Sustainable Circular Bioeconomy

Edited by Manoj Kumar Nallapaneni, Md Ariful Haque and Sarif Patwary

www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

## **Sustainable Circular Bioeconomy**

## **Sustainable Circular Bioeconomy**

Editors

**Manoj Kumar Nallapaneni Md Ariful Haque Sarif Patwary**

Basel • Beijing • Wuhan • Barcelona • Belgrade • Novi Sad • Cluj • Manchester

*Editors* Manoj Kumar Nallapaneni School of Energy and Environment City University of Hong Kong Kowloon Tong Hong Kong

Md Ariful Haque Department of Fermentation Science Middle Tennessee State University Murfreesboro United States

Sarif Patwary Human Development and Consumer Sciences University of Houston Houston United States

*Editorial Office* MDPI St. Alban-Anlage 66 4052 Basel, Switzerland

This is a reprint of articles from the Special Issue published online in the open access journal *Sustainability* (ISSN 2071-1050) (available at: www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/special issues/ circular bioeconomy sust).

For citation purposes, cite each article independently as indicated on the article page online and as indicated below:

Lastname, A.A.; Lastname, B.B. Article Title. *Journal Name* **Year**, *Volume Number*, Page Range.

**ISBN 978-3-0365-8679-3 (Hbk) ISBN 978-3-0365-8678-6 (PDF) doi.org/10.3390/books978-3-0365-8678-6**

© 2023 by the authors. Articles in this book are Open Access and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. The book as a whole is distributed by MDPI under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND) license.

## **Contents**



## **About the Editors**

#### **Manoj Kumar Nallapaneni**

Dr. Nallapaneni is a transdisciplinary energy and sustainability engineer with a PhD in Digital Circular Economy and Circular Power System from the School of Energy and Environment, City University of Hong Kong. He has obtained two Masters degreees, one in Renewable Energy Technologies from Karunya University, India, and the other in Environmental Economics from Annamalai University, India. He holds a Bachelor's degree in Electrical and Electronics Engineering from GITAM University. Before joining the CityU, He worked as a Research Fellow at Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Malaysia, on a project which focused on using solar photovoltaics as urban and rural infrastructure. Earlier to this, he worked as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering at the Bharat Institute of Engineering and Technology, Hyderabad, India, and Energy Engineer at Atiode Solar Systems Limited, Benin City, Nigeria.

Dr. Nallapaneni's research works focus on the topics of simulation, experimental, real-time empirical and location, or climate-specific studies mainly focused on building sustainable and resilient systems (decentralized, networked, and centralized) across critical infrastructure sectors by adopting nexus thinking and systems innovation with an emphasis on circular business models and digitalization. He worked on key sustainability challenges that include design, performance modeling, and analysis of a wide range of clean energy and environmental systems, food–energy–water–waste nexus, industrial symbiosis, waste valorization and material passports, carbon accounting, and pricing. He possess an interdisciplinary skill set that includes performance analytics, techno-economics (spreadsheet and tools), life cycle assessment (emission factor/embodied energy approach and LCA tools), resilience assessment (simple and systemic), leveraging digital innovation (blockchain, IoT, smart contracts, and AI), business model innovation, and nexus systems design with better conceptualization skills.

#### **Md Ariful Haque**

Md Ariful Haque (Ph.D.) is an academician, researcher, entrepreneur, and author, currently working as a adjunct faculty and researcher at Middle Tennessee State University. With a diverse educational background, Dr. Ariful earned his bachelor's degree in Agricultural Science from Bangladesh Agricultural University, followed by a master's degree in Industrial Biotechnology from Walailak University in Thailand. He furthered his expertise with a doctoral degree in energy and environment from the City University of Hong Kong.

Dr. Ariful's professional pursuits center around his fervent interest in fermentation, probiotics, and biotransformation. Through his teaching and research, he explores the intricate processes of converting various feedstocks into valuable biopolymers and platform chemicals. This work holds far-reaching applications, spanning industries such as textiles, medical, packaging, and food production. Dr. Ariful is dedicated to translating his innovative ideas into tangible solutions that can revolutionize industries and improve lives. Multifaceted approach coupled with commitment to sustainable practices, Dr. Ariful plays a positive role in both scholarly and practical spheres. In essence, Dr. Md Ariful Haque's journey exemplifies the synergy between academia, research, and entrepreneurship. His academic endeavors and interdisciplinary focus highlight his dedication to creating a more sustainable and innovative world, making him a notable figure in shaping the future of scientific advancement.

#### **Sarif Patwary**

With a PhD in fashion sustainability and postdoctoral research experience, Dr. Sarif Patwary has a deep understanding of the environmental and social impacts of fashion production and a track record of developing strategies to reduce these impacts. Currently, he works as a Sr. Sustainability Analyst at Kontoor Brands, Inc., and is dedicated to driving sustainability initiatives within two of its iconic consumer brands: Wrangler®and Lee®.

His expertise lies in conducting sustainability assessments, analyzing data, and developing evidence-based recommendations for improving sustainability performance. He has a proven ability to communicate complex sustainability concepts to diverse audiences, including senior leadership, employees, and stakeholders. He is a proactive and solution-oriented team player, with the ability to work effectively with cross-functional teams to drive change. He is excited to contribute his expertise and passion for the development of a more sustainable fashion industry to this project.

## **Preface**

Welcome to "Sustainable Circular Bioeconomy", a comprehensive exploration of one of the most pressing topics of our time. As we stand at the forefront of the 21st century, it has become increasingly evident that we must shift our focus towards sustainable practices that harmonize with our environment and promote long-term wellbeing.

The concept of a circular bioeconomy encapsulates this urgent need for change. It represents a paradigm shift where we harness the power of nature and leverage the potential of biologically derived resources to create a regenerative and sustainable economic system. This reprint delves deep into the principles, practices, and possibilities of the sustainable circular bioeconomy. Within these pages, you will find a wealth of knowledge and insights contributed by experts, researchers, and practitioners who have dedicated their lives to advancing the borders of sustainability. Each chapter of this reprint is carefully crafted to provide a holistic view of the subject, covering a wide range of topics, including renewable energy, waste management, food–energy–water nexus, digital innovation in sustainability, aquaculture, agriculture, biotechnology, and more.

Our aim in creating this reprint was to inspire and educate readers from diverse backgrounds—academics, policymakers, industry professionals, and concerned citizens—about the immense potential and transformative power of the sustainable circular bioeconomy. Through the integration of biological and technological innovations, we can create a resilient and regenerative future that not only meets our present needs but also ensures the wellbeing of future generations. For the effective realization of this future, we also advocate for focusing on the circularity of bioeconomy from a sustainability and resilience point of view.

We express our deepest gratitude to the esteemed contributors who have shared their expertise and insights to this reprint through the call for papers that we announced in December 2021. Their dedication and passion for sustainability have enriched its content and made this endeavor possible. Our special thanks are expressed to Nichole Wang, Section Managing Editor of *Sustainability*. We also extend our gratitude to the readers who embark on this journey with us, for it is through your engagement and commitment to change that we can collectively shape a better world. As you immerse yourself in the pages ahead, we invite you to open your mind to new possibilities, challenge conventional thinking, and embrace the transformative potential of the sustainable circular bioeconomy by applying the *RePLiCATE Approach* that is suggested within the Editorial of this reprint. Together, let us embark on a path towards a more harmonious, regenerative, and circular future that is sustainable and resilient with boundless hope and determination.

