2011 Gold Bio-energy supply chains and stakeholders

1 23

Mitigation and AdaptationStrategies for Global ChangeAn International JournalDevoted to Scientific,Engineering, Socio-Economicand Policy Responses toEnvironmental Change

ISSN 1381-2386Volume 16Number 4

Mitig Adapt Strateg GlobChange (2011) 16:439-462DOI 10.1007/s11027-010-9272-8

Bio-energy supply chains andstakeholders

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright andall rights are held exclusively by SpringerScience+Business Media B.V.. This e-offprintis for personal use only and shall not be self-archived in electronic repositories. If youwish to self-archive your work, please use theaccepted authors version for posting to yourown website or your institutions repository.You may further deposit the accepted authorsversion on a funders repository at a fundersrequest, provided it is not made publiclyavailable until 12 months after publication.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Bio-energy supply chains and stakeholders

Stefan Gold

Received: 2 June 2010 /Accepted: 2 November 2010 /Published online: 19 November 2010# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Abstract What are the management challenges and opportunities of bio-energy chains forboth running their business efficiently and effectively and fostering the relationships withmost relevant external stakeholders? This question is approached by systematicallyreviewing papers at the interface of bio-energy and supply chain or logistics issues. Thereview conducted as content analysis is based on an analytic framework that conceives bio-energy chains between challenges and benefits of bio-energy production with simultaneousinternal supply chain management and external stakeholder management needs. Smartlydesigned and operated bio-energy projects hold promising potentials of contributing tosustainable development by both mitigating climate change and strengthening adaptationcapabilities. Our analysis distils specific strategies and success factors for tapping thispotential on two levels: On a supply chain level, individually adapted and designed supplychain systems relying on trustful information exchange, cooperation and relationalgovernance safeguard profitability while holding adverse ecological and social impacts ofoperation down; they allow, for instance, minimising costs and emissions, implementingnew technologies, and coping with environmental uncertainties such as crop failures andvolatile prices. On a stakeholder level, governments as key actors for designing the futurelegal framework of bio-energy are primary targets for lobbying activities of bio-energyrepresentatives. Respective arguments may focus on economic development and jobgeneration. By minimising its adverse impacts on society and eco-systems and bycommunicating these efforts credibly, bio-energy warrants its superiority over fossil energysystems. Involving NGOs and residents in early stages of bio-energy projects viatransparent two-way communication considerably increase societal acceptance.

Keywords Bio-energy . Content analysis . Literature review . Stakeholder management .

Stakeholders . Supply chain management . Sustainability

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2011) 16:439462DOI 10.1007/s11027-010-9272-8

S. Gold (*)Faculty of Organic Agricultural Sciences, Department of International Management,University of Kassel, Steinstr. 19, 37213 Witzenhausen, Germanye-mail: [email protected]

Author's personal copy

1 Introduction

Declining stocks of fossil fuels have entailed the need to search more intensely forrenewable energy options. Following the concept of sustainable development as definedby the Brundtland Commission, energy systems should be ecologically, socially, andeconomically sustainable, so that the present generation is able to meet its energy needswithout compromising the ability of future generations to meet their energy and otherneeds (WCED 1987). Thereby bio-energy could play a substantial role, since it helpspreserve non-renewable resources, improves energy security, mitigates the greenhouseeffect, and promotes regional development, when established under favourable conditions(Ecosense 2007).

Biomass used for bio-energy comprises wood, agricultural and forestry residues, energycrops, human and animal excrement as well as industrial and municipal bio-degradablewaste (Allen et al. 1998). Bio-fuels are solid, liquid, and gaseous fuels based on biomass.Bio-energy is defined as energy (heat, electricity, mobility) from bio-fuels (McCormick andKberger 2005). Today biomass covers approximately 10%, i.e. 49 EJ (exajoule, a unit ofenergy equal to 1018 J), of the total primary energy demand, i.e. 503 EJ (IEA 2009).Whereas the currently largest part is traditional bio-energy use in developing countries, asteadily increasing ratio of bio-energy stems from modern production systems in theindustrialised world (UNDESA 2006). The sustainable technical potential of bio-energy isremarkable: The German Advisory Council on Global Change estimates a potential of 80 to170 EJ per year for the year 2050 (WBGU 2009). Although the maximum technical bio-energy potential could be over 1000 EJ per year (Faaij 2006), a review of differentassessments by Offermann et al. (2010) concludes future energy crop potential in 2050most realistically to vary between 200 and 600 EJ per year, while the sustainablepotential is assumed at the lower margin or even below. This considerable variance infigures (Hoogwijk et al. 2003) indicates that the actual contributions of biomass to thefuture global energy supply is a contentious issue due to different estimations of the mainparameters, land availability and yield levels, which Berndes et al. (2003) show in theirreview of 17 studies.

Critics pointing to the adverse sustainability balance of certain forms of bio-energyproduction when considering its whole life-cycle have gained more and more scientific andpublic attention in recent years. Negative impacts concern for example acidification, humanand ecological toxicity and eutrophication (von Blottnitz and Curran 2007). Furtherchallenges arise from competing land use between biomass production for food, materialand energy use, which may have severe repercussions primarily in developing countries(Kerckow 2007). Water shortage as well may be severely exacerbated in certain regions bythe cultivation of energy crops (Gerbens-Leenes et al. 2009).

For duly evaluating bio-energy production, a system perspective has to be taken,comprehending the components biomass resources, supply systems, conversiontechnologies, and energy services. In practice, many idiosyncratic combinations ofthese components are possible (McCormick and Kberger 2007). In addition tostructure and design of bio-energy supply chains, management of relationshipsinterlinking the supply chain actors and successful involvement of other stakeholdersbeyond the supply chain itself are of outstanding importance. Given the restrictions andchallenges regarding biomass logistics due to biomass characteristics such as low bulkdensity (Mayfield et al. 2007) and seasonal availability (Caputo et al. 2005), stableeconomic ties to biomass suppliers within a delimited area surrounding the energyconversion plant are usually vital for securing constant and affordable feedstock supply

440 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2011) 16:439462


(Steinmann and Holm-Mller 2010). On the other hand, markets of economicallytransportable biomass for energy use develop increasingly into international markets (IEATask 40 2005). Securing feedstock supply by trading biomass internationally requiresadequate networking, coordination and management of relationships to biomassproducers and logistics providers on a global level (Heinim et al. 2008). Provided thepotential power of external stakeholders (such as regulatory authorities, NGOs, residents,the public in general) (see e.g., Seuring and Mller 2008a, b) to hamper or even obstructbio-energy projects, bio-energy producers have to respond to and manage the interests ofthese groups as well.

From these lines of argument, two scopes of viewing bio-energy systems may bedefined, which primarily differ in terms of the system boundaries applied: (1) the bio-energy chain as entity and (2) the wider context of stakeholders putting claims on bio-energy exceeding the supply chain actors themselves. These scopes are addressed throughthe following research questions:

(Q1) How are bio-energy production systems run effectively and efficiently throughcoordination and collaboration?

(Q2) How may bio-energy chains successfully safeguard their license to operate withintheir environment? Specifically: (Q2.1) What are relevant stakeholders groups?(Q2.2) How are these stakeholder groups related to various kinds of challenges andbenefits of bio-energy? And what does this imply for the management opportunitiesof bio-energy chains towards their environment?

The former question analyses the implementation of relationship-focused managementwithin bio-energy chains. To answer the latter question, an overview of challenges andbenefits of bio-energy is distilled and related to various stakeholder groups identified andclassified beforehand. Thus, considering a broad environmental context, we conceive howbio-energy is actually situated between the poles of hindering and driving factors. Eventhough the focus of this analysis is put on what management measures bio-energy chainscan take in order to keep their license to operate, it is clear that all stakeholder groups areboth acting and affected parties regarding bio-energy.

Evidence concerning these research questions is generated by systematicallyreviewing and assessing all papers published in English-speaking peer-reviewedjournals from 2000 up to 2009, dealing with the interface of bio-energy and supplychain or logistics issues. The theoretical backbone of the content analysis appliedrepresents collaborative supply chain management (SCM) and stakeholder theory. Onbasis of a conceptual model developed both deductively and inductively, acomprehensive overview of management challenges and opportunities of bio-energychains is given, synthesising and integrating findings dispersed over a variety of papers.In this way the literature review helps to map and assess the existing intellectualproperty (Tranfield et al. 2003, p. 208) regarding the management of bio-energy chainsand of their link to society.

The structure of the paper is as follows: On basis of a brief review of the theoryfields of collaborative SCM and stakeholder theory, an integrative analytic frameworkis elaborated, from which dimensions and analytic categories used in the contentanalysis are derived. Then, the methodology of a literature review applied as contentanalysis is described. Subsequently the findings of the analysis are presented anddiscussed. After outlining the limitations of the study and direction for future research,main conclusions are presented.

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2011) 16:439462 441


2 Dimensions and analytic categories for content analysis

Referring to the theory fields of collaborative supply chain management focusing on inter-organisational relationships and of stakeholder theory, we conceive an analytic frameworkof how bio-energy supply chain actors and other stakeholders are situated betweenchallenges and benefits of bio-energy production. Thus we make a contribution to theorydevelopment in this field. By applying existing theory to the case of bio-energy chains andstakeholders, we derive analytic categories for dimension 1 managing the supply chain(Q1) and parts of dimension 2 identifying stakeholders (Q2.1). Regarding a more subtlesubdivision of stakeholder groups and regarding dimension 3 relating challenges andbenefits to stakeholders (Q2.2), analytic categories are developed in an inductive approachfrom the material under examination by constantly reflecting categories and data. Theoutcome of this iterative process is described below. Weick (1989) encourages such acreative procedure for theory building, naming it disciplined imagination. The author evenwarns against being too mechanistic when building theory, but encourages thought trials.

