IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v110y2020ics1389934118301722.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Riding a Trojan horse? Future pathways of the fiber-based packaging industry in the bioeconomy

Author

Listed:
  • Korhonen, J.
  • Koskivaara, A.
  • Toppinen, A.

Abstract

The successful implementation of national bioeconomy strategies requires that various actor groups accept the concept and have similar visions for its future development. We use the fiber-based packaging sector to assess the understanding and perception concerning the definition of bioeconomy and its' future pathways. This is accomplished through a qualitative analysis of 14 thematic interviews conducted with actor network members in Finland. Regarding the concept of bioeconomy, their opinions differ broadly, ranging from seeing the concept as a Trojan horse, i.e. a new term for driving old political agendas, to a totally new way of organizing a sustainable future. We identified two alternative bioeconomy visions, of which the socio-ecological one is highlighted slightly more frequently, embedding the implementation of a circular economy and aiming at decoupling resource use from the economic benefits. Additionally, few interviewees considered the technological development pathway with increased resource efficiency to be a more likely outcome for the fiber-based packaging business. However, the simultaneous development of these two paths is envisaged most frequently, indicating that both social and technological innovations are mutually needed to create more sustainable packaging production and consumption patterns. We identified three characteristics of sustainable packaging: compatibility with the circular production-consumption system, satisfying heterogeneous consumer needs, and supporting sustainable lifestyles by extended material life cycles.

Suggested Citation

  • Korhonen, J. & Koskivaara, A. & Toppinen, A., 2020. "Riding a Trojan horse? Future pathways of the fiber-based packaging industry in the bioeconomy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:110:y:2020:i:c:s1389934118301722
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2018.08.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934118301722
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.08.010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Elisa Monnot & Fanny Reniou & Béatrice Parguel & Leila Elgaaied-Gambier, 2019. "“Thinking Outside the Packaging Box”: Should Brands Consider Store Shelf Context When Eliminating Overpackaging?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(2), pages 355-370, January.
    2. Joonas Rokka & Liisa Uusitalo, 2008. "Preference for green packaging in consumer product choices : Do consumers care?," Post-Print hal-02313351, HAL.
    3. Toppinen, Anne & Röhr, Axel & Pätäri, Satu & Lähtinen, Katja & Toivonen, Ritva, 2018. "The future of wooden multistory construction in the forest bioeconomy – A Delphi study from Finland and Sweden," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 3-10.
    4. Pätäri, Satu & Tuppura, Anni & Toppinen, Anne & Korhonen, Jaana, 2016. "Global sustainability megaforces in shaping the future of the European pulp and paper industry towards a bioeconomy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 38-46.
    5. Rolf Meyer, 2017. "Bioeconomy Strategies: Contexts, Visions, Guiding Implementation Principles and Resulting Debates," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-32, June.
    6. Swinda F. Pfau & Janneke E. Hagens & Ben Dankbaar & Antoine J. M. Smits, 2014. "Visions of Sustainability in Bioeconomy Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-28, March.
    7. John Bryden & Stig S. Gezelius & Karen Refsgaard & Judith Sutz, 2017. "Inclusive innovation in the bioeconomy: concepts and directions for research," Innovation and Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 1-16, January.
    8. Klaiman, Kimberly & Ortega, David L. & Garnache, Cloé, 2016. "Consumer preferences and demand for packaging material and recyclability," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 1-8.
    9. Yu-Shan Chen & Shu-Tzu Hung & Ting-Yu Wang & A-Fen Huang & Yen-Wen Liao, 2017. "The Influence of Excessive Product Packaging on Green Brand Attachment: The Mediation Roles of Green Brand Attitude and Green Brand Image," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-15, April.
    10. 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.
    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. Giurca, Alexandru & Befort, Nicolas, 2023. "Deconstructing substitution narratives: The case of bioeconomy innovations from the forest-based sector," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    2. Gebara, Maria Fernanda & Ramcilovic-Suominen, Sabaheta & Schmidlehner, Michael Franz, 2023. "Indigenous Knowledge in the Amazon's Bioeconomy: Unveiling Bioepistemicide through the case of Kambo Medicine," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    3. G. Venkatesh, 2022. "Circular Bio-economy—Paradigm for the Future: Systematic Review of Scientific Journal Publications from 2015 to 2021," Circular Economy and Sustainability,, Springer.

