Abstract
The educational gap for which science is not taught to managers, and
management is not taught to scientists, is a significant obstacle to a
company’s success also in the bioeconomy field. Companies worldwide
eagerly seek for new managers, researchers and technologists owning new
knowledge and skills in topics spanning from circular production
processes through new energy technologies and green chemistry. Most
employers, however, have difficulty recruiting qualified professionals
due to the shortage of qualified professionals. This shortage includes
bioeconomy managers capable to successfully lead bioeconomy companies.
Shaping the managers of successful bioeconomy companies, we argue in
this study, requires to transfer a closer understanding of the nature of
bioeconomy companies and their competitive landscape, as well as
identifying the main guiding principles for managing these
organizations.
1 Introduction
In the bioeconomy, the production of useful substances and of useful
energy starts from biological resources and from renewable energy
sources, respectively.1 The root cause of this shift
is closely related to the end of low cost (or “easy to extract”) oil
which has literally driving the growth of global wealth and human
population since the early 1930s.2,3 Currently, new
bioeconomy companies worldwide eagerly seek for new managers,
researchers and technologists gifted with new knowledge and skills in
topics spanning from circular production processes through new energy
technologies and green chemistry. In Canada, for example, in 2008 a
labour market report noted that nearly half of companies active in the
bioeconomy (at that time chiefly identified with biotechnology) were
dealing with a shortage of “skilled/experienced workers” with at least
one-quarter of all companies reporting vacant
positions.4
Thirteen years later, the situation was unchanged, with “nearly
two-thirds of employers” surveyed having difficulty recruiting
qualified professionals “due to a lack of skilled, experienced
talent“. As a result, the team found, “bioeconomy employers compete
for talent among themselves” and “with other sectors for candidates
with technical skills”.5 This shortage includes
bioeconomy managers, namely managers capable to lead bioeconomy
companies to successfully develop and market new bioderived products and
renewable energy services.
Accordingly, a recent (2019) survey of the educational gaps amid 192
bioeconomy companies, in European countries, and mostly in Spain,
identified management amid the six main general competences found to be
deficitary.6
The importance of bioeconomy education is now widely recognized in both
economically developed and developing countries. The “outstanding
feature of the bioeconomist”, wrote Lask and co-workers in 2017, “is
interdisciplinary expertise built up from disciplinary
expertise”.7 To shape these professionals, the team
concluded, requires an interdisciplinary approach and new learning
environments. Several universities across the world have launched new
Master of Science (MSci) programmes in the bioeconomy.
Examples span from the 2 year Master “Bioeconomy” offered by the
University of Hoenheim in Germany since 2014, through the Master in
Bioeconomy and the Circular Economy held in Italy since 2017. Though
open also to students with a degree in social and economic sciences,
these Master programs either aim to educate “the type of scientists
needed to successfully make this transition”8 or
provide “a rich combination of theoretical perspectives on life science
innovation with a practical focus on the dynamics of the bioeconomy and
its value chains”.9
In general, the educational programs of these Master courses include
both scientific and economic topics, in agreement with a 2012 study in
which Pagliaro identified the urgency to renew the education of both
scientists and managers by closing the “two-cultures”
gap.10 Shaping the managers of successful bioeconomy
companies, we highlight in this study, requires to transfer a closer
understanding of the nature of bioeconomy companies and their
competitive landscape, as well as identifying the guiding principles for
managing said companies.
2 Guiding principles for managing bioeconomy companies
Managers of successful bioeconomy companies need first a closer
understanding of the nature of bioeconomy companies and their
competitive environment.
Producing useful substances and functional materials from biological
resources, these companies actually are chemical companies competing
with existing chemical manufacturers deriving their products either
directly from oil or from oil-derived chemicals. From
bioplastics11 through biobased monomers and fine
chemicals, this simple fact explains why in the last thirty years
(1990-2020) many bioeconomy companies attempting to produce biobased
substances and materials either failed or abandoned the original plans
after investing tens or even hundreds of millions of
dollars.12 A few names of a truly long list include
Cere plast, Vertellus Specialties, TerraVia, Metabolix and Rennovia in
the USA, Bio-On and Mossi Ghisolfi in Italy, BioAmber in Canada, Leaf
Resources in Australia, and Bio-Xcell in Malaysia.
The highly integrated petrochemical industry, indeed, not only starts
its productions from self-produced feedstocks obtained from oil
transferred from its oil (“petro”) division, but also relies on highly
efficient, heterogeneously catalyzed continuous
processes.13 This allows the industry to produce
virtually all synthetic polymers (invented between the 1930s and the
late 1960s) at very low cost and in huge amounts. Furthermore, the
industry has not been harmed by oil price volatility because when oil
price is high, revenues from fuel sales increase and largely compensate
reduced sales of petrochemicals due to higher selling prices. Under
these conditions, it is necessary for bioeconomy company managers to
learn from the few examples of successful companies.
2.1 Low volume, high margin bioproducts
Management consultants studying companies using synthetic biology
production processes (i.e. , fermentation) lately identified three
approaches common to successful companies, namely i ) target low
volume, high margin products; ii ) license technology; andiii ) adopt modular manufacturing using multiple small fermenters
distributed globally, in place of a large fermenter in one facility, to
flexibly meet demand from different regions.14Examples identified by the consultants include France-based Global
Bioénergies now producing cellulosic isobutene for cosmetic products
rather than for making fuels, and USA-based Genomatica licensing its
sugar fermentation route to 1,4-butanediol to Italy’s Novamont and to
Germany’s BASF.14
2.2 From ingredients to complete formulations
More generally, after targeting the production of one or more low
volume, high margin bioproducts, successful bioeconomy companies will
target the production of the functional formulation using the same
ingredient or combination of ingredients. An exemplary case are the
China-based companies manufacturing hyaluronic acid via microbial
fermentation.