Bioeconomy, Planning and Sustainable Development: A Theoretical Framework

Abstract

The bioeconomy concept first emerged in the 1990s in the context of the sustainable development of European economies but in specific respect to the disciplines of biology and biotechnology. This has arguably obscured the concept’s theoretical development since the biotechnology term has a limited field of application. This has led to diverse perspectives on what the bioeconomy means and how it should function. This paper aims to contribute to the theoretical development of the bioeconomy concept by interpreting the concept as a component of sustainable development, and as a spatial planning concept. This is important since such theoretical development aims to address the complex challenges facing bioeconomy transition and the need to combat climate change in a socially equitable manner. It does this by interpreting the bioeconomy through the lens of the environmental, economic, social and governance pillars of sustainable development, which is important in understanding how bioeconomy systems can most effectively function in the transition towards a renewable-based economy.

1. Introduction

The concept of the bioeconomy first emerged in the 1990s in the context of the sustainable development of European economies but in specific respect to the disciplines of biology and biotechnology [1]. This has arguably obscured the concept’s theoretical development since the biotechnology term has a limited field of application and is not transdisciplinary. This has led to diverse perspectives on what the bioeconomy means and how it should function [2]. According to Mougenot and Doussoulin [3], there are three approaches to understanding the bioeconomy, all producing both vague and inconsistent interpretations based on: (1) energy perspectives derived from the need to replace oil with biomass as a form of energy [4]; (2) biotechnology approaches, whereby biological organisms are utilised for economic development and where such technology is protected by patents; and (3) ecological economic perspectives [5], which include agroecological systems and socio-technical arrangements [6]. Within such frameworks, there is a tendency to focus on particular aspects of development, such as innovation, e.g., [7], biodiversity, e.g., [8], or knowledge-based bioeconomies, e.g., [9]. Other interpretations focus on pragmatic dimensions involving sectoral composition [10,11], attributes of value [12,13] or processes and systems of operationalisation [14]. Such diverse interpretations call on the need for a more integrated and holistic understanding of the bioeconomy, one that is associated with broader theoretical constructs which can be used to move towards a greater consensus for defining what is meant by the bioeconomy.

2. Emergence in the EU Context

When the concept first emerged in the EU context [1], the bioeconomy was interpreted in terms of all economic endeavours initiated from scientific inquiry centred on systems and procedures at the molecular level, and in respect to its application in industrial production [15]. Notable here is the idea of partnership between scientific endeavour and industrial production. In this sense, the bioeconomy was defined as the economic application of the biological properties of the environment (i.e., land and sea) for economic development, but more specifically, involving the use of waste and the re-use of that waste in the manufacturing process [16]. In this way, the main elements of the manufacturing process, which included material, chemical, and energy production, were conceived to be entirely based on resources that were both biological and renewable [17]. The driving force of conceptualisation at this stage related to the need to transition away from fossil fuel-based dependency towards renewable-based processes.

From a technical perspective, biomass production is seen as procured from biological resources that can be reproduced from animals and plants, and these resources are manufactured through biochemical, mechanical, and thermo-chemical processes [18]. These biological resources include vegetation such as algae, marine plants, verdure, crops, trees, shrubs, biological waste, agricultural residue, as well as historic and consecutive wastes and residues [19]. In industrial production, the application of biomass can generate a variety of bioproducts, biochemicals, biofuels, thermal energy, medicine, cosmetics, food and fodder [20]. Finally, the bioeconomy also incorporates the use of biorefineries in the manufacturing process and involves an innovative approach to land use in order to create public goods [21] (EC, 2012).

Formal conceptualisations of the bioeconomy in the EU context have evolved considerably over the past number of years. The Strategy on Biotechnology [22] was amongst the earliest attempts to set forth a formal policy document intended to generate new opportunities for economic expansion in respect to biotechnology and the life sciences, yet the term bioeconomy had yet to be coined at this early stage. The seminal EU paper, En route to the Knowledge-Based Bio-Economy [23], was much more influential in terms of refining the identity of the concept. Specifically, the bioeconomy was conceived here as the Knowledge-Based Bio-Economy (KBBE), whereby it was defined as, “transforming life sciences knowledge into new, sustainable, eco-efficient and competitive products” [23] (p. 2). Improving on this document in more holistic and strategic terms was the European Commission’s Innovating for Sustainable Growth. A bioeconomy for Europe [21], whereby the bioeconomy was conceived to encompass, “the production of renewable biological resources and the conversion of these resources and waste streams into value added products, such as food, feed, bio-based products and bioenergy; [with] its sectors and industries hav[ing] strong innovation potential due to their use of a wide range of sciences, enabling and industrial technologies, along with local and tacit knowledge” [21] (p. 9). Since this time, interest grew towards articulating the concept beyond sustainable economic development and towards ecological systems and the environment. Building on the definition mentioned above [21], the European Commission’s JRC Science for Policy Report—Bioeconomy Report 2016 states that, “in addition to specific bioeconomy policies at EU, national and regional level, … related … cross-cutting policies such as the environment, climate change, the circular economy, waste, industrial policies, regional policies (smart specialisation), research and innovation and blue economy [should be included in a comprehensive bioeconomy strategy]. These policies and sectors are crucial to address societal challenges such as a growing food demand, climate change and the decline of fossil resources” [24] (p. 6).

3. Conceptualising the Bioeconomy

Based on such evolving interpretations, and as a transdisciplinary construct, it is useful to interpret the bioeconomy as a component of the broader concept of sustainable development, and as a spatial planning concept. As a spatial planning concept, it is composed of six theoretical dimensions: the green economy, the circular economy, regional development, sustainable industry (agriculture), ‘just transition’, and partnership (see Figure 1).

As a spatial planning concept, sustainable development sits at the theoretical heart of the bioeconomy model. As such, the bioeconomy can be conceived as a component of a broader sustainable development model. But what is the nature of this sustainable development? To answer this question, it may be useful to view the bioeconomy through the lens of the three pillars of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which are environmental, economic and social. The bioeconomy sits within the environmental pillar as a renewable transition from a fossil fuel-based economy and is associated with the green and circular economy concepts. It sits within the economic pillar as a new economic model based on renewable biomass, again associated with the green and circular economy concepts but also regional development, as well as industrial (sustainable) development, the most important of these being primary (biomass) production (e.g., agriculture). And finally, the concept sits within the social pillar of the SDGs as a transformative process in society, knowledge and culture. As a transformative model, this social dimension is primarily associated with the ‘just transition’ construct, which includes aspects of the green economy and regional/industrial development models. However, there is also an additional pillar which is worth considering, and this relates to governance. This dimension is akin to the tetrahedral model of sustainable development proposed by O’Connor [25] and seems important if one considers governance as the adaptation to new systems and challenges [26]. Although the governance aspect of the bioeconomy is related to all aspects of the model (e.g., green and circular economy, regional development, sustainable agriculture, ‘just transition’) (see Figure 1), since all are aspects of economic (sustainable) development, most important of all is the concept of partnership. Accordingly, partnership is seen as vital for bioeconomy implementation, whereby diverse sectoral actors from both private and public spheres are involved with the state participating on a regulatory basis [27]. Internationally, intergovernmental coordination is seen as imperative [28] in terms of support-based instruments as well as regulation [29].

The bioeconomy as a spatial planning concept is centred around sustainable development based on the environmental, economic, social and governance pillars previously discussed. In these terms, Maciejczak and Hofreiter [30] suggest that sustainable bioeconomy development should address the requirements of contemporary society, whilst safeguarding future generations, as reflected in the UN’s WCED report [31]. Similarly for Birch et al. [13], the essence of the bioeconomy concept relates to the unification of environmental and economic sustainability through the life sciences by the more efficient use of resources, which improves innovation and creates global economic expansion. In respect to the UN’s SDGs, sustainable bioeconomy development can be achieved through a green economy that conserves natural resources (e.g., SDGs 6–7, 12–15), through a circular economy that promotes sustainable production and consumption (e.g., SDG 12) [32], through a regional economy that supports sustainable and competitive economic growth (e.g., SDGs 1–3, 8–9), and through sustainable agriculture that supports food security and nutrition [33] (SDGs 2–3). Sustainable bioeconomy development can also be achieved through ‘just transition’ that supports an inclusive economy and society (e.g., SDGs 4–5, 10–11, 16–17) [34] and through partnership facilitated through co-operation between cross-sectoral stakeholders (e.g., SDGs 4–5, 10–11, 16–17) [35]. The discussion will now turn to discussing each of the theoretical components outlined in Figure 1 with a view to understanding the bioeconomy as a spatial planning concept of environment management and as a component of sustainable development.

In a bioeconomy framework, the green economy concept is primarily associated with broad perspectives relating to the conservation of natural resources in a socially equitable fashion. Priorities here are aligned with the environmental and social pillars of sustainable development (see Figure 1). According to the UNEP [36] the ultimate goal of the green economy is to curtail environmental degradation. Indeed, it is through the green economy concept that bioeconomy development appears integral to the implementation of the European Green Deal [37], whereby there are, “no net emissions of greenhouse gases in 2050 and where economic growth is decoupled from resource use; [and where the] aim [is] to protect, conserve and enhance the EU’s natural capital” [37] (p. 4). The concept also has a strong social sustainability dimension. In this respect, the UNEP [36] contends that environmental conservation in a green economy should enhance public health and well-being and should promote socio-economic equality. This social sustainability aspect bears similarities with the ‘just transition’ approach, whose fundamental aim is to ensure that the bioeconomy increases socio-economic and spatial equity. From a governance perspective, and within a regulatory framework, the green economy dimension of the bioeconomy flourishes when, “the EU can use its influence, expertise and financial resources to mobilise its neighbours and partners to join it on a sustainable path” [37] (p. 4). Such governance includes investment in non-fossil fuel activities, the cost-effective and efficient use of energy and associated consumption, the decoupling of subsidies for fossil fuel activities and unsustainable land use practice, and increased investment in ecosystem services [38].

The green economy concept represents sustainable development as an abstract bioeconomy component since it relates to the broad objectives of environmental and social sustainability. It can be seen as a broad umbrella term that includes aspects of both bioeconomy and circular economy models. In this respect, the green economy aligns with these in terms of resource efficiency and carbon mitigation and reduction, but also extends to other areas, for example, nature-based solutions [39]. As such, the bioeconomy and circular economy can be said to be resource-focused, whereas the green economy is concerned with wider ecological activity. Another characteristic involves the promotion of socio-economic equality and the drive to combat poverty and deprivation associated with vulnerable populations affected by climate change. As previously mentioned, this aspect is associated with ‘just transition’, whose fundamental aim is to ensure that bioeconomy transition increases socio-economic and spatial equity. Its importance relates to the fact that implementing a sustainable bioeconomy has the potential to act as a vehicle for accomplishing the goals described in the European Green Deal such as achieving climate neutrality by 2050, securing clean and affordable energy, mobilising industry for a clean and circular economy, and preserving and restoring ecosystems and biodiversity [37].

The circular economy component is associated with sustainable production and consumption and is aligned with the environmental and economic pillars of sustainable development. From a policy perspective, the circular economy is presented by the European Commission [40] as a strategy for economic growth by the incorporation of circularity to promote and make practical a functioning bioeconomy [1]. This is done to optimise the organisation of bio-based resources [41] and functions as follows: the input of biomaterials and biofuel are produced to create outputs of reusable materials [42], for example, solar energy is converted into biomass, and the latter is transformed into commodities, with any remaining waste utilised as energy, animal feed, or fertiliser [43]. More specifically, the process is facilitated through the cascade model [44], whereby, in the example used, solar energy-converted biomass is transformed into commodities which produce waste that is applied for secondary production, with the process repeated until the commodity can no longer be produced. It is at this stage that the residual waste is incinerated, thereby providing supplementary energy in a locked processing cycle where the ultimate objective is zero waste [45]. The cascade principle is conceptually very similar to circular practice and generally involves the sequential and successive utilisation of resources [46]. In circular economy literature, the cascade principle is often cited as an approach for maintaining the ‘added value’ of materials until they can no longer be used, i.e., materials are used for as long as possible [47,48,49]. Essentially, both the circular practice and the cascade principle concepts are interested in the application of sequential resource circulation in order to maximise resource efficiency [46]. More generally, the circular practice component essentially relates to the dissolution of the carbon cycle in order to generate new pathways towards carbon sink capacity [1]. This is achieved through the utilisation of biogenic carbon in the production of substances and commodities that are part of an enhanced cycle of utility [1]. This enhanced utility cycle, while incorporating circularity throughout the majority of its process, is not entirely circular and should not be conceptualised as such. From a governance perspective, particular strategies aligned with circular practice primarily relate to the removal of subsidies for non-circular or linear production [50], market incentives for circular practice, subsidies for circular products, and public awareness campaigns for circular consumption.