#### **Manoj Kumar Nallapaneni, Md Ariful Haque, and Sarif Patwary** *Editors*

## *Editorial* **It Is Time to Synergize the Circularity of Circular Bioeconomy with Sustainability and Resiliency Principles**

**Manoj Kumar Nallapaneni 1,2,3,\* , Md Ariful Haque 1,4 and Sarif Patwary 5,6**


#### **1. Bioeconomy and Its Circularity**

Bioeconomy mainly refers to an economic system based on the sustainable production, conversion, and utilization of biological resources, such as crops, forests, fish, and microorganisms, to produce food, feed, energy, and other products. Following this production, conversion, and utilization principle, the bioeconomy can start replacing most finite and non-renewable resources with renewable and biologically derived resources [1]. Biofuels, bioplastics, bio-based chemicals, bio-based textiles, bio-based fertilizers, organic waste bioremediation, and others are some notable examples of bioeconomy. With recent developments and significant advancements in technologies and processes that aid bioeconomy, bioeconomy is expected to be increasingly important, especially in addressing global challenges such as waste management, climate change, food security, and sustainable development [2]. Additionally, the recent progress in bioeconomy concepts, especially from a sustainable development standpoint of view and the application of a lifecycle perspective, suggest that bioeconomy could promote the transition of the current linear economy model to a more sustainable one called circular economy, leading to the emergence of *circular bioeconomy*, under which circularity is more focused [3].

Bioeconomy's circularity refers to keeping resources in use for as long as possible, extracting their maximum value, and then recovering and regenerating them at the end of their useful life [3]. This includes practices such as recycling, reusing, and remanufacturing products and materials, as well as the restoration of degraded ecosystems following the principles of various *circular economy business models* [4]. One such example of a circular bioeconomy considering the flow of biomass is shown in Figure 1 [5]. Overall, *circular bioeconomy* aims to create a more circular and equitable society combining economic, social, and environmental goals by recognizing the interconnectedness of human well-being, the natural environment, and the economy and seeking solutions that benefit all three.

Now to understand how research solutions are being proposed to benefit human well-being, the natural environment, and the economy, we opened a Special Issue titled "*Sustainable Circular Bioeconomy*" calling for contributions (https://www.mdpi.com/ journal/sustainability/special\_issues/circular\_bioeconomy\_sust, accessed on 3 August 2023). The response was positive with a wide range of contributions, based on which we (the editors) carried out a discussion (Section 2.1), paving the way for a fresh research agenda in the field of circular bioeconomy, i.e., "*synergizing the bioeconomy's circularity with sustainability and resiliency*" (Section 2.2). Recommendations on how to synergize and ways to perform this are provided in Section 3.

**Citation:** Nallapaneni, M.K.; Haque, M.A.; Patwary, S. It Is Time to Synergize the Circularity of Circular Bioeconomy with Sustainability and Resiliency Principles. *Sustainability* **2023**, *15*, 12239. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su151612239

Received: 3 August 2023 Revised: 9 August 2023 Accepted: 9 August 2023 Published: 10 August 2023

**Copyright:** © 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

**Figure 1.** Circular bioeconomy illustration with biomass flows. Adopted from [5] and reprinted with permission from Springer Nature.

#### **2. "Sustainable Circular Bioeconomy" Special Issue in MDPI Sustainability**

#### *2.1. Discussion on the Special Issue Contributions*

The contributions published in the *"Sustainable Circular Bioeconomy"* Special Issue are varied in their subject fields but broadly fall under the bigger umbrella of circular bioeconomy [6]. The first published article (https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/1/466, accessed on 26 July 2023) highlights the use of technology to integrate the planning and stakeholder phases with the social, economic, technological, and environmental phases. The focus of key technologies are the Internet of Things (IoT), smart energy grids, GPS tracking systems, and blockchain. The authors have shown how these technologies promote a transition to sustainable progress in the bioeconomy field. The second published article (https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/2/994, accessed on 26 July 2023) showed the application of agro-lignocellulosic waste as a substrate for producing oyster mushrooms, where the authors just focused on the production process and testing of the mushrooms for their quality. The third published article (https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/3/1161, accessed on 26 July 2023) is about distiller-dried grains with a soluble diet as a substitute for standard corn-soybean for swine production in the United States of America, where the authors formulated the diet and modeled the life cycle assessment to assess the sustainability of the diet. In the fourth published article (https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/3/1897, accessed on 26 July 2023), the authors study biomass self-sufficiency status for European member states to meet the European Green Deals by 2050. It is mentioned that most European member states are biomass self-sufficient, but the resilience of such sufficiency relies on the ecological boundary. In the fifth published article (https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1 050/14/4/2044, accessed on 26 July 2023), the authors focused on the use of technology to identify situations like aqua farmers involved in constructing illegal fishponds by taking Kolleru Lake in Andhra Pradesh, India as a case study. In the sixth published article (https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/4/2281, accessed on 26 July 2023), the authors depict the NTFP-based bioeconomic prospect in Kashmir, India. The authors identified that a lack of proper information on the extraction, consumption, and traded quantities of NTFPs in Kashmir, India were significant drawbacks in quantifying the NTFP's contribution to the bioeconomy, suggesting the need for a better decision support system, infrastruc-

ture, and regulation to aid bioeconomic prospects. In the seventh published article (https: //www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/5/3126, accessed on 26 July 2023), the authors detail the environmentally friendly extraction and precipitation process of phenolics and a waste valorization technique of Cocoa Bean Shells to promote bioeconomy. However, the authors did not mention much about the scalability, further process optimization approach, and the process's lifecycle and techno-economic feasibility assessment. In the eighth published article (https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/6/3369, accessed on 26 July 2023), the authors present the impact of biofuel crop expansion on other crops in the GDP of Thailand. The authors used a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model combined with a life cycle impact assessment. As per the authors, although biofuel promotion could promote Green GDP, policymakers should emphasize the prevention of and the transformation of forests to agricultural land. Without technological advancements, expanding biofuel crops for alternative energy would not ensure efficient resource utilization and prevent environmental degradation. The ninth published article (https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/15/9678, accessed on 26 July 2023) focused on the accountability of sustainability, where the authors have suggested a model for achieving sustainability in agro-industrial companies. Their model combines the principles and goals of the water-energy-food nexus with existing business excellence models. This model can assist companies in making decisions and managing tradeoffs and synergies as they strive to become more sustainable. In the tenth published article (https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/16/10299, accessed on 26 July 2023), authors pursued sustainability initiatives after realizing how sustainable progress could emerge in the Brazilian Amazon. This study found a range of new seeds of change; however, more needs to be conducted to support transformation toward sustainable and equitable development in the region. In the eleventh published article (https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/20/13686, accessed on 26 July 2023), authors from CAZRI in Jodhpur, India, HICCER in Palakkad, India, propose a solar photovoltaic winnower cum-dryer for drying Phoenix dactylifera L. fruits by keeping the socio-economic status of farmers. They performed a techno-economic assessment, showing a high internal rate of return and a shorter payback period. They also showed that their design could serve multiple functions apart from drying, for instance, the effective winnower operation even without natural wind. In the twelfth published article (https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/1/656, accessed on 26 July 2023), the authors believe that having a scientific understanding of the apparel life cycle among apparel consumers is very important. So with that hypothesis, they investigated three research questions: what is the current norm of clothing acquisition, maintenance, and disposal behavior? What is apparel consumer clothing acquisition, maintenance, and disposal behavior circular-driven? What is a sustainable way of clothing acquisition, maintenance, and disposal? They provided a circular economy lens framework that could serve as new guidelines for consumers to exercise mindful clothing consumption. In the thirteenth published article (https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/2/1634, accessed on 26 July 2023), the authors suggest using a mixed method approach to assess the implementation and priority level of internationally defined bioeconomy objectives in Latvian policy planning documents. This study found that these objectives were highly prioritized, especially in higher-level policy planning records.

