SUPERVISOR: Christoph GÖRG 

PROJECT ASSIGNED TO: Benjamin FLEISCHMANN 

The European Commission promotes the bioeconomy—an economy whose industries and sectors largely rely on the appropriation and processing of biological raw materials—as a political project aimed at transitioning to a post-fossil and sustainable society. In doing so, the European Commission emphasizes growth and competitiveness as both essential means and goals for this transition (European Commission, 2018). However, the feasibility of decoupling economic growth from resource consumption is highly limited (Haberl et al., 2020). At the same time, biomass is less efficient compared to fossil resources (Giampietro, 2019). Consequently, it is expected that a growing bioeconomy in the EU will lead to a significant increase in biomass demand in the coming years (Asada et al., 2020; Scarlat et al., 2015). However, an expanding bioeconomy may further exacerbate environmental pressures on global land use (Haberl et al., 2014; Richardson et al., 2023; Roux et al., 2021) and intensify competition between land use for food, feed, energy, materials, and conservation (Haberl, 2015; Helm et al., 2025; Kalt et al., 2021).

The EU Bioeconomy Strategy rhetorically addresses these challenges but largely fails to propose concrete measures to limit or reduce resource consumption (Eversberg et al., 2023; Lühmann, 2020). This strategy highlights what Boyer et al. (2022) have already identified in the German bioeconomy from a critical ideological perspective. The bioeconomy promises to resolve trade-offs through future technological improvements in efficiency and responsible management by private companies. This strategic orientation merely postpones biophysical limits into the future, obscures material interests, and largely excludes democratic deliberation on the bioeconomy. 

The ability of actors to shape the bioeconomy and challenge the material interests of companies and industries is central to respecting biophysical limits (Giuntoli et al., 2023; Ramcilovic-Suominen et al., 2022). However, the role of actors in societal conflicts over developing the EU Bioeconomy Strategy with respect to its biophysical limits remains underexplored. Furthermore, there is limited knowledge on how the bioeconomy strategy materializes in specific EU policies and shapes resource use patterns now and in the future.

In this context, my dissertation addresses the following research questions: To what extent do actors problematize the biophysical limits of the EU bioeconomy, and what strategies do they pursue in the use of biomass? What conflicts can be identified in this process, and to what extent are these addressed in EU policies? How do the various strategies influence biomass flows, the land consumption of agri-food systems, and the resulting pressures on ecosystems?

To investigate these questions, I integrate the theoretical concepts of societal metabolism and the regulation of society-nature relations. Societal metabolism describes how societies organize the use of energy and materials to continuously reproduce material stocks (Fischer-Kowalski & Erb, 2016). The concept of the regulation of society-nature relations outlines the connection between the organization of metabolism, the stabilization of societal (re)production patterns (Görg, 1999, 2003a), and the associated modes of living (Brand & Wissen, 2024). The societal organization of metabolism is framed by a historically specific accumulation regime, a mode of regulation, and a particular hegemonic structure (Brand et al., 2020; Görg, 2003; Görg et al., 2020). Within this framework, "different social forces represent and practice different variants of the regulation of society-nature relations" (Sander, 2016, p. 45). Thus, the concrete configuration of societal metabolism can primarily be analyzed along societal conflicts (Brand et al., 2022; Schneider et al., 2023).

In my research on the bioeconomy, I employ a central category derived from the empirical development of the concept of the regulation of society-nature relations: the socio-ecological strategy (Buckel et al., 2014; Sander, 2016). Socio-ecological strategies refer, on the one hand, to the general organization of societal metabolism (Brand et al., 2022; Sander, 2016), i.e., the extent to which the bioeconomy is oriented toward mobilizing large quantities of biomass, closed-loop systems, or sufficiency. On the other hand, they encompass specific state policies such as bans, subsidies, market incentives, or trade agreements (Pichler, 2023; Pichler & Ingalls, 2021). The category of socio-ecological strategy enables the abstraction of the diverse individual positions of actors (Buckel et al., 2014) and the representation of their materiality in the form of biophysical scenarios (Kalt et al., 2021; Lauk et al., 2022). This conceptual integration ultimately enables me to combine qualitative social science methods with quantitative accounting and modeling of material flows.