2.1 Managing the supply chain

When competition evolved from an inter-firm to an inter-supply-chain level in recent years,the concept of supply chain management gained more and more momentum (Hult et al.2007) and was also already related to sustainability management (Gold et al. 2010).According to Mentzer et al. (2001, p. 4 f.) supply chains are a set of three or more entities(organisations or individuals) directly involved in the upstream and downstream flows ofproducts, services, finances, and / or information from a source to a customer. SCM meansthe systemic, strategic coordination of the traditional business functions and the tacticsacross these business functions within a particular company and across businesses withinthe supply chain, for the purposes of improving the long-term performance of the individualcompanies and the supply chain as a whole (Mentzer et al. 2001, p. 18). Underlining thereciprocity and quality of ties that horizontally and vertically connect organisations within asupply system, particular attention is allotted to the collaborative paradigm, denominatingthe challenge of designing and managing a network of interdependent relationshipsdeveloped and fostered through strategic collaboration (Chen and Paulraj 2004, p. 119).By engaging pro-actively in partnership types of supply chain relationships (Fynes et al.2008), supply chains strive for generating collaborative advantage according to thestrategic management perspective (Kanter 1994, p. 96).

From this theory field of collaborative supply chain management we borrow fiveconstructs as analytic categories for our content analysis. We consider these five constructspivotal for evaluating supply chain design and management (of usually complex andinterdependent bio-energy production systems) in terms of aptitude to give a competitiveedge over rivals or, at least, to safeguard competitive parity and hence organisationalsurvival. We succinctly outline these constructs in the following:

(a) Supply chain cooperation may be defined as two or more companies workingtogether to create a competitive advantage and higher profits than can be achieved byacting alone (Simatupang and Sridharan 2005, p. 258). Hence, this category refers todistinct goal-oriented partner-focused interaction (Sharfman et al. 2009) among supplychain actors.

(b) According to Arshinder and Deshmukh (2008), effective supply chain coordinationmeans that supply chain members must work towards a unified system and coordinate



with each other (Stank et al. 1999; Xu and Beamon 2006; Seuring 2009). In ouranalysis, the concept of supply chain coordination mainly addresses issues of designand organisation of bio-energy chains.

(c) Supply chain governance (Jones et al. 1997; Cannon et al. 2000) may be spannedbetween the poles contractual and relational governance. Hereby, Poppo and Zenger(2002, p. 713) propose a positive reciprocal relationship between these two poles, sothat formal contracts promote relational governance in exchange settings andrelational governance enables the refinement of contracts and promotes stability ininterorganizational exchanges.

(d) Long-term relationships are assumed to facilitate and intensify supply chaincoordination (Krause and Ellram 1997; Spekman et al. 1998). In this respect, thiscategory is conceived as the initiatives and efforts of the focal firms (in hierarchicalsupply chains) or of all supply chain actors (in heterarchical supply chains) toencourage enduring supply chain relationships (Chen and Paulraj 2004; Seuring andMller 2008b).

(e) The category communication for conflict settlement and joint development requiresfrequent, genuine and personal two-way communication at eye level. It involves theexchange of considerable volumes of valuable information, including sensitiveinformation (Krause and Ellram 1997; Chen and Paulraj 2004).

2.2 Identifying stakeholders

Stakeholder management may be perceived as an extension of SCM in that regard that itaims beyond the economic actors within the supply chain towards a wide range of otherrelevant stakeholders. While SCM strives for devising effective and efficient ways ofoperating bio-energy production systems, stakeholder management rather ensures theirlicense to operate.

Definitions of who is to be considered a stakeholder have varied strongly since theemergence of stakeholder theory (cf. Mitchell et al. 1997, p. 858). The twofold definition ofstakeholders by Freeman and Reed (1983) reflects this debate about the level of conceptualinclusiveness. While a narrow view sees stakeholders as any identifiable group orindividual on which the organization is dependent for its continued survival (Freeman andReed 1983, p. 91), a wide view defines stakeholders as any identifiable group orindividual who can affect the achievement of an organizations objectives or who is affectedby the achievement of an organizations objectives (Freeman and Reed 1983, p. 91).Donaldson and Preston (1995) outline the development of stakeholder theory bydistinguishing the descriptive, instrumental, and normative level: describing stakeholderrelationships empirically (e.g. Wheeler et al. 2002), predicting connections betweenstakeholder strategies and organisational performance (e.g. Ruf et al. 2001), and foundingthem in well-accepted philosophical concepts (e.g. Sims and Brinkmann 2003). Steurer(2006) gives a more complete picture of the stakeholder research field by linking thesethree levels to three distinct stakeholder theory perspectives: the corporate, the stakeholderand the conceptual point of view (cf. also Steurer et al. 2005).

Various types of stakeholder identification and classification have been proposed. Awell-known framework was proposed by Mitchell et al. (1997) who base their typology ofstakeholders on their possession or non-possession of (1) power to influence theorganisation, (2) legitimacy of the relationship towards the organisation, and (3) urgencyof the claim. Thereby, various combinations of these attributes are possible. Stakeholders



possessing only one of the three attributes are called latent stakeholders, those possessingtwo attributes are named expectant stakeholders, and those unifying all three attributes aredefinitive stakeholders. Claims of definitive stakeholders are to be taken into considerationmost seriously.

For our purpose of identifying and classifying most relevant stakeholders of bio-energyproduction systems we used the basic distinction between (A) the members of the supply chainthemselves (thus representing a very narrow view of stakeholders) and (B) externalstakeholders (thus representing a medium or broad view of stakeholders). The latter have beeninductively subdivided on basis of the analysed material into the groups (1) governmentalbodies, (2) non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and associations, and (3) residents,consumers and citizens (cf. also Seuring and Mller 2008a, p. 460 for a similar classification).

Governmental authorities as well as NGOs and associations strongly impact thesurrounding legal and political system which hampers or promotes bio-energy production.The perception of bio-energy in general and of bio-energy projects in particular by citizens mayindirectly influence the political and legal system via elections and support for certain NGOs aswell. However, most importantly, the perception of citizens decides over their acceptance of orrather direct resistance towards specific bio-energy ventures; the latter may make citizens topool and organise their interests, for example by launching grassroots movements or by takinglegal action. Thus citizens are able to put forth a definitely urgent, legitimate, and frequentlyalso powerful claim against bio-energy systems that operate in their neighbourhoods.Consequently, they transmute into definite stakeholders according to the typology of Mitchellet al. (1997) and should, therefore, be treated with accordant prudence.

2.3 Stakeholders between challenges and benefits of bio-energy production

Challenges of producing energy from biomass (which exceed mere profitability considerations)have been inductively classified into three levels: (1) the legal and political framework, (2)challenges inherent in bio-energy production (regarding society and environment as well asutilisation rivalries) and finally (3) the perception of these challenges by citizens.

It should be noted that these perceptions by citizens are rooted in societal and culturalnorms and are affected by individual psychological features. They are frequently not in linewith an expert assessment of risks and drawbacks of a certain technology. Mental models(cf. Morgan et al. 2002), psychometric (cf. Slovic 1987) and socio-cultural approaches (cf.Weyman and Kelly 1999) of risk perception all share as common feature that perceptionsare naturally constructivist, meaning that they are subjective conception.

Each of these threemutually interlinkedlevels of challenges is assumed to be mainlyconnected to distinct stakeholder groups and may be alleviated by (addressing) theconcerned groups. Contrariwise, benefits of bio-energy production (categorised aseconomic, ecological and social / societal benefits) represent powerful arguments for bio-energy chains for dealing within particular externalstakeholder groups. Figure 1depicts how SCM is embedded in the more comprehensive stakeholder framework and howchallenges and benefits of bio-energy are related to the various stakeholder groups as bothacting and affected parties regarding bio-energy. Following the corporate perspectiveaccording to Steurer (2006), we take the specific angle of bio-energy chains for ouranalysis, though. Thus, we examine how bio-energy chains may manage their externalstakeholders, such as governments, NGOs and residents. This corporate perspective isindicated by the arrows between the stakeholder groups.

Table 1 summarises the three structural dimensions and their analytic categories appliedfor analysing our body of literature.



2.4 Methodologyliterature review as content analysis

In this chapter the methodology of a literature review conducted as content analysis isbriefly outlined.

Fink (2005, p. 3) defines a research literature review as a systematic, explicit, andreproducible design for identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing the existing body of

Challenges inherent in bio-energy production:

-Social andenvironmental challenges-Utilisation rivalries

Resistance by citizens due to their perception of risks and drawbacks of bio-energy technologies

Legal and politicalframework

Broader political system:Governmental bodies, NGOs and associations

Supply chain actors

Narrow environment:Residents, consumers, citizens

Challenges of bio-energy Stakeholder groups Benefits of bio-energy

Economicbenefits, e.g. incomegeneration, investments

Ecologicalbenefits, e.g.

