Types of intellectual capital employed in bioeconomic projects: A longitudinal case study

Săndulescu, Maria-Silvia; Stoica, Dragoş Andrei; Albu, Cătălin-Nicolae; Albu, Nadia Article Types of intellectual capital employed in bioeconomic projects: A longitudinal case study Amfiteatru Economic Journal Provided in Cooperation with: The Bucharest University of Economic Studies Suggested Citation: Săndulescu, Maria-Silvia; Stoica, Dragoş Andrei; Albu, Cătălin-Nicolae; Albu, Nadia (2018) : Types of intellectual capital employed in bioeconomic projects: A longitudinal case study, Amfiteatru Economic Journal, ISSN 2247-9104, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Vol. 20, Iss. 49, pp. 667-683, https://doi.org/10.24818/EA/2018/49/667 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/196457 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Perspectives of Bioeconomy: The Role of Intellectual Capital and of Knowledge Management AE Vol. 20 • No. 49. • August 2018 667 TYPES OF INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL EMPLOYED IN BIOECONOMIC PROJECTS – A LONGITUDINAL CASE STUDY Maria-Silvia Săndulescu1 * , Dragoș Andrei Stoica2, Cătălin-Nicolae Albu3 and Nadia Albu4 1), 2), 3), 4) The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania Please cite this article as: Săndulescu, M.S., Stoica, D.A., Albu, C.N. and Albu, N., 2018. Types of Intellectual Capital Employed in Bioeconomic Projects – A Longitudinal Case Study. Amfiteatru Economic, 20(49), pp. 667-683. DOI: 10.24818/EA/2018/49/667 Article History Received: 30 March 2018 Revised: 18 May 2018 Accepted:29 June 2018 Abstract In this paper we investigate the existence and evolution of bioeconomic projects of OMV Group, a major global player in the oil and gas industry. We further study the intellectual capital components utilized by OMV Group in supporting these bioeconomic actions. We conduct a longitudinal case study over the 2010-2016 period and illustrate with the case of OMV Group how the oil and gas organizations mobilize various types of intellectual capital to engage in bioeconomic projects. Since the global importance of bioeconomy increased exponentially in the last years, we employ a theoretical framework recently proposed in the bioeconomic literature to ascertain the type of vision followed in the bioeconomic projects and its evolution. We find that the number of bioeconomic projects proposed by our case organization increased over time, and that the projects’ focus evolved from bio-technology and bio-resources to bio-ecology, which has the potential of providing more long-term sustainable outcomes. Key-words: bioeconomy, intellectual capital, innovation, sustainability, oil and gas industry JEL Classification: Q57; L65; Q16; O34 * Corresponding author, Maria-Silvia Săndulescu – [email protected] AE Types of Intellectual Capital Employed in Bioeconomic Projects – A Longitudinal Case Study 668 Amfiteatru Economic Introduction The recent bioeconomy move originated in the interest manifested at the beginning of the 1970s for research on biotechnologies and the work on bioeconomics by, for example, Nicolae Georgescu-Roegen (Gowdy and Mesner, 1998; Mayumi, 2009; Birner, 2018), and got an important boost through the policies recently pursued by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the European Commission (EC) (Mayumi, 2009; Birch and Tyfield, 2012). The analysis of the significance of the concept shows a shift from the perspective of resource substitution to the biotechnology innovation perspective (Birner, 2018). Despite some recent critiques, as exemplified by the “fetishization of all things bio” (Birch and Tyfield, 2013, p. 301), the international support of those concepts is currently overwhelming, and an increasing number of entities started complying to such international policies, agreements and recommendations (OECD, 2009; European Commission, 2012; Purkus, et al., 2018). Several current challenges of the twentyfirst century, such as fossil resources and climate change, bio-based resources, planetary boundaries and limitation of natural resources, as well as population growth and food security are addressed by the bioeconomy, in its capacity of “sustainable and innovative use of biomass and biological knowledge to provide food, feed, industrial products, bioenergy and ecological and other services” (Lewandowski, et al., 2018, p. 14). In this context, intellectual capital (IC) plays an important role in ensuring the development of bioeconomic projects. The extent and speed of innovation depend on an effective knowledge base and on the importance of IC in organizations. IC growth has the potential of contributing to developments in the bioeconomy field through increased innovation abilities developed as a result of intensified IC investments. Innovative capacities will result in opportunities to create new products, services or work practices (Van de Ven, 1986). Given the importance of IC for bio-economy, we aim to investigate in this paper the existence and evolution of organizational bioeconomic practices of a company from the oil and gas industry, and to explore how IC is employed to support these actions. Following recommendations by current IC research (Dumay and Garanina, 2013), the emphasis is not on measuring IC, but on investigating its implications and importance within an organization. To that end, and as a contribution, we apply the theoretical lens proposed by Bugge, Hansen and Klitkou (2016) to uncover how the focus of bioeconomic projects may have evolved over time. The framework comprises three types of vision pertaining to sustainability projects: bio-technology, bio-resources and bio-ecology. We mobilize for our analysis the case of OMV Group (hereafter referred to as either OMV or the Group), a major international player in the oil and gas industry, as an illustration of how global organizations respond to and develop projects in line with the bioeconomic global orientation. We perform a manual content analysis of seven Sustainability Reports (SR) issued by the Group between 2010 and 2016, and look specifically at nine bioeconomy projects launched over the period. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 1 presents a review of the relevant literature on bioeconomy and IC, and the theoretical framework of our research. Section 2 details the research methodology and presents the case organization, while Section 3 presents our results and discussions analysis. We finally conclude and present the paper’s contributions to literature. Perspectives of Bioeconomy: The Role of Intellectual Capital and of Knowledge Management AE Vol. 20 • No. 49. • August 2018 669 1. Review of the scientific literature 1.1. What is bioeconomy? Recent concerns in the bioeconomics sphere have crystallized in the second half of the 20th century, an important precursor of the movement being Nicolae Georgescu-Roegen (Gowdy and Mesner, 1998; Mayumi, 2009; Birner, 2018). Since then, becoming a sustainable and equitable society has become a major concern for governments, public institutions, businesses and individuals (Heijman, 2016). This need has been fueled by the growing effects of globalization, population growth and concerns about climate and environmental change (Aquilani, et al., 2018). Globalization has had, over the past decades, an extensive impact over countries, institutions, business and individuals and it has led to the development of new technologies and processes (Pop and Valeriu, 2015; Lehtonen and Okkonen, 2016). Moreover, given the impact that globalization has on the environment, sustainability concerns were raised. Thus, the sustainability concept has become one of the most pressing challenges of our century, being a keyword in the global research and political agendas for decades (D’Amato, et al., 2017). There are many movements in the area of sustainability, such as circular economy, green economy and bioeconomy. The European Commission defines bioeconomy as an “economy that encompasses the production of renewable biological resources and their conversion into food, bio-based products and bio-energy. It includes agriculture, forestry, fisheries, food and pulp and paper production, as well as parts of chemical, biotechnological and energy industries” (European Commission, 2012, p. 5). Other definitions of bioeconomy exist in various sectors (i.e. biofuels – Scarlat, et al., 2015; bio-technologies – OECD, 2009; reduced emissions and the use of fossil fuels – Philip, 2015). Bioeconomy is a branch of green economy that the European Commission has included at the core of its long-term strategy towards 2050. The concept is centered on the usage of renewable raw materials and application of research, development and innovation, and industrial biotechnology (Scarlat, et al., 2015). It also allows the use of available biological resources more effectively than before by innovative methods and to supplement their fields of application on the basis of new scientific knowledge and findings. Industrial applications include the use of biotechnological processes to produce chemicals, plastics, and enzymes, environmental applications such as bioremediation and biosensors, methods to reduce the environmental effects or costs of resource extraction, and the production of biofuels (OECD, 2009). The academic literature followed this trend, and a significant number of studies on bioeconomic issues were conducted to better explain the various aspects of this concept, ranging from social sciences to chemistry, from international and national economy to commodity science (Heijman, 2016; Aquilani, et al., 2018). There is however scope in expanding this literature given the political importance of this concept and its emerging nature over time. For example, more studies are needed to reflect on how organizations in various domains respond to this global trend. 1.2. How can intellectual capital mediate the outcome of bioeconomy practices? IC entails a set of knowledge resources used by companies in order to create corporate value (Roos and Roos, 1997; Abhayawansa and Guthrie, 2010; IIRC, 2013) and gain competitive AE Types of Intellectual Capital Employed in Bioeconomic Projects – A Longitudinal Case Study 670 Amfiteatru Economic advantage (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Youndt, Subramaniam and Snell, 2004; Subramaniam and Youndt, 2005; IIRC, 2013). The relationship between IC and a company’s ability to innovate has also been widely investigated (Ahuja, 2000; Subramaniam and Venkatraman, 2001; McAdam, 2002; Subramaniam and Youndt, 2005). A causal relationship has been established between the two concepts, as innovation entails the identification of potential opportunities to create new products, services or work practices (Van de Ven, 1986) while IC facilitates the achievement of these objectives (Ahuja, 2000; Subramaniam and Venkatraman, 2001; Subramaniam and Youndt, 2005). In this view, for companies involved in research and development (R&D) and innovation activities, it becomes relevant to use the SR and other corporate channels to report on IC as a sign of their innovative actions and a signal of the future development of the organization. The existing literature identified three IC components namely, the human, the organizational and the social capital (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Youndt, Subramaniam and Snell, 2004; Subramaniam and Youndt, 2005). Recent studies (Dumay, 2009; Dumay and Garanina, 2013; Cuozzo, et al., 2017) show that, although there are dozens of classifications of IC components in literature, this tripartite analysis (that is, human, organizational and social capital) is widely accepted. Furthermore, these studies recommend a more in-depth analysis of IC and its components in organizations. The primary source of human capital are the employees with their associated knowledge, skills, abilities and motivations to innovate (Subramaniam and Youndt, 2005; Beattie and Smith, 2013; IIRC, 2013; Melloni, 2015; IIRC, 2013). The organizational capital includes elements such as manuals, databases, patents, copyrights, software, structures, systems, procedures and protocols (Youndt, Subramaniam and Snell, 2004; Subramaniam and Youndt, 2005; Cabrita and Vaz, 2006; Melloni, 2015; Subramaniam and Youndt, 2005; Beattie and Smith, 2013; IIRC, 2013; Melloni, 2015). In turn, the social capital comprises the knowledge resources linked to interactions among individuals such as customers, suppliers or R&D partners (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Subramaniam and Youndt, 2005; Beattie and Smith, 2013; Melloni, 2015; Subramaniam and Youndt, 