Similarities between the circular economy and the bioeconomy concepts have led to the terms becoming somewhat conflated. Kircher et al. [9] maintain that the EC’s Knowledge-Based Bio-Economy (KBBE) in Europe: Achievements and Challenges [23] has developed into the circular bioeconomy concept, whereby the manufacture of waste and residual substance is fundamental. In this respect, commentors such as Tan and Lamers [51] regard the circular bioeconomy as an emerging concept aiming to integrate circularity into the bioeconomy to achieve sustainable development. Palahí et al. [52] contend that the notion of a circular bioeconomy has the potential to provide explanations that can aid in industrial restructuring, as well as in the restructuring of urban and rural domains, land use, food and health systems, societal co-operation and engagement, and the instigation of a more equitable distribution of wealth. Accordingly, Tan and Lamers [51] consider the circular bioeconomy concept to be theoretically superior to both bioeconomy and circular economy concepts. However, whilst the circular economy should be recognised as a component of the bioeconomy, certain sectors of the latter cannot be part of the former since products such as energy, cosmetics, solvents, etc., cannot currently be reused or recycled in a circular fashion [52]. Furthermore, whilst the earliest interpretations of the bioeconomy were not explicitly associated with circularity, recent understanding of the bioeconomy concept tends to include aspects of circularity as a given. Since the bioeconomy is based on renewable sources of energy and production, it is intrinsically circular by virtue of its identity, the way in which it functions, and the domain in which it functions, e.g., it is based on a system of renewable resource and production [53]. On the other hand, it is not entirely circular and, therefore, is a component of the bioeconomy.

The circular economy concept represents sustainable development in the bioeconomy production process and revolves around recycling and diminishing manufacturing procedures. It is explanatory since it describes how production operates and is primarily concerned with the organisation and deployment of resources with the aim of maximising resource productivity through recycling and diminishing manufacturing procedures in the case of the circular economy, and through the synthesis of organic compounds and the modified application of renewable resources in the case of the bioeconomy [41]. In short, the circular economy concept relates to how resources are used, while the bioeconomy concept relates to what resources are used, with the former usually more focused on operations within the urban environment, while the latter is more focused on regional and rural development [41].

The concept of regional development represents sustainable bioeconomy development in a spatial context, with the region conceived as the place where the bioeconomy is managed and organised. The concept is primarily related to the economic and social pillars of sustainable development (see Figure 1). It is traditionally associated with the socio-economic growth and decline of territories [54] and concerns the coordination of socio-economic processes in particular political and cultural contexts [55]. In the EU, the formation of a prosperous bioeconomy that is sustainable, circular, and ecological is understood to be organised and managed spatially at the regional level. For Kitchen and Marsden [56], the connection between regional development and the bioeconomy relates to the idea of competitiveness and the clustering of interdependent enterprise, whereby eco-industrial centres or parks facilitate innovation through inter-business collaboration and knowledge spillovers. According to Adamowicz [11], the concept of regional development is a prerequisite for bioeconomy development, particularly in terms of regional specialisation. In terms of governance, a regional specialised bioeconomy requires technological innovation, knowledge dissemination, and the orchestration of plans for the transition in governing frameworks positioned to accommodate sustainable bioeconomy trajectories [57,58,59]. In this way, the management of each region determines the opportunities and challenges for bioeconomy development [60]. In this respect, how regional politics and economies connect to local, national and international scales are important to understand [61] so that institutional mechanisms can be established in order to facilitate regional bioeconomies [62].

In terms of planning, regional development can be applied as a tool for determining the spatial requirements for bioeconomy development. In this respect, the evaluation of biological resources is key for ensuring that development does not exceed environmental capacity [63]. The biological resources of the region can be evaluated in terms of capacity as well as production or reproduction speed, and at a more sophisticated level, the scope of regional innovation and enterprise can be determined [43]. Apart from these two parameters, previous and prospective socio-economic development, the historic use of natural resources, ecological condition and development, the needs of society, and the legal structure of the region can be analysed [64]. Furthermore, the vulnerability and resilience of the region’s biological resources can also be considered [43]. Once the natural resource capacity and the socio-economic attributes of a region have been evaluated, the spatial demands of the regional bioeconomy can be determined using spatial planning [65]. For example, regional spatial planning may be required in terms of agricultural zoning, whereby biomass production is prioritised over building and infrastructural development, which is restrained in favour of prioritising biomass production [65]; and regional spatial planning may be required in order to ascertain the proportion of land to be utilised for food, feed, fiber and fuel generation in order to resolve associated land use conflicts [66], and where biorefinery plants should be located. Essentially, the regional development component is important since it facilitates how the bioeconomy is spatially organised. This determines the character of the bioeconomy production process [65]; for example, in a decentralised system, spatial organisation facilitates close proximity between agricultural production, biomass processing, and by-product application [67].