#### *2.2. Need for Synergizing Circularity of Bioeconomy with Sustainability and Resiliency*

Considering the case of biomass flows in a circular bioeconomy, as shown in Figure 1 [5], the effectiveness of a circular bioeconomy can only be defined when such flows are aligned with sustainability and resiliency principles. Only then can our societies and ecosystems thrive over the long term in a sustainable development path. Now the question is, what are sustainability and resiliency? How do they matter in this context?

Sustainability refers to the ability to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This requires the responsible use and management of natural resources, the efficient use of technology and processes that

reduce or limit environmental impacts, and the promotion of social and economic equity. Based on Figure 1 [5], the circular bioeconomy of biomass flows might be sustainable only when the most energy-efficient and less material-intensive processes are used (materials that have lower environmental impacts); at the same time, all waste coming from bioproducts or co-products are managed effectively through appropriate waste management technology.

Resiliency, on the other hand, refers to the ability of systems to bounce back from disturbances and adapt to changing conditions. In the face of ongoing environmental and social challenges such as climate change, resource depletion, and social inequality, it is critical to prioritize sustainability and resiliency in order to build a more equitable and sustainable future for all; however, building a circular bioeconomy aligned with sustainability and resiliency principles might be the best option. Based on Figure 1 [5], the circular bioeconomy of biomass flows may be resilient only when all stakeholders are prepared for disturbances and take appropriate actions to recover from them and ensure the learning of adaptation mechanisms.

Overall, to ensure that circular bioeconomy initiatives are truly sustainable and resilient, they need to be integrated with a wide range of principles from a systems innovation approach [6]. This requires a holistic approach that takes into account the interrelated nature of these factors and involves collaboration and coordination across sectors and stakeholders. However, whether these are actually happening is the question. Suppose we see the discussed circular bioeconomy concepts from the Special Issue in Section 2.1 and other articles published elsewhere; we can observe that almost all the studies lack this systems approach. More or less, most studies are limited to one set of analyses, which may or may not provide sufficient insights into whether the circular bioeconomy initiative is sustainable and has the potential to become a resilient solution. Therefore, it is a needed approach that we look into all three aspects (circularity, sustainability, and resiliency) when we propose a circular bioeconomy initiative. By synergizing circularity with sustainability and resiliency, the bioeconomy can become a powerful tool for achieving long-term, equitable, and environmentally sound development.

#### **3. How to Realize the Circularity of Circular Bioeconomy with Sustainability and Resiliency**

Realizing the circularity of circular bioeconomy with sustainability and resiliency requires a comprehensive, integrated approach that considers the interrelated nature of performance (that is otherwise called technical considering resilience and reliability), social, economic, and environmental factors, for instance, the *RePLiCATE (Resilience Performance, Life Cycle Analysis and Techno-Economics) approach* as proposed in Ref. [7], see Figure 2. While pursuing the above said *RePLiCATE* for designing circular bioeconomy concepts, a few other aspects can also be followed which may further provide deeper insights on circular bioeconomy implementation; see Box 1.

By adopting these points, we can realize a circularity of circular bioeconomy with sustainability and resiliency and build a more equitable and sustainable future for all. By embracing circularity, we can minimize waste and pollution and promote the more sustainable use of resources. By promoting sustainability and resiliency, we can create a system that is not only environmentally sustainable but also resilient to external shocks, ensuring that we can meet our needs both now and in the future, which is in line with the developmental goals of sustainability [11]. Thus, synergizing sustainability and resiliency with circularity is a critical need of the hour that needs to be given the utmost importance while developing circular bioeconomy concepts and business initiatives.

**Figure 2.** RePLiCATE approach to realize the circularity of circular bioeconomy in line with sustainability and resiliency principles. Adopted from authors own sources [4,7].

**Box 1.** Points that can help to achieve circular bioeconomy's circularity aligned with sustainability and resiliency principles.

*Adopt a Circular Design in a Circular Bioeconomy:* This involves designing products and processes to maximize the use of resources and minimize waste. This is only possible if circular design concepts are followed while designing [8].

*Design that follows the pre-conditions of RePLiCATE framework:* This involves analyzing the products and processes following the *RePLiCATE* framework (Figure 2) pre-conditions such as what should be considered to make a process safe to fail, product a tamper proof, sustainability data quality, recycling technologies and others that are applicable as per circular economy principles and energy efficiency standards, detailed economic parameters considering both the present and future markets and so on to assess circularity, sustainability, resilience, and economic viability [7].

*Promote resource efficiency:* This involves reducing the use of non-renewable resources and minimizing waste generation by adopting sustainable production and consumption practices [4,9].

*Digitalization:* This involves the digitalization of circular bioeconomy value chain stakeholders; upon doing so, there is a high possibility for tracing material flows and their characteristics, allowing us to evaluate sustainability and resiliency issues with near accuracy [8–10].

*Foster social equity:* This involves ensuring that circular bioeconomy initiatives are inclusive and benefit all members of society. This can be achieved through stakeholder engagement, participatory decision-making, and the promotion of fair labor practices [4,9].

*Protect biodiversity:* This involves minimizing the impact of circular bioeconomy initiatives on ecosystems and promoting the conservation of biodiversity [1,2,8].

*Build resilience:* This involves designing circular bioeconomy initiatives that are adaptable to changing environmental and social conditions and can withstand disturbances, such as natural disasters and economic shocks [4,7,9].

*Foster collaboration:* This involves working with multiple stakeholders across sectors and disciplines to ensure that circular bioeconomy initiatives are designed and implemented in a way that maximizes benefits across social, economic, and environmental dimensions [4,9].