The core of my dissertation consists of four journal articles. In the first article, we use a critical policy analysis to examine conflicts over the biophysical limits of the bioeconomy and their materialization in EU policies on bioenergy and plastics. The analysis reveals that circular and sufficiency-oriented strategies have been incorporated into policy documents, and biophysical limits are addressed in a discursive manner. However, the strategic-structural focus on growth and competitiveness prevents direct regulatory limitations or reductions in biomass use. This article also provides the basis for quantitatively assessing the biophysical potentials and limits of the competing social-ecological strategies.

In a second article, we assess material flows and land consumption of bio-based plastics within the Austrian agri-food system using a mass-balanced model. Our results show that without restructuring Austria's agri-food system to reduce meat consumption and production, increase bioenergy use, and shift its export orientation, the potential for bio-based plastics remains severely constrained.

In a third article, we analyze the implementation of the cascading use of wood in the EU28 countries between 2009 and 2017. By developing a novel dynamic indicator, the Wood Cascade Factor (WCF), based on Markov chains, we examine the number of material transformations wood fibers undergo before being burned, disposed of, or permanently stored. Our results indicate stagnation in the WCF over time, suggesting that the political commitment to cascading use has not been effectively translated into implementation, highlighting structural barriers in the EU's wood supply chains.

In a fourth article, we outline the contradictions between the EU's biodiversity and trade policies. We utilize quantitative data on ecosystem and biodiversity pressures resulting from EU biomass use, policy documents, trade agreements, and quantitative data on tariff developments for biomass products, as well as insights from the literature. Our analysis reveals that trade liberalizations since the 1990s have promoted the production and consumption of critical resources, including feed, meat, dairy products, wood, and ethanol, which contradict biodiversity goals. Sufficiency measures could create synergies to reduce Europe's trade-related pressures on global ecosystems and biodiversity.

My dissertation suggests that the growth-oriented bioeconomy strategy poses a risk of exceeding sustainable and equitable levels of biomass and land use. My research further indicates that this strategy is contested, with some actors advocating for circular and sufficiency-oriented approaches. However, I also found that these strategies have only been partially integrated into EU policies. This limited implementation can be attributed to the strategic orientation and structure of the European Union's political economy, which presents a significant barrier to maintaining the bioeconomy within biophysical limits.

Overall, my dissertation contributes to the understanding of the materiality of actor strategies and conflicts in the development of post-fossil projects, such as the bioeconomy. It thus provides valuable insights for transformation research. By combining qualitative and quantitative approaches, my dissertation advances the methodological development of interdisciplinary research on society-nature relations.

References

Asada, R., Krisztin, T., di Fulvio, F., Kraxner, F., & Stern, T. (2020). Bioeconomic transition?: Projecting consumption-based biomass and fossil material flows to 2050. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 24(5), 1059–1073. doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12988

Boyer, M., Kusche, F., Hackfort, S., Prause, L., & Engelbrecht-Bock, F. (2022). The making of sustainability: Ideological strategies, the materiality of nature, and biomass use in the bioeconomy. Sustainability Science, 18, 675–688. doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01254-4

Brand, U., Görg, C., & Wissen, M. (2020). Overcoming neoliberal globalization: Social-ecological transformation from a Polanyian perspective and beyond. Globalizations, 17(1), 161–176. doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2019.1644708

Brand, U., Krams, M., Lenikus, V., & Schneider, E. (2022). Contours of historical-materialist policy analysis. Critical Policy Studies, 16(3), 279–296. doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2021.1947864

Buckel, S., Georgi, F., Kannankulam, J., & Wissel, J. (2014). Theorie, Methoden und Analysen kritischer Europaforschung. In Forschungsgruppe »Staatsprojekt«: Kämpfe um Migrationspolitik: Theorie, Methode und Analysen kritischer Europaforschung (pp. 15–84). transcript Verlag. doi.org/10.1515/transcript.9783839424025

European Commission. (2018). A sustainable bioeconomy for Europe: Strengthening the connection between economy, society and the environment : updated bioeconomy strategy. Publications Office of the European Union. data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/792130

Eversberg, D., Holz, J., & Pungas, L. (2023). The bioeconomy and its untenable growth promises: Reality checks from research. Sustainability Science, 18, 569–582. doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01237-5

Fischer-Kowalski, M., & Erb, K. H. (2016). Core Concepts and Heuristics. In H. Haberl, M. Fischer-Kowalski, F. Krausmann, & V. Winiwarter (Eds.), Social Ecology. Society-Nature Relations across Time and Space. Springer International Publishing, 29-61- doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33326-7_2

Giampetro, M. (2019). On the Circular Bioeconomy and Decoupling: Implications for Sustainable Growth. Ecological Economics, 162, 143–156. doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.05.001

Giuntoli, J., Oliver, T., Kallis, G., Ramcilovik-Suominen, S., & Monbiot, G. (2023, March 2). Exploring new visions for a sustainable bioeconomy. JRC Publications Repository. doi.org/10.2760/79421

Görg, C. (1999). Gesellschaftliche Naturverhältnisse (1. Aufl..). Westfälisches Dampfboot. ubdata.univie.ac.at/AC02435498

Görg, C. (2003). Regulation der Naturverhältnisse. Zu einer kritischen Theorie der ökologischen Krise. Westfälisches Dampfboot.

