“…Such assumptions about sustainability and a tendency not to problematise it are deep-rooted, and also present in the sustainability transitions literature (see Susur & Karakaya, 2021). However, it is also well-established in the case of bio-based technologies that this assumption of sustainability is flawed (Escobar & Laibach, 2021;French, 2019;Matthews, Cizauskas, et al, 2019;Ögmundarson et al, 2020). More generally, transitioning to a more transformational framing of innovation policy and redressing the deeply embedded unsustainable directionality of present socio-technical change is likely to need more fundamental embedding of these new ambitions within policy strategies, objectives, plans, and instruments (Schot & Kanger, 2018;Schot & Steinmueller, 2018).…”
Policy interventions in support of emerging technologies are often justified through their potential to support sustainability transitions. Synthetic biology is one such technology with potential applications across a wide range of sectors with promised sustainability benefits. Over the past decade, the field in the UK has been subject to active policy intervention and support. This article explores the role played by the sustainability agenda in policy debates and the policy mix in support of this emerging field in the UK. Through an exploratory case study approach, I describe the processes through which synthetic biology came to be the subject of policy intervention where wider sustainability goals were situated as subsidiary to the commercialisation agenda. Analysis of the policy mix reveals how this has fed through into a supply-side bias with limited consideration given to actively create or stimulate demand for sustainable synthetic biology applications. These features, combined with limited capacity for anticipation and monitoring, are likely to limit the capacity of the field to drive socio-technical transformation due to a lack of attention to policy coordination, reflexivity, and directionality.
“…Such assumptions about sustainability and a tendency not to problematise it are deep-rooted, and also present in the sustainability transitions literature (see Susur & Karakaya, 2021). However, it is also well-established in the case of bio-based technologies that this assumption of sustainability is flawed (Escobar & Laibach, 2021;French, 2019;Matthews, Cizauskas, et al, 2019;Ögmundarson et al, 2020). More generally, transitioning to a more transformational framing of innovation policy and redressing the deeply embedded unsustainable directionality of present socio-technical change is likely to need more fundamental embedding of these new ambitions within policy strategies, objectives, plans, and instruments (Schot & Kanger, 2018;Schot & Steinmueller, 2018).…”
Policy interventions in support of emerging technologies are often justified through their potential to support sustainability transitions. Synthetic biology is one such technology with potential applications across a wide range of sectors with promised sustainability benefits. Over the past decade, the field in the UK has been subject to active policy intervention and support. This article explores the role played by the sustainability agenda in policy debates and the policy mix in support of this emerging field in the UK. Through an exploratory case study approach, I describe the processes through which synthetic biology came to be the subject of policy intervention where wider sustainability goals were situated as subsidiary to the commercialisation agenda. Analysis of the policy mix reveals how this has fed through into a supply-side bias with limited consideration given to actively create or stimulate demand for sustainable synthetic biology applications. These features, combined with limited capacity for anticipation and monitoring, are likely to limit the capacity of the field to drive socio-technical transformation due to a lack of attention to policy coordination, reflexivity, and directionality.
“…The cluster on biofuels covers research on the environmental impacts that occur during biofuel production. For instance, the advantage of reducing greenhouse gas emissions compared to fossil fuels appears clear, although when compared to other sources of energy, this impact remains uncertain [ 72 ]. However, multiple studies have attempted to identify the best bio-refinery process and mechanisms to mitigate such impacts [ 73 ] or explore the types of biofuels that are better under different conditions [ 74 ].…”
This article reviews literature on manufacturing enterprise performance (MEP) and environmental sustainability (ES) to identify their commonalities and distinguishing factors; it is expected to help determine gaps and paths for future research. Topics are classified based on patterns in the citation networks of 7308 and 6275 MEP and ES articles, respectively. Additionally, a semantic linkage was computed to reveal overlap in vocabulary between the two topics. A total of 17 and 21 topics were found in MEP and ES, respectively, where the main shared theme was the green supply chain. However, research on biofuels is unique to ES, and privatization is unique to MEP, among others. The concept of “performance” has also been covered by MEP and ES researchers. This article provides an objective snapshot of current research trends based on quantitative data, and the findings may be used to guide future research directions at the intersection of MEP and ES.
“…as a result of combustion and re-release to the atmosphere) [57–59]. However, time separation between carbon uptake and release in end-of-life treatments can be long and the accounting of biogenic carbon storage depends on the product's durability but also on the land management practices used in generating the feedstock [32]. Figure 1The cone of possible futures and different types of futures and pathways (left hand side fig: [55]; right hand side fig: [56]).…”
Section: Land Use and Biomass Productionmentioning
The role of life cycle assessment (LCA) in informing the development of a sustainable and circular bioeconomy is discussed. We analyse the critical challenges remaining in using LCA and propose improvements needed to resolve future development challenges. Biobased systems are often complex combinations of technologies and practices that are geographically dispersed over long distances and with heterogeneous and uncertain sets of indicators and impacts. Recent studies have provided methodological suggestions on how LCA can be improved for evaluating the sustainability of biobased systems with a new focus on emerging systems, helping to identify environmental and social opportunities prior to large R&D investments. However, accessing economies of scale and improved conversion efficiencies while maintaining compatibility across broad ranges of sustainability indicators and public acceptability remain key challenges for the bioeconomy. LCA can inform, but not by itself resolve this complex dimension of sustainability. Future policy interventions that aim to promote the bioeconomy and support strategic value chains will benefit from the systematic use of LCA. However, the LCA community needs to develop the mechanisms and tools needed to generate agreement and coordinate the standards and incentives that will underpin a successful biobased transition. Systematic stakeholder engagement and the use of multidisciplinary analysis in combination with LCA are essential components of emergent LCA methods.
This article is part of the theme issue ‘Bio-derived and bioinspired sustainable advanced materials for emerging technologies (part 1)’.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