GHG reduction, protection of non-

renewableresources

Social/societalbenefits, e.g. jobcreation, energysecurity

Designing andmanaging thesupply chain: thecollaborativeparadigm

Lens ofperception

Stakeholder

Stakeholder

management

management

Fig. 1 Conceptualising supply chain actors and other stakeholders between challenges and benefits of bio-energy. Source: Own illustration

Table 1 Dimensions and analytic categories used for content analysis

1. Managing the supply chain 2. Identifying stakeholders 3. Assessing challenges and benefits

1.1 Supply chain cooperation 2.1 Supply chain actors 3.1 Challenges

1.2 Supply chain coordination 2.2 External stakeholders 3.1.1 Legal and political framework

1.3 Supply chain governance 2.2.1 Governmental bodies 3.1.2 Challenges inherent inbio-energy production

1.4 Long-term relationships 2.2.2 NGOs and associations 3.1.3 Resistance by citizens due totheir perception of bio-energytechnologies

1.5 Communication for conflictsettlement and joint development

2.2.3 Residents, consumers,citizens

3.2 Benefits

3.2.1 Economic benefits

3.2.2 Ecological benefits

3.2.3 Social / societal benefits



completed and recorded work produced by researchers, scholars, and practitioners.Systematically reviewing literature facilitates an in-depth account of previous research in acertain field and thus represents a first step in the theory development process (Meredith1993; Mentzer and Kahn 1995). Literature reviews may be regarded as an archival researchmethod (Searcy and Mentzer 2003).

Content analysis is a research technique for the objective, systematic, and quantitativedescription of the manifest content of communication (Berelson 1952, p. 55). Theresearcher faces the challenge of drawing a careful and reasoned line between what isincluded into the analysis and what not. Content analysis critically relies on the quality ofthe analysis schedule, i.e. the dimensions and derivative assessment categories (Jauch et al.1980). Any information unrelated to these categories is rigorously discarded fromconsideration.

The research method of content analysis needs theoretical pre-considerations and itsprocedure is clearly structured. Thus the researcher is enabled to draw warrantableconclusions on the analysed material. We organise the process of content analysis by meansof four steps according to Mayring (2003, p. 54):

1. Material collection: The reviewed body of literature are English-speaking peer-reviewed journals. Academic journals may be considered the most common andinfluential resources for information exchange among researchers. Moreover, the peer-review process ensures a minimum quality level of the presented arguments. Toestablish a time span, a starting point was set at 2000. For compiling and delimitatingthe paper sample, a literature search was conducted based on the combinations ofdescriptors (1) biomass and bio(-)energy (both descriptors being jointly present inone paper) as well as (2) supply chain or logistics. If these three terms were foundtogether in title, keywords or abstract, the paper was included in the subsequent review.The combinations of descriptors were searched by means of major databases andlibrary services: Emerald (www.emeraldinsight.com), Springer (www.springerlink.com), Wiley (www.wiley.com), Scopus (www.scopus.com). The descriptor combina-tion of biomass and bio(-)energy and stakeholders disregarding supplychain or logistics were not considered, since these papers rather take a broadpolitical or societal view on the topic and do not focus on the bio-energy chain asbarycentre of analysis, as our analysis does by taking the corporate perspectiveaccording to Steurer (2006). A first screening of the abstracts discarded papersobviously irrelevant for our research field. Altogether, we identified 54 papersdispersed over a broad variety of journals. Most frequent journals are Biomass andBioenergy (15 papers), Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology (8 papers) andMitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change (5 papers). 40 out of 54identified papers have been published after 2005, showing that the interface betweenbio-energy and supply chain and logistics issues has been gaining more and moreimportance in recent years.

2. Descriptive analysis: Formal aspects of the material under examination are to beassessed. Except for the information given above, this is not presented here as it doesnot add value to the subsequent analysis.

3. Selection of dimensions and analytic categories: Three dimensions of contentanalysis are assessed so to comprehensively analyse the need of supply chain andstakeholder management for bio-energy production: (1) Managing the supply chain,(2) identifying stakeholders, (3) assessing challenges and benefits of bio-energyproduction. Categories for analysing SCM and roughly identifying stakeholders



have been deductively derived from supply chain and stakeholder theory asdescribed in the previous section. Categories referring to the subdivision of mainstakeholder groups as well as to challenges and benefits of bio-energy productionhave been inductively built from the material under examination. The categoriespresented in the previous section have been identified in an iterative process ofcategory building, testing and revising by constantly comparing categories and data(Eisenhardt 1989; Mayring 2000).

4. Material evaluation: The material is sorted according to the dimensions and analyticcategories. Furthermore, challenges and benefits of bio-energy as assessed through ouranalysis are related to various stakeholder groups, thus deriving main managementneeds and opportunities of bio-energy chains.

3 Findings of the content analysis

In the following, the findings of the content analysis are presented in a structured way. First,bio-energy specific issues of collaborative SCM are outlined and respective relevantstakeholder groups are identified and classified. Then, both challenges and benefits of bio-energy are assessed and related to the various stakeholder groups, while managerialimplications are indicated.

3.1 Managing the internal supply chain relationships

Over the paper sample, constructs of collaborative SCM directed to the management ofrelationship quality are generally rarely addressed. Cooperation in bio-energy supply chains(10) and supply chain governance (8) represent the most frequent categories, followed bycommunication for conflict settlement and joint development (5), supply chain coordination(4) and long-term relationships (2).

3.1.1 Cooperation in supply chains

In general, the pro-active formation of partnerships is regarded a key precondition forestablishing or expanding bio-energy systems (McCormick and Kberger 2007; Canils andRomijn 2008). High numbers of supply chain members and high degrees of inter-dependencies within bio-energy production systems make it indispensable to involve allsupply chain actors but also other affected stakeholders into decision-making processes inorder to prevent disruptions (Woods et al. 2006; Elghali et al. 2007). Generally, (1)horizontal cooperation may be distinguished from (2) vertical cooperation, the lattersometimes exclusively claiming the label supply chain cooperation as itself alone spansseveral tiers of a supply chain:

(1) Mayfield et al. (2007) highlight the need for collaboration among forest and landowners and for information sharing across sectors. Similarly, Rauch (2007) regardscooperation among small-scale forest owners as an opportunity of cost-cutting by achievinga high utilisation rate of expensive logging equipment, while enhancing both their serviceand supply level. (2) Cutting costs, implementing new technologies and realising synergiesby using by- and co-products are facilitated by cooperation along the supply chain(McCormick and Kberger 2007; Rauch 2007). For securing permanent feedstock supply,plant operators have to win suppliers over who feature steadiness and reliability (van Belleet al. 2003). Angelidaki and Ellegaard (2003) suggest that commitment and cooperation of



suppliers may be considerably enhanced by setting up bio-energy plants as cooperatives,integrating farmers as their members.

Our analysis finds as main prerequisites of supply chain cooperation (1) informationexchange (Woods et al. 2006; Mayfield et al. 2007), (2) training and capacity building(Woods et al. 2006; Canils and Romijn 2008), and (3) trust (van der Horst 2008).

3.1.2 Supply chain coordination

Supply chain coordination is identified as one key barrier for further establishing bio-energy production in the EU (McCormick and Kberger 2007). Lacking supply chaincoordination results for example in large volumes of biomass being transported for longdistances across the country (Mller and Nielsen 2007), thus increasing costs andemissions. Van der Horst (2008) distinguishes between two models of supply chaincoordination(1) the manufacturer-led and (2) the farmer-led model:

(1) The technology manufacturers proactively implement the utilisation of theirtechnology, which particularly holds for novel technologies such as biomassgasification or pyrolysis. This model features one focal company as supply chaininitiator and coordinator. (2) The farmers supply the feedstock, run and sometimes evenmaintain the biomass plant on their own. Scandinavian farmer cooperatives are atypical form of this farmer-led model. Their success shows that farmers and smallcompanies can successfully run a biomass plant when acting jointly. This holds true atleast for locally supplied systems, whereas trading on the growing global market forbiomass requires networking and international cooperation, which is naturally ratherchallenging for smaller organisations (Heinim et al. 2008).

3.1.3 Supply chain governance

Our analysis reveals that governance via formal contracts is the most common way ofensuring supply, while a few papers also point to the importance of relationalgovernance.

(1) Contracts may be beneficial both for plant operators in order to secure the feedstocksupply (Sims and Venturi 2004; Madlener and Bachhiesl 2007) and for farmers inorder to be protected against price falls (Canils and Romijn 2008). For guaranteeingplanning reliability for all sides contracts are supposed to be of long-term nature(Rauch 2007; Leduc et al. 2009). However, this may entail the drawback of lowflexibility when, for instance, significant changes regarding the market price of afeedstock arise, thus possibly suggesting opportunistic behaviour through violation ofthese contracts. When confronted with reluctant or unreliable farmers, plant operatorsmay decide to lease the required land and to produce the feedstock themselves(McCormick and Kberger 2007).

(2) Contracts may be seen as prerequisites to build up trust and thus to engage in further-reaching relational governance. McCormick and Kberger (2007, p. 446) state thatcontracts between farmers and local energy companies, conceivably involving localgovernment, are needed to create a climate of confidence and promote the diffusion ofenergy crops. One example of far-reaching supply chain governance via acombination of equity participation and fostered social ties is the traditionalagricultural cooperative in Denmark. Here, feedstock suppliers are cooperativemembers ensuring a constant supply of biomass (Angelidaki and Ellegaard 2003).



