IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v110y2020ics1389934118303691.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The biorefinery transition in the European pulp and paper industry – A three-phase Delphi study including a SWOT-AHP analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Brunnhofer, Magdalena
  • Gabriella, Natasha
  • Schöggl, Josef-Peter
  • Stern, Tobias
  • Posch, Alfred

Abstract

Because it is a mature industry, the European pulp and paper industry (PPI) possesses strengths due to its infrastructure, technological know-how, and the availability of biomass. However, the declining trend in the wood-based products sales, coupled with an increasing amount of global attention focused on a bio-based and circular economy, sends a clear signal to the industry, indicating that it needs to transform its business model to increase its profitability while contributing to climate change mitigation. Integrating the biorefinery concept as a value creation business model seems to be the pathway that will reach these objectives. This study was carried out to empirically assess and prioritize factors that affect the diffusion and implementation of the biorefinery concept in the European PPI. For this purpose, a three-phase Delphi study, including a SWOT-Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), was conducted. During the course of this study, the opinions of experts from industry and academia were gathered using both qualitative and quantitative methods. The findings reveal that the political dimension has a significant influence on the ability of individuals to tackle the economic barriers while reinforcing the environmental and social benefits in the macro-environment. At the industry level, the availability of biomass appears to be a strength of the PPI, while the knowledge gap regarding technology and the market represents a crucial barrier for the biorefinery development. The human resources issue is indicated as an important premise behind the identified barriers on a strategic level. Finally, five potential strategies for the biorefinery development in the PPI were derived by logically combining the results of the SWOT-AHP decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Brunnhofer, Magdalena & Gabriella, Natasha & Schöggl, Josef-Peter & Stern, Tobias & Posch, Alfred, 2020. "The biorefinery transition in the European pulp and paper industry – A three-phase Delphi study including a SWOT-AHP analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:110:y:2020:i:c:s1389934118303691
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2019.02.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934118303691
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.02.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nina Hagemann & Erik Gawel & Alexandra Purkus & Nadine Pannicke & Jennifer Hauck, 2016. "Possible Futures towards a Wood-Based Bioeconomy: A Scenario Analysis for Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-24, January.
    2. Daniel Hausknost & Ernst Schriefl & Christian Lauk & Gerald Kalt, 2017. "A Transition to Which Bioeconomy? An Exploration of Diverging Techno-Political Choices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-22, April.
    3. Pätäri, Satu & Tuppura, Anni & Toppinen, Anne & Korhonen, Jaana, 2016. "Global sustainability megaforces in shaping the future of the European pulp and paper industry towards a bioeconomy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 38-46.
    4. Kes McCormick & Niina Kautto, 2013. "The Bioeconomy in Europe: An Overview," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(6), pages 1-20, June.
    5. Wolfgang Ossadnik & Stefanie Schinke & Ralf H. Kaspar, 2016. "Group Aggregation Techniques for Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Network Process: A Comparative Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 421-457, March.
    6. Thomas L. Saaty, 1986. "Axiomatic Foundation of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(7), pages 841-855, July.
    7. Berends, P. A. J. & Romme, A. G. L., 2001. "Cyclicality of capital-intensive industries: a system dynamics simulation study of the paper industry," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 543-552, December.
    8. Kurttila, Mikko & Pesonen, Mauno & Kangas, Jyrki & Kajanus, Miika, 2000. "Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis -- a hybrid method and its application to a forest-certification case," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 41-52, May.
    9. Stern, Tobias & Ledl, Caroline & Braun, Martin & Hesser, Franziska & Schwarzbauer, Peter, 2015. "Biorefineries' impacts on the Austrian forest sector: A system dynamics approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 311-326.
    10. Näyhä, Annukka & Pesonen, Hanna-Leena, 2012. "Diffusion of forest biorefineries in Scandinavia and North America," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 79(6), pages 1111-1120.
    11. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    12. Kurka, Stefan & Menrad, Klaus, 2009. "Biorefineries And Biobased Products From The Consumer'S Point Of View," Conference Papers 91330, University of Weihenstephan-Triesdorf, Straubing Centre of Science.
    13. Forman, Ernest & Peniwati, Kirti, 1998. "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 165-169, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Heiskanen, Aleksi & Hurmekoski, Elias & Toppinen, Anne & Näyhä, Annukka, 2022. "Exploring the unknowns – State of the art in qualitative forest-based sector foresight research," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    2. Shervin Zakeri & Dimitri Konstantas & Naoufel Cheikhrouhou, 2022. "The Grey Ten-Element Analysis Method: A Novel Strategic Analysis Tool," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-22, March.
    3. Purkus, Alexandra & Lüdtke, Jan, 2020. "A systemic evaluation framework for a multi-actor, forest-based bioeconomy governance process: The German Charter for Wood 2.0 as a case study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    4. van den Burg, S.W.K. & Termeer, E.E.W. & Skirtun, M. & Poelman, M. & Veraart, J.A. & Selnes, T., 2022. "Exploring mechanisms to pay for ecosystem services provided by mussels, oysters and seaweeds," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    5. Çağlar Kıvanç Kaymaz & Salih Birinci & Yusuf Kızılkan, 2022. "Sustainable development goals assessment of Erzurum province with SWOT-AHP analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 2986-3012, March.
