Advertisement

Importance of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives in Applications of Bacterial Cellulose-Based Hydrogels for Sustainable Development

  • Nibedita Saha
  • Nabanita Saha
  • Tomas Sáha
  • Petr Sáha
Living reference work entry
Part of the Polymers and Polymeric Composites: A Reference Series book series (POPOC)

Abstract

Currently, there is a wide range of consensus and awareness regarding whether nature can help or provide feasible solutions to achieve more inclusive and sustainable growth in a smart, “engineered” way. Similarly, for sustainable development the appearance of multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) among companies, governments, and civil society organizations is also remarkable as they enable them to motivate and share knowledge, expertise, technology, and financial resources. This crucial idea arises in relation to how nature-based solutions provide sustainable, cost-effective, multi-purpose, and flexible alternatives for various objectives. For example, applications of bacterial cellulose (BC), which is synthesized by various bacteria, have great potential in a number of fields, such as food, biomedical material, cosmetics, healthcare, paper making, and other applications, but has a mostly untapped potential for contributing to cellulose-based hydrogels – that is, its smart applications. This work adds detailed discussion of aspects of MSIs (science, policy, business, and society, including small and medium-sized enterprises [SMEs] and public and private investors) relating to BC and BC-based hydrogels (BHs) and the various novel applications that promote the innovative, multi-purpose, dynamic capability intended for commercially exploitable BC and BC-based biocomposite products, in the form of hydrogen. To exploit new and emerging research opportunities for BC and BHs, this work reveals the significance of building an innovative platform such as the European Knowledge-Based Bio-Economy (KBBE) to bring together all of these advancements in cellulose-based hydrogels in simulated pathways for novel applications.

Keywords

Bacterial cellulose Hydrogels Multi-stakeholders initiatives (MSIs) Societal challenges Sustainable 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was conducted within the framework of COST Action MP1301 “New Generation Biomimetic and Customized Implants for Bone Engineering”, NEWGEN (http://www.cost-newgen.org/) and COST Action CA 15216 “European Network of Bioadhesion Expertise: Fundamental Knowledge to Inspire Advanced Bonding Technologies”, ENBA (http://www.enba4.eu/). Nibedita Saha is thankful to the Director of the University Institute for providing a management support system (MSS) and infrastructure facility to carry out this research. Nibedita Saha dedicates this paper to her beloved only son, Kanishka Binayak Saha.

