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.