3.1.4 Long-term relationships

It is argued that the farmers concern of significantly losing entrepreneurial flexibility detersthem from engaging in energy crops. Hence, convincing farmers to get into energy cropproduction and thus to make investments in relationship-specific assets may be facilitatedby, firstly, pointing out the short-term economic profitability of energy crops and by,secondly, credibly affirming long-term buying commitment regarding the energy crop yield.Reliable long-term relationships decisively contribute to building mutual trust within bio-energy supply chains by reducing the risk for all parties that their relation-specificinvestments lose most of their value when the specific supply chain relationshipprematurely terminates (McCormick and Kberger 2007).

3.1.5 Communication for conflict settlement and joint development

Communication may be used (1) for counteracting supply chain disruptions (managementfor preventing disruptions) and (2) for facilitating genuine supply chain advancement, suchas joint learning processes (management for constant improvement).

(1) When the supply chain members and other stakeholders expectations are unstableor diverging, pro-active, ongoing and all-embracing two-way communication is needed toalign different interests and perceptions (Woods et al. 2006; Canils and Romijn 2008). (2)Information sharing and capacity building, for example by on-site trainings anddemonstrations, facilitate ongoing improvements regarding the efficient use of limitedresources; thus an increasing part of the bio-energy potential can be tapped (Woods et al.2006; Mayfield et al. 2007; Canils and Romijn 2008). van der Horst (2008) underlines theneed of open and effective learning-by-doing partnerships when social and environmentalobjectives are to be strived for within an energy supply chain.

3.2 Identifying stakeholders: supply chain actors and external stakeholders

Within our paper sample 15 papers explicitly address relevant stakeholder groups of energyproduction based on biomass. We classify these stakeholders into (A) supply chain actorsand (B) external stakeholders. The latter are sub-divided into (1) governmental bodies, (2)NGOs and associations, and (3) residents, consumers and citizens. Table 2 presents thesevarious stakeholder groups by listing the respective papers.

3.3 Relating challenges of bio-energy production to stakeholders

Table 3 relates the various levels of challenges of bio-energy production (addressed by 27out of 54 papers) to the different stakeholder groups identified (as presented in Fig. 1).Challenges on a certain level can be tackled by (addressing) the respective stakeholdergroups, which may be conceived both parties in charge for and parties concerned by certainchallenges. Nonetheless, the focus of the extant analysis lies on bio-energy chains; it isfrom their perspective that managerial implications for facing these challenges areformulated.

Naturally, all levels of challenges are interconnected; particular attention, however,should be turned to the obvious strong linkage between the fact how carefully andsuccessfully supply chain actors address the various challenges inherent in bio-energytechnologies and the perception of these technologies by citizens and the public ingeneral.



Concerning the legal and political framework, it can be seen that the protection of forestsand other lands, precluding these lands from being commercially exploited, may restrictbio-energy production. Taxes on emissions such as CO2 and on land-filling as well as otherenvironmental policy-making may considerably facilitate the implementation of bio-energyproduction systems, whereas unfavourable laws and policies as well as lacking standardsand certifications are addressed as impediments towards bio-energy expansion. Here,individual bio-energy producers and their respective associations face the task of promotingtheir interests among the scope of pluralistic political actors, such as governmental bodies,political parties, NGOs and other pressure groups. These groups are crucial for favourablyadapting the legal and political framework of bio-energy technologies.

Most relevant social and environmental challenges of bio-energy production encompassodours, noise and pollution from the bio-energy chains and direct or indirect deforestationinduced by bio-energy generation. Other important issues are the conservation of bio-diversity,

Table 2 Stakeholders of bio-energy production

Stakeholders Frequency References

Category A: Supply chain actors

Energy industry / plant operators 6 Mller 2003; Ayoub et al. 2007; Elghali et al. 2007;Jungmeier and Spitzer 2001; Kumar et al. 2006;Mayfield et al. 2007

Biomass suppliers / farmers 5 Ayoub et al. 2007; Elghali et al. 2007; Owens 2007;Canils and Romijn 2008; van der Horst 2008

Landowners / forest owners 4 Gustavsson et al. 2006; Madlener and Bachhiesl 2007;Mayfield et al. 2007; Puy et al. 2008

Project developers 2 Woods et al. 2006; Elghali et al. 2007

Forest managers 2 Mller 2003; Mayfield et al. 2007

Technology providers 1 Elghali et al. 2007

Bio-refinery 1 Kumar et al. 2006

Category B: External stakeholders

B.1: Governmental bodies

Policy-makers 5 Jungmeier and Spitzer 2001; Elghali et al. 2007; Mayfieldet al. 2007; Owens 2007; Heinim et al. 2008

Government in general 4 Gustavsson et al. 2006; Woods et al. 2006; van der Horst2008; Puy et al. 2008

Planners and technicians 2 Elghali et al. 2007; Puy et al. 2008

Administration 1 Owens 2007

B.2: NGOs & associations

NGOs and associations 4 Woods et al. 2006; Mayfield et al. 2007; Canils andRomijn 2008; Puy et al. 2008

Universities 2 Canils and Romijn 2008; Puy et al. 2008

B.3: Residents, consumers, citizens

Residents and local communities 6 Woods et al. 2006; Elghali et al. 2007; Mayfieldet al. 2007; McCormick and Kberger 2007;Owens 2007; van der Horst 2008

Society and public in general 6 Mller 2003; Gustavsson et al. 2006; Kumar et al. 2006;Mayfield et al. 2007; Owens 2007; Heinim et al. 2008

Consumers 5 Gustavsson et al. 2006; Elghali et al. 2007; Mayfield et al.2007; Heinim et al. 2008; van der Horst 2008



Table 3 Challenges of bio-energy production

Levels of challenges of bio-energy Frequency References

Relating categories of challenges to stakeholder groups:

I. Legal and political framework+B.1 Governmental bodies, B.2 NGOs & associations

Impedimental laws / policies and lack offavourable laws, such as emission andlandfill taxes

3 Abraham et al. 2006; Ghafoori and Flynn 2007;McCormick and Kberger 2007

Protected areas / forests 2 Mller and Nielsen 2007; Perpin et al. 2009

Unfavourable property regimes 1 Puy et al. 2008

Lacking standards and certification(for example sustainability certificationof biomass, standards for pellets)

1 Junginger et al. 2008

Lack of world-wide cooperation toestablish a well-functioning biomassmarket / to remove trade barriers

1 Heinim et al. 2008


II. Challenges inherent in bio-energy production+A. Supply chain actors

Social and environmental challenges

Odour, noise and pollutant emissions(for example due to lorry transport,biomass gasifiers)

5 Angelidaki and Ellegaard 2003; Gronalt andRauch 2007; Madlener and Bachhiesl 2007;McCormick and Kberger 2007; Thornley et al.2008

(Indirect) deforestation 3 Korhonen and Niutanen 2003; Damen and Faaij2006; Londo and Deurwaarder 2007

Unsustainable use of water resources 2 Mabee et al. 2005; Londo and Deurwaarder 2007

Missing protection of soil(for example soil fertility)

2 Mabee et al. 2005; Londo and Deurwaarder 2007

Threat to bio-diversity 2 Mabee et al. 2005; Londo and Deurwaarder 2007

General threats to the local environmentby bio-energy plant

2 Mabee et al. 2005; Elghali et al. 2007

Ecological restrictions regarding residuesto be retrieved from forest

1 Mabee et al. 2005

Conversion of natural eco-systems 1 Londo and Deurwaarder 2007

Safety of long-distance transport 1 Hamelinck et al. 2005

Utilisation rivalries

Rivalry between energyproduction and human food and animalfodder supply

3 Yamamoto et al. 2001; Damen and Faaij 2006;Londo and Deurwaarder 2007

Land use competition 3 Yamamoto et al. 2001; Woods et al. 2006;Londo and Deurwaarder 2007

Rivalry between energy andmaterial use

1 Yamamoto et al. 2001


III. Resistance by citizens due to their perception of bio-energy technologies+B.3 Residents, consumers,citizens

Lorry / traffic congestion 6 Mabee et al. 2005; Kumar et al. 2006;Abraham et al. 2007; Ghafoori and Flynn2007; McCormick and Kberger 2007;Searcy et al. 2007

Bad smells / odours 4 Abraham et al. 2007; Ghafoori and Flynn2007; Searcy et al. 2007; Perpin et al. 2009



water-resources and soil. In terms of utilisation rivalries, competition between bio-energyproduction and the production of human food and animal fodder as well as land use competitionare most frequently mentioned. The supply chain actors face the great challenge to minimisethese drawbacks of bio-energy technologies as far as possible, in order to refute widespreadconcerns and fears regarding bio-energy.

Resistance by residents and further citizens is assumed to be mainly caused by badsmells and traffic congestion as well as by fears about bio-diversity reduction and negativechanges in the overall appearance of the landscape due to bio-energy production.Resistance to be traced back to wrong or lacking information may be dispelled byknowledge transfer via, for instance, information campaigns. Still existing concernsfounded in actual drawbacks of bio-energy production may be balanced and outweighed byadvantages generated by bio-energy production, as presented in the following chapter.

