Time to acknowledge the role of consumers in responsible innovation

Innovation is a complex and often uncertain evolutionary process that involves many actors, not just producers, argue Michael P. Schlaile, Matthias Mueller, Michael Schramm, and Andreas Pyk

Why we can’t go back to normal: 5 appeals for a sustainable post-pandemic economy

The pandemic creates much hardship but also shows us how quickly societies can adapt to necessary change, write the members of the University of Hohenheim’s department of innovation economic

Memes (Preprint)

This chapter makes the case for (re-)introducing memes into economics. While many scholars have (prematurely) rejected the notion of memes, it is argued that by taking memes more seriously, economists could establish links between fragmented approaches and overcome an apparent bias towards mostly intentional and “adaptive” processes of innovation and technological and economic change. Moreover, by embracing the meme’s eye view one can overcome questionable conceptions of creative genius and rationally optimizing agents, or at least complement them with a more naturalistic and informational perspective. In summary, studying memes means studying interconnected informational structures (often involving instructions) that can be socially transmitted—especially by imitation—and recombined, thus affording the emergence of innovations

Navigating the Biocosmos: Cornerstones of a Bioeconomic Utopia

One important insight from complexity science is that the future is open, and that this openness is an opportunity for us to participate in its shaping. The bioeconomy has been part of this process of “future-making”. But instead of a fertile ecosystem of imagined futures, a dry monoculture of ideas seems to dominate the landscape, promising salvation through technology. With this article, we intend to contribute to regenerating the ecological foundations of the bioeconomy. What would it entail if we were to merge with the biosphere instead of machines? To lay the cornerstones of a bioeconomic utopia, we explore the basic principles of self-organization that underlie biological, ecological, social, and psychological processes alike. All these are self-assembling and self-regulating elastic structures that exist at the edge of chaos and order. We then revisit the Promethean problem that lies at the foundation of bioeconomic thought and discuss how, during industrialization, the principles of spontaneous self-organization were replaced by the linear processes of the assembly line. We ultimately propose a bioeconomy based on human needs with the household as the basic unit: the biocosmos. The biocosmos is an agroecological habitat system of irreducible complexity, a new human niche embedded into the local ecosystem

Quo Vadis, Bioeconomy? the Necessity of Normative Considerations in the Transition

This collection of papers builds on the idea that the bioeconomy provides a framework for potentially effective solutions addressing the grand global challenges by a turn towards an increased use of biological resources, towards renewability and circularity. Consequently, it cannot be perceived as an end in itself. Thus, innovative endeavors within this bioeconomy framework require a serious examination of their normative premises and implications. From different perspectives, the five contributions to the collection demonstrate that for a bioeconomy that is to contribute to the transformation towards sustainability, inquiries into norms, values, and paradigms of innovators and other stakeholders are indispensable. Originating in the spirit of an interdisciplinary workshop on the “The Normative Dimension of Transformations towards a Sustainable Bioeconomy”, the collection at hand provides an attempt to facilitate an increased commitment of social sciences into bioeconomy discourses. We learn: the bioeconomy is on the rise as it is, but whether it will guide us the way towards an equitable, environmentally sound, and future-proof economy, heavily depends on the normative guardrails imposed by science, society, and business

The Role of Consumers in Business Model Innovations for a Sustainable Circular Bioeconomy

Over the last decade, various governments and supranational bodies have promoted the development of a circular bioeconomy (CBE) as a response to sustainability challenges. The transition towards a CBE requires the collaboration of different actors in the innovation (eco)system. With this conceptual paper, we apply a circular business model lens to address the research question: “What are the archetypical roles of consumers in business model innovations for a sustainable CBE?” We use a combination of complementary theories from the circular economy and bioeconomy literature, evolutionary innovation economics, sustainability transitions research, the business model literature, and the work on active consumers. Considering consumers’ agency as a continuum between the manufacturer-active paradigm and the consumer-active paradigm, we propose: (i) consumers in the manufacturer-active paradigm can actively influence circular business models with their purchase decision; (ii) consumers can act as lobbyists and influencers for circular business model innovation; (iii) in their different roles as customer, user, repairer, and reseller, consumers can incentivize organizations to adapt their business models to their needs; (iv) consumers can become key partners in the process of defining the normative orientation of the innovation paradigm for a CBE; (v) consumers can actively co-create value by means of co-ownership (e.g., through platform cooperatives)

Exploring the Dedicated Knowledge Base of a Transformation towards a Sustainable Bioeconomy

The transformation towards a knowledge-based bioeconomy has the potential to serve as a contribution to a more sustainable future. Yet, until now, bioeconomy policies have been only insufficiently linked to concepts of sustainability transformations. This article aims to create such link by combining insights from innovation systems (IS) research and transformative sustainability science. For a knowledge-based bioeconomy to successfully contribute to sustainability transformations, the IS’ focus must be broadened beyond techno-economic knowledge. We propose to also include systems knowledge, normative knowledge, and transformative knowledge in research and policy frameworks for a sustainable knowledge-based bioeconomy (SKBBE). An exploration of the characteristics of this extended, “dedicated” knowledge will eventually aid policymakers in formulating more informed transformation strategies

Innovation systems for transformations towards sustainability? Taking the normative dimension seriously

The aim of this article is to complement research on transformations towards sustainability by drawing upon the innovation systems (IS) framework. The IS framework already serves as a suitable and influential basis for research on processes of technological innovation and economic change. We argue that improving the capacity of an IS framework for dealing with wicked problems and the normative complexity of sustainability requires a fundamental paradigm shift because in the current IS paradigm innovations are considered as per se desirable and in mostly technological terms. Therefore, we call for IS dedicated to transformations towards sustainability by opening up for systemic innovations beyond the technological dimension and by acknowledging that stakeholders have conflicting visions, interests, norms, and expectations with regard to sustainability goals. Taking the normative dimension of transformations towards sustainability seriously thus requires more explicit and integrative research on directionality, legitimacy, responsibility, and their interrelation in IS. The article concludes by proposing suggestions for future research based on IS-related approaches that can serve as building blocks for an IS framework capable of incorporating legitimate goal-orientation for transformative innovation by and for society