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, M.K.N.; writing—original draft preparation, M.K.N. and M.A.H.; writing—review and editing, M.K.N., M.A.H. and S.P.; visualization, M.K.N.; supervision, M.K.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Acknowledgments:** The Special Issue Editors would like to take the opportunity to thank the authors who responded to the call and the MDPI *Sustainability* Journal for approving the topic and allowing us to be in the guest editor roles. We are also deeply indebted to the reviewers whose input was indispensable in selecting the published papers.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **References**


**Disclaimer/Publisher's Note:** The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

## *Article* **Smart and Sustainable Bioeconomy Platform: A New Approach towards Sustainability**

**Gaspare D'Amico 1,\*, Katarzyna Szopik-Depczy ´nska <sup>2</sup> , Riccardo Beltramo 3, Idiano D'Adamo <sup>4</sup> and Giuseppe Ioppolo <sup>1</sup>**


**Abstract:** The smart and sustainable bioeconomy represents a comprehensive perspective, in which economic, social, environmental, and technological dimensions are considered simultaneously in the planning, monitoring, evaluating, and redefining of processes and operations. In this context of profound transformation driven by rapid urbanization and digitalization, participatory and interactive strategies and practices have become fundamental to support policymakers, entrepreneurs, and citizens in the transition towards a smart and sustainable bioeconomy. This approach is applied by numerous countries around the world in order to redefine their strategy of sustainable and technology-assisted development. Specifically, real-time monitoring stations, sensors, Internet of Things (IoT), smart grids, GPS tracking systems, and Blockchain aim to develop and strengthen the quality and efficiency of the circularity of economic, social, and environmental resources. In this sense, this study proposes a systematic review of the literature of smart and sustainable bioeconomy strategies and practices implemented worldwide in order to develop a platform capable of integrating holistically the following phases: (1) planning and stakeholder management; (2) identification of social, economic, environmental, and technological dimensions; and (3) goals. The results of this analysis emphasise an innovative and under-treated perspective, further stimulating knowledge in the theoretical and managerial debate on the smart and sustainable aspects of the bioeconomy, which mainly concern the following: (a) the proactive involvement of stakeholders in planning; (b) the improvement of efficiency and quality of economic, social, environmental, and technological flows; and (c) the reinforcement of the integration between smartness and sustainability.

**Keywords:** bioeconomy; digitalization; platform-based bioeconomy; smart and sustainable development; governance

#### **1. Introduction**

Current rates of urbanization and industrialization generate a wide range of issues that affect bioeconomy, such as waste recycling [1,2], energy conservation [3], water dissipation [4], traffic congestion [5], social disparities [6], healthcare emergencies [7], loss of biodiversity [8], land utilization difficulties [9], atmospheric and acoustic pollution [10], infrastructure and facilities obsolescence [11,12], food valorisation [13], forest management [14], safety and cyber-security [15,16], sustainable economic development [17], and so on. Consequently, the social, economic, and environmental challenges that emerge from urbanization and industrialization and the opportunities to address these issues more adequately through technology place the bioeconomy at the centre of the academic

**Citation:** D'Amico, G.;

Szopik-Depczy ´nska, K.; Beltramo, R.; D'Adamo, I.; Ioppolo, G. Smart and Sustainable Bioeconomy Platform: A New Approach towards Sustainability. *Sustainability* **2022**, *14*, 466. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su14010466

Academic Editor: Julio Berbel

Received: 2 December 2021 Accepted: 30 December 2021 Published: 2 January 2022

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

and managerial debate, as it plays a crucial role in supporting a smart and sustainable transition [18–22].

According to the summit [23], the term smart and sustainable bioeconomy used in this article refers to a centre of "production, utilization, conservation and transformation of biological resources which—through digital technologies—aim to provide real time and continuous data and information that contribute to improve the circularity and efficiency of waste, water, energy, agriculture, health, education, mobility, telecommunications, and governance." In fact, bioeconomy strategies and practices are at the centre of several international frameworks, such as the report on "challenges, visions and ways forward of the cities of the future" implemented by [24], the study on "new perspectives on urbanization of cities in the world" [25], and the 2030 UN Agenda for Sustainable Development [26]. In [27,28], authors identified a wide range of bioeconomy strategies and practices in line with diverse goals and targets of the UN 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development, such as food security (Goals 1 and 2), water quality (Goal 6), energy efficiency (Goal 7), inclusive economic development (Goal 8), waste prevention and reuse (Goal 12), and prevention of life below water and on land (Goals 14 and 15). Likewise, the report [29] recommends policymakers, urban planners, and managers to strengthen "the sustainable management of resources, facilitating ecosystem conservation, regeneration, restoration and resilience in the face of new and emerging challenges".

Therefore, policymakers, entrepreneurs, and citizens are required to rethink the bioeconomy paradigm through the implementation of smart and sustainable initiatives in order to optimize the social, economic, and environmental processes and operations [30–33]. To this end, it is essential to enhance the understanding and awareness of bioeconomic flows and reorient their circulation in order to support a forward-looking and dynamic vision of the bioeconomy as the engine of smart and sustainable solutions [34–37].

The transition towards a smart and sustainable bioeconomy strives to address through a data-based approach the ever-increasing quantity of renewable biological resources, such as plant resources, agri-food production, forests, marine and livestock resources, microorganisms, algae, as well as waste, by-products and wastewater of agro-industrial origin, and the consequent congestion, in order to reduce the anthropogenic pressure on built and natural settlements [38–41]. Specifically, this new form of smart and sustainable bioeconomy, through the utilization of digital platforms and dashboards [18,42,43], holistically combines a wide range of information and communication technologies (ICTs), such as sensors [44,45], real-time monitoring stations [46], cameras [47], GPS tracking systems [48], big-data analysis techniques [49], artificial intelligence [50], augmented reality [51], blockchain [52], Internet of Things (IoT) [53], cloud computing [54], smart grids [55], satellites [56], nanotechnologies [57], advanced biotechnologies [58], and drones [59].

The information and communication technologies (ICTs) listed above ensure a real time and fully transparent authentication, traceability, treatment, analysis and evaluation of data, and information on bioeconomic resources from source to customer while providing agility, security, and efficiency along the production and distribution processes [60,61]. Consequently, the pervasive and intensive dissemination of fixed and mobile digital devices is revolutionizing the circularity of raw materials and secondary raw materials, by-products, chemicals, biofuels, bioplastics, urban and industrial waste, and wastewater, generating a wide and diversified range of data and information useful for policymakers, planners, managers, agricultural entrepreneurs, scientists, growers, logistics companies, biorefinery workers, chemical and technological companies, etc., able to optimize the use of natural and non-natural resources and improve the quality of their interactions [62,63]. In this regard, information and communication technologies (ICTs) allow a proactive and holistic approach capable of improving the mechanization and commercialization of practices along the bioeconomy chain through innovations, such as precision farming [64], precision livestock [65], sustainable packaging [66], and industry 4.0 [67].

Conversely, the lack of detailed and real-time data and information determines a wide range of uncertainties related, for example, to the timing of procurement, production, distribution and transformation, quality, location, and consumption, which leads to an under-optimization of bioeconomic flows [68]. Hence, the connectivity, variety, proximity, flexibility, coordination capacity, diversity, foresight, interdependence, collaboration, adaptability, creativity, efficiency, agility, self-organization, robustness, and resourcefulness of bioeconomy data and information provided by fixed and mobile digital equipment are therefore essential not only to minimize economic, social, and environmental costs but also as tools to refurbish other dimensions, such as mobility, telecommunications, health, education, and safety.

According to the "Future transitions for the Bioeconomy into Sustainable Development and a Climate-Neutral Economy report," elaborated by the European Commission's Knowledge Centre for Bioeconomy, the bioeconomy employs around 17.5 million people (almost 9% of its workforce), generating 614 billion euros of added value (about 5% of its GDP). Furthermore, if we include the tertiary bioeconomy sector based on digital services, which amounts to 872 billion euros, we reach an overall European extent of the bioeconomy of 1.5 trillion euros (almost 10% of its GDP) [69].

