Advertisement

Kriterien für den Erfolg der Bioökonomie

  • Stefanie Bröring
  • Chad M. Baum
  • Olivier K. Butkowski
  • Manfred Kircher
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Der Übergang von der fossilbasierten Wirtschaft zur Bioökonomie wird viele Jahrzehnte dauern. In diesem Zeitraum stehen die meisten biobasierten Produkte im Wettbewerb mit fossil basierten und müssen kostenseitig mit diesen konkurrieren. Anders als die Ölförderung ist die Produktion von Biomasse aber jahreszeitlich begrenzt und auf sehr große Flächen verteilt. Das macht eine kostspielige Logistik erforderlich. Außerdem kann die heutige Landwirtschaft nur einen Teil des bioökonomischen Rohstoffbedarfs decken. Aber nicht nur preislich müssen bioökonomische Produkte die Märkte überzeugen. Auch als Innovationen, die in nachhaltige Stoff- und Energiekreisläufe eingebunden sind, müssen sie Akzeptanz finden. Dieses Kapitel stellt innovationstheoretisch und in zahlreichen praktischen Beispielen die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und die Kundenakzeptanz als die beiden zentralen Erfolgskriterien einer zukünftigen Bioökonomie vor.

Literatur

  1. Ajzen I (1985) From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhl J, Beckmann J (Hrsg) Action control: From cognition to behavior. Springer, Berlin, S 11–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajzen I (1991) Theory of planned behaviour. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50(2):179–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ajzen I (2001) Nature and operation of attitudes. Annu Rev Psychol 52(1):27–58CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Ajzen I, Madden TJ (1986) Prediction of Goal-Directed Behavior: Attitudes, Intentions, and Perceived Behavioral Control. J Exp Soc Psychol 22:453–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bamberg S, Möser G (2007) Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. J Environ Psychol 27(1):14–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bamberg S, Schmidt P (2003) Incentives, Morality, Or Habit? Predicting Students’ Car Use for University Routes with the Models of Ajzen, Schwartz, and Triandis. Environ Behav 35(2):264–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barney J (1991) Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. J Manage 17(1):99–120Google Scholar
  8. Beedell JDC, Rehman T (1999) Explaining farmers’ conservation behavior: Why do farmers behave the way they do? J Environ Manag 57:165–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. BMBF (2009) Kohlendioxid: die gemischte Bilanz der Landwirtschaft. http://www.pflanzenforschung.de/de/journal/journalbeitrage/kohlendioxid-die-gemischte-bilanz-der-landwirtschaft-10011. Zugegriffen: 11. Sept. 2016Google Scholar
  10. BMU, BMELV (2010) Nationaler Biomasseaktionsplan für Deutschland: Beitrag der Biomasse für eine nachhaltige Energieversorgung. Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (BMU) und Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz (BMELV), BerlinGoogle Scholar
  11. BMWi (2012) Energiestatistiken: Energiegewinnung und Energieverbrauch. Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (BMWi), Berlin (https://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Redaktion/PDF/E/energiestatistiken-energiegewinnung-energieverbrauch,property=pdf,bereich=bmwi2012,sprache=de,rwb=true.pdf)Google Scholar
  12. Boehlje M (2016) How might big data impact industry structure and enhance margins? Int Food Agribus Manag Rev 19(A):13–16Google Scholar
  13. Brewer JL, Blake AJ, Rankin SA, Douglass LW (1999) Theory of reasoned action predicts milk consumption in women. J Am Diet Assoc 99(1):39–44CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Cardello AV (2003) Consumer concerns and expectations about novel food processing technologies: effects on product liking. Appetite 40(3):217–233CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Carus M, Eder A, Beckmann J (2014) GreenPremium prices along the value chain of bio-based products. nova paper #3 on bio-based economy. Hürth. www.bio-based.eu/novapapers. Zugegriffen: 04.2014Google Scholar
  16. Christensen CM (1997) The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business School Press, Brighton, MAGoogle Scholar
  17. Conner M, Armitage CJ (1998) Theory of planned behavior: a review and avenues for further research. J Appl Soc Psychol 28:1429–1464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Corbion (2016) Carbon footprint: Emissions from production of common polymers (kg CO2 eq per kg polymer – cradle to gate). http://www.corbion.com/bioplastics/about-bioplastics/sustainability Google Scholar
  19. Cox DN, Evans G (2008) Construction and validation of a psychometric scale to measure consumers’ fears of novel food technologies: The food technology neophobia scale. Food Qual Prefer 19(8):704–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cuthbertson B, Marks N (2007) Beyond credence? Emerging consumer trends in international markets. Melbourne, Australia: State of Victoria Department of Primary Industries. (http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/5980/2/cp08cu01.pdf)
  21. Darby MR, Karni E (1973) Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. J Law Econ 16(1):67–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13:319–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. DBFZ (2012) Basisinformationen für eine nachhaltige Nutzung von landwirtschaftlichen Reststoffen zur Bioenergiebereitstellung. DBFZ Report, Bd. 13. Deutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum (DBFZ), Leipzig. (https://www.dbfz.de/fileadmin/user_upload/DBFZ_Reports/DBFZ_Report_13.pdf)Google Scholar
