IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i15p8308-d601304.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Strategic Challenges for Sustainable Governance of the Bioeconomy: Preventing Conflict between SDGs

Author

Listed:
  • Yuliia Maksymiv

    (Department of Accounting and Taxation, Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University, 76018 Ivano-Frankivsk, Ukraine)

  • Valentyna Yakubiv

    (Department of Management and Business Administration, Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University, 76018 Ivano-Frankivsk, Ukraine)

  • Nadia Pylypiv

    (Department of Theoretical and Applied Economics, Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University, 76018 Ivano-Frankivsk, Ukraine)

  • Iryna Hryhoruk

    (Department of Management and Business Administration, Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University, 76018 Ivano-Frankivsk, Ukraine)

  • Iryna Piatnychuk

    (Department of Management and Business Administration, Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University, 76018 Ivano-Frankivsk, Ukraine)

  • Nazariy Popadynets

    (Institute of Enterprise and Advanced Technologies Lviv Polytechnic National University, 79057 Lviv, Ukraine)

Abstract

The paper analyzes approaches to understanding the concept of the bioeconomy in highly cited journals, and bioeconomy strategies in associations of countries (the OECD and EU) and at the national level. Strategic challenges for sustainable bioeconomy governance are identified and an understanding of this concept is presented. The main aims, such as decoupling, the use of biotechnology, the use of sustainable biomass in the production process, and a high level of corporate social responsibility, are proposed for the identification of industries related to the bioeconomy. Specific goal achievement within the bioeconomy strategy and possible risks of conflict between SDGs are presented in the model. The bioeconomy should be considered a tool for achieving SDGs; the most relevant being 2, 3, 7, 9, 12, and 13–15. However, the achievement of bioeconomy goals can lead to a conflict between SDGs in practice. Therefore, this aspect must be taken into account at the stage of developing bioeconomy strategy and regulated in governance, to prevent conflicts between SDGs and to involve citizens and stakeholders in participating consciously in this process.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuliia Maksymiv & Valentyna Yakubiv & Nadia Pylypiv & Iryna Hryhoruk & Iryna Piatnychuk & Nazariy Popadynets, 2021. "Strategic Challenges for Sustainable Governance of the Bioeconomy: Preventing Conflict between SDGs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-12, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:15:p:8308-:d:601304
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/15/8308/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/15/8308/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark W. Rosegrant & Claudia Ringler & Tingju Zhu & Simla Tokgoz & Prapti Bhandary, 2013. "Water and food in the bioeconomy: challenges and opportunities for development," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 44(s1), pages 139-150, November.
    2. Yuichi Tei & Gheorghe Savoiu, 2018. "From Bioeconomics to Bioeconopysis in the Context of (Bio)Diversity and Modern Morality," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 20(49), pages 754-754, August.
    3. repec:aud:audfin:v:20:y:2018:i:49:p:754 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Louise Staffas & Mathias Gustavsson & Kes McCormick, 2013. "Strategies and Policies for the Bioeconomy and Bio-Based Economy: An Analysis of Official National Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(6), pages 1-19, June.
    5. Kes McCormick & Niina Kautto, 2013. "The Bioeconomy in Europe: An Overview," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(6), pages 1-20, June.
    6. Andrii O. Boiar & Tetiana O. Shmatkovska & Olena V. Stashchuk, 2018. "Towards the theory of supranational finance," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 1482594-148, January.
    7. Johan Swinnen & Olivia Riera, 2013. "The global bio-economy," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 44(s1), pages 1-5, November.
    8. World Commission on Environment and Development,, 1987. "Our Common Future," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780192820808.
    9. Roxana Bobulescu, 2012. "The making of a Schumpeterian economist: Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(4), pages 625-651, August.
    10. Cleveland, Cutler J. & Ruth, Matthias, 1997. "When, where, and by how much do biophysical limits constrain the economic process?: A survey of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen's contribution to ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 203-223, September.
    11. Kurz, Heinz D. & Salvadori, Neri, 2003. "Fund-flow versus flow-flow in production theory: Reflections on Georgescu-Roegen's contribution," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(4), pages 487-505, August.
    12. Thomas Dietz & Jan Börner & Jan Janosch Förster & Joachim Von Braun, 2018. "Governance of the Bioeconomy: A Global Comparative Study of National Bioeconomy Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, September.
    13. Markus M. Bugge & Teis Hansen & Antje Klitkou, 2016. "What Is the Bioeconomy? A Review of the Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-22, July.
    14. Asada, Raphael & Stern, Tobias, 2018. "Competitive Bioeconomy? Comparing Bio-based and Non-bio-based Primary Sectors of the World," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 120-128.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yasmin Imparato Maximo & Mariana Hassegawa & Pieter Johannes Verkerk & André Luiz Missio, 2022. "Forest Bioeconomy in Brazil: Potential Innovative Products from the Forest Sector," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-24, August.