This growing importance of bioeconomy has provided a wide range of strategies and practices at the global level [23]. In this sense, the development of bioeconomy policies has become increasingly complex and varied [70]. In general, the strategies and practices of the bioeconomy tend to differ on the basis of factors related for example to technological advances [71], the availability of natural resources [72], cultural and institutional progress [73], and the development of the economic system [74]. In Germany, for example, the bioeconomy is clearly recognized as an inter-sectoral concept and refers not only to biological resources but also embraces social aspects, such as multi-level governance, stakeholders' management, and people empowerment [75,76]. Otherwise, Japan prioritizes the "biotechnological" vision, emphasizing the role of digital technologies such as Big Data, Artificial Intelligence, and Internet of Things [77]. On the other hand, the United States focuses more on the safety and security aspects, such as the cyber protection from biological threats, the development of biotechnologies for military use, and the preservation of sensitive infrastructure and biological data [78]. Given their significant and varied availability of biological resources, Costa Rica [79] and South Africa [80] embrace sustainable bioprospecting practices for scientific and commercial purposes, while Thailand [81], Italy [82], and Nordic Council of Ministers [83] are committed to the conservation of biodiversity and natural ecosystems for tourism activities.

Therefore, the current theoretical and managerial discussion is increasingly focused on the role of biotechnology, nanotechnology, and information and communication technologies (ICTs) in the bioeconomy [84]. In this regard, Costa Rica [79] coined the term "advanced bioeconomy" in order to highlight the importance of digitalization in improving the circularity of natural and non-natural resources. At the same time, the intensive and pervasive use of digital technologies in the bioeconomy highlights a wide range of challenges and issues within the social, economic, and environmental spheres [85].

On the basis of reports, master plans, and documents elaborated by governments, ministries, departments, agencies, and research centres, the following article provides a detailed overview of the bioeconomy strategies and practices implemented globally in order to develop a multidimensional platform able to holistically integrate the phases that characterize the smart and sustainable bioeconomy decision-making process. In summary, the proposed overview aims to explain the different approaches developed at a global level and to strengthen the understanding of (a) planning and stakeholder management; (b) identification of the social, economic, environmental, and technological dimensions; and (c) setting of the goals to be pursued. To do this, an in-depth analysis was conducted on a wide range of countries, such as South Africa, Costa Rica, USA, Japan, Malaysia, Thailand, Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, and so on, which have developed a plethora of smart and sustainable bioeconomy initiatives in order to improve the planning, collection, monitoring, and analysis of economic, social, environmental, and technological flows. In this sense, by identifying and analysing a wide range of smart and

sustainable strategies and practices, the study fills a gap in the theoretical and managerial literature of the bioeconomy, providing a further piece in the debate between policymakers, entrepreneurs, scientists, planners, and citizens.

Hence, the study is structured in this manner: Section 2 outlines the methodology. Section 3 proposes the smart and sustainable bioeconomy platform, identifying and analysing the phases that characterize the smart and sustainable bioeconomy at a global level. Section 4 offers considerations on the role of smart and sustainable bioeconomy in future challenges. Finally, Section 5 provides the conclusions.

#### **2. Materials and Methods**

This paper provides a systematic review of the literature of strategies and practices implemented worldwide in order to develop a multidimensional platform capable of analysing and integrating the phases that characterize the smart and sustainable bioeconomy decision-making process. To do this, a wide range of globally implemented bioeconomy strategies and practices was investigated. The research took place in three different phases: identification, operational, and results (see Figure 1).

**Figure 1.** Methodology. Source: Authors.

In Phase 1—Identification, the search question, the keywords, a series of inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the search databases are outlined. With regard to the aim and research question of this paper, the study aims to provide a clear and exhaustive analysis, developing a platform capable of integrating in a systemic and holistic way the aspects of each operational phase of the smart and sustainable bioeconomy decision-making process. Therefore, the study focuses on the following research question: with which strategies and practices is the global context facing the transition towards the smart and sustainable bioeconomy? In this regard, the study of the smart and sustainable bioeconomy offers a multidisciplinary perspective of circular economy. Specifically, the scientific areas embrace

agricultural, forest and marine economics, logistics, industrial organization, strategic management, technology and innovation management, data science, information and communication technologies, environmental and IT engineering, energy management, sustainable development, public policy analysis, geography, urban governance, territorial planning, etc.

In terms of sources, the investigation was based on the exploration and integration of a wide range of sources, such as urban and industrial reports and master plans, government documents, non-academic research, official websites, publications of ministries, departments, divisions, agencies, committees, research institutes, universities, etc. In parallel, scientific literature, such as peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, conference proceedings, and any other source in line with the development of the smart and sustainable bioeconomy, was used to verify and integrate basic information. As for the databases, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, Scopus, and institutional websites were used. To do this, the following keywords were used: ("bioeconomy") AND ("sustainable bioeconomy") AND ("circular bioeconomy") AND ("circular bioeconomy") AND ("green economy") AND ("blue economy") AND ("forest bioeconomy") AND ("biobased economy") AND ("circular economy") AND ("smart bioeconomy") AND ("smart and sustainable bioeconomy") AND ("bioeconomy strategy" OR "bioeconomy strategies") AND ("bioeconomy policy" OR "bioeconomy policies") AND ("biotechnology") AND ("bioeconomy development") AND ("bioregion" OR "bioregions") AND ("biological practices" OR "biological solutions") AND ("bioenergy") AND ("biomass").

In order to further refine the search, all the selected sources (*n* = 317) were screened following different inclusion and exclusion criteria, in line with the objective and the research question. Specifically, the inclusion criteria include (1) appropriateness with the purpose of the study; (2) theoretical and managerial robustness; (3) scientific rigor; and (4) consistency with the long-term and novel perspective of the study. As exclusion criteria, sources with partial information and inconsistent with the research topic were not included in the search. The screening generated a detailed and complete overview (*n* = 88) that encompasses the strategies and policies of smart and sustainable bioeconomy implemented by Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay, Uruguay, the United States of America, Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Russia, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the UK (see Table A1 in Appendix A). The large number and varied typology of countries taken into consideration undoubtedly constitutes a strength of the study, as it represents almost all the countries involved in the transition towards the smart and sustainable bioeconomy. In this regard, the plurality of bioeconomy strategies and practices highlights the difference, the gap, and the prevailing focus between countries with diverse social, economic, environmental, and technological infrastructures. In this sense, a large number of countries around the world are not equipped to collect, monitor, analyse, and evaluate bioeconomic flows through real-time monitoring stations, sensors, digital tracking systems, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cloud computing, etc.

In Phase 2—Operational. Based on the analysis of the previous phase, a platform was created, capable of providing a theoretical and managerial approach to the development of the smart and sustainable bioeconomy. Specifically, the platform for the smart and sustainable bioeconomy represented in Figure 2 is characterized by the three following phases: (1) planning and stakeholder management; (2) identification of smart and sustainable bioeconomy dimensions; and (3) goals. Furthermore, each phase provided a holistic perspective, emphasizing aspects related to smartness and sustainability.

**Figure 2.** Smart and sustainable bioeconomy platform. Source: Authors.

In Phase 3—Results. The grouping of the initiatives developed by the countries taken into consideration in the investigation around the phases that characterize the smart and sustainable bioeconomy platform provides a framework capable of providing a review of the bioeconomy practices and strategies implemented globally.

#### **3. Results**

Based on the literature, the strategies and practices of the bioeconomy implemented globally were considered, analysed, and grouped. The result is a multidimensional platform illustrated in Figure 2 able to describe the smart and sustainable development in the bioeconomy in a holistic perspective. In detail, the phases that characterize the proposed smart and sustainable bioeconomy platform are divided into: (1) planning and stakeholder management; (2) identification of smart and sustainable bioeconomy dimensions; and (3) goals (Figure 2, vertical reading).