  24. Desaint N, Varbanova M (2013) The use and value of polling to determine public opinion on GMOs in Europe: Limitations and ways forward. Gm Crop Food 4(3):183–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eagly AH, Chaiken S (1993) The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Fort Worth, TXGoogle Scholar
  26. EBP (2014) Case Studies of Market-Making in the Bioeconomy. European Bioeconomy Panel (EBP), Brussels. https://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/pdf/13-case-studies-0809102014_en.pdf Google Scholar
  27. EC (2012) Innovating for Sustainable Growth: A Bioeconomy for Europe. European Commission (EC), BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  28. EC (2014) What Next for the European Bioeconomy? The latest thinking from the European Bioeconomy Panel and the Standing Committee on Agricultural Research Strategic Working Group (SCAR). European Commission, Brussels. (http://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/pdf/where-next-for-european-bioeconomy-report-0809102014_en.pdf)Google Scholar
  29. EC (2015) Closing the Loop – An EU action plan for the Circular Economy. European Commission (EC),Brussels. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52015DC0614)
  30. Ekins P (2010) Eco-innovation for environmental sustainability: Concepts, progress and policies. Int Econ Econ Policy 7(2):267–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Evonik Industries, Health & Nutrition (2014) What if …; How amino acids from Evonik contribute to sustainable food productionGoogle Scholar
  32. FNR (2015) Massebezogener Substrateinsatz in Biogasanlagen 2014. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe (FNR), Gülzow-Prüzen (https://mediathek.fnr.de/catalog/product/gallery/id/93/image/1424/)Google Scholar
  33. Gaskell G, Stares S, Allansdottir A, Allum N et al. (2010) Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010: Winds of change? European Commission, Brussels. (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_winds_en.pdf)
  34. Hacker J, Köcher R (2015) The Public Understanding of Synthetic Biology: Considerations in the context of science-based policy advice to policy-makers and the public. 01.2015 / Discussion No.3. IfD Allensbach und Leopoldina National Akademie der Wissenschaften, Halle (Saale)Google Scholar
  35. Harland P, Staats H, Wilke HAM (1999) Explaining pro environmental behavior by personal norms and the theory of planned behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol 29:2505–2528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hasler K, Olfs H-W, Omta O, Bröring S (2016) Drivers for the adoption of eco-innovations in the German fertilizer supply chain. Sustainability 8:682–699.Google Scholar
  37. Henderson BD, Gälweiler A (1984) Die Erfahrungskurve in der Unternehmensstrategie. Campus Verlag, FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
  38. IBVT/TU Braunschweig (2016) Biobasierte Produktion von L-Lysin mit Corynebacterium glutamicum – Maßgeschneiderte Zellfabriken und Bioprozesse. Institut für Bioverfahrenstechnik (IBVT), Technische Universität Braunschweig. http://www.ibvt.de/DE/Forschung/Abgeschlossene_Projekte/Lysin.php Google Scholar
  39. Junqueira TL, Cavalett O, Bonomi A (2016) The virtual sugarcane biorefinery – A simulation tool to support public policies formulation in bioenergy. Ind Biotechnol 12(1):62–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157):1124–1131CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kahneman D, Ritov I, Schkade D (1999) Economic preferences or attitude expressions? An analysis of dollar responses to public issues. J Risk Uncertain 19:220–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kemp R, Pearson P (2007) Final report MEI project about measuring eco-innovation. Deliverable 15 of Measuring Eco-Innovation (MEI) project (D15). UM Merit, MaastrichtGoogle Scholar
  44. Kircher M (2012) The transition to a bio-economy: emerging from the oil age. Biofuels Bioprod Bio-refining 5:369–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kircher M (2015) Sustainability of biofuels and renewable chemicals production from biomass. Current Opinion in Chemical Biology 29:26–31Google Scholar
  46. Kircher M (2016) KADIB Unternehmensdatenbank. www.kadib.de Google Scholar
  47. Kollmuss A, Agyeman J (2002) Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ Educ Res 8(3):239–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Leikas S, Lindeman M, Roininen K, Lähteenmäki L (2009) Who is responsible for food risks? The influence of risk type and risk characteristics. Appetite 53(1):123–126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Löbnitz N, Bröring S (2015) Consumer Acceptance of New Food Technologies for Different Product Categories: The Relative Importance of Experience versus Credence Attributes. J Int Consum Mark 27:307–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Luchs MG, Naylor RW, Irwin JR, Raghunathan R (2010) The sustainability liability: Potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference. J Mark 74(5):18–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lusk JL, House LO, Valli C, Jaeger SR, Moore M, Morrow JL, Traill WB (2004) Effect of information about benefits of biotechnology on consumer acceptance of genetically modified food: evidence from experimental auctions in the United States, England, and France. Eur Rev Agric Econ 31(2):179–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lusk JL, Roosen J, Bieberstein A (2014) Consumer acceptance of new food technologies: causes and roots of controversies. Annu Rev Resour Economics 6(1):381–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lynne GD, Casey CF, Hodges A, Rahmani M (1995) Conservation technology adoption decisions and the theory of planned behavior. J Econ Psychol 16(4):581–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Maddux JE, Rogers RW (1983) Protection motivation