    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. Ziynet Boz & Virpi Korhonen & Claire Koelsch Sand, 2020. "Consumer Considerations for the Implementation of Sustainable Packaging: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-34, March.
    2. Martinez-Carrasco Martínez, Laura & Brugarolas Mollá-Bauzá, Margarita & Gascón Mora,Andrea, 2020. "A consumer behaviour approach to analyse the sustainability of food purchasing," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 20(02), December.
    3. Andrew M. Neill & Cathal O’Donoghue & Jane C. Stout, 2020. "A Natural Capital Lens for a Sustainable Bioeconomy: Determining the Unrealised and Unrecognised Services from Nature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-24, September.
    4. Leire Barañano & Naroa Garbisu & Itziar Alkorta & Andrés Araujo & Carlos Garbisu, 2021. "Contextualization of the Bioeconomy Concept through Its Links with Related Concepts and the Challenges Facing Humanity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-18, July.
    5. Stefan Bößner & Francis X. Johnson & Zoha Shawoo, 2020. "Governing the Bioeconomy: What Role for International Institutions?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-24, December.
    6. Juha Peltomaa, 2018. "Drumming the Barrels of Hope? Bioeconomy Narratives in the Media," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-14, November.
    7. Durwin H.J. Lynch & Pim Klaassen & Lan van Wassenaer & Jacqueline E.W. Broerse, 2020. "Constructing the Public in Roadmapping the Transition to a Bioeconomy: A Case Study from the Netherlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, April.
    8. Carmen Priefer & Rolf Meyer, 2019. "One Concept, Many Opinions: How Scientists in Germany Think About the Concept of Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-21, August.
    9. 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.
    10. Sanz-Hernández, Alexia & Jiménez-Caballero, Paula & Zarauz, Irene, 2022. "Gender and women in scientific literature on bioeconomy: A systematic review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    11. Hurmekoski, Elias & Lovrić, Marko & Lovrić, Nataša & Hetemäki, Lauri & Winkel, Georg, 2019. "Frontiers of the forest-based bioeconomy – A European Delphi study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 86-99.
    12. Marianne Duquenne & Hélène Prost & Joachim Schöpfel & Franck Dumeignil, 2020. "Open Bioeconomy—A Bibliometric Study on the Accessibility of Articles in the Field of Bioeconomy," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-33, December.
    13. Jochen Dürr & Marcelo Sili, 2022. "New or Traditional Approaches in Argentina’s Bioeconomy? Biomass and Biotechnology Use, Local Embeddedness, and Sustainability Outcomes of Bioeconomic Ventures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-28, November.
    14. Franz Grossauer & Gernot Stoeglehner, 2020. "Bioeconomy—Spatial Requirements for Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-28, March.
    15. Tina Highfill & Matthew Chambers, 2023. "Developing a National Measure of the Economic Contributions of the Bioeconomy," BEA Working Papers 0206, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
    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. Sven Wydra, 2019. "Value Chains for Industrial Biotechnology in the Bioeconomy-Innovation System Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-16, April.
    18. Xuezhou Wen & Daniel Quacoe & Dinah Quacoe & Kingsley Appiah & Bertha Ada Danso, 2019. "Analysis on Bioeconomy’s Contribution to GDP: Evidence from Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, January.
    19. 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.
    20. Sebastian Hinderer & Leif Brändle & Andreas Kuckertz, 2021. "Transition to a Sustainable Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-16, July.

    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:eee:forpol:v:110:y:2020:i:c:s1389934118301722. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    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.