#### *3.1. Planning and Stakeholder Management*

Regarding the first phase (as represented in Figure 2), most of the bioeconomy strategies and practices investigated involve a wide range of stakeholders coordinated by government institutions. In general, these co-design activities take various forms, such as interministerial committees, working groups, expert and public consultations, inter-ministerial collaborations, and partnerships. At the same time, bioeconomy policies planning are delegated to representatives of ministries, departments, agencies, committees, executive offices, councils, cabinets, associations, research centres, and steering groups. For example, the Bio-Circular-Green Economy (BCG) strategy in Thailand is characterized by an expert consultation process coordinated by the Thai minister of science and technology [81]. Similarly, South Africa [80], Costa Rica [79], Japan [86], Malaysia [87], Austria [88], and Latvia [89] involve in the strategy the ministries and departments of science, innovation, and technology. In the USA, the President of the United States has coordinated the Office of Science and Technology Policy of the White House in the elaboration of the Bioeconomy Blueprint [78]. Otherwise, the Council of Science, Technology, and Innovation of Japan has decentralized to the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST), the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO), the National Institute of Technology and Evaluation (NITE), and the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED) [86]. Likewise, the Finnish Technical Research Centre VTT, which operates under the mandate from the ministry of economic affairs and labour and the

Finnish innovation fund SITRA, were involved in the planning activities [90]. In Malaysia, the bioeconomy is entrusted to the Bioeconomy Corporation owned by the Malaysian ministry of finance, administered by the National Bioeconomy Council (NBC), supported by the Bioeconomy International Advisory Panel, and chaired by the Malaysian Prime Minister [87]. Differently, the Austrian inter-ministerial collaboration involves the federal ministry of transport, innovation, and technology and the federal ministry of sustainability and tourism [88,91]. In general, the ministry of economy coordinates bioeconomy strategies and practices in Finland, France, Italy, Latvia, Spain, and the UK. Industry and trade ministries have been involved in South Africa, Costa Rica, Japan, Malaysia, and Norway. Specifically, Japan embraces the Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO) and the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA).

The ministries and departments of agriculture, forestry, and fisheries are active in most of the countries considered. South Africa also integrates the department of environmental affairs [80]. Costa Rica includes the ministry of agriculture and livestock and the ministry of environment and energy [79]. Japan involves the National Agriculture and Food Research Organization (NARO) [86]. In addition to the ministry of agriculture, agrifood, and forests, France includes the ministry of ecology, sustainable development, and energy [92]. The Presidency of the Italian Council of Ministers has delegated the minister of the environment, land, and sea; the committee of the Italian regions; the Territorial Cohesion Agency; and the Italian Technology Clusters for Green Chemistry, Agrifood, and Blue Growth, the former drafting of the BIT I strategy [93]. Similarly, the strategy adopted by Latvia is characterized by an inter-ministerial group formed by the ministry of agriculture, economy, environmental protection, and regional development [89]. Otherwise, the Austrian bioeconomy strategy was implemented through a public consultation supervised by the Vienna University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences [91]. Furthermore, South Africa, Japan, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, and Latvia involve ministries from health, education, research, and welfare. In this regard, Norway has established a wide range of partnerships between the ministries of education, research, local government, modernization, and foreign affairs [94,95].

#### *3.2. Identification of Smart and Sustainable Bioeconomy Dimensions*

The investigation of the dimensions of the smart and sustainable bioeconomy involves a wide range of sectors, such as energy, waste, water, education, governance, and health, which mainly depend on environmental, social, economic, and technological characteristics of the context in which they circulate. However, the analysis of the countries taken into consideration and engaged in the transition towards the smart and sustainable bioeconomy shows a predominance of the fields of automated agriculture, industrial biotechnology and nanotechnology, smart grids for the optimized circulation of biomass, genetics, genomics, chemistry, medicine, marine and terrestrial biodiversity, and biorefinery.

The strategies and practices of smart and sustainable bioeconomy shared among the countries analysed emphasise the importance of industrial districts and knowledgesharing centres in the fields of biotechnology, nanotechnology, genomics, genetics, and precision automation. In this regard, the UK is characterised as a thriving environment for innovation, entrepreneurship, and scientific research. In recent years, through the Synbio for Growth program, start-ups related to biology have received nearly 500 million pounds of funding in order to develop increasingly innovative bioeconomic products and processes [96,97]. At the same time, the economic initiatives adopted in Spain and Malaysia include digital technologies as centralised refrigeration systems, temperature tracking sensors, and prediction systems able to ensure greater nutritional quality and to reduce waste during the processing, packaging, storage, and distribution phases of the cold chain. Furthermore, in the economic dimension, it is interesting to specify the role of sustainable and virtual tourism within the naturalistic areas of Costa Rica, Finland, and Thailand.

Regarding the agricultural dimension, South Africa ranks first among African countries in agricultural biotechnology, producing more than 85% of genetically modified corn

and soybeans. In this sense, by strengthening native crops (e.g., fortified sorghum, rooibos, and shrub honey), the bioeconomy strategy aims to satisfy the market demand for niche natural products [80]. At the same time, agriculture 4.0 initiatives, such as real-time monitoring of fertilizer and water use, precision automation, innovative plant selection methods to cope with drought, flood and insect resistance, and systems of vertical and modular agriculture, are present in Costa Rica, Thailand, Austria, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Spain, and the UK. Differently, Malaysia has implemented a wide range of initiatives covering the development of animal vaccines, biological fertilizers and pesticides, plant micropropagation, and livestock farming through tracking systems [87]. Austria and Finland focus on how to improve forest resource management. As nearly 80% of Finland's total area is characterised by forests, the Finnish forestry industry is a leader in wood processing, implementing a multitude of low-water consumption processes [90]. Likewise, Austria and Japan promote forestry in the sustainable construction sector in order to minimise environmental impacts, using bio-based chemicals, bioplastics, and compostable and biodegradable materials. Regarding the energy dimension, the strategic axes of the bioeconomy plans of Austria, Costa Rica, and France focus on the production of bioenergy derived from the residual biomass from urban and industrial processes and operations in order to replace fossil fuels with high environmental impact for powering public transport, heating homes, biofertilizers, animal feed, etc. In this sense, Japan aims to use biomaterials with high performance in terms of weight, durability, and safety [86]. In Malaysia, the National Biomass Strategy focuses on the reuse of palm oil to generate bioenergy, biofuels, and bio-based organic products. On the other hand, Thailand has created a capillary system of power plants connected through blockchain-enabled smart grids with the aim of producing clear energy from renewable resources. At the same time, the strategy aims to convert biomass and agricultural by-products into bioplastics, fibres and pharmaceutical products. In general, most countries that include the energy component in the bioeconomy strategy integrate digital technologies such as smart grids, weather forecasting and monitoring systems, and so on. Within the energy dimension, the biorefinery initiatives are adopted by a multitude of countries globally. Indeed, Ireland, Latvia, Norway, Spain, and the UK dedicate great attention to the development of biorefineries in order to ensure a sustainable conversion of residual biomass (e.g., biolubricants, bioplastics, food additives, cosmetics, solvents, chemicals, etc.). Specifically, in Ireland, we highlight the AgriChemWhey project led by Glandia integrated with the dairy processing industry; the BioMarine Ingredients marine biorefinery, which converts raw materials into proteins, oil, and calcium; and the Biorefinery Glas project, which optimises the circularity of glass. In the UK, other examples include the alliance of several biorefineries as BioPilotsUK and the regional innovation cluster, BioVale, in Yorkshire and the Humber, which focus on bio-waste reuse and advanced biorefining. In order to address water scarcity in numerous areas of the country, South Africa is promoting improvements in wastewater treatment through computerized management of water flows. In Europe, the Finnish forestry industry is already leading in this sector by developing technologies for water recycling in its processes. Likewise, the Italian government has launched several projects, such as the PRIMA and BLUEMED initiatives, in order to promote sustainable management of water in the Mediterranean region [82]. The Spanish bioeconomic strategy summarizes the importance of the efficient use of water resources, promoting adequate water management and its reuse in other dimensions, such as construction, logistics, and health. Regarding waste management, Costa Rica intends develops the sustainable management and valorisation of residual solid waste, interurban biological corridors, and urban design approaches inspired by biological principles, processes, and systems. Given the increase in global marine plastic pollution, the Japanese strategy focuses on organic waste and wastewater, converting waste into high-value substances. Similarly, in Ireland, particular emphasis is placed on management and the valorisation of marine waste. The bioeconomy strategy in Germany further focuses on waste streams (e.g., organic waste, urban and industrial wastewater, carbon dioxide and synthesis gas). Furthermore, the strategy highlights the need for innovative methods and