References

  1. 1.
    Raymond CM, Frantzeskakib N, Kabischc N, Berryd P, Breile M, Nita MR, Genelettig D, Calfapietrah C (2017) A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas. Environ Sci Pol 77:15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    European Commission (2016) Topics: nature-based solutions. https://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/index.cfm?pg=nbs. Accessed 18 Aug 2017
  3. 3.
    Winter S, Bijker M, Carson M (2017) Multi-stakeholder initiatives: lessons from agriculture. CR Initiative at the Harvard Kennedy School. http://www.technoserve.org/files/downloads/multi-stakeholder-initiatives-lessons-from-agriculture-report.pdf. Accessed 18 Aug 2017
  4. 4.
    World Bank Group (2014) Increasing the effectiveness of multi stakeholder initiatives through active collaboration. Foreign & Commonwealth Office. Wilton Park. https://www.wiltonpark.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/WP1314-Report1.pdf. Accessed 18 Aug 2017
  5. 5.
    Zeyen A, Beckmann M, Wolters S (2016) Actor and institutional dynamics in the development of multi-stakeholder initiatives. J Bus Ethics 135:341–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Matten D, Crane A (2005) Corporate citizenship: toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Acad Manag Rev 30:166–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Welford R (2015) Multi-stakeholder initiatives: cooperating to achieve responsible and inclusive business. CSR-Asia Weekly. http://www.csr-asia.com/report/MSI%20Paper%20Final.pdf. Accessed 18 Aug 2017
  8. 8.
    Saha N, Quynh D, Saha T, Saha P (2017) Multi-stakeholder initiatives in Vietnam to meet the societal challenges of horizon 2020. MBR 4:100–111.  https://doi.org/10.19237/MBR.2017.01.09CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2011) Fostering innovation to address social challenges. https://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/47861327.pdf. Accessed 18 Aug 2017
  10. 10.
    The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2015) Innovation strategy. An agenda for policy action. www.oecd.org/innovation/strategy. Accessed 18 Aug 2017
  11. 11.
    Prakash A, Gugerty MK (2010) Trust but verify? Voluntary regulation programs in the non-profit sector. Regul Gov 4:22–47Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Konefal J (2015) Governing sustainability transitions: multi-stakeholder initiatives and regime change in United States agriculture. Sustainability 7:612–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bayon Y, Bohner M, Eglin D, Therin M, Montali A, Procter P, Fisher J, Richards RG (2015) Progressing innovation in biomaterials from the bench to the bed of patients. J Mater Sci Mater Med 26:228.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-015-5562-8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cohen-Shacham E, Walters G, Janzen C, Maginnis S (eds) (2016) Nature-based solutions to address global societal challenges. IUCN, Gland.  https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2016.13.en. xiii + 97ppCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    European Commission (2015) Topics: towards an EU research and innovation policy agenda for nature-based solutions & re-naturing cities. The European Union, Luxembourg. Final report of the Horizon 2020 Expert Group on ‘Nature-Based Solutions and Re-Naturing Cities’Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brundtland GH (1987) Our common future – call for action. Environ Conserv 14:291–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jang WD, Hwang JH, Kim HU, Ryu JY, Lee SY (2017) Bacterial cellulose as an example product for sustainable production and consumption. Microb Biotechnol 10:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Haase D (2016) Nature-based solutions for cities: a new tool for sustainable urban land development? https://ugecviewpoints.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/nature-based-solutions-for-cities-anew-tool-for-sustainable-urban-land-development/. Accessed 18 Aug 2017
  20. 20.
    Saha N, Vyroubal R, Saha P (2015) Apple juice: an alternative feed-stock to enhance the production of bacterial nanocellulose. In: Abstracts of the 2nd international symposium on bacterial nanocellulose, Gdansk, 9–11 Sep 2015, Gdansk, p 25Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zandraa O, Saha N, Shimoga DG, Palem, RR, Saha P (2016) Bacterial cellulose: an excellent biobased polymer produced from apple juice. In: Abstracts of the 9th international conference on modification, degradation and stabilization of polymers, 4–8 Sep 2016, Krakow, p 216Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bandyopadhyay S, Saha N, Zandraa O, Saha P (2017) Bacterial cellulose from apple juice- a polysaccharide based bioadditive for sustainable food packaging. In: Abstracts of the 5th EPNOE international polysaccharide conference, 20–24 Aug 2017, Jena, p 35Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brown Jr RM (1979) Biogenesis of natural polymer systems, with special reference to cellulose assembly and deposition. In: Proceedings of the third Phillip Morris U.S.A. Operations Center, Nov 1978, Richmond, pp 50–123Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gardner DJ, Oporto GS, Mills R, Samir MASA (2008) Adhesion and surface issues in cellulose and nanocellulose. J Adhes Sci Technol 22:545–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barud HS, Regiani T, Marques RF, Lustri WR, Messaddeq Y, Ribeiro SJ (2011) Antimicrobial bacterial cellulose-silver nanoparticles composite membranes. J Nanomater 1:8Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cacicedo ML, Castro MC, Servetas I, Bosnea L, Boura K, Tsafrakidou P, Dima A, Terpou A, Koutinas A, Castro GR (2016) Progress in bacterial cellulose matrices for biotechnological applications. Bioresour Technol 213:172–180CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Petersen N, Gatenholm P (2011) Bacterial cellulose-based materials and medical devices: current state and perspectives. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 91:1277–1286CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Huang Y, Zhu C, Yang J, Nie Y, Chen C, Sun D (2014) Recent advances in bacterial cellulose. Cellulose 21:1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Budhiono A, Rosidi B, Taher H, Iguchi M (1999) Kinetic aspects of bacterial cellulose formation in nata-de-coco culture system. Carbohydr Polym 40:137–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Czaja W, Krystynowicz A, Bielecki S, Brown RM (2006) Microbial cellulose the natural power to heal wounds. Biomaterials 27:145–151CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ullah H, Santos HA, Khan T (2016) Applications of bacterial cellulose in food, cosmetics and drug delivery. Cellulose 23:2291–2314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Abadi AG, Amin MCIM, Ahmad N, Katas H, Jamal JA (2012) Bacterial cellulose film coating as drug delivery system: physicochemical, thermal and drug release properties. Sains Malays 41:561–568Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Peppas NA, Bures P, Leobandung W, Ichikawa H (2000) Hydrogels in pharmaceutical formulations. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 50:27–46CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sosnik A, Seremeta KP (2017) Polymeric hydrogels as technology platform for drug delivery applications. Gels 3:1–22.  https://doi.org/10.3390/gels3030025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shah R, Vyroubal R, Fei H, Saha N, Kitano T, Saha P (2015) Preparation of bacterial cellulose based hydrogels and their viscoelastic behaviour. In: AIP conference proceedings, 1, pp 1662.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4918895
  36. 36.
    Silva R, Fabry B, Boccaccini AR (2014) Fibrous protein-based hydrogels for cell encapsulation. Biomaterials 35:6727–6738CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kopeček J, Yang J (2007) Hydrogels as smart biomaterials. Polym Int 56:1078–1098.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pi.2253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Roy N, Saha N, Kitano T, Saha P (2010) Novel hydrogels of PVP–CMC and their swelling effect on viscoelastic properties. J Appl Polym Sci 117:1703–1710.  https://doi.org/10.1002/app.32056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Stammen JA, Williams S, Ku DN, Guldberg RE (2001) Mechanical properties of a novel PVA hydrogel in shear and unconfined compression. Biomaterials 22:799–806CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wang X, Kong D, Zhang Y, Wang B, Li X, Qiu T, Song Q, Ning J, Song Y, Zhi L (2016) All-biomaterial supercapacitor derived from bacterial cellulose. Nanoscale 8:9146–9150.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C6NR01485BCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lee KY, Buldum G, Mantalaris A, Bismarck A (2014) More than meets the eye in bacterial cellulose: biosynthesis, bioprocessing, and applications in advanced fiber composites. Macromol Biosci 14:10–32.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mabi.201300298CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lin SP, Calvar LI, Catchmark JM, Liu JR, Demirci A (2013) Biosynthesis production and applications of bacterial cellulose. Cellulose 20:2191–2219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jozala AF, Pértile RAN, Santos CAD, Santos-Ebinuma VC, Seckler MM (2015) Bacterial cellulose production by Gluconacetobacter xylinus by employing alternative culture media. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 99:1181–1190.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-014-6232-3CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gama M, Gatenholm P, Klemm D (2013) Bacterial nanocellulose: a sophisticated multifunctional material. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, New York, pp 1–265Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rajwade JM, Paknikar KM, Kumbhar JV (2015) Applications of bacterial cellulose and its composites in biomedicine. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 99:2491–2511CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mena S, Palazzo G (2012) Input and output legitimacy of multi-stakeholder initiatives. Bus Ethics Q 22:527–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bäckstrand K (2006) Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: rethinking legitimacy, accountability, and effectiveness. Environ Police Gov 16:290–306Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hemmati M (2002) Multi-stakeholder processes for governance and sustainability beyond deadlock and conflict. Earthscan Publications Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Huijstee MV (2012) Multi-stakeholder initiatives. A strategic guide for civil society organizations. SOMO Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nibedita Saha
    • 1
  • Nabanita Saha
    • 2
  • Tomas Sáha
    • 1
  • Petr Sáha
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.University InstituteTomas Bata University in ZlínZlínCzech Republic
  2. 2.Centre of Polymer SystemsTomas Bata University in ZlinZlínCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations