Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
NOVA course essay 2019
Advanced course of ‘Innovation Systems in Circular Bioeconomy’
Forest and wood-based innovations for sustainable world
Satu Helenius
PhD student at the Doctoral programme in Forests and Bioresources (FORES), University of Eastern
Finland (UEF), Finland
email: [email protected]
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) special report on
1.5C of global warming (IPCC, 2018) paints a clear picture how the world is on the
track to exceed on its carbon budget by 2030, that’s even if countries fulfill their
current unconditional emissions-reduction pledges. Therefore, the next eight to ten
years are going to be crucial time that define the future to come. Forest-based
bioeconomy’s importance in addressing climate crises and substituting fossil-based
materials with renewable sources cannot be emphasized enough as forests and biomass
from wood are a key component in transitioning to a carbon neutral society. It is time
to be smart and allocate the available forest-based resources in a way it equally and
simultaneously maximises economic, ecological and social dimensions.
Innovation can be defined as “an idea, practice, or object that is
perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption” (Rogers, 2002). This
definition is just one of the many but the most well-known one. In the beginning all
innovations start from an idea and develop from there. World is changing and so does
the innovation development processes as the changes in the product needs are coming
NOVA course essay 2019 Satu Helenius Forest and wood-based innovations for sustainable world
2
faster paced. Robert G. Cooper’s Stage-Gate Agile idea-to-launch system offers
solutions for this, allowing iteration and continues product evolution from launching
the initial idea all the way to the markets (Cooper, 2017). Benefits are that whiles
following this model it is possible to collaborate and engage with consumers in the
development process and gain valuable information when developing innovation for
the market. Concept of service-dominant (S-D) logic is step further enabling value co-
creation together with customers (value in use) rather than just delivered to them
(embedded value), chancing the focus from product-centricity to service-centric
thinking (Vargo & Lusch, 2016). Forestry and forest based bioeconomy could utilize
Vargos’s and Lusch’s S-D logic service ecosystems framework (2016) that provides
broader perspective by zooming out from micro-level dyadic system including more
comprehensive wider dynamics and co-creating value in resource integration with
multiple actors.
Forest sector as whole has historically long tradition focusing primarily
on process or product innovations with the goal of reducing operating costs and
improving product quality (Leavengood & Bull, 2013). These types of innovations can
be defined as incremental rather than radical. Incremental innovations are in their
nature more about small improvements or upgrades on existing product, service,
process or methods, when radical innovations on the other hand can be characterized
as disruptive, breakthroughs when successful and having ability to act as a game
changer (Norman & Verganti, 2014). As innovations are powerful force that have
potential to change the way we operate or do business and it can even change the socio-
economic systems, it is important to ensure that innovations are responsible i.e have
the ‘right impact’ (Long et al 2019).
NOVA course essay 2019 Satu Helenius Forest and wood-based innovations for sustainable world
3
Sustainable value creation in forest industry requires systems thinking
(see generally Evans et al. 2017) in order to maximise the total value captured from
the forests and biomass derived from them. Forest-based industry value chain should
be viewed as one big unity where everything links together as e.g. European
Commission report (2016) are presenting that investment into research and
development for the wood-harvesting sector is helping to develop new wood products.
Forestry needs to integrate cradle to grave thinking and to understand what the short-
term and long-term effects on sustainability are, starting from supply of raw materials
all the way to end product. As Koponen et al. (2015) are pointing out, in the long run,
sustainable forest management is ensuring continues growth of forests and ideally
should optimise sustainable flow of biomass and carbon stock maintenance. Similarly,
Bellassen & Luyssaert (2014) are presenting that forest management should prioritize
what their call 'win–win' or 'no-regret' strategies, that increase both, the forest stocks
and timber harvest.
Hetemäki et al. (2014) are concluding based on collective scientific
expert analyses in “Future of the European Forest-Based Sector: Structural Changes
Towards Bioeconomy” , that European forest-based sector seems to be at the moment
in a state of ‘Creative Destruction’ as if the Schumpeterian concept, that refers to the
dynamic market process, where new innovations are taking over old ones, enabling
new markets and new growth. Due to declining demand for some of the traditional
‘large-volume’ wood products, have industry slowly grown interest diversifying
towards new value-added products that have shown growth in recent years and are
expected to increase their relative importance of the market share in the coming decade
NOVA course essay 2019 Satu Helenius Forest and wood-based innovations for sustainable world
4
(Hetemäki et al. 2014). For example, Stern et al. (2018) investigation about perceptions
related to forest sector innovations, showed that in the next 15 years there are expected
to be a decline in innovations related to biofuels and paper while future potential lies
in the wood construction.
The study by Stern et al. (2018) is presenting forest bioeconomy
innovations and innovation opportunities in terms of products, production processes,
services, or business models using a value-added pyramid (Figure1.), where the shape
mirrors the production volume by having bigger-volume but lower in value- added e.g.
products pulp, paper, bioenergy at the bottom and smaller volume but higher value-
added niche products on the top.
Figure 1. Classification of forest bioeconomy-related innovations using a value pyramid. Note: Due to
condensing of the text, the full content of the lowest part includes pulp, paper, paperboard, commodity
wood products, and first-generation biofuels and bio-based energy (Modified from Stern et al. 2018)
NOVA course essay 2019 Satu Helenius Forest and wood-based innovations for sustainable world
5
In their assessment of European forest-based products ongoing trends and future
developments Jonsson et al. are stating that the overall consumption of forest-based
products is expected to grow on the global level (2017, p. 129). The future challenge
in bioeconomy will not only be ensuring availability of sustainable materials for meet
the demand but also finding the means to move towards producing more top of the
pyramid high added-value products.
As the idea of creative destruction process is being unpredictable it is
nearly impossible to foresee what would be the next huge innovation. On the other
hand, so called ‘motors of creative destructions’ can be identified and used for pushing
and upscaling niche innovations (Kivimaa & Kern, 2016). In their analysis of Wood-
frame multi-storey construction (WMC) innovation systems functions Lazarevica
(2019) recognized the importance of creative destruction in the science and technology
push motor of innovation. They concluded this especially be the case in WMC where
niche technologies face strong path dependencies from incumbent technologies, like
concrete frame construction.
There have been debates over sustainability of some of the forest
biobased products that have been pushed in volumes with EU policies, most
controversial being bioenergy. Whiles all woody biomass used for energy feedstocks
is classified as ‘renewable energy’, and therefore treated as carbon neutral at the point
of combustion in national carbon accounting, it is important to recognize that removing
forest carbon stocks for bioenergy transforms forest stands initially into a source of
emission by creating a carbon debt (Sterman et al. 2018; Norton et al. 2019). Payback
times for reabsorbing the carbon released can be very long for energy feedstocks
derived from dedicated harvest of stemwood for bioenergy and therefore do not offer
NOVA course essay 2019 Satu Helenius Forest and wood-based innovations for sustainable world
6
solution for climate crises mitigation in the short run (European Commission, 2014;
Baral & Malins, 2014). Future focus should be on the carbon-efficient uses of biomass
and innovations that act as long-term carbon storage e.g wood in substituting higher
GHG life cycle emissions materials, like concrete in construction (see Leskinen et al.,
2018).
Innovative solutions for the sourcing of materials are needed for ensuring
constant sustainable supply of forest biomass to meet the increasing future demand
from wood-processing industry. Sustainable forest management (SFM) is consistent
with climate change adaptation and mitigation but business as usual pathways are not
sustainable enough at European forest sector for ensuring climate crises mitigation.
New innovations and policies supporting the transformation for circular bioeconomy
are needed with focus on the carbon footprint. Promoting new forest based value-
added innovations and products can support the transition from fossil-based industry
towards carbon neutral circular bioeconomy. Optimizing the economic, environmental
and social benefits of biomass utilization through sustainable and responsible
innovations with systems thinking could ease the way for this transformation.
References
Baral, A. & Malins, C. (2014), Comprehensive carbon accounting for
identification of sustainable biomass feedstocks, White Paper, The International Council on
Clean Transportation ICTT
Bellassen, V. & Luyssaert, S. (2014), Carbon sequestration: Managing forests
in uncertain times. Nature, 506(7487), p. 153. doi:10.1038/506153a
Cooper, Robert G. (2017), Idea-to-Launch Gating Systems: Better, Faster, and
More Agile, Research-Technology Management, 60:1, 48-52
European Commission, (2014), Carbon accounting of forest bioenergy:
Conclusions and recommendations from a critical literature review. Luxembourg: Publications
Office of the European Union
European Commission, (2016), Sustainable supply of raw materials: A more
cost-efficient and sustainable forest sector, Business Innovation Observatory
Evans S., Fernando L., Yang M. (2017), Sustainable Value Creation—From
Concept Towards Implementation. In: Stark R., Seliger G., Bonvoisin J. (eds) Sustainable
Manufacturing. Sustainable Production, Life Cycle Engineering and Management. Springer,
Cham
Hetemäki, L.; Hoen, H.; Schwarzbauer, P. (2014), Conclusions and policy
implications. In What Science Can Tell Us; European Forest Institute: Joensuu, Finland;
Volume 6, pp. 95–108
IPCC, (2018), Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the
impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse
gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of
climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte,
V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia,
C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E.
Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. In Press.
Jonsson, R.; Hurmekoski, E.; Hetemäki, L.; Prestemo, J. (2017), What is the
current state of forest product markets and how will they develop in the future? Georg
Winkel (ed) In What Science Can Tell Us; European Forest Institute: Joensuu, Finland;
Volume 8, pp. 126-131
Kivimaa, P. & Kern, F. (2016), Creative destruction or mere niche support?
Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions, Research Policy, Volume 45, Issue 1,
2016, Pages 205-217, ISSN 0048-7333, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.008
Koponen, K., Sokka, L., Salminen, O., Sievänen, R., Pingoud, K., Ilvesniemi,
H., ... Sipilä, K. (2015), Sustainability of forest energy in Northern Europe. Espoo: VTT
Technical Research Centre of Finland. VTT Technology, No. 237
Lazarevic, D. (2019), Finland's wood-frame multi-storey construction
innovation system: Analysing motors of creative destruction. Forest Policy and Economics.
doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2019.01.006
Leavengood, S. & Bull, L. (2013), The Global Forest Sector: Changes,
Practices, and Prospects, (edit.) Rajat Panwar, et al., CRC Press LLC, 2013. ProQuest Ebook
Central
Leskinen, P.; Cardellini, G.; González-García, S.; Hurmekoski, E.; Sathre, R.;
Seppälä, J.; Smyth, C.; Stern, T. & Verkerk. Pieter J. (2018), Substitution effects of wood-
based products in climate change mitigation. From Science to Policy 7. European Forest
Institute.
Long, Thomas B.; Blok, V.; Dorrestijn, S. & Macnaghten, P. (2019), The
design and testing of a tool for developing responsible innovation in start-up enterprises,
Journal of Responsible Innovation, DOI: 10.1080/23299460.2019.1608785
Norman, D. A. & Verganti, R. (2014), Incremental and radical innovation:
Design research versus technology and meaning change. Design Issues, 30(1), 78-96.
Norton, M.; Baldi, A.; Buda, V.; Carli, B; Cudlín, P; Jones, M.; Korhola, A.;
Michalski, R.; Novo, F.; Oszlányi, J.; Santos, F.; Schink, B.; Shepherd, J.; Vet, L.; Walløe, L.
& Wijkman, A., (2019), Serious mismatches continue between science and policy in forest
bioenergy. GCB Bioenergy. 10.1111/gcbb.12643.
Rogers, Evans M. (2002), Diffusion of preventive innovations. Addictive
behaviors. 27. 989-93. 10.1016/S0306-4603(02)00300-3.
Sterman, J.; Siegel, L.; Rooney-Varga & Juliette, N. (2018), Does replacing
coal with wood lower CO 2 emissions? Dynamic lifecycle analysis of wood bioenergy.
Environmental Research Letters, 13(1), p. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aaa512
Stern, T., Ranacher, L., Mair, C., Berghäll, S., Lähtinen, K., Forsblom, M., &
Toppinen, A. (2018), Perceptions on the Importance of Forest Sector
Innovations: Biofuels, Biomaterials, or Niche Products? Forests, 9(5), 255.
https://doi.org/10.3390/f9050255
Vargo, S.L.; Lusch, R.F. (2017), Service-dominant logic 2025. International
Journal of Research in Marketing 34 (2017) 46–67
Utilization of solid organic waste as protein source for animal feed production
Organic solid waste
Solid waste is a global problem of concern especially in low and middle income countries
where the waste management is still so poor. Municipal solid waste in those countries
contains a mixture of plastics (<13%), metals (<4%), paper (<9%), glass (<4%) and more than
50% organic waste(Hoornweg 2012). Most of this waste ends up dumped, landfilled and
burned. The dumped waste undergoes sorting by waste pickers, who remove a large
proportion of the non-organic waste leaving high proportions of biodegradable organic waste
(Komakech et al. 2014). Open dumping of waste a source of dangerous carcinogenic gases
and of black carbon, also allows biodegradable materials to decompose under unhygienic
conditions leading to accumulation of greenhouse gases causing climate change(Cogut 2016).
The dumped waste attracts insects and rodent vectors that spread diseases such as cholera and
malaria (Chowdhury et al. 2017). Untreated leachate from the decomposing dumped waste
contaminate surface and groundwater supplies (Nagarajan et al. 2012). Besides mixed
municipal solid waste, homogeneous organic solid waste is generated by agricultural and
industrial activities in LMIC during agricultural harvests and agro-industrial processes
comprising stems, stalks, peel, seeds and pulp (Krishna & Chandrasekaran 1996). This poorly
managed waste is a real existing pronounced problem contaminating the environment,
clogging drains and causing flooding, transmitting diseases, increasing respiratory problems
from burning, harming animals that consume waste unknowingly, and affecting economic
development of these countries. There is a need to find attractive waste management options
that involve many stakeholders to take part in viewing the waste as a resource.
Food Industries, like other waste sources, are associated with numerous waste-related
environmental problems. Most of them, with Tanzania as a study case concentrate on the
production line of their food products and the waste stream ends up on the environment.
Furthermore, problems associated with Industrial Solid Waste that are also common with
other types of waste pertain to malpractices during storage, collection, transportation, and
treatment as well as disposal. All this is because industries are essentially driven by profits,
and based on current industrial practices, proper waste management seems to involve extra
waste management costs. The informal waste business is flourishing but recovery of waste is
limited to sellable recyclables such as glass, metal, paper and plastics sorted by waste pickers
at the dumpsites. The organic fraction is still not being recycled, but rather discharged in
landfills or in more or less illegal dumps (Komakech et al. 2014)causing serious health risks.
The difficulties in waste management generally in LMICs are often attributed to the poor
financial status of the all stakeholders including managing municipal corporations.
Black soldier fly Larvae treatment (BSFL)
One way to improve the solid waste management is to make all stakeholders view side
streams of the production process as a resource not as waste especially with largest amount of
the organic waste discarded with so much nutrients. Use of insects for treatment of organic
wastes is gaining increasing interest, as it uses organic solid wastes as a resource to produce
valuable products (Čičková et al. 2015). Use of BSFL for organic waste treatment has the
potential to add value to non-utilized organic wastes and also to act as an additional income
generator for waste managers (Lohri et al. 2017). This technology converts organic waste
efficiently and rapidly into protein-rich (40% dry matter (DM) and fat-rich (30% DM) larvae
suitable for use in animal feed (Stamer 2015) and biodiesel production (Li et al. 2011), while
the treatment residue is valuable fertilizer (Sheppard 1994). BSFL can be reared on different
substrates, including animal manures (Myers et al. 2008) pig liver, fish rendering waste and
fruit waste (Nguyen et al. 2013), human excreta (Lalander et al. 2013; Banks et al. 2014) and
food waste (Diener et al. 2011; Nguyen et al. 2015). This is of great interest given the high
share of organic material in the waste streams – especially in low- and middle-income
countries (LMIC) – and the growing demand for locally produced animal feed. As such,
BSFL technology could provide an opportunity for industries to innovate and unutilized
production side streams as a resource.
Industrial Innovation through organic waste management with BSFL
Decentralized (company) system
Research suggests for organizations to be more flexible, adaptive, entrepreneurial, and
innovative to effectively meet the changing demands of today’s environment (Sarros et al.
2008) .With a BSFL technology as a product of research, if established in industries
producing the waste, the organic waste fraction could be another product line into valuable
products hence the organic waste collection will become more attractive. This process and
product innovation (Hovgaard & Hansen. 2004) has potential to succeed though the
precondition will be, just as it is with other recyclables, a reliable purchaser and an attractive
price for the products.
This innovation if adapted by industries has a waste reduction potential of up to 80 % and
reduce costs for waste transport and space requirements for landfills eventually reducing the
risk for open dumps that often appear in LMIC. While the material is reduced, most nutrients
contained in the organic waste remain in the residues, which can be seen as a concentrated
organic fertilizer, simplifying the recycling of plant nutrients from the organic waste back to
arable land (Lalander et al., 2015). At the same time the biomass is being converted into high
quality animal protein that can be sold for production of animal feed such as chicken and fish.
This could be a new business model utilizing the available resources already existing in the
company and thrown. It also combines the advantages of the industrial BSFL systems with the
flexibility and waste treatment potential of the BSFL treatment facilities that could contribute
both to industries making profits while protecting the environment. For example with 1000
tons of unutilized food waste you get 300tons of BSFL valued at $270,000 for its protein
content while we get 70 tons from banana peels valued at $63,000. The companies would
innovate, initially investing in the new line of product but would be worth it especially if the
market for the product will be available. Furthermore, for this innovation step to succeed it
would probably require establishment of a new research and development (R&D) to explore
other products line from products like biodiesel and plastics form the BSFL hence exploring
new markets.
Centralized /Semi –Centralized system
It is important to note that “innovation is a team sport” (Dougherty and Takacs 2004)
therefore this technology innovation could be done by multiple companies, entrepreneurs,
municipals and other stakeholders. One possible way could be inter-industry system where
organic solid waste materials discarded by one or more industry are used in the BSFL
treatment by another company as raw materials. There is a possibility of more scenarios
regarding ownership of the treatment device(s) and who is responsible for operation,
maintenance and harvest. Depending on the skills and needs of a company, the treatment
device can be bought or hired from the company who runs the BSFL facility. Operation
should be up to the client itself but certain maintenance tasks could be part of a service
contract. The quality and quantity depends on the input waste material, but also on the
operation of the BSFL treatment unit. A purchase commitment for the products should thus be
linked to a certain minimum quality requirement. Therefore, for this to work there is need to
look into the detail of the system innovation performance to analyze how the involved
stakeholders in this cooperation would perform individually as well as the combined
performance of all stakeholders involved for it to become successful commercially(Hovgaard
& Hansen. 2004). There might be a need to establish a R&D committee to continuously look
into the funding and investment costs. There is need to assess the economic feasibility of a
complete system assessing product value and value of combinations of waste treatment
alternative when BSFL treatment was incorporated. This will give a holistic picture of the
gains/impact/capacity/motivations of establishing this treatment system as an innovation aside
from the initial main product line(Prajogo & Ahmed 2006).
Other factors to enhance the success of BSFL treatment incorporation
As applied in the forest sector (Kubeczko et al. 2006), probably policy could be a very good
driver to enhance innovation in waste management in Tanzania that could favor and enhance
the success of the BSFL treatment for production of biomass as a source of animal protein.
Not only would this work at industrial level but also at all levels like family, community,
schools, and institutions, etcetera. A new policy/law/regulation for example of favoring waste
sorting according to different classes like organics, plastics, metals to name a few could really
make a difference. It would probably increase the value of the waste and reusing it as a raw
material would be easier. This would also require the change of cultures of organizations
involved in generating and viewing the waste as a resource as well(Barney 1986).
Above all else, it requires good relations and enough trust between the involved stakeholders
for this to work(Berkun 2010).
References
1. Banks I.J., Gibson W.T. & Cameron M.M. (2014) Growth rates of black soldier fly
larvae fed on fresh human faeces and their implication for improving sanitation. 19,
14-22.
2. Barney J.B. (1986) Organizational culture: can it be a source of sustained competitive
advantage? Academy of management review 11, 656-65.
3. Berkun S. (2010) The myths of innovation. " O'Reilly Media, Inc.".
4. Chowdhury F.R., Nur Z., Hassan N., von Seidlein L. & Dunachie S. (2017)
Pandemics, pathogenicity and changing molecular epidemiology of cholera in the era
of global warming. Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials 16, 10.
5. Čičková H., Newton G.L., Lacy R.C. & Kozánek M. (2015) The use of fly larvae for
organic waste treatment. Waste Management 35, 68-80.
6. Cogut A. (2016) R20 regions of climate action:OPEN-BURNING-OF-WASTE-A-
GLOBAL-HEALTH-DISASTER. https://regions20.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/08/OPEN-BURNING-OF-WASTE-A-GLOBAL-HEALTH-
DISASTER_R20-Research-Paper_Final_29.05.2017.pdf. Retrieved on 10th August
2018.
7. Diener S., Studt Solano N.M., Roa Gutiérrez F., Zurbrügg C. & Tockner K. (2011)
Biological Treatment of Municipal Organic Waste using Black Soldier Fly Larvae.
Waste and Biomass Valorization 2, 357-63.
8. Hoornweg D.B.-T., Perinaz (2012) What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste
Management. Urban development series;. knowledge papers no. 15 World Bank,
Washington, DC. ©.
9. Hovgaard A. & Hansen. E. (2004) Innovativeness in the forest products industry.
Review of no. Forest Products Journal 54 26–33.
10. Komakech A.J., Banadda N.E., Kinobe J.R., Kasisira L., Sundberg C., Gebresenbet G.
& Vinnerås B. (2014) Characterization of municipal waste in Kampala, Uganda.
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 64, 340-8.
11. Krishna C. & Chandrasekaran M. (1996) Banana waste as substrate for α-amylase
production by Bacillus subtilis (CBTK 106) under solid-state fermentation. Applied
Microbiology and Biotechnology 46, 106-11.
12. Kubeczko K., Rametsteiner E. & Weiss G. (2006) The role of sectoral and regional
innovation systems in supporting innovations in forestry. Forest Policy and Economics
8, 704-15.
13. Lalander C., Diener S., Magri M.E., Zurbrugg C., Lindstrom A. & Vinneras B. (2013)
Faecal sludge management with the larvae of the black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens)-
-from a hygiene aspect. Sci Total Environ 458-460, 312-8.
14. Li Q., Zheng L., Qiu N., Cai H., Tomberlin J.K. & Yu Z. (2011) Bioconversion of
dairy manure by black soldier fly (Diptera: Stratiomyidae) for biodiesel and sugar
production. Waste Management 31, 1316-20.
15. Lohri C.R., Diener S., Zabaleta I., Mertenat A. & Zurbrugg C. (2017) Treatment
technologies for urban solid biowaste to create value products: a review with focus on
low- and middle-income settings. Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio-
Technology 16, 81-130.
16. Myers H.M., Tomberlin J.K., Lambert B.D. & Kattes D. (2008) Development of black
soldier fly (Diptera: Stratiomyidae) larvae fed dairy manure. Environ Entomol 37, 11-
5.
17. Nagarajan R., Thirumalaisamy S. & Lakshumanan E. (2012) Impact of leachate on
groundwater pollution due to non-engineered municipal solid waste landfill sites of
erode city, Tamil Nadu, India. Iranian Journal of Environmental Health Science &
Engineering 9, 35.
18. Nguyen T.T., Tomberlin J.K. & Vanlaerhoven S. (2013) Influence of resources on
Hermetia illucens (Diptera: Stratiomyidae) larval development. J Med Entomol 50,
898-906.
19. Nguyen T.T.X., Tomberlin J.K. & Vanlaerhoven S. (2015) Ability of Black Soldier
Fly (Diptera: Stratiomyidae) Larvae to Recycle Food Waste. Environ Entomol 44,
406-10.
20. Prajogo D.I. & Ahmed P.K. (2006) Relationships between innovation stimulus,
innovation capacity, and innovation performance. R&D Management 36, 499-515.
21. Sarros J.C., Cooper B.K. & Santora J.C. (2008) Building a climate for innovation
through transformational leadership and organizational culture. Journal of Leadership
& Organizational Studies 15, 145-58.
22. Sheppard D.C., G. L. Newton, S. A. Thompson, and S. Savage. (1994) A value added
manure management system using the black soldier fly. Bioresource Technology,
275–9.
23. Stamer A.J.E.r. (2015) Insect proteins—a new source for animal feed: The use of
insect larvae to recycle food waste in high‐quality protein for livestock and
aquaculture feeds is held back largely owing to regulatory hurdles. 16, 676-80.
Innovation in Bioelectrochemical Systems
1. Introduction
Bioelectrochemical systems (BESs; Fig 1) can be classified as a type of bioreactor technology
that uses electro-active microorganisms to treat wastewater and conduct electricity. Microbial
fuel cell (MFC) was the first type of BES invented that is capable of generating electricity
through electro-active microorganisms by transferring electrons to/from electrode material.
MFCs were first successfully demonstrated in the 20th century and found commercial
applications from early 21st century starting as a pilot plant in a brewery. Researchers actively
involved in bioelectrochemical systems were able to innovate and improve the process to
generate high value product such as hydrogen. This technology was termed as microbial
electrolysis (MEC) and it was capable of treating wastewater by splitting it into hydrogen and
oxygen. The technology was further developed as a wastewater and carbon utilisation
technology to produce value added biochemicals and is termed as microbial electrosynthesis
(MES). It took about 100 years to commercialize MFC technology but less than 20 years to
scale up MEC. Currently, MES technologies are finding ways to break into the commercial
market.
(a) (b)
(c)
Figure 1: Schematic representations of (a) microbial fuel cell (b) microbial electrolysis cell and
(c) microbial electrosynthesis system
2. Invention, Innovation and Diffusion in Bioelectrochemical Technology
Defining innovation as an independent concept is challenging and probably wrong because
innovation is an amalgamation of various strategies and levels. It involves innovation diffusion,
organizational innovativeness, process theory and product innovation (Leavengood and Bull,
2013). The development of microbial fuel cell as a novel technology demonstrating conduction
of electricity through microorganisms that was never done before, it can be considered as
“invention” (Potter, 1911). The idea behind M C Potter’s experiment was to mimic the electric
conductivity in plants discovered by Haacke (1892) through microorganisms in a controlled
environment. However, when they were first demonstrated by M C Potter, they received little
attention taking the technology for about 60 - 70 years to be considered as a mainstream
innovation and another 30 years for commercialization.
The motivation to develop MEC following MFC can be defined as process innovation,
where the concept of electricity production through microorganisms was reversed. The
“process change” meant that MEC is able to produce a more valuable product such as hydrogen
by utilising electricity transferred via microorganisms. It can be said that, with no real need for
production of electricity through an expensive process, the innovation of MFCs to MECs in
bioelectrochemical systems gained a major application for wastewater treatment and
production of hydrogen. The technology was further systemically innovated to produce
valuable chemicals and biogas upgrading technologies via MES that is capable of utilising
carbon dioxide and renewable electricity. The end result of this diffusion could be a systemic
change in the way wastewater treatment and chemical industries work.
Figure 2: Flow chart showing the bioelectrochemical research components via two innovation
development scenarios.
Invention
Microbial Fuel Cell
Innovation
• Microbial Electrolysis Cell
• Microbial Electrosynthesis System
Diffusion
• Integrated wasetwater treatment and biogas upgradation
• Chemical industries adopting bioelectrochemical systems
Product Innovation
Process Innovation
Systemic Innovation
Diffusion as a scientific concept can be standardised by identifying these four elements
through the evolution of a new idea and its development – (1) innovation, (2) communication
channels, (3) time, and (4) the social system (Rogers, 2002).
• Innovation: During this step the invented product is perceived in a different manner by
an individual or other unit of adoption. The method of application of the technology
would change using the same basic concepts on which the original innovation was
developed on. This is described in the above paragraph.
• Communication channels: Publications are the primary tools of communication for
scientific researchers. They measure and merit the research quality that in turn
encourages other researchers to collaborate with the authors. Conference presentations is
the second platform to communicate and form close relations with researchers of similar
disciplines. Participating in conferences that address broader themes viz., circular
economy, sustainability etc. can help form multi-disciplinary collaborations.
Bioelectrochemical systems have many dedicated journals and a lot of research is
published in other associated journals related to wastewater, biomass, bioenergy etc.
Other ways of communicating and gaining more insights into the application of
developed technologies is by forming committees/consortiums that include different
stakeholders and address issues and suggestions of all the involved stakeholders
(Svendsen and Laberge, 2014). The different types of collaborative networks are
discussed in one of the following sections.
• Time: In the context of innovation diffusion, time implies the duration of spreading a
particular invention through a social system or general population to be adopted. The end
of result of diffusion involves people changing their behaviour or replacing an existing
product/process or create a new habit through this new innovative product/process. Many
factors affect the rate of innovation diffusion, which include technological, economic and
legislative barriers. Currently, BES have overcome technological barriers and are finding
ways to break out of economic barriers in large-scale systems, particularly MES. The
legislation for sustainable and circular economy solutions such as BES are encouraging
in Europe, provided the economic barriers are overcome. Responsible innovation is an
important factor in breaking the barriers between innovation and adoption.
• Social system: The social system plays major role in being the driver for innovation,
diffusion and finally adoption. It is the need or interest and affordability of society that
determines time of diffusion of a particular innovation. Other factors such as
environmental and economic also determine the needs and aspirations of people that in
turn influence the time of diffusion. BES are currently being discussed in closed
communities and is not a popular technology. This is mainly because they work on the
principle of utilizing electricity to produce a gas, which does not provide a compelling
argument among general population. However, as the share of renewable electricity
increases all over the world, BES can be discussed as any other system that utilizes
electricity, reduces waste and emissions and provides a gaseous fuel.
Another way of looking at this evolution process is to draw parallels between the marketing
and innovation strategies. When MFCs found mainstream application for electricity
production, it was considered as a product focussed innovation. This was slowly transformed
towards value-focussed innovation via the development of MECs, as hydrogen is a higher
valued product than electricity. Currently, the focus is on sustainability and circular economy
where MES is able to consume carbon dioxide and waste streams to produce medium to high
value chemicals such as ethanol, butanol, biomethane etc. The innovative solutions that are
focused on environmental sustainability have superseded both product and value focus
innovation in case of bioelectrochemical systems.
3. The innovation approaches of BES
The evolution of innovation in BES can also be represented as radical and incremental
innovations. An MFC was historically designed and researched as an independent system and
most research was carried out in terms of reactor materials and reactor designs. It was a one
product and one process operation with research carried out to improve process efficiency. In
other words, it represents incremental innovation using human centric design and design
research (HCD & DR; Fig 3). The development of MEC represents radical innovation of MFC
using “technology change”. However, it was still dealt as an independent process with the
primary focus on improving hydrogen gas productivity. This implies that, radical innovation
although produces an innovative product does not necessarily produce a superior product and
would still require HCD and DR to achieve superior quality that suits the market (Norman and
Verganti, 2012).
Figure 3: The hill-climbing paradigm applied to incremental and radical innovation during the
evolution of BES research.
Another iteration of radical innovation has led to the development of MES, where several bio-
based products are generated through the consumption of waste, carbon dioxide and renewable
MFC -
experimental
MFC – pilot scale
MEC –
lab scale
MEC – pilot plant
MES –
lab scale
MES – integrated industrial
scale chemical production
Pro
du
ct Q
ual
ity
Design Parameters
electricity. MES is currently undergoing incremental innovation in terms of product diversity,
circular economy and sustainability focussed design and application.
The electrosynthesis of chemicals using carbon dioxide has been revolutionary in terms of
creating a value chain for a polluting gas that is being captured from industrial emissions. Such
an innovation has affected not only the electrochemical research but also many associated
industries such as the renewable electricity industry, wastewater treatment industry and some
chemical manufacturing industries. The legislation in many European countries imposes
carbon tax that is based on the organic content of the waste streams and CO2 emissions of the
industry. Therefore, a systemic innovation to integrate all the stakeholders is necessary to
conclude the diffusion process. It requires collaborative research and value co-creation where
every stakeholder reaps benefits and supports responsible innovation.
4. Collaborative Platforms
4.1. Sectoral collaborative platforms for BES research
ISMET: International society for microbial electrochemical technology is a common platform
for researchers with background in microbiology and electrochemistry which are the two main
fundamental disciplines involved in BES. It was formed in the US in 2011 and now has its
presence in Asia, Australia and Europe. They hold meetings, conferences and symposiums but
most importantly workshops that educate early researchers with all the tools and methods
necessary for bioelectrochemistry research. They mainly work towards wastewater treatment
and biofuel production (https://www.is-met.org).
Bioelectrochemical Society: It was found in 1979 by Giulio Milazzo to - “promote
understanding and cooperation among scientists interested in the application of electrochemical
concepts and techniques to the fundamental or applied study of living systems”. The society
addresses a broader range of application of BES than ISMET viz., biosensors, bio-membranes,
bioenergetics, medical implants and other medical applications. It also includes theoretical
research in BES that involves studying thermodynamics and energetics. The group publishes a
reputed research journal by the name Bioelectrochemistry via Elsevier.
(http://www.bioelectrochemical-soc.org).
Both the above network groups consist highly specialised academic experts within
bioelectrochemistry and have collaborations within the specified group. It is important to note
that the only cross sector collaboration observed here is with the medical field. However, it is
not clear as to what level of collaborations exist and who are the other stakeholders involved
in these network groups. Therefore, it could be difficult for such niche research group to
generate innovative product line up that are able to cross the socio-technical regime and
compete with the existing regime (Geels and Schot, 2007).