3.4 Relating benefits of bio-energy production to stakeholders

Apart from the obvious purpose of bio-energy chains to make profit by selling energy, a varietyof benefits of bio-energy production are put forth in 21 out of 54 analysed papers. Thesebenefits touch the (1) economic, (2) ecological and (3) social and societal sphere respectively.The benefits mentioned are assigned to these three categories rather roughly according to theirpredominant features, without, though, avoiding ambiguities and overlaps at all events. Someof them are directly beneficial to the supply chain actors; but most of them can be consideredprimarily beneficial to external stakeholder groups; so these benefits can be used by bio-energychains for their stakeholder management. The findings of this analysis are presented in Table 4.

Our analysis distils the following most relevant benefits of bio-energy production:From an economic point of view, bio-energy production considerably supports the

economic development of the respective regions, which is of particular interest for society,since these regions are typically rural, little developed areas. Within this aggregate term ofeconomic development, income generation for the local population is especiallyaccentuated in our paper sample. This argument may be underlined for convincing thelocal population when bio-energy systems face resistance by local citizens.

In terms of ecology, the most widely acknowledged arguments for promoting bio-energyare mitigation of the greenhouse effect by GHG reduction and protection of non-renewableresources. Apart from these, it is highlighted that bio-energy production systems are able totreat and dispose of organic wastes and hence to protect the environment from possiblecontamination, for example by manure-borne pathogens. In addition, by- and co-products

Table 3 (continued)

Levels of challenges of bio-energy Frequency References

Public perception in favour ofbiodiversity and landscape conservation

2 Yamamoto et al. 2001; Londo andDeurwaarder 2007

Visual appearance of the biomass gasifier 1 McCormick and Kberger 2007

Diminished recreational value bybio-energy production

1 Ghafoori and Flynn 2007

Bio-energy generation perceived aswaste incineration

1 McCormick and Kberger 2007

Strong claim for the non-use of GMOs 1 Londo and Deurwaarder 2007

Fears about sustainability 1 Mabee et al. 2005



Table 4 Benefits of bio-energy production

Benefits Frequency References

Primary beneficiary: (A) Supply chain actors

Ecological benefits

Digestate (or other bio-energy residues)as organic fertiliser reducing the needof mineral fertilisers

6 Angelidaki and Ellegaard 2003; Pessoa-Jr. etal. 2005; Abraham et al. 2007; Ghafoori andFlynn 2007; Madlener and Bachhiesl 2007;Thornley et al. 2008

Valuable by- and co-products ofbio-energy production (for exampleto be used as products, fertilisers,biogas feedstock)

5 Pessoa-Jr. et al. 2005; Madlener and Bachhiesl2007; McCormick and Kberger 2007; Canilsand Romijn 2008; Perry and Rosillo-Calle 2008

Primary beneficiary: (B) External stakeholders

Economic benefits

Rural / regional economic development 6 Mabee et al. 2005, 2006; Londo and Deurwaarder2007; Mayfield et al. 2007; McCormick andKberger 2007; Thornley et al. 2008

Income generation 5 Mabee et al. 2005, 2006; Woods et al. 2006;Canils and Romijn 2008; van der Horst 2008

Investments in the region 2 Owens 2007; Thornley et al. 2008

Support of small-scale industries 1 Woods et al. 2006

Ecological benefits

GHG reduction 36 e.g., Caputo et al. 2005; Hamelinck et al. 2005;Pessoa-Jr. et al. 2005; Yoshioka et al. 2005;Kumar et al. 2006; Woods et al. 2006; Ghafooriand Flynn 2007; Londo and Deurwaarder 2007;Heinim et al. 2008; Leduc et al. 2009

Protection of non-renewable resources 8 Korhonen and Niutanen 2003; Caputo et al. 2005;Gustavsson et al. 2006; Dunnett et al. 2007;Deswarte et al. 2007; Madlener and Bachhiesl2007; Puy et al. 2008; Gasol et al. 2009

Manure and organic waste treatment /disposal (thus preventing eventualenvironmental contamination)

5 Angelidaki and Ellegaard 2003; Woods et al.2006; Abraham et al. 2007; Ghafoori andFlynn 2007; Perry and Rosillo-Calle 2008

Decline of deforestation 1 Thornley et al. 2008

Diminishing fire risks 1 McCormick and Kberger 2007

Social / societal benefits

Job creation 10 Mabee et al. 2005; Pessoa-Jr. et al. 2005; Mabee etal. 2006; Ayoub et al. 2007; Madlener andBachhiesl 2007; McCormick and Kberger2007; Canils and Romijn 2008; van der Horst2008; Puy et al. 2008; Thornley et al. 2008

Energy security 9 Heaton et al. 2004; Damen and Faaij 2006;Mabee et al. 2006; Dunnett et al. 2007;Elghali et al. 2007; Madlener and Bachhiesl2007; McCormick and Kberger 2007;Heinim et al. 2008; Junginger et al. 2008

Positive impacts on local communities /regional development

4 Hamelinck et al. 2005; Elghali et al. 2007;Owens 2007; Puy et al. 2008

Improved health and sanitation 1 Owens 2007

Alleviation of fuel poverty 1 van der Horst 2008



incurred during bio-energy production can be reset into value both economically andecologically, in the form of consumer products such as soaps and skin creams or in the formof feedstock to be used for biogas production and organic fertilisers. The latter is ofoutstanding importance for closing the nutrient cycle and thus to contribute to sustainableproduction in agriculture, which may represent a strong argument in favour of bio-energy tobe directed to NGOs, public in general and governmental authorities.

From the social and societal perspective, bio-energy vitally helps to secure energy supply forcitizens and industries. Furthermore, general positive impacts of bio-energy production chainson local communities are emphasised, thus promoting the comprehensive development of oftenunderdeveloped peripheral regions. This development is strongly driven by the potential of bio-energy to create geographically more even distributed employment and altogether more jobs incomparison to conventional energy production, thus socially stabilising rural communities andculture. This argument may be addressed to residents and, in particular, governments whichhold politico-economic and labour market responsibilities.

4 Discussions

On basis of this content analysis, main management needs of bio-energy supply chains canbe distilled. Figure 2 shows that such management needs refer to the supply chain itself, itsnarrow environment, and the broader political system. Concerning supply chainmanagement, main objectives are efficiency and effectiveness of operations whiledrawbacks regarding society and environment are to be minimised. Concerning otherstakeholders, management aims for keeping the (local and political) licence to operate.

Careful elaboration of supply system design and a detailed scheduling of logistics andsupply chain operations are necessary but not sufficient preconditions of functioning bio-energy chains. Such a narrow technical view misjudges how decisive the quality of supplychain internal ties is for keeping bio-energy production systems inter-temporally stable andongoing flexible. On the one hand, risks of crop failures, changing growth periods andvolatile prices on agricultural and forestry markets dictate the need for establishing adaptivecooperative supply chain relationships characterised by incentive alignment andinformation-sharing (Simatupang and Sridharan 2005; Xu and Beamon 2006). On theother hand, considerable relationship-specific investments of operators when setting uptheir bio-energy plant make them vulnerable for opportunistic behaviour of their suppliers(Williamson 1996). This holds particularly true if the economically viable catchment areafor feedstock supply is rather restricted due to low bulk density of feedstock; being forexample the case for biogas systems run on agricultural feedstock, where actual transportdistances usually lie between 3 and 15 km (kilometre, a unit of length in the metric systemequal to 103 m) (Brjesson and Berglund 2006). Wathne and Heide (2000) distinguishbetween active (violation and forced renegotiation) and passive forms (evasion and refusalto adapt) of opportunism, i.e. suppliers behaviour confronting or undermining theprinciples of explicit or implicit contracts for their own short-term benefit. It is obviousthat formal contracts alone are generally weak tools since they fail to foresee all forms ofcheating that may occur (Dyer and Singh 1998). Therefore, it is more suitable to extend ourview and conceive inter-organisational exchanges in bio-energy chains as repeatedexchanges embedded in social relationships. For such relationally-governed exchanges,the enforcement of obligations, promises, and expectations occurs through social processesthat promote norms of flexibility, solidarity, and information exchange. (Poppo and Zenger2002, p. 710). Hence, formal supply contracts are to be complemented by relational



governance, since similar values and a common vision (Spekman et al. 1998, p. 648) arebest warrantors of ensuring fair and long-term economic exchange.

Our analysis underlines that management needs are not limited to supply chain internalties but extend to other stakeholder groups. Stakeholder management plays an outstandingrole for bio-energy chains in establishing beneficial boundary conditions and thus ensuringtheir license to operate in the middle and long term. The main stakeholder groups identifiedby our analysis all feature the potential to become definitive stakeholders according to thetypology of Mitchell et al. (1997). Governmental bodies, NGOs and associations (relatingto the broader political system) as well as residents, consumers, and citizens (relating to thenarrow environment) principally possess the power to claim their influence on operatingbio-energy systems, hold some kind of legitimate relationships with them, and may beprovoked to bring up their claims with urgency.

Governmental policy-makers and various lobby groups (such as environmental NGOs)set the legal and policy framework of bio-energy production: Passing laws aiming forinternalising negative external effects by, for example, taxing CO2 emissions, cuttingsubsidies for fossil power or providing standards and certification for biomass may allcontribute to sustainable bio-energy production. Governmental bodies may be particularlysusceptive to arguments of bio-energy fostering regional economic development, job andincome generation as well as investments in often underdeveloped rural areas that can beput forth by individual bio-energy projects or industry associations. Sims (2003) confirmsthat in general, employment rates of bio-energy per MWh (megawatt hour is a unit ofenergy equal to 106 Whours or 3.6 megajoules) are higher compared to fossil fuel supplies.