processes for the efficient processing and recycling of challenging resources, such as metals or phosphorus.

In the health dimension, South Africa focuses on supporting research and development initiatives of bio-based chemicals and industrial biotechnology in order to better tackle infant mortality, HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria infections. At the same time, bioprospection plays a crucial role in the development of new drugs, vaccines, diagnostics, and medical devices. On the other hand, in European countries, such as Austria, Italy, Germany, Latvia, and the UK, the health dimension mainly encompasses healthy diets and eating habits and psycho-physical well-being. The USA, through the Bioeconomy Blueprint, underlines the positive impacts of genetic engineering, synthetic biology, and bioinformatics on public health. To this end, U.S. federal agencies are incentivized to prioritise bio-based and sustainable materials in public procurement and their implementation and dissemination through technology transfer and easier market access. France, Japan, and Malaysia mainly focus on biopharmaceuticals, regenerative and precision medicine, omics technologies, nutrition, sport, and digital healthcare. Specifically, the digital health strategies and practices aim to generate personalized and categorised nutrition plans through a detailed research of consumer behaviours and preferences.

#### *3.3. Goals*

From an economic perspective, the smart and sustainable bioeconomy strategies and practices adopted aim to increase the competitiveness of the agricultural and industrial sectors in national and international markets. Specifically, the increase of the employment rate is the goal set by South Africa, the USA, Malaysia, France, Germany, Ireland, and Latvia. At the same time, the USA has mainly focused on the elaboration of training programs and career updating. Differently, Germany aims to increase employment rate in rural areas. The Latvian strategy intends to address the structural changes in agriculture such as the reduction of small and medium-sized enterprises and the decrease in the workforce due to the progressive digitalisation of processes. Therefore, the development of the smart and sustainable bioeconomy aims to decarbonise the production and consumption processes. In this sense, Costa Rican and Italian strategies have coined the term "circular bioeconomy" to emphasise the circularity of biological resources. According to Costa Rica, the circular bioeconomy contributes to reducing the carbon footprint of production processes and generates new market niches for consumers interested in minimizing their impacts on the environment. Similarly, Japan integrates circularity into the bioeconomy strategy in order to meet diversified needs. Furthermore, a key aspect recalled in a multitude of strategies is the development of public-private partnerships. Specifically, the USA, Japan, Austria, and the UK underline the need for a collaborative environment where industry and government interact dynamically in the implementation of regulatory processes that favour investment in research and development and commercialization of bio-inventions. Japan, for example, encourages the evolvement of international hubs capable of attracting the best start-ups in the field of biotechnology. Conversely, Austria focuses on how to mobilise private capital and the financial systems in the development of smart and sustainable bioeconomy initiatives.

From an environmental point of view, the smart and sustainable bioeconomy strategies and practices investigated aim to address climate change and environmental conservation through a plethora of initiatives related to waste and water management, renewable energy, and land-use optimization. In this sense, the reports of Austria and France refer to the achievement of the targets of the Paris Agreement on the climate. According to the Austrian guidelines, the smart and sustainable bioeconomy will significantly contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. At the same time, Japan, Latvia, and Thailand expressly recall the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations 2030 Agenda. Differently, South Africa, Norway, and Spain do not explicitly indicate the Sustainable Development Goals among their objectives, but various initiatives lead to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and contributing to a more sustainable use of biological resources. Japan includes CO2 reduction, land-use improvement, water management optimization, and food security. In this sense, the Irish bioeconomic strategy is based on the principles of sustainability, cascade, precaution, and food first. Likewise, Italy envisages the three following macro-areas: (1) certifications and quality standards; (2) agri-food, forestry, and marine pilot initiatives at local level; and (3) safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Finally, the social dimension includes a wide range of ethical and legal issues. For example, Costa Rica and Japan prioritise social inclusion and equity aspects. In addition, Costa Rica takes into account the creation of opportunities for country's youth and indigenous communities. Conversely, Malaysia focuses primarily on people's health and well-being through reduced health care costs, early disease detection, and cheaper and more accessible medicines. Italy, on the other hand, promotes various initiatives in order to increase awareness, updating of skills, education, attitude, training, and entrepreneurship throughout the bioeconomy. Finally, Germany considers the importance of systems thinking and holistic approaches capable of creating synergies, identifying such conflicts, and minimizing them on the basis of scientific knowledge.

#### **4. Discussion**

The strategies and practices of smart and sustainable bioeconomy developed globally and investigated in this study confirm the advances in the scientific literature on the role of technology in the circularity of social, environmental, and economic flows of industrial and urban processes and operations [98]. At the same time, the initiatives identified and analysed support the observations of [99] on the smart and sustainable bioeconomy, where they emphasise the contribution of biotechnology, omics technologies, nanotechnology, precision mechanics, blockchain, and smart grids. Therefore, the theoretical and managerial debate demonstrates the significance assigned to the smart and sustainable bioeconomy [100]. In this sense, the smart and sustainable bioeconomy platform certifies that the planning and stakeholders management; the identification of social economic, environmental, and technological dimensions; and the definition of the goals is a challenging and complex issue that requires a multidimensional and holistic approach, in which a wide range of aspects must be taken into account simultaneously.

However, the stakeholders involved; the economic, social, environmental, and technological dimensions; and the goals of the smart and sustainable bioeconomy argue that the context in which the countries perform is much more hybrid and multi-layered with respect to the reductive conception that the economic, social, environmental, and technological pillars are important and to be pursued. Therefore, we do not claim that these issues have not been previously described and emphasized in the literature, but we declare that the proposed platform holistically highlights the actors engaged, the activated smart and sustainable dimensions of bioeconomy, and the goals to be achieved of a wide range of countries involved globally in this transition.