4.2. Cross sector collaboration: An example
VoltaChem: The official website of VoltaChem says that it is a – “business-driven Shared
Innovation Program that connects the electricity sector, equipment sector and the chemical
industry”. It is quite clear that this network group is established to harness an open innovation
culture (Van Lancker, Wauters and Van Huylenbroeck, 2016) with the involvement of multiple
stakeholders and develop business models that focus on the use of renewable energy in the
production of heat, hydrogen, and chemicals. The group’s website is very intuitive and provides
a clear vision, mission and roadmap of their approach towards achieving large capacity
renewable power-to-chemicals industries as mainstream sustainable solutions.
VoltaChem is a true example of cross-sector collaboration showcasing its benefits through
innovative line of products (not entirely commercialized). It can be said that the primary reason
for successful collaboration in case of VoltaChem is that they have removed singular
technology or product from the centre of their business model and have placed the problem at
the centre (Fig 4). The problem in this case is “industrial electrification” and not BES which is
however the primary tool to approach the problem. The individual partners have identified that
they were “trying to accomplish something they could not achieve by themselves” (Bryson,
Crosby and Stone, 2015). It is therefore necessary that the partners involved adopt an open
innovation culture and develop projects/products in order to cater to a newer market that was
traditionally unknown to the company. For example, Yara that is traditionally a fertilizer
company would be able to explore the biofuel and bioplastics market also, due to cross-sector
collaboration with other industrial partners in VoltaChem.
(https://www.voltachem.com/projects/paired-electrosynthesis-of-specialty-chemicals).
Figure 4: VoltaChem business model (Source: https://www.voltachem.com/voltachem)
4.3. Open innovation opportunities: A circular economy approach
When a company is able to adopt a competitive and performance oriented organizational
culture it has a positive impact on organizational innovation that is more open (Sarros, Cooper
and Santora, 2008). N2Applied (https://n2.no/) is an innovative start-up trying close the
nitrogen cycle by fixing it on the farm instead of letting it escape as ammonia gas. It provides
a decentralized system for fertilizer production in the farms for their own use with help of
biogas plant digestate. The start-up is competing against large fertilizer companies (e.g. Yara)
with no existing infrastructure in the farms for either of nitrogen fixation or biogas plants. The
large companies can therefore, adopt open innovation, purchase the IP for N2Applied, develop
the technology in-house and provide decentralized circular economy solution. This can be done
by developing biogas plant infrastructure along with MES integration that helps with
sustainable fertilizer production and also improve biogas production for all the energy needs in
the farms. This benefits the large company develop its market in both fertilizer and biofuel
sector in a sustainable manner, N2Applied is benefited by selling its technology, farmers are
benefited with cheap fuel and organic fertilizers.
5. Conclusion
It can be concluded that an open innovation culture allows a company to cater to a larger market
than the product was originally designed for. The company needs to open the R&D division
and allow its technology to be used by other companies to develop active cross-sector
collaborations. Through an open innovation culture, the company can also buy IP from smaller
companies and develop the modified product for a wider market. Such a competitive
organizational culture allows the company to be more innovative and adjust to the developing
trends in the market. The companies that help stakeholders build shared understanding,
knowledge and vocabulary can generate sustainable solutions. It can also be concluded that
BES have the potential to be a major part of circular economy solution as they bridge two major
elements of sustainable solutions viz. renewable energy (renewable electricity and biomethane)
and waste management (CO2, wastewater and food waste).
References
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C. and Stone, M. M. (2015) ‘Designing and Implementing Cross-
Sector Collaborations: Needed’, Public Administration Review, 75(5), pp. 647–663. doi:
10.1111/puar.12432.Designing.
Geels, F. W. and Schot, J. (2007) ‘Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways’, Research
Policy, 36(3), pp. 399–417. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003.
Haacke, O. (1892) 'Ueber die Vrsachen electrischer Strome in Pflanzen', Flora, 5.
Van Lancker, J., Wauters, E. and Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2016) ‘Managing innovation in the
bioeconomy: An open innovation perspective’, Biomass and Bioenergy. Elsevier Ltd, 90, pp.
60–69. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.03.017.
Leavengood, S. and Bull, L. (2013) ‘Innovation in the Global Forest Sector’, in The Global
Forest Sector, pp. 377–404. doi: 10.1201/b16186-21.
Norman, D. A. and Verganti, R. (2012) ‘Incremental and radical innovation: design research
versus technology and meaning change’, Design Issues, pp. 1–19.
Potter, M. C. (1911) ‘Electrical Effects Accompanying the Decomposition of Organic
Compounds’, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 84(571), pp. 260–276.
doi: 10.1098/rspb.1911.0073.
Rogers, E. M. (2002) ‘Diffusion of preventive innovations’, Addictive Behaviors, 27(6), pp.
989–993. doi: 10.1016/S0306-4603(02)00300-3.
Sarros, J. C., Cooper, B. K. and Santora, J. C. (2008) ‘Through Transformational Leadership
and Organizational Culture’, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(2), pp. 145–
158. doi: 10.1177/1548051808324100.
Svendsen, A. C. and Laberge, M. (2014) ‘Convening Stakeholder Networks’, Journal of
Corporate Citizenship, 2005(19), pp. 91–104. doi: 10.9774/gleaf.4700.2005.au.00013.