Supply chain mangement

Operational objectives: -Efficient and effective operations-Minimisation of drawbacksMeans:-Cooperation-Plural form governance- Individually adapted supply chain design andmodern technology

Stakeholder management

Broader political system(governmental bodies, NGOs and associations)

Objective:Keeping the political licence to operateMeans:- Lobbying (underlining benefits, e.g. economicdevelopment of rural regions)- Standards & certificates, e.g. ISCC

Narrow environment (residents, consumers, citizens)

Objective:Keeping the local licence to operateMeans:-Transparency-Two-way communication & knowledge transfer-Balancing direct benefits (job creation, cheap heat)with drawbacks (traffic, odours, visual appearance)

Stakeholder management

Fig. 2 Consolidation of manage-ment needs of bio-energy chains.Source: Own illustration



Setting minimum standards for biomass provision responds to increasingly urgent claimsof NGOs which are concerned about worldwide socially and environmentally adverse sideeffects of expanding bio-energy usage. In this respect, ISCC (International Sustainabilityand Carbon Certification) as multi-stakeholder initiative is globally the first certificationscheme for biomass and biofuels, transforming the requirements of the EU RenewableEnergy Directive (2009/28/EC) and the German Sustainability Ordinances into a globalcertification system. Core objectives comprise the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions,sustainable land use, protection of natural biospheres (particularly lands with highbiodiversity and carbon stocks) and social sustainability (see http://www.iscc-system.org/index_eng.html, accessed on 23 February 2010). Purchasing only certified feedstockmay represent a valid option for bio-energy chains to easily gain credibility, thusoutsourcing public relations activities confirming sustainability of their feedstock to thecertification provider.

Residents and local communities as immediately affected parties are at the heart of theconflict between challenges and downsides of bio-energy. Perceived drawbacks such asemissions, bad smells and visual appearance, traffic congestion and diminished recreationalvalue nourish aesthetics, property, health and safety concerns. This may lead residents tovarious forms of resistance, from passive opposition to fierce confrontation by launchingrespective grassroots movements or taking legal action. Doubts about environmental andsocial sustainability of feedstock supply may further critically increase the resistance ofNGOs and residents against the bio-energy project (Golder Associates / ECOFYS 2009). Itshould be noted that a negative perception of bio-energy may be reinforced bypsychological features such as non-familiarity regarding newly established modern bio-energy technologies and the feeling of powerlessness towards the implementation of bio-energy projects in the neighbourhood (Slovic 1987). Therefore, trust-building transparency,two-way communication and knowledge transfer (EPA 2007) towards neighbouringcitizens and, if necessary, the involvement of NGOs in early stages of the planningprocess, may help to overcome prejudices and reduce the risk of legal conflicts (Upham andShackley 2006; Golder Associates / ECOFYS 2009). The benefits of bio-energy identifiedin this analysis, touching upon the economic, ecological and social / societal sphere, arevaluable arguments for outweighing perceived drawbacks with benefits and thus facilitatingthe eventual acceptance of bio-energy technologies.

Conceiving the question of acceptance of bio-energy on a macro-level, one maypostulate that a democratic will-building processbacked by a detailed, differentiated andindependent evaluation of the various forms of bio-energy productionhas to decide whichforms of bio-energy a certain society wishes to support while simultaneously acceptingtheir potential drawbacks. Albeit a well-known dilemma re-emerges at this point: Indeedand for sure, many people are generally in favour of energy production from biomass, atleast as long as the productions drawbacks are kept away from their own back-yards andfront gardens.

5 Limitations of the study and directions for future research

Limitations of this study are inherent in the chosen approach of consolidating findings ofprevious literature and taking steps towards theory development on basis of a literaturereview conducted as content analysis. Our analytic framework (see Fig. 1) conceives supplychain actors as embedded in a broader stakeholder framework and shows how challengesand benefits of bio-energy are related to the various stakeholder groups. Thereby, the



categories and dimensions used for content analysis are partly deductively derived fromestablished supply chain and stakeholder theory and partly inductively developed from thematerial under examination by iteratively comparing categories and data (see Table 1).Although we carefully delineate and define each construct, it should be noted that partialoverlaps between the constructs cannot be thoroughly eliminated at all events. Moreover,such a process of theory development is naturally impacted by the mind map of theresearcher, which is substantially fed by the burden or background of previous research.Weick (1989) highlights the usefulness of such pre-conceptualisation for theory developmentand refers to it as disciplined imagination. Disciplined in this respect means that theresearcher is aware of his preconceptions, reflects how far they may claim validity concerninga certain subject of enquiry, and is constantly ready to revise them when indicated.

The framework, dimensions and constructs proposed in the extant paper need to be takenup, critiqued, refined and subjected to empirical examination. Empirical follow-up studiescould, for example, examine in detail under which conditions, on the one hand, investorstake the risk of engaging in bio-energy projects, and on the other hand, farmers are ready toengage into long-term production and supply of biomass. Hereby, type and quality of inter-organisational relationships, safeguards, and critical success factors may be in the focus ofresearch. Suitable theoretical backgrounds are the collaborative paradigm of SCM (Chenand Paulraj 2004; Sharfman et al. 2009), the relational view of strategic management(Duschek 2004; Dyer and Singh 1998) as well as the transaction cost theory of newinstitutional economics (Williamson 1991) combined with the theory of networkgovernance (Jones et al. 1997). Furthermore, case studies could identify and classifystakeholders relevant to bio-energy production systems and then describe empirically therespective relationships between supply chain actors and external stakeholders. In addition,it may be worthwhile to investigate how certain corporate strategies towards stakeholdersare correlated to the bio-energy chains long-term organisational performance on a triplebottom line (economic, ecological, social).

6 Conclusions

Bio-energy production through modern versatile conversion technologies has the potentialto mitigate climate change, enhance energy security, and substantially spur the transitioninto a sustainable future energy system (Offermann et al. 2010). Venema and Rehman(2007) show that decentralised bio-energy production may not only contribute to climatechange mitigation, but may also strengthen adaptation capabilities, particularly in thedeveloping world. They argue that decentralised bio-energy production may have beneficialinfluence on rural agro-ecosystems; thus leading to enhanced livelihood opportunities andpoverty alleviation and, consequently, furnishing the rural population of developingcountries with increased adaptive and resilient capacity for climate change. Considering therange of spheres bio-energy may impact, Sims (2003) claims that a decent comparativeassessment with fossil fuel alternatives needs to embrace the full value of bio-energyproduction systems in terms of environmental, economic and social benefits. In this regard,the extant literature review proposes a conceptualisation of how supply chain actors andbroader stakeholders are actually situated between challenges and benefits of bio-energy.Generally speaking, those bio-energy projects contribute most to securing sustainabledevelopment conceived as inter-generationally and inter-regionally equitable developmentwhich are most successful in leveraging the various benefits of bio-energy (including theprofits of all supply chain actors involved) while avoiding its drawbacks. As an example,



decentralised application of modern bio-energy technologies fed by feedstock grown onformerly degraded lands represents a favourable option, since it entails the chance to raisethe living standards in poor rural areas without reinforcing rivalries between land use forenergy, fodder and food production.

On basis of the analytic framework, our analysis distils specific strategies and successfactors of how to manage effectively and efficiently bio-energy systems (supply chain level:item 12) while keeping the ongoing license to operate which is issued namely by theentirety of stakeholders (broader stakeholder level: item 35).

(1) The design of bio-energy supply systems should be individually adapted andoptimised in the set-up phase; in the operation phase bio-energy chains are to fostertrustful supply chain cooperation with long-term perspective and high levels ofcommunication for realising the full potential of profitability while holding adverseecological and social impacts of operation down. Thoughtfully designed and highlyintegrated supply chains allow for minimising costs and emissions, implementing newtechnologies, realising synergies by using by- and co-products, and coping withenvironmental uncertainties such as crop failures and volatile prices.

(2) In the case of a (economically or ecologically) limited feedstock sourcing areaimplying interdependent supply chain actors, bio-energy plant operators are suggestedto intertwine formal contracts, equity participation, and relational governance. Thisplural-form governance prevents most effectively possible opportunism of feedstocksuppliers and ensures stable supply relationships.

(3) Since governments and regulatory authorities take a leading role for designing thefuture legal and policy framework of bio-energy, they may be considered key actorsdeciding over the speed of transition from fossil and nuclear power to modernrenewable energies. Therefore, governmental bodies on the communal, regional,national and supra-national level are primary targets for lobbying activities of bio-energy chains and industry associations. They are susceptible to arguments in favourof bio-energy such as economic development as well as job and income generation.

(4) Bio-energy chains have to reduce social and environmental challenges of theiractivities as well as utilisation rivalries as far as possible, whilewhere applicablecredibly communicating these efforts, for example, via the use of certification schemessuch as the ISCC. By minimising its adverse impacts on society and eco-systems, bio-energy may prove its superiority over fossil energy systems.

(5) Both NGOs and residents should be involved in early stages of bio-energy projects viatransparent two-way communication and knowledge transfer in order to minimiseresistance. Only in a trustful environment, bio-energy operators may succeed inargumentatively offsetting drawbacks perceived by citizens with economic, ecologicaland social / societal benefits of bio-energy.