    6. Khan, Feroz & Ali, Yousaf, 2022. "Moving towards a sustainable circular bio-economy in the agriculture sector of a developing country," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    7. Furszyfer Del Rio, Dylan D. & Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Griffiths, Steve & Bazilian, Morgan & Kim, Jinsoo & Foley, Aoife M. & Rooney, David, 2022. "Decarbonizing the pulp and paper industry: A critical and systematic review of sociotechnical developments and policy options," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    8. Syed Hammad Mian & Bashir Salah & Wadea Ameen & Khaja Moiduddin & Hisham Alkhalefah, 2020. "Adapting Universities for Sustainability Education in Industry 4.0: Channel of Challenges and Opportunities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-33, July.
    9. Peter Bubenik & Juraj Capek & Miroslav Rakyta & Vladimira Binasova & Katarina Staffenova, 2022. "Impact of Strategy Change on Business Process Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-23, September.
    10. Leire Barañano & Olatz Unamunzaga & Naroa Garbisu & Siebe Briers & Timokleia Orfanidou & Blasius Schmid & Inazio Martínez de Arano & Andrés Araujo & Carlos Garbisu, 2022. "Assessment of the Development of Forest-Based Bioeconomy in European Regions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-19, April.
    11. Mauno, Tuomas & Catelo, Fellice & Bengston, David N. & Pykäläinen, Jouni & Hujala, Teppo, 2023. "How to identify and interpret weak signals of change in the forest bioeconomy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aull-Hyde, Rhonda & Erdogan, Sevgi & Duke, Joshua M., 2006. "An experiment on the consistency of aggregated comparison matrices in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 171(1), pages 290-295, May.
    2. Reinsberger, Kathrin & Brudermann, Thomas & Hatzl, Stefanie & Fleiß, Eva & Posch, Alfred, 2015. "Photovoltaic diffusion from the bottom-up: Analytical investigation of critical factors," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 178-187.
    3. Ilić, Damir & Milošević, Isidora & Ilić-Kosanović, Tatjana, 2022. "Application of Unmanned Aircraft Systems for smart city transformation: Case study Belgrade," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    4. Sotiropoulou, Irene & Deutz, Pauline, 2021. "Understanding the bioeconomy: a new sustainability economy in British and European public discourse," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 10(4), December.
    5. Bentes, Alexandre Veronese & Carneiro, Jorge & da Silva, Jorge Ferreira & Kimura, Herbert, 2012. "Multidimensional assessment of organizational performance: Integrating BSC and AHP," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(12), pages 1790-1799.
    6. Jahangir Wasim & Vijay Vyas & Pietro Amenta & Antonio Lucadamo & Gabriella Marcarelli & Alessio Ishizaka, 2023. "Deriving the weights for aggregating judgments in a multi-group problem: an application to curriculum development in entrepreneurship," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 853-877, July.
    7. Sasaki, Yasuo, 2023. "Strategic manipulation in group decisions with pairwise comparisons: A game theoretical perspective," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(3), pages 1133-1139.
    8. Syed Hammad Mian & Abdulrahman Al-Ahmari, 2019. "Comparative analysis of different digitization systems and selection of best alternative," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 2039-2067, June.
    9. Stumpf, Lukas & Schöggl, Josef-Peter & Baumgartner, Rupert J., 2023. "Circular plastics packaging – Prioritizing resources and capabilities along the supply chain," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    10. Brent, Alan C. & Rogers, David E.C. & Ramabitsa-Siimane, Tsaletseng S.M. & Rohwer, Mark B., 2007. "Application of the analytical hierarchy process to establish health care waste management systems that minimise infection risks in developing countries," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(1), pages 403-424, August.
    11. Heiskanen, Aleksi & Hurmekoski, Elias & Toppinen, Anne & Näyhä, Annukka, 2022. "Exploring the unknowns – State of the art in qualitative forest-based sector foresight research," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    12. Milan Ranđelović & Jelena Stanković & Kristijan Kuk & Gordana Savić & Dragan Ranđelović, 2018. "An Approach to Determining the Importance of Model Criteria in Certifying a City as Business-Friendly," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 48(2), pages 156-165, April.
    13. Maja Farstad & Pia Piroschka Otte & Erika Palmer, 2024. "Socio-cultural conditions for social acceptance of bioeconomy transitions: the case of Norway," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(7), pages 18559-18574, July.
    14. Manuel Hafner & Lukas Fehr & Jan Springorum & Artur Petkau & Reinhard Johler, 2020. "Perceptions of Bioeconomy and the Desire for Governmental Action: Regional Actors’ Connotations of Wood-Based Bioeconomy in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-13, November.
    15. Rico, Margarita & González, Andrés, 2015. "Social participation into regional forest planning attending to multifunctional objectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 27-34.
    16. Bernasconi, Michele & Choirat, Christine & Seri, Raffaello, 2014. "Empirical properties of group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: Theory and evidence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 584-592.
    17. Amelia Bilbao-Terol & Mariano Jiménez & Mar Arenas-Parra, 2016. "A group decision making model based on goal programming with fuzzy hierarchy: an application to regional forest planning," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 137-162, October.
    18. Wolfgang Ossadnik & Stefanie Schinke & Ralf H. Kaspar, 2016. "Group Aggregation Techniques for Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Network Process: A Comparative Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 421-457, March.
    19. Banai, Reza, 2010. "Evaluation of land use-transportation systems with the Analytic Network Process," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(1), pages 85-112.
    20. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:110:y:2020:i:c:s1389934118303691. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.