McIsaac,G., Muller, M., Murray, H. Neal, J., Pansing, C. Turner, R. E., Warn- er, K. and Wyse1, D. (2007). Sustainable develop- ment of the agricultural bio-economy. Science 316, 15.6.2007: 1570-1571. Kautto, N. and McCormick, K. (2013). The bioeconomy in Europe: An overview. Sustainability 5: 2589-2608. Kircher, M. (2012). The transition to a bio-economy: national perspectives. Biofuels, Bioproducts & Biore- finery 6: 240-245. Kirchherr J, Reike D, Hekkert M (2017) Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resource Conservation and Recycling 127:221-232 Kitchen, L. and Marsden, T. (2011). Constructing sus- tainable communities: A theoretical exploration of the bio-economy and eco-economy paradigms. Local Environment 16 (8): 753-769. Kroger, M. and Raitio, K. (2017). Finnish forest policy in the era of bioeconomy: A pathway to sustainability. Forest Policy & Economics 77: 6-15. Kumar, V.T.M. (ed). (2017). Smart economy in smart cit- ies. Singapore: Springer. Kuosmanen, T., Kuosmanen, N., El-Meligi, A., Ronzon, T., Gurria, P., Iost, S., and M’Barek, R. (2020). How big is the bioeconomy? Reflections from an economic perspective, European Commission Joint Research Centre Technical Report, EUR 30167 EN, Brussels. Larsen, L.T. (2007). Speaking truth to biopower. Distink- tion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory 8 (1): 9-24. Laserre, B., Marchetti, M., Sallustio, L., Tavone, A. and Vizzarri, M. (2014). Natural capital and bioeconomy: challenges and opportunities for forestry. Annals for Silvicultural Research 38(2): 62-73. Latouche, S. (2009). A Farewell to Growth (translated by D.Macey). Cambridge UK: Polity Press. Le Heron, R. and Winder, G.M. (2017). Assembling a Blue Economy moment? Geographic engagement with globalizing biological-economic relations in multi-use marine environments. Dialogues in Human Geography 7 (1): 3-26. Lee, K.H., Noh, J. and Kim, J.S. (2020). The Blue Econo- my and the United Nations’ sustainable development goals: Challenges and opportunities. Environment International 137: 105528. Levidow, L. (2015). European transitions towards a cor- porate-environmental food regime: Agroecologi- cal incorporation or contestation? . Journal of Rural Studies 40: 76-89. Levidow, L, Padel, S. and Schmith, O. (2012). The bio- economy concept and knowledge-base in a public goods and farmer perspective. Bio-based and Applied Economics (BAE) 1 (1): 47-63. Lewandowski, I. (2015). Securing a sustainable biomass supply in a growing bioeconomy. Global Food Secu- rity 6: 34-42. Lewandowski, I., Gaudet, N., Lask, J., Maier, J., Tchouga, B., and Vargas-Carpintero, R. (2018). Introduction. In: Lewandowski Iris (ed.). 2018. Bioeconomy – Shap- ing the transition to a sustainable, biobased economy. Stuttgart: University of Hohenheim & Springer: 1-2. Lewandowski, I. (ed.). (2018). Bioeconomy – Shaping the transition to a sustainable, biobased economy. Stutt- 303Understanding the bioeconomy: a new sustainability economy in British and European public discourse Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 283-304, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-9534 gart: University of Hohenheim & Springer. Lieder, M. and Rashid, A. (2016). Towards circular econ- omy implementation: a comprehensive review in context of manufacturing industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 115:36-51. Lyu, P.H., Ngai, E.W.T. and Wu, P.Y. (2019). Scientific data-driven evaluation on academic articles of low- carbon economy. Energy Policy, 125: 358-367. Martinez-Torres, M.-E. and Rosset, P.M. (2012). Rural social movements and agroecology: Context, theory and process. Ecology & Society 17 (3): 17-28. Mathews, J.A. and Tan, H. (2011). Progress Toward a Cir- cular Economy in China - The Drivers (and Inhibi- tors) of Eco-industrial Initiative. Journal of Industrial Ecology 15 (3): 435-457. Merino-Saum, A., Clement, J., Wyss, R. and Baldi, M.G. (2020). Unpacking the Green Economy concept: A quantitative analysis of 140 definitions. Journal of Cleaner Production 242: 118339. Ministère de l’ Agriculture et de l’ Alimentation [Minis- try of Agriculture and Food] (2017). A bioeconomy strategy for France. Paris. Mohr, A. and Raman, S. (2013). Lessons from first gener- ation biofuels and implications for the sustainability appraisal of second generation biofuels. Energy Policy 63: 114-122. Mustalahti, I. (2018). The responsive bioeconomy: The need for inclusion of citizens and environmental capability in the forest-based bioeconomy. Journal of Cleaner Production 172: 3781-3790. Neef, D., Siesfeld, G.A. and Cefola, J. (editors) (1998). The economic impact of knowledge. Boston-Oxford: But- terworth-Heinemann. OECD. (2002). Frascati Manual – Proposed standard practice on research and