More than forty states worldwide currently pursue explicit political strategies to expand and promote their bioeconomies. This paper assesses these strategies in the context of the global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Our theoretical framework differentiates between four pathways of bioeconomic developments. The extent to which bioeconomic developments along these pathways lead to increased sustainability depends on the creation of effective governance mechanisms. We distinguish between enabling governance and constraining governance as the two fundamental political challenges in setting up an effective governance framework for a sustainable bioeconomy. Further, we lay out a taxonomy of political support measures (enabling governance) and regulatory tools (constraining governance) that states can use to confront these two political challenges. Guided by this theoretical framework, we conduct a qualitative content analysis of 41 national bioeconomy strategies to provide systematic answers to the question of how well designed the individual national bioeconomy strategies are to ensure the rise of a sustainable bioeconomy.

Economic sectors relying on the use of biological organisms, processes, and principles to create products and services are expected to experience accelerated growth due to innovation in the bioeconomy. Associated benefits and risks for sustainable development are increasingly subject to societal debate. We compiled expectation patterns from a global survey with bioeconomy experts and a systematic literature review identifying areas of consensus and controversy across dimensions of the sustainable development goals (SDG). Positive connotations dominated in both expert opinions and the scientific literature, but the level of consensus varied across sectors of the bioeconomy and in relation to applied methodological approaches (scientific literature) and type of employer (experts). In both sources, we found more differentiated views on potential impacts of bioeconomic development pathways on sustainability in more established bioeconomy-related discourses, which indicates that expectation patterns in more recent fields of bio-based innovation are subject to early "hype cycle" dynamics. Our findings suggest the need to systematically mainstream sustainability risk appraisals across relevant application contexts in technology impact assessments for the bioeconomy.

Fostering genuinely inclusive participation is challenging, whether the targets are within higher education or extend to other aspects of society. This brief paper addresses three challenges to broadening participation: arriving at a definition of participation, understanding the significance of representation, probing power relations that provide the context within which participation occurs.

Countries around the world are devising and implementing bioeconomy strategies to initiate transformation towards sustainable futures. Modern concepts of bioeconomy extend beyond bio-based energy provision and include: (1) the substitution of fossil resource-based inputs to various productive sectors, such as the chemical industry and the construction sector, (2) more efficient, including new and cascading uses of biomass, and (3) a low bulk, but high-value biologisation of processes in agro-food, pharmaceutical, and recycling industries. Outcomes of past attempts at engineering transformation, however, proved to be context-dependent and contingent on appropriate governance measures. In this paper we theoretically motivate and apply a system-level theory of change framework that identifies central mechanisms and four distinct pathways, through which bio-based transformation can generate positive or negative outcomes in multiple domains of the Sustainable Development Goals. Based on emblematic examples from three bio-based sectors, we apply the framework illustrating how case-specific mixes of transformation pathways emerge and translate into outcomes. We find that the observed mixes of transformation pathways evoke distinct mechanisms that link bioeconomic change to sustainability gains and losses. Based on this insight we derive four key lessons that can help to inform the design of strategies to enable and regulate sustainable bioeconomies.

No abstract