Trustworthiness and Responsible Research and Innovation: The Case of the Bio-Economy

Asveld, Lotte; Ganzevles, Jurgen; Osseweijer, Patrícia

doi:10.1007/s10806-015-9542-2

Cited by 62 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(21 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…According to McCormick, a combination of consumer information that informs on the advantages of bio-based products and possibilities for participation by citizens and civil society organizations in the implementation process should be provided [109]. There are different proposals for achieving successful participation, such as the creation of transparency and equal levels of knowledge, building trust between stakeholders, a willingness to critically reflect opposing positions, and early conflict management (e.g., [34,110]). However, these approaches have not been implemented in the context of the bioeconomy up to now.…”

Section: Priority Setting In Research Funding and Involvement Of Stakmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pathways to Shape the Bioeconomy

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In view of the increasing depletion of fossil fuel resources, the concept "bioeconomy" aims at the gradual replacement of fossil fuels by renewable feedstock. Seen as a comprehensive societal transition, the bioeconomy is a complex field that includes a variety of sectors, actors, and interests and is related to far-reaching changes in today's production systems. While the objectives pursued-such as reducing dependence on fossil fuels, mitigating climate change, ensuring global food security, and increasing the industrial use of biogenic resources-are not generally contentious, there is fierce controversy over the possible pathways for achieving these objectives. Based on a thorough literature review, the article identifies major lines of conflict in the current discourse. Criticism of the prevalent concept refers mainly to the strong focus on technology, the lack of consideration given to alternative implementation pathways, the insufficient differentiation of underlying sustainability requirements, and the inadequate participation of societal stakeholders. Since today it cannot be predicted which pathway will be the most expedient-the one already being taken or one of the others proposed-this paper suggests pursuing a strategy of diversity concerning the approaches to shape the bioeconomy, the funding of research topics, and the involvement of stakeholders.

show abstract

Section: Priority Setting In Research Funding and Involvement Of Stakmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pathways to Shape the Bioeconomy

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We chose the single case of Park Cuijk, which can be justified by the fact that our study has several elements of what Yin calls a 'revelatory case' ( [46], p. 40), meaning that the phenomenon investigated was previously inaccessible to scientific investigation. 2 An extensive literature review to justify a claim that our case is unique was beyond the scope of our study, but we know that the envisioned scheme for smart use of biomass in our case study is unprecedented in The Netherlands, as it probably also is in the European context, in terms of the number and the rich diversity of steps involved in cascaded biomass uses that are envisaged. No publications on similar case studies have been identified.…”

Section: Single Case Study Approachmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…5 Such inter-firm trust is always important for innovative projects, but for smart biomass use this is even more so, because it often requires cooperation outside traditional value chains; the aim is to have sectors cooperate that used to be strangers to one another. In an emerging bioeconomy context, the enhancement of such trusting relationships, on the institutional, organisational and personal levels, is important to get the ball rolling [2].…”

Section: Comparison With Acceptance Of Renewable Energy Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2 The performance of the biomass plant at Cuijk has been studied by Dutch social scientists before, as part of a broader sample of case studies, but these scholars confined themselves to aspects of combined heat-power production instead of the broader smart biomass use principle we address in our paper. Furthermore, they report limited data availability on, among other aspects, social characteristics [31].…”

Section: Endnotesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Extending bioenergy towards smart biomass use Issues of social acceptance at Park Cuijk, The Netherlands

2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: While the share of bioenergy in the overall energy supply has increased over the last decade, its social acceptance is fragile, mainly due to concerns about negative sustainability impacts. In this paper, we will investigate to what extent the extension of bioenergy towards 'smart' or 'cascaded' biomass use enhances a project's social acceptance. Smart use involves the prioritised use of biomass for food and materials. Methods: We adopt an explorative single case study approach to investigate issues of social acceptance. Our case is the Biobased Economy Park at Cuijk, in The Netherlands. The central element in this project is the revival of an existing but off-line biopower plant. For the power company involved, the integration of biopower into a broader smart use scheme, involving several new business partners, is a strategy to make the exploitation of the plant profitable again. For the data collection, we used interviews, as well as information provided by members of our expert panel, in addition to information collected from websites and provided at a bioeconomy event. The data was analysed by taking existing conceptual work on the social acceptance of renewable energy innovation as a guide. Results: We found that issues of social acceptance changed rather than diminished when entrepreneurs extended a project's focus from biopower to smart biomass use. This change can be observed in relation to all three conceptual categories: market acceptance, sociopolitical acceptance and community acceptance. Conclusions: We conclude that the extension from bioenergy towards smart biomass use does not necessarily enhance a project's social acceptance. Compared to the social acceptance of renewable energy innovation, the social acceptance of smart biomass use is fuzzier, more open to recursive patterns and more dependent upon inter-firm trust. Importantly, embracing the principle of smart biomass use instigates the question of how biomass use can be optimised-either with or without purposes related to energy. We suggest further comparative case study research into the social acceptance dynamics of smart biomass use, for which we identify the following variables as relevant: the type of bioenergy, the sector that takes the initiative, the greenfield character of the project and the complexity of the smart use scheme.

show abstract

“…A means to overcome these conflicts and consequent public distrust has been proposed through the approach of responsible research and innovation (RRI) (Asveld et al 2015). If implemented universally RRI should provide transparency and responsiveness, and is also aimed to enhance public trustworthiness in socially sensitive issues involving bioeconomy and other technologies.…”

Section: Environmental and Ecological Aspects In The Overall…mentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental and Ecological Aspects in the Overall Assessment of Bioeconomy

Székacs

2017

J Agric Environ Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bioeconomy solutions potentially reduce the utilization demand of natural resources, and therefore, represent steps towards circular economy, but are not per se equivalent to sustainability. Thus, production may remain to be achieved against losses in natural resources or at other environmental costs, and materials produced by bioeconomy are not necessarily biodegradable. As a consequence, the assumption that emerging bioeconomy by itself provides an environmentally sustainable economy is not justified, as technologies do not necessarily become sustainable merely through their conversion to using renewable resources for their production. A source of the above assumption is that the utility of bioeconomy is mostly assessed in interaction between technology developers and economists, resulting in biased assessment with private commercial technology benefits being included, but environmental costs, especially longer term ones, not being sufficiently considered in the economic models. A possible solution to this conceptual contradiction may come from bioethics, as a strong concept in environmental ethics is that no technological intervention can be imposed on nature beyond its receptive capacity. To achieve a better balanced analysis of bioeconomy, environmental and ecological, as well as non-economic social aspects, need to be included in the overall assessment.

show abstract

Trustworthiness and Responsible Research and Innovation: The Case of the Bio-Economy

Cited by 62 publications

References 18 publications

Pathways to Shape the Bioeconomy

Pathways to Shape the Bioeconomy

Extending bioenergy towards smart biomass use Issues of social acceptance at Park Cuijk, The Netherlands

Environmental and Ecological Aspects in the Overall Assessment of Bioeconomy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About