References

References of papers contained in the literature review

Abraham ER, Ramachandran S, Ramalingam V (2007) Biogas: can it be an important source of energy?Environ Sci Pollut Res 14(1):6771

Angelidaki I, Ellegaard L (2003) Codigestion of manure and organic wastes in centralized biogas plantsstatus and future trends. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 109(13):95106



Ayoub N, Martins R, Wang K, Seki H, Naka Y (2007) Two levels decision system for efficient planning andimplementation of bioenergy production. Energy Convers Manage 48(3):709723

van Belle JF, Temmerman M, Schenkel Y (2003) Three level procurement of forest residues for power plant.Biomass Bioenergy 24(4):401409

Caputo AC, Palumbo M, Pelagagge PM, Scacchia F (2005) Economics of biomass energy utilization incombustion and gasification plants: effects of logistic variables. Biomass Bioenergy 28(1):3551

Canils MCJ, Romijn HA (2008) Supply chain development: insights from strategic niche management.Learn Organ 15(4):336353

Damen K, Faaij A (2006) A greenhouse gas balance of two existing international biomass import chainsThe case of residue co-firing in a pulverised coal-fired power plant in the Netherlands. Mitig AdaptStrateg Glob Change 11(56):10231050

Deswarte FEI, Clark JH,Wilson AJ, Hardy JJE,Marriott R, Chahal SP, Jackson C, HeslopG, Birkett M, Bruce TJ,Whiteley G (2007) Toward an integrated straw-based biorefinery. Biofuels, Bioprod Biorefin 1(4):245254

Dunnett A, Adjiman C, Shah N (2007) Biomass to heat supply chains: applications of process optimization.Trans IChemE Part B 85:419429

Elghali L, Clift R, Sinclair P, Panoutsou C, Bauen A (2007) Developing a sustainability framework for theassessment of bioenergy systems. Energy Policy 35(12):60756083

Gasol CM, Martnez S, Rigola M, Rieradevall J, Anton A, Carrasco J, Ciria P, Gabarrell X (2009) Feasibilityassessment of poplar bioenergy systems in the Southern Europe. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 13(4):801812

Ghafoori E, Flynn PC (2007) Optimizing the logistics of anaerobic digestion of manure. Appl BiochemBiotechnol 137(1):625637

Gronalt M, Rauch P (2007) Designing a regional forest fuel supply network. Biomass Bioenergy 31(6):393402Gustavsson L, Madlener R, Hoen HF, Jungmeier G, Karjalainen T, Klhn S, Mahapatra K, Pohjola J, Solberg

B, Spelter H (2006) The role of wood material for greenhouse gas mitigation. Mitig Adapt Strateg GlobChange 11(56):10971127

Hamelinck CN, Suurs RAA, Faaij APC (2005) International bioenergy transport cost and energy balance.Biomass Bioenergy 29(2):114134

Heaton EA, Clifton-Brown J, Voigt TB, JonesMB, Long SP (2004) Miscanthus for renewable energy generation:European Union experience and projections for Illinois. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 9(4):433451

Heinim J, Ojanen V, Kass T (2008) Views on the international market for energy biomass in 2020: resultsfrom a scenario study. Int J Energy Sect Manage 2(4):547569

van der Horst D (2008) Social enterprise and renewable energyemerging initiatives and communities ofpractice. Soc Enterpr J 4(3):171185

Junginger M, Bolkesj T, Bradley D, Dolzand P, Faaij A, Heinim J, Hektor B, Leistad , Ling E, Perry M,Piacente E, Rosillo-Calle F, Ryckmans Y, Schouwenberg PP, Solberg B, Trmborg E, da Silva WA, deWit M (2008) Developments in international bioenergy trade. Biomass Bioenergy 32(8):717729

Jungmeier G, Spitzer J (2001) Greenhouse gas emissions of bioenergy from agriculture compared to fossilenergy for heat and electricity supply. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 60(13):267273

Korhonen J, Niutanen V (2003) Material and energy flows of a local forest industry system in Finland.Sustain Dev 11(3):121132

Kumar A, Sokhansanj S, Flynn PC (2006) Development of a multicriteria assessment model for rankingbiomass feedstock collection and transportation systems. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 129(13):7187

Leduc S, Schmid E, Obersteiner M, Riahi K (2009) Methanol production by gasification using ageographically explicit model. Biomass Bioenergy 33(5):745751

Londo M, Deurwaarder E (2007) Developments in EU biofuels policy related to sustainability issues:overview and outlook. Biofuels, Bioprod Biorefin 1(4):292302

Mabee WE, Fraser EDG, McFarlane PN, Saddler JN (2006) Canadian biomass reserves for biorefining. ApplBiochem Biotechnol 129(13):2240

Mabee WE, Gregg DJ, Saddler JN (2005) Assessing the emerging biorefinery sector in Canada. ApplBiochem Biotechnol 123(13):765778

Madlener R, Bachhiesl M (2007) Socio-economic drivers of large urban biomass cogeneration: sustainableenergy supply for Austrias capital Vienna. Energy Policy 35(2):10751087

Mayfield CA, Foster CD, Smith CT, Gan J, Fox S (2007) Opportunities, barriers, and strategies for forestbioenergy and bio-based product development in the Southern United States. Biomass Bioenergy 31(9):631637

McCormick K, Kberger T (2007) Key barriers for bioenergy in Europe: economic conditions, know-howand institutional capacity, and supply chain co-ordination. Biomass Bioenergy 31(7):443452

Mller B (2003) Least-cost allocation strategies for wood fuel supply for distributed generation in DenmarkAgeographical study. Int J Sustainable Energy 23(4):187197



Mller B, Nielsen PS (2007) Analysing transport costs of Danish forest wood chip resources by means ofcontinuous cost surfaces. Biomass Bioenergy 31(5):291298

Owens GM (2007) Analyzing impacts of bioenergy expansion in China using strategic environmentalassessment. Manag Environ Qual Int J 18(4):396412

Perpin C, Alfonso D, Prez-Navarro A, Penalvo E, Vargas C, Crdenas R (2009) Methodology based onGeographic Information Systems for biomass logistics and transport optimization. Renewable Energy 34(3):555565

Perry M, Rosillo-Calle F (2008) Recent trends and future opportunities in UK bioenergy: maximisingbiomass penetration in a centralised energy system. Biomass Bioenergy 32(8):688701

Pessoa-Jr A, Roberto IC, Menossi M, dos Santos RR, Filho SO, Penna TCV (2005) Perspectives onbioenergy and biotechnology in Brazil. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 121(13):5970

Puy N, Tbara D, Molins JB, Almera JB, Rieradevall J (2008) Integrated assessment of forest bioenergysystems in Mediterranean basin areas: The case of Catalonia and the use of participatory IA-focusgroups. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 12(5):14511464

Rauch P (2007) SWOT analyses and SWOT strategy formulation for forest owner cooperations in Austria.Eur J For Res 126(3):413420

Searcy E, Flynn P, Ghafoori E, Kumar A (2007) The relative cost of biomass energy transport. ApplBiochem Biotechnol 137140(112):639659

Sims REH, Venturi P (2004) All-year-round harvesting of short rotation coppice eucalyptus compared withthe delivered costs of biomass from more conventional short season, harvesting systems. BiomassBioenergy 26(1):2737

Thornley P, Rogers J, Huang Y (2008) Quantification of employment from biomass power plants. RenewableEnergy 33(8):19221927

Woods J, Hemstock S, Burnyeat W (2006) Bio-energy systems at the community level in the South Pacific:impacts & monitoring. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 11(2):469500

Yamamoto H, Fujino J, Yamaji K (2001) Evaluation of bioenergy potential with a multi-regional global-land-use-and-energy model. Biomass Bioenergy 21(3):185203

Yoshioka T, Aruga K, Nitami T, Kobayashi H, Sakai H (2005) Energy and carbon dioxide (CO2) balance oflogging residues as alternative energy resources: system analysis based on the method of a life cycleinventory (LCI) analysis. J For Res 10(2):125134

Further references

Allen J, Browne M, Hunter A, Boyd J, Palmer H (1998) Logistics management and costs of biomass fuelsupply. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 28(6):463477

Arshinder KA, Deshmukh SG (2008) Supply chain coordination: perspectives, empirical studies and researchdirections. Int J Prod Econ 115(2):316335

Berelson B (1952) Content analysis in communications research. The Free Press, GlencoeBerndes G, Hoogwijk M, van den Broek R (2003) The contribution of biomass in the future global energy

supply: a review of 17 studies. Biomass Bioenergy 25(1):128von Blottnitz H, Curran MA (2007) A review of assessments conducted on bio-ethanol as a transportation

fuel from a net energy, greenhouse gas, and environmental life cycle perspective. J Cleaner Prod 15(7):607619

Brjesson P, Berglund M (2006) Environmental systems analysis of biogas systemsPart I: fuel-cycleemissions. Biomass Bioenergy 30(5):469485

Cannon JP, Achrol RS, Gundlach GT (2000) Contracts, norms, and plural form governance. J Acad Mark 28(2):180194

Chen IJ, Paulraj A (2004) Towards a theory of supply chain management: the constructs and measurements. JOper Manage 22(2):119150

Donaldson T, Preston LE (1995) The stakeholder theory of the cooperation: concepts, evidence, andimplications. Acad Manage Rev 20(1):6591

Duschek S (2004) Inter-firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Manage Rev 15(1):5373Dyer J, Singh H (1998) The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational

competitive advantage. Acad Manage Rev 23(4):660679Ecosense (ed) (2007) Klimafaktor Biokraftstoff. Experten zur Nachhaltigkeitszertifizierung [Bioenergy and

its impact on the climate: experts discuss certification ensuring sustainability criteria]. Schriftenreihe zuNachhaltigkeit und CSR, Volume 1, 2007

Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Acad Manage Rev 14(4):532550



EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (ed) (2007) Risk Communication in ActionThetools of message mapping. EPA/625/R-06/012, August 2007. http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/625r06012/625r06012.pdf. Cited 20 August 2009

Faaij A (2006) Modern biomass conversion technologies. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 11(2):335367Fynes B, de Brca S, Mangan J (2008) The effect of relationship characteristics on relationship quality and

performance. Int J Prod Econ 111(1):5669Fink A (2005) Conducting research literature reviews: From the internet to paper. Sage, Thousand OaksFreeman RE, Reed DL (1983) Stockholders and stakeholders: a new perspective on corporate governance.