    2. Karpiak Maria & Duma Oleh & Halachenko Oleksandr & Sorokivska Olena & Zvirych Vitaliy & Drebot Oksana & Sakharnatska Liudmyla, 2023. "Development of Medical Infrastructure of Territorial Communities of Ukraine in the Conditions of Sectoral Reforms," Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development, Sciendo, vol. 45(3), pages 276-286, September.
    3. Christina-Ioanna Papadopoulou & Efstratios Loizou & Fotios Chatzitheodoridis, 2022. "Priorities in Bioeconomy Strategies: A Systematic Literature Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-15, October.
    4. Matteo Trane & Luisa Marelli & Alice Siragusa & Riccardo Pollo & Patrizia Lombardi, 2023. "Progress by Research to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals in the EU: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-37, April.
    5. Delia-Elena Diaconașu & Ionel Bostan & Cristina Căutișanu & Irina Chiriac, 2022. "Insights into the Sustainable Development of the Bioeconomy at the European Level, in the Context of the Desired Clean Environment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-14, September.
    6. Abbas Abdul, 2023. "Policy seduction and governance resistance? Examining public funding agencies and academic institutions on decarbonisation research," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(1), pages 87-101.
    7. Alina Yakymchuk & Oksana Kardash & Nazariy Popadynets & Valentyna Yakubiv & Yuliia Maksymiv & Iryna Hryhoruk & Taras Kotsko, 2022. "Modeling and Governance of the Country s Energy Security: The Example of Ukraine," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 12(5), pages 280-286, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Benoit Mougenot & Jean-Pierre Doussoulin, 2022. "Conceptual evolution of the bioeconomy: a bibliometric analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 1031-1047, January.
    2. George B. Frisvold & Steven M. Moss & Andrea Hodgson & Mary E. Maxon, 2021. "Understanding the U.S. Bioeconomy: A New Definition and Landscape," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-24, February.
    3. Walther Zeug & Alberto Bezama & Urs Moesenfechtel & Anne Jähkel & Daniela Thrän, 2019. "Stakeholders’ Interests and Perceptions of Bioeconomy Monitoring Using a Sustainable Development Goal Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-24, March.
    4. Christina-Ioanna Papadopoulou & Efstratios Loizou & Katerina Melfou & Fotios Chatzitheodoridis, 2021. "The Knowledge Based Agricultural Bioeconomy: A Bibliometric Network Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-15, October.
    5. Sotiropoulou, Irene & Deutz, Pauline, 2021. "Understanding the bioeconomy: a new sustainability economy in British and European public discourse," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 10(4), December.
    6. Andreas Nicolaidis Lindqvist & Sarah Broberg & Linda Tufvesson & Sammar Khalil & Thomas Prade, 2019. "Bio-Based Production Systems: Why Environmental Assessment Needs to Include Supporting Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-26, August.
    7. Lillian Hansen & Hilde Bjørkhaug, 2017. "Visions and Expectations for the Norwegian Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-17, February.
    8. Rolf Meyer, 2017. "Bioeconomy Strategies: Contexts, Visions, Guiding Implementation Principles and Resulting Debates," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-32, June.
    9. Aleksandar Grubor & Nikola Milicevic & Nenad Djokic, 2018. "Serbian Organic Food Consumer Research and Bioeconomy Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-12, December.
    10. Erik Gawel & Nadine Pannicke & Nina Hagemann, 2019. "A Path Transition Towards a Bioeconomy—The Crucial Role of Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-23, May.
    11. Franz Grossauer & Gernot Stoeglehner, 2020. "Bioeconomy—Spatial Requirements for Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-28, March.
    12. Vivien, F.-D. & Nieddu, M. & Befort, N. & Debref, R. & Giampietro, M., 2019. "The Hijacking of the Bioeconomy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 189-197.
    13. Daniela Pasnicu & Mihaela Ghenta & Aniela Matei, 2019. "Transition to Bioeconomy: Perceptions and Behaviors in Central and Eastern Europe," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 21(50), pages 1-9, February.
    14. Dan Costin Nițescu & Valentin Murgu, 2020. "The Bioeconomy and Foreign Trade in Food Products—A Sustainable Partnership at the European Level?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-20, March.
    15. Ayrapetyan, David & Hermans, Frans, 2020. "Introducing a multiscalar framework for biocluster research: A meta-analysis," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 12(9).
    16. Befort, N., 2020. "Going beyond definitions to understand tensions within the bioeconomy: The contribution of sociotechnical regimes to contested fields," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    17. Quentin Couix, 2019. "Natural resources in the theory of production: the Georgescu-Roegen/Daly versus Solow/Stiglitz controversy," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(6), pages 1341-1378, November.
    18. Lisa Biber-Freudenberger & Amit Kumar Basukala & Martin Bruckner & Jan Börner, 2018. "Sustainability Performance of National Bio-Economies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-20, August.
    19. Mónica Duque-Acevedo & Luis Jesús Belmonte-Ureña & Natalia Yakovleva & Francisco Camacho-Ferre, 2020. "Analysis of the Circular Economic Production Models and Their Approach in Agriculture and Agricultural Waste Biomass Management," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-32, December.
    20. Emilio Abad-Segura & Ana Batlles-delaFuente & Mariana-Daniela González-Zamar & Luis Jesús Belmonte-Ureña, 2021. "Implications for Sustainability of the Joint Application of Bioeconomy and Circular Economy: A Worldwide Trend Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-24, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:15:p:8308-:d:601304. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.