experimental development. Paris: OECD. OECD. (2005). Oslo Manual – Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data. Paris: OECD. OECD. (2006). The bioeconomy to 2030 – Designing a policy agenda. Paris: OECD. OECD. (2009). The bioeconomy to 2030 – Designing a policy agenda. Paris: OECD. OECD. (2018). Meeting policy challenges for a sustain- able bioeconomy. Paris: OECD. OECD, European Commission and Eurostat. (1997). Oslo Manual – Proposed guidelines for collecting and interpreting technological innovation data. Paris: OECD. Olssen, M. and Peters, M.A. (2005). Neoliberalism, high- er education and the knowledge economy: from the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Edu- cation Policy 20 (3): 313-345. Olikainen, M. (2014). Forestry in bioeconomy – smart green growth for the humankind. Scandinavian Jour- nal of Forest Research 29 (4): 360-366. Passet, R. (2012). The bioeconomy, a world to be reinvent- ed [in French]. Ecologie & Politique 2 (45): 83-91. Pavone, V. (2012). Science, neoliberalism and the bio- economy [in Spanish]. Revista CTS – Revista Iber- oamericana de Ciencia, Tecnologia y Sociedad 7 (20): 145-161. Pearce D.W. and Barbier E.B. (2000). Blueprint for a sus- tainable economy. London: Earthscan. Pulzl, H. and Ramcilovic – Suominen, S. (2018). Sustain- able development – A “selling point” of the emerging EU bioeconomy policy framework. Journal of Cleaner Production 172: 4170-4180. Ruhlandt, R.W.S. (2018). The governance of smart cities: A systematic literature review. Cities, 81: 1-23. Sariatli, F. (2017). Linear economy versus circular econo- my. A comparative and analyzer study for optimiza- tion of economy for sustainability. Visegrad Journal on Bioeconomy and Sustainable Development 6 (1): 31-34. Sauvee, L. and Viaggi, D. (2016). Biorefineries in the bio- based economy: Opportunities and challenges for economic research. Bio-based and Applied Economics 5 (1): 1-4. Smith-Godfrey, S. (2016). Defining the Blue Economy, Maritime Affairs: Journal of the National Maritime Foundation of India 12(1): 58-64. Stern, N. (2007): The economics of climate change – The Stern Review. London: Cabinet Office - HM Treasury. Styhre, A. and Sundgren, M. (2011). Venturing into the bioeconomy – Professions, innovations, identity. Bas- ingstoke & New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Szekacs, A. (2017). Environmental and ecological aspects in the overall assessment of bioeconomy. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 30 (1): 153-170. Taiwo, A.M. (2011). Composting as a sustainable waste management technique in developing countries. Journal of Environmental Science & Technology 4 (2): 93-102. US Department of Energy. (2016). 2016 Billion-ton Report: Advancing domestic resources for a thriv- ing bioeconomy, vol 1: Economic availability of feedstocks. Led by M.H.Langholtz, B.J. Stokes & L.M.Eaton. ORNL/TM-2016/160. Oak Ridge TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. UNEP. (2009). Rethinking the Economic Recovery: A Global Green New Deal. Report prepared by E.Barbier. Geneva: UNEP. UNCTAD. (2014). The oceans economy: Opportunities and challenges for small island developing states. New York & Geneva: United Nations. 304 Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 283-304, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-9534 Irene Sotiropoulou, Pauline Deutz University of York. (2017). The bioeconomy of the North of England. Full report, August 2017. York: Univer- sity of York. Viaggi, D. (2016). Towards an economics of the bioec- onomy: four years later (Editorial). Bio-based and Applied Economics 5 (2): 101-112. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our common future. Oslo, 20 March 1987. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/ content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf Zhang, X.Z. (2010). China in the transition to a low-car- bon economy. Energy Policy 38: 6638-6653. Volume 10, Issue 4 - 2021 Firenze University Press The effect of attribute framing on consumers’ attitudes and intentions toward food: A Meta-analysis Irina Dolgopolova, Bingqing Li, Helena Pirhonen, Jutta Roosen* Rural areas between locality and global networks. Local development mechanisms and the role of policies empowering rural actors Francesco Mantino Understanding the bioeconomy: a new sustainability economy in British and European public discourse Irene Sotiropoulou1, Pauline Deutz2 Sustainable water resources management under population growth and agricultural development in the Kheirabad river basin, Iran Ghasem Layani1,*, Mohammad Bakhshoodeh2, Mansour Zibaei2, Davide Viaggi3 The distributors’ view on US wine consumer preferences. A discrete choice experiment Lina Lourenço-Gomes, Tânia Gonçalves*, João Rebelo