Calif Manage Rev 25(3):88106Gerbens-Leenes W, Hoekstra AY, van der Meer TH (2009) The water footprint of bioenergy. Proc Natl Acad

Sci (PNAS) 106(25):1021910223Gold S, Seuring S, Beske P (2010) Sustainable supply chain management and inter-organisational resources:

a literature review. Corp Soc Responsibility Environ Manage 17(4):230245Golder Associates / ECOFYS (2009) Benchmarks of Bioenergy Permitting Procedures in the European

Union. Final Report, January 2009. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/bioenergy/doc/installations/ecofys_final_report_benchmark_bioenergy.pdf. Cited 4 May 2010

Hoogwijk M, Faaij A, Van Den Broek R, Berndes G, Gielen D, Turkenburg W (2003) Exploration of theranges of the global potential of biomass for energy. Biomass Bioenergy 25(2):119133

Hult GTM, Ketchen DJ Jr, Arrfelt M (2007) Strategic supply chain management: improving performancethrough a culture of competitiveness and knowledge development. Strateg Manage J 28(10):10351052

IEA (International Energy Agency) (2009) Key world energy statistics 2009. www.iea.org/Textbase/nppdf/free/2009/key_stats_2009.pdf. Cited 28 September 2010

IEATask 40 (2005) Sustainable International Bioenergy Trade, under the IEA Bio-energy Agreement. http://www.bioenergytrade.org. Cited 28 September 2010

Jauch LR, Osborn RN, Martin TN (1980) Structured content analysis of cases: a complementary method fororganizational research. Acad Manage Rev 5(4):517525

Jones C, Hesterly WS, Borgatti SP (1997) A general theory of network governance: exchange conditions andsocial mechanism. Acad Manage Rev 22(4):911946

Kanter RM (1994) Collaborative advantage: the art of alliances. Harv Bus Rev 72(4):96108Kerckow B (2007) Competition between agricultural and renewable energy production. Q J Int Agr 46

(4):333347Krause DR, Ellram LM (1997) Critical elements of supplier development. Eur J Purch Supply Manag 3

(1):2131Mayring P (2000) Qualitative Content Analysis [28 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung /

Forum: Qualitative Social Research 1(2) [Online Journal]. http://qualitative-research.net/fqs/fqs-e/2-00inhalt-e.htm. Cited 24 April 2009

Mayring P (2003) Qualitative InhaltanalyseGrundlagen und Techniken [Qualitative content analysisbasics and techniques]. Beltz Verlag, Weinheim

McCormick K, Kberger T (2005) Exploring a pioneering bioenergy system: The case of Enkping inSweden. J Clean Prod 13(5):10031014

Mentzer JT, Kahn KB (1995) A framework of logistics research. J Bus Logist 16(1):231251Mentzer JT, DeWitt W, Keebler JS, Min S, Nix NW, Smith CD, Zacharia ZG (2001) Defining supply chain

management. J Bus Logist 22(2):125Meredith J (1993) Theory building through conceptual methods. Int J Oper Prod Manage 13(5):311Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining

the principle of who and what really counts. Acad Manage Rev 22(4):853886Morgan MJ, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Atman CJ (2002) Risk communication: A mental models approach.

Cambridge University Press, CambridgeOffermann R, Seidenberger T, Thrn D, Kaltschmitt M, Zinoviev S, Miertus S (2010) Assessment of global

bioenergy potentials. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, doi:10.1007/s11027-010-9247-9

Poppo L, Zenger T (2002) Do formal contracts and relational governance function as substitutes orcomplements? Strateg Manage J 23(8):707725

Ruf BM, Muralidhar K, Brown RM, Paul K (2001) An empirical investigation of the relationship betweenchange in corporate social performance and financial performance: a stakeholder theory perspective. JBus Ethics 32(2):143156

Searcy DL, Mentzer JT (2003) A framework for conducting and evaluating research. J Account Lit 22:130167

Seuring S (2009) The product-relationship-matrix as framework for strategic supply chain design based onoperations theory. Int J Prod Econ 120(1):221232



Seuring S, Mller M (2008a) Core issues in sustainable supply chain managementa Delphi study. BusStrategy Environ 17(8):455466

Seuring S, Mller M (2008b) From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supplychain management. J Cleaner Prod 16(15):16991710

Sharfman MP, Shaft TM, Anex RP Jr (2009) The road to cooperative supply chain environmentalmanagement: trust and uncertainty among pro-active firms. Bus Strategy Environ 18(1):113

Simatupang TM, Sridharan R (2005) An integrative framework of supply chain collaboration. Int J LogistManag 16(2):257274

Sims REH (2003) Bioenergy to mitigate for climate change and meet the needs of society, the economy andthe environment. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 8(4):349370

Sims RR, Brinkmann J (2003) Enron ethics (or: culture matters more than codes). J Bus Ethics 45(3):243254

Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236:280285Spekman RE, Kamauff JW Jr, Myhr N (1998) An empirical investigation into supply chain management: a

perspective on partnerships. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 28(8):630650Stank TP, Crum MR, Arango M (1999) Benefits of interfirm coordination in food industry in supply chains. J

Bus Logist 20(2):2141Steinmann MS, Holm-Mller K (2010) Thuenen rings of biogas productionthe effect of differences in

transport costs of energy crops in the choice of renewable resources by biogas plants. Ger J Agric Econ59(1):112

Steurer R (2006) Mapping stakeholder theory anew: from the stakeholder theory of the firm to threeperspectives on business-society relations. Bus Strategy Environ 15(1):5569

Steurer R, Langer ME, Konrad A, Martinuzzi A (2005) Corporations, stakeholders and sustainabledevelopment I: a theoretical exploration of business-society relations. J Bus Ethics 61(3):263281

Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informedmanagement knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manage 14(3):207222

UNDESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs) (2006) Energy for sustainabledevelopment. United Nations, New York, http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/publications/trends2006/energy.pdf. Cited 28 September 2010

Upham P, Shackley S (2006) Stakeholder opinion of a proposed 21.5 MWe biomass gasifier in Winkleigh,Devon: implications for bioenergy planning and policy. J Environ Plann Policy Manage 8(1):4566

Venema HD, Rehman IH (2007) Decentralized renewable energy and the climate change mitigation-adaptation nexus. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 12(5):875900

Wathne KH, Heide JB (2000) Opportunism in interfirm relationships: forms, outcomes, and solutions. J Mark64(4):3651

WBGU (Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltvernderungen [German AdvisoryCouncil on Global Change]) (ed) (2009) World in transitionFuture bioenergy and sustainable land use.Earthscan, London

WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (ed) (1987) Our common future. OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford

Weick KE (1989) Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Acad Manage Rev 14(4):516531Weyman AK, Kelly CJ (1999) Risk perception and risk communication: a review of literature. Health &

Safety Executive Books, SheffieldWheeler D, Fabig H, Boele R (2002) Paradoxes and dilemmas for stakeholder responsive firms in the

extractive sector: lessons from the case of Shell and the Ogoni. J Bus Ethics 39(3):297318Williamson O (1991) Comparative economic organization: the analysis of discrete structural alternatives.

Adm Sci Q 36(2):269296Williamson O (1996) The mechanisms of governance. Oxford University Press, New YorkXu L, Beamon B (2006) Supply chain coordination and cooperation mechanisms: an attribute-based

approach. J Supply Chain Manag 42(1):412



Bio-energy supply chains and stakeholdersAbstractIntroductionDimensions and analytic categories for content analysisManaging the supply chainIdentifying stakeholdersStakeholders between challenges and benefits of bio-energy productionMethodologyliterature review as content analysis

Findings of the content analysisManaging the internal supply chain relationshipsCooperation in supply chainsSupply chain coordinationSupply chain governanceLong-term relationshipsCommunication for conflict settlement and joint development

Identifying stakeholders: supply chain actors and external stakeholdersRelating challenges of bio-energy production to stakeholdersRelating benefits of bio-energy production to stakeholders

DiscussionsLimitations of the study and directions for future researchConclusionsReferencesReferences of papers contained in the literature reviewFurther references

/ColorImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorImageDict > /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 150 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /Warning /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 150 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict > /GrayImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayImageDict > /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 600 /MonoImageMinResolut

Documents

2011 Gold Bio-energy supply chains and stakeholders