Görg, C., Plank, C., Wiedenhofer, D., Mayer, A., Pichler, M., Schaffartzik, A., & Krausmann, F. (2020). Scrutinizing the Great Acceleration: The Anthropocene and its analytic challenges for social-ecological transformations. The Anthropocene Review, 7(1), 42–61. doi.org/10.1177/2053019619895034

Haberl, H. (2015). Competition for land: A sociometabolic perspective. Ecological Economics, 119, 424–431. doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.10.002

Haberl, H., Wiedenhofer, D., Virág, D., Kalt, G., Plank, B., Brockway, P., Fishman, T., Hausknost, D., Krausmann, F., Leon-Gruchalski, B., Mayer, A., Pichler, M., Schaffartzik, A., Sousa, T., Streeck, J., & Creutzig, F. (2020). A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part II: Synthesizing the insights. Environmental Research Letters, 15(6), 065003. doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab842a

Helm, L. T., Venier-Cambron, C., & Verburg, P. H. (2025). The potential land-use impacts of bio-based plastics and plastic alternatives. Nature Sustainability, 1–12. doi.org/10.1038/s41893-024-01492-7

Kalt, G., Mayer, A., Haberl, H., Kaufmann, L., Lauk, C., Matej, S., Röös, E., Theurl, M. C., & Erb, K.-H. (2021). Exploring the option space for land system futures at regional to global scales: The diagnostic agro-food, land use and greenhouse gas emission model BioBaM-GHG 2.0. Ecological Modelling, 459, 109729. doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2021.109729

Lauk, C., Kaufmann, L., Theurl, M. C., Wittmann, F., Eder, M., Hörtenhuber, S., Freyer, B., & Krausmann, F. (2022). Demand side options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the land footprint of urban food systems: A scenario analysis for the City of Vienna. Journal of Cleaner Production, 359, 132064. doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132064

Lühmann, M. (2020). Whose European bioeconomy? Relations of forces in the shaping of an updated EU bioeconomy strategy. Environmental Development, 35, 100547. doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2020.100547

Pichler, M. (2023). Political dimensions of social-ecological transformations: Polity, politics, policy. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 19(1), 2222612. doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2023.2222612

Pichler, M., & Ingalls, M. (2021). Negotiating between forest conversion, industrial tree plantations and multifunctional landscapes. Power and politics in forest transitions. Geoforum, 124, 185–194. doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.06.012

Ramcilovic-Suominen, S., Kröger, M., & Dressler, W. (2022). From pro-growth and planetary limits to degrowth and decoloniality: An emerging bioeconomy policy and research agenda. Forest Policy and Economics, 144, 102819. doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102819

Sander, H. (2016). Auf dem Weg zum grünen Kapitalismus? Die Energiewende nach Fukushima. Dissertation, Universität Kassel Fachbereich 5 Gesellschaftswissenschaften.

Scarlat, N., Dallemand, J.-F., Monforti-Ferrario, F., & Nita, V. (2015). The role of biomass and bioenergy in a future bioeconomy: Policies and facts. Environmental Development, 15, 3–34. doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2015.03.006

Schneider, E., Brad, A., Brand, U., Krams, M., & Lenikus, V. (2023). Historical-materialist policy analysis of climate change policies. In Scherrer, Christoph, Garcia, Ana, and Joscha Wullweber: Handbook on Critical Political Economy and Public Policy. Edward Elgar Publishing, 110-116. doi.org/10.4337/9781800373785.00017

Brand, U. & Wissen, M. (2024). Kapitalismus am Limit: Öko-imperiale Spannungen, umkämpfte Krisenpolitik und solidarische Perspektiven. Von den Autoren des Bestsellers »Imperiale Lebensweise«. oekom verlag. uaccess.univie.ac.at/login=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=nlebk&AN=3711157&site=ehost-live