The term bioeconomy has been generated as a new discourse in the environmental policy arena. This paper raises three questions: (i) are environmental concerns integrated in the political discourses of bioeconomy and, if so, to what extent?, (ii) in which way is the environment framed in the political discourses of bioeconomy?, and (iii) are environmental concerns considered in the political discourses on forest-based bioeconomy? The theoretical framework of this paper builds on the cognitive approach of policy integration and on frame analysis. The empirical research design is a comparative qualitative analysis of five different political bioeconomy discourses in the EU and four different EU member states – Germany, Finland, France and the Netherlands – in general and in the forestry sector specifically. Results show a weak and mainly rhetorical integration of environmental concerns in political bioeconomy discourses. Three major environmental frames are identified: (i) The dominant frame of 'Environment benefitting from economic growth', (ii) the 'Environment as a challenge' and (iii) the less visible 'Environment as a standard' frame. In general, these frames address the environment mainly as a challenge or something that needs to be safeguarded with the help of the bioeconomy. With the exception of Finland, amongst the countries studied, forests plays only a minor role in bioeconomy discourses while environmental concerns in this strand of discussion are mainly focused on sustainability arguments in general. Spanish El término bioeconomía ha aparecido como un nuevo discurso en el ámbito de la política ambiental. Este artículo plantea tres preguntas: (i) ¿están integradas las preocupaciones ambientales en el discurso político sobre bioeconomía y, en caso afirmativo, en qué medida? (ii) ¿cómo se enmarcan los aspectos medioambientales en el discurso político sobre bioeconomía?, y (iii) ¿se tienen en cuenta las preocupaciones medioambientales en el discurso político sobre bioeconomía forestal? El marco teórico de este trabajo está basado en el enfoque cognitivo de la integración de políticas y en el análisis de marcos teóricos. El diseño de la investigación empírica es un análisis cualitativo comparativo de cinco discursos políticos diferentes sobre bioeconomía en la UE y de cuatro estados miembros de la UE (Alemania, Finlandia, Francia y los Países Bajos), tanto en general como específicamente para el sector forestal. Los resultados muestran una integración débil, y en gran medida retórica, de las preocupaciones ambientales en el discurso político sobre bioeconomía. Se identificaron tres marcos medioambientales principales: i) el marco predominante de «el medio ambiente se beneficia del crecimiento económico»; ii) el «medio ambiente como un reto»; y iii) el marco menos aparente del «medio ambiente como un estándar». En general, estos marcos abordan el medio ambiente como un desafío, o como algo que necesita ser salvaguardado con la ayuda de la bioeconomía. A excepción de Finlandia, entre los países estudiados los bosques tan sólo desempeñan un papel menor en el discurso político sobre bioeconomía, mientras que las preocupaciones medioambientales en este hilo argumental se centran principalmente en los aspectos de sostenibilidad en general. French Dans le domaine des politiques environnementales le terme de bioéconomie est associé à une nouvelle forme de discours. Ce papier soulève trois question en lien avec ce phénomène: (i) Les enjeux environnementaux sont-ils intégrés aux discours politique sur la bioéconomie, et si oui, dans quelle mesure? (ii) De quelle façon la problématique environnementale est-elle posée dans ces discours politiques sur la bioéconomie?, et (iii) les enjeux environnementaux sont-ils pris en compte dans les discours politiques sur la bioéconomie forestière? Le cadre théorique de ce papier repose sur une approche cognitive de l'intégration politique et sur l'analyse des formes de cadrage. Le travail empirique s'appuit sur une étude qualitative et comparative des différents discours politique sur la biéoconomie, de manière générale et en particuliers dans le secteur forestier, au niveau de l'UE et dans quatre pays membres (Allemagne, Finlande, France et Pays-Bas). Les résultats montrent que l'intégration des enjeux environnementaux dans ces discours est faible et essentiellement rhétoriques. Trois principales formes de cadrage ont été identifiés: (i) le cadrage dominant qui présente «la croissance économique au bénéfice de l'environnement», (ii) celui qui présente «l'environnement comme un défi à relever», et (iii) le moins visible où «l'environnement est un standard». De manière générale, ces formes de cadrage traitent de l'environnement essentiellement comme un enjeu ou comme quelque chose qui doit être préservé grâce à la bioéconomie. A l'exception de la Finlande, dans les pays étudiés les forêts occupent une place marginale dans les discours sur la bioéconomie et les enjeux environnement associés sont principalement renvoyés à la question de la durabilité.

This review article examines how social science literature co-produces various imaginaries of forest-based bioeconomy transformations and pathways for reaching desired ends. Based on an analysis of 59 research articles, we find that despite a growing number of social sciences studies on the forest-based bioeconomy, much of the research tends to replicate a bioeconomy imaginary articulated in EU and national bioeconomy policies and strategies. Accordingly, the research primarily reproduces a weak approach to sustainability, which prioritize economic growth and competitiveness. Expectations are largely directed at national and regional corporate interests and forest industrial renewal, while the state has a supportive rather than restricting role. We discuss the findings against the role of social sciences, and conclude that social science scholars may adopt various strategies if interested in opening up forest-based policy debates and offer alternative imaginaries of sustainable bioeconomy transformations.

To foster innovativeness for supporting (forest-based) bioeconomy development, participation in decision-making and interaction between diverse actors become a necessary precondition for designing and implementing transition policies. However, who forms the emerging policy networks, and which policy beliefs are promoted? Based on data from a national online survey, we performed a quantitative social network analysis to investigate emerging social structures and policy beliefs in the context of the Finnish forest-based bioeconomy. Our explorative analysis shows that research, governmental, and industrial organizations mainly constitute the Finnish forest-based bioeconomy network. Actors primarily exchange information, and most key organizations report high levels of trust among each other. However, the network structure is rather closed. This raises concerns about equal benefit sharing and the inclusiveness of concerned actors. We discuss the implication of this network structure for enabling new innovations. Finally, we present the key aspects and drivers of “business as usual”, and suggest an option for or a more transformative change in the Finnish forest-based bioeconomy.

Bioeconomy is an emerging concept that is gaining momentum both in science and policy. Within the forest sector, the bioeconomy discourse is already shaping the international forest policy debate. Given the sector’s importance for the national economy, this study investigates the perceptions of bioeconomy by forest owners, forest industry and ENGOs in Sweden. Drawing on cognitive and ideological dimensions of political bargaining, we analyse to which extent the bioeconomy serves as a bridging concept, a dividing concept or a boundary object. The results show that the bioeconomy is a broadly accepted concept, perceived as a natural extension of the Swedish forestry model. Results indicate that bioeconomy is well aligned with the key characteristics of a boundary object, that is, serving specific interests of different forest stakeholders under the generally accepted conceptual umbrella. We did not identify dividing effects of any substance. On the contrary, the interviews provide a strong indication that bioeconomy serves the Swedish forest sector as a bridging concept that brings closer rather than antagonises the different actors.