and self-efficacy: A revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Exp Soc Psychol 19(5):469–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Matin AH, Goddard E, Vandermoere F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A, Marette S, Roosen J (2012) Do environmental attitudes and food technology neophobia affect perceptions of the benefits of nanotechnology? Int J Consum Stud 36(2):149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mogendi JB, De Steur H, Gellynck X, Makokha A (2016) Consumer evaluation of food with nutritional benefits: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. Int J Food Sci Nutr 67(4):355–371CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Moser R, Raffaelli R, Thilmany-McFadden D (2011) Consumer Preferences for Fruit and Vegetables with Credence-Based Attributes: A Review. Int Food Agribus Manag Rev 14(2):121–142Google Scholar
  58. Nameroff TJ, Garant RJ, Albert MB (2004) Adoption of green chemistry: an analysisbased on US patents. Res Policy 33:959–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nelson P (1970) Information and Consumer Behavior. J Polit Econ 78(2):311–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nelson P (1974) Advertising as information. J Polit Econ 82(4):729–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. OECD (2009) The Bioeconomy to 2030: Designing a Policy Agenda, Main Findings. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Paris. (http://www.oecd.org/futures/bioeconomy/2030)
  62. Penrose E (1959) The theory of the firm. John Wiley & Sons, NYGoogle Scholar
  63. Pliner P, Salvy S (2006) Food neophobia in humans. In: Shepherd R, Raats M (Hrsg) The Psychology of Food Choice. Frontiers in Nutritional Science, Bd. 3. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, S 75–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Porter ME (1980) Competitive Strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  65. Prahalad CK, Hamel G (1990) The core competence of the corporation. Harv Bus Rev 68(3):79–91Google Scholar
  66. Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of innovation: A cross-cultural approach. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  67. Rogers RW (1975) A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Psychol 91(1):93–114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Rozin P (2005) The meaning of „natural“ process more important than content. Psychol Sci 16(8):652–658CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. SCAR (2015) Sustainable Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries in the Bioeconomy: A Challenge for Europe. 4th SCAR Foresight Exercise. Standing Committee on Agricultural Research (SCAR), BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  70. Schnettler B, Crisóstomo G, Sepúlveda J, Mora M, Lobos G, Miranda H, Grunert KG (2013) Food neophobia, nanotechnology and satisfaction with life. Appetite 69:71–79CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Siegrist M (2000) The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis 20(2):195–204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Siegrist M (2008) Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and products. Trends Food Sci Technol 19(11):603–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236:280–285CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Specter M (2009) A Life of its Own: Where will synthetic biology lead us? New Yorker (28 September 2009) (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/28/a-life-of-its-own)
  75. Springer Gabler Verlag (Hrsg) (2015) Gabler Wirtschaftslexikon, Stichwort: Zielbeziehungen. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden (http://wirtschaftslexikon.gabler.de/Archiv/16018/zielbeziehungen-v8.html (Stand: 21.07.2016))Google Scholar
  76. Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, Haan CD (2006) Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), RomeGoogle Scholar
  77. Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg Manag J 18(7):509–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Tenbült P, De Vries NK, Dreezens E, Martijn C (2005) Perceived naturalness and acceptance of genetically modified food. Appetite 45(1):47–50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Ueland Ø, Gunnlaugsdottir H, Holm F, Kalogeras N, Leino O, Luteijn JM, Verhagen H (2012) State of the art in benefit–risk analysis: Consumer perception. Food Chem Toxicol 50(1):67–76CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Utterback JM, Abernathy WJ (1975) A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega (Westport) 3(6):639–656Google Scholar
  81. Vidigal MC, Minim VP, Simiqueli AA, Souza PH, Balbino DF, Minim LA (2015) Food technology neophobia and consumer attitudes toward foods produced by new and conventional technologies: A case study in Brazil. Lwt-food Sci Technol 60(2):832–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wernerfelt B (1984) A resource-based view of the firm. Strateg Manag J 5(2):171–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. World Energy Council; London,UK (2011) Oil recoverable reserves by region. https://www.worldenergy.org/data/resources/resource/oil/. Zugegriffen: Juli 2016Google Scholar
  84. WWF Deutschland (2016) Soja: Wunderbohne mit riskanten Nebenwirkungen. WWF Deutschland, Berlin (http://www.wwf.de/themen-projekte/landwirtschaft/produkte-aus-der-landwirtschaft/soja/)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefanie Bröring
    • 1
  • Chad M. Baum
    • 1
  • Olivier K. Butkowski
    • 1
  • Manfred Kircher
    • 2
  1. 1.Institut für Lebensmittel- und Ressourcenökonomik (ILR)Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität BonnBonnDeutschland
  2. 2.Kircher Advice in Bioeconomy (KADIB)FrankfurtDeutschland

Personalised recommendations