Firstly, the scientific literature on smart and sustainable bioeconomy underlines the crucial role of proactive, participatory and multi-level governance [101–103]. The authors [33,104] affirm that a distributed governance of the bioeconomy characterized by scalable coordination, consensus transmission protocols, and flexibility in decision-making processes is necessary for greater adaptability and efficiency of processes and operations. In this regard, Section 3.1 'Planning and Stakeholder Management', confirms the necessary bottom-up approach, specifying the role of a plethora of actors, such as ministries, departments and councils of science, innovation and technology, ministries of economy and trade, agriculture, fisheries and forests, foreign trade organizations, international cooperation agencies, research centres, universities, and biotechnology and nanotechnology companies.

In accordance with Section 3.2 'Identifications of the dimensions of the smart and sustainable bioeconomy', digital technologies, such as real-time monitoring stations, smart grids, weather forecasting systems, automatic irrigation systems, precision machinery, etc., improve the fluidity and timeless of flows that circulate in agriculture, fisheries, forests, logistics, health, education, waste, and water. In this sense, the theoretical literature on smart and sustainable bioeconomy emphasises the pre-eminent role of technology in the extraction, tracking, and evaluation phases [105,106]. However, the development of digital technologies in the bioeconomy can encounter criticalities in underdeveloped or developing countries not equipped with adequate economic, technological, social, and environmental structures [107].

Section 3.3 'Goals' highlights a multitude of purposes that confirm and support the current theoretical literature. In summary, from an economic point of view, smart and sustainable bioeconomy strategies and practices embrace the following: (a) the planning and development of agricultural processes and operations with low environmental impacts; (b) the design of industrial parks, international hubs, and start-up clusters in order to share knowledge; (c) the competitiveness of industrial sectors in national and international markets; (d) the creation and enhancement of highly skilled employment in the fields of biotechnology, genetics, and nanotechnology; and (e) the ability to attract and mobilise private capital and funding for the development of digital technologies and bioinventions. However, the significant investments in planning, installation, integration, maintenance, and redefinition of digital technologies for the smart and sustainable bioeconomy undoubtedly represent a barrier to entry for underdeveloped countries [108]. In this regard, the search for national and international funding is crucial in the transition towards the smart and sustainable bioeconomy [109]. At European level, the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) [110], which embrace regional funds (ERDF) [111] and agriculture and rural development funds (EAFRD) [112], and Smart Specialization Strategies (RIS3) [113,114] aim to facilitate the modernization of the bioeconomy throughout the Europe.

Regarding the environmental perspective, the identified smart and sustainable bioeconomy strategies and practices confirm relevant issues, such as waste, water and wastewater management, energy efficiency, and land use [115,116]. In this sense, Austria and France based their goals with the Paris Agreement on Climate, while Japan, Latvia, and Thailand recall the environmental goals of the United Nations 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development.

Finally, the social dimension of the smart and sustainable bioeconomy includes several aspects, such as social inclusion, ethics, and legality [117,118]. Regarding the social sphere, the balance of governance between the various ministries, departments, cabinets, agencies, committees, municipal, regional or state owned utilities, divisions, universities, and research centres involved in planning, monitoring, and evaluating smart and sustainable bioeconomy policies emphasizes the need for multidimensional and participatory decision-making processes [101,119–121]. In this regard, the term "orchestration" is coined as a fundamental aspect for understanding the evolution of complex systems towards inclusive and participatory models [122–125]. At the same time, motivational, behavioural, and cognitive issues persist, such as the lack of (a) awareness of the benefits of proactive co-participation of the stakeholders involved; (b) knowledge of technological devices functioning; (c) citizens', entrepreneurs', and businesses' understanding of the practices of production, distribution, and consumption of sustainable bioeconomic products and services; and (d) trust in safeguarding the privacy and security of sensitive data. In this regard, the smart and sustainable bioeconomy highlights technical challenges relating to the quality and robustness of the data and information collected, their degree of security, and their ability to be converted into useful feedback [126]. Furthermore, various countries investigated embrace the health and psycho-physical well-being of people, focusing on reducing healthcare costs through personalized medicine, prevention, nutrition, and more accessible medicines.

Therefore, the proposed platform indicates that the planning and stakeholders management, the identification of the smart and sustainable dimensions of the bioeconomy, and the definition of the goals to be pursued must be carried out taking into consideration the social, economic, environmental, and technological factors holistically. This bottom-up

and multidimensional approach is confirmed and emphasised by the theoretical literature on bioeconomy and our investigation of strategies and practices adopted globally.

#### **5. Conclusions**

The era of growing urbanization and datafication pushes us to rethink how to tackle sustainable development. In this context, smart and sustainable bioeconomy offers a renewed perspective towards resilient and intelligent future. In recent years, smart and sustainable bioeconomy initiatives are gaining increasing importance in the technical-spatial context in order to collect, monitor, process, and evaluate a large amount of data and to improve the quality and efficiency of industrial and urban processes and operations and therefore the functioning of our countries. In this regard, the importance of smart and sustainable bioeconomy is demonstrated by the numerous strategies and practices implemented by countries, such as Austria, Costa Rica, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Malaysia, South Africa, Thailand, and so on. Therefore, the bioeconomy enabled by sensors, real-time monitoring stations, tracking systems, Internet of Things, smart grids, precision mechanics, automation, etc., have the potential to improve the circularity of dimensions, such as waste, water and wastewater, energy, land, biodiversity, economy, health, safety, education, and agriculture. The aim of this study is to provide a clear and comprehensive overview of the concept of smart and sustainable bioeconomy, developing a platform capable of integrating a wide range of bio-initiatives implemented at a global level. Specifically, the smart and sustainable bioeconomy platform illustrated in Figure 2 describes the phases of planning and stakeholder management; identification of economic, social, environmental, and technological dimensions; and the definition of the goals that characterise the smart and sustainable bioeconomy decision-making process. In this sense, the proposed platform improves the understanding of the functioning of smart and sustainable bioeconomy. At the same time, the exploration of the smart and sustainable bioeconomy requires not only a qualitative perspective of the strategies and practices as proposed in this study but also further quantitative research to assess and interpret their social, economic, environmental, and technological impacts. However, the difficulties encountered in obtaining quantitative data on the initiatives investigated undoubtedly represent a limitation to our research. Therefore, the future perspective of this paper is to enrich it with a quantitative approach in order to provide a complete and exhaustive point of view for future analyses.

Hence, in order to summarise the results of this study, we underline and list the following highlights: (a) the effective and efficient implementation of the smart and sustainable bioeconomy requires continuous planning, monitoring, and analysis of the social, economic, technological, and environmental dimensions; (b) the smart and sustainable bioeconomy can improve the participation, accountability, and comprehension of citizens, local authorities, and companies; and (c) the smart and sustainable bioeconomy generates a multitude of social, economic, and environmental challenges still under observation by the scientific and managerial community today.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, G.D.; supervision, G.I.; visualization, K.S.-D., R.B. and I.D.; writing—original draft, G.D., K.S.-D., R.B., I.D. and G.I.; writing—review and editing, G.D., K.S.-D., R.B., I.D. and G.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Data Availability Statement:** Not applicable.

**Acknowledgments:** This research is carried out by the Commodity Science Team of the "Lean & Quality Solutions Lab," Department of Economics, University of Messina. The authors thank the editor and anonymous referees for their valuable observations.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

*Sustainability* **2022**, *14*, 466