As a subcomponent of regional development, the rural context is also important for conceptualising the bioeconomy. This is because rural space is most often associated with the location in which the bioeconomy occurs, be it in terms of biomass production or biorefinery activities [68]. Proclivity for sustainable bioeconomy activities to be decentralised, and involving smaller-scale industries as a result of widely dispersed biomass production, are more applicable to the rural setting [68]. A Bioeconomy for Europe [21] describes the integration of the bioeconomy and rural development as facilitating sustainable development as a decentralised model for industry. A sustainable Bioeconomy for Europe [4] (p. 27) builds on this aspiration, describing the bioeconomy as a chance for rural areas to be revitalised, whereby bioeconomy development and rural development are combined in such a way that the farmer, as a primary producer, advances development, and where bio-based value chains in rural space are customised to the producer. The 2018 strategy document [4] reflects the recommendations set out in the European Commission’s [69] Expert Group Report, whereby developing the bioeconomy is perceived in terms of new economic opportunities for rural areas.

The regional development concept represents how sustainable bioeconomy development can occur through a regional economy that supports competitive economic growth. In this respect, sustainable, circular and ecologically sound bioeconomy development is understood to be organised and managed spatially at the regional level. As such, in line with the principles of regional development, as well as the circular economy, the bioeconomy can strength resilience by decreasing dependence on global supply chains [70]. As a spatial planning concept, regional development is applied as a tool for identifying the spatial demands for the bioeconomy. This is achieved through regional evaluation, which may facilitate spatial planning via agricultural and development zoning, securing locations for biorefineries, and organising bioeconomy supply chains and transport routes.

4. Discussion

Based on the foregoing discussion, Figure 2 illustrates a theoretical map of the bioeconomy as a spatial planning concept and as a component of sustainable development.

As illustrated in Figure 2, the bioeconomy, as a spatial planning concept, rests on four pillars: environmental, economic, social and governance. The environmental pillar focuses on conserving natural resources, ecosystems and biodiversity, reducing environmental degradation, and mitigating carbon emissions to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. The pillar is positioned as the green economy concept operating through the sustainable use of renewable biological materials to produce goods, services and energy [71], including renewable feedstocks [34], bioenergy [72] and biodegradable materials [73], using circular practices [74]. Sustainable agriculture, specifically the agroecological approach, plays a vital role in achieving these environmental goals by promoting soil conservation [75], water conservation [76], biodiversity preservation [77], waste management [78] and carbon sequestration [79]. These environmental objectives contribute to social sustainability by improving public health, well-being and social equality. The intersection between environmental and economic pillars involves characteristics related to the renewable economy, the cascade principle, resource efficiency, waste utilization and streamlined manufacturing processes (see Figure 2). These characteristics are associated with concepts like the circular economy and sustainable agriculture. In the circular economy, by-products and residues from one process are utilised as feedstock for another process in a closed-loop system [80], employing the cascade principle to optimise material utilisation and minimise waste. Similarly, in sustainable agriculture, these characteristics align with the agroecological approach, reinforcing the environmental objectives previously discussed.

The economic pillar of sustainable development is characterised by elements such as competitive economic growth, the clustering of interdependent enterprises, innovation, and regional specialisation (see Figure 2). These aspects are linked to regional development strategies, opportunities for diversification [34], job creation [81], innovation hubs and integrated value chains [9]. The balancing infrastructural development, particularly biorefineries and logistic networks [82], between natural resource extraction and environmental sustainability is seen as paramount [83]. Public–private investments [84], supply chain collaboration [85], and education and workforce development are crucial components contributing to sustainable regional development and economic prosperity. In the context of sustainable agriculture, the high-tech approach focuses on economic sustainability by maximising productivity [86] through precision farming practices, genetically modified crops, real-time monitoring, indoor and vertical farming, predictive analysis, microbial biopesticides, remote sensing technologies, and advanced plant breeding [87].

