2021
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-68944-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Bioeconomy and Global Inequalities

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…LVL seems to have a way better social sustainability, having a look at the indicator data and inventory, this is mainly due to the less toxicity of materials, impacts on humans and their working environments, but also higher expenditures for social security and education as well as a lower gender wage gap. However, backed up by literature (Backhouse et al 2021), we suggest that the different technical production processes are not the main cause, but the far more global distribution of primary production chains and thereby externalization of social deprivations is much higher in the steel industry, and globalized BE would have such negative externalized effects likewise. When looking at f ecological = 1.01 , we expect a quite limited better ecological sustainability, which is foremost because of the high land use (change) effects of forestry in a way compensating the significant GWP savings and much lower ecotoxicity.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 76%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…LVL seems to have a way better social sustainability, having a look at the indicator data and inventory, this is mainly due to the less toxicity of materials, impacts on humans and their working environments, but also higher expenditures for social security and education as well as a lower gender wage gap. However, backed up by literature (Backhouse et al 2021), we suggest that the different technical production processes are not the main cause, but the far more global distribution of primary production chains and thereby externalization of social deprivations is much higher in the steel industry, and globalized BE would have such negative externalized effects likewise. When looking at f ecological = 1.01 , we expect a quite limited better ecological sustainability, which is foremost because of the high land use (change) effects of forestry in a way compensating the significant GWP savings and much lower ecotoxicity.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 76%
“…We also see that processes based on renewable resources in specific regions do not only have a better ecological, but also better social and economic sustainability and that there seem to be synergies between these aspects of sustainability. However, the dependency of sustainability from regions does not only apply to fossil industries, but bioeconomy can be very unsustainable as well when renewable material flows reproduce global social and economic inequalities and externalization of effects of sourcing and production (Backhouse et al 2021;Eversberg and Holz 2020;Asada et al 2020). In this regard, we see a high potential for regional, holistic, and integrated HILCSA: to not only identify trade-offs or synergies between different aspects of sustainability but also in shifting them to other regions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Processes based on renewable resources in specific regions do not only have a better ecological, but also better social and economic sustainability as synergies. However, the dependency on sustainability from regions does not only apply to fossil industries, but BE can be very unsustainable when renewable material flows reproduce global social and economic inequalities and externalization of effects of sourcing and production (Asada et al 2020;Backhouse et al 2021;Eversberg and Holz 2020).…”
Section: Operationalization and First Results Of Hilcsa Case Study On...mentioning
confidence: 99%