The social pillar of sustainable development encompasses societal shifts, knowledge enhancement and cultural changes necessary for transitioning to a bio-based economy. It is closely linked to the ‘just transition’ concept, encompassing social equality, and public health and well-being (see Figure 2). Social equality efforts aim for accessible employment and training, community involvement in decision-making [88], fair distribution of environmental benefits and burdens [89], and protection of worker rights [90]. Enhancing wellbeing includes improving air and water quality [91], promoting healthier food choices, and reducing pesticides in agriculture [92]. The intersection of social and economic sustainability focuses on food security, nutrition and an inclusive economy, with sustainable agriculture as a key component. This involves diverse crop production, mitigating crop failure risks [93], maintaining stable food systems through conservation, promoting climate-resilient agriculture, supporting local food systems [94] and reducing food waste to enhance accessibility [95]. An inclusive economy, linked to ‘just transition’, seeks equitable access to economic opportunities, education and resources [96], addressing socio-economic disparities, advocating for social protection and supporting vulnerable communities [96].

The governance pillar of sustainable development is crucial for guiding the transition process across industries and the public. Initially, governance focuses on establishing clear policy and regulatory guidelines for transforming production and consumption patterns (see Figure 2). This may involve industry-focused measures such as tax incentives, standards, licenses and market support. Financial instruments like tax credits, grants and subsidies play a role [97], along with standards like green certification and quality assurance [98]. Market governance involves negotiating trade agreements, reducing barriers, and promoting bio-based products through various initiatives and consumer awareness campaigns [99]. Regional bureaucracy is another aspect, addressing how the bioeconomy is organised spatially and strategically. It includes regional evaluation, agricultural zoning, compact development and infrastructural investment. Key investments include biorefineries, waste management facilities and transportation networks, often following a decentralised approach [100]. Conflict resolution and land use management are essential, requiring stakeholder consultation, community engagement [101] and environmental impact assessments [89]. Mediation and facilitation strategies help find common ground [102], while dispute resolution techniques like negotiation and arbitration resolve conflicts. Overall, effective governance ensures a smooth transition to a sustainable bioeconomy while managing conflicts and optimising resource use [103]. This necessitates customised governance frameworks to address regional policy deficiencies and support an effective transition towards a bioeconomy [70].

The environmental aspect of bioeconomy governance focuses on sustainable resource management, water resource management, pollution prevention, monitoring and enforcement [104] (see Figure 2). Practices such as preventing deforestation, minimising pollution from agricultural runoff and industrial processes, and implementing regulations to reduce air and water pollution are crucial [105]. Social aspects involve community engagement [89], social impact assessments, fair employment practices and revenue-sharing mechanisms to ensure equitable benefits from bioeconomy initiatives [106]. Partnership is the key aspect of bioeconomy governance, involving collaboration across various sectors. Green economy partnerships focus on renewable energy and sustainable infrastructure projects [107,108], while circular economy partnerships aim to implement circular principles in supply chains, waste management and consumption behaviours [109,110,111,112]. Regional bioeconomy development partnerships involve collaboration between government agencies, businesses and local communities to establish supportive policies [60], promote sustainable practices and showcase regional bioeconomy products [113]. Partnerships in sustainable agriculture include co-operatives, supply chain collaborations, extension services, biodiversity and ecosystem conservation efforts, and compliance and marketing initiatives [114,115,116,117]. Finally, partnerships in the ‘just transition’ approach aim to prioritise social equity by collaborating with stakeholders to implement initiatives such as workforce training programs and shared ownership models, ensuring that marginalised communities benefit from the bioeconomy transition [118,119,120,121].

5. Conclusions

The paper has aimed to contribute to the theoretical development of the bioeconomy concept by framing it within the broader context of sustainable development. This is important since such theoretical development aims to address the complex challenges facing bioeconomy transition and the need to combat climate change in a socially equitable manner. It does this by interpreting the bioeconomy through the lens of the environmental, economic, social and governance pillars of sustainable development, which is important in understanding how bioeconomy systems can most effectively function. As a theoretical framework, the environmental pillar of sustainable development is associated with the green economy concept, which is central to bioeconomy activity as an existential response to the challenges of climate change challenges, which lie at the theoretical heart of the framework. The interaction between the environmental and economic pillars is associated with the concepts of the circular economy and sustainable agriculture, which guide resource management in the bioeconomy to achieve environmental goals. The economic pillar is associated with the regional development concept, which organises how bioeconomy development is implemented spatially and transnationally. The social pillar is associated with the often overlooked ‘just transition’ concept, essential for ensuring that this socio-technical transition is equitable, and indeed, sustainable. Finally, the governance pillar is associated with the partnership concept, crucial for implementing the bioeconomy across economic, environmental and social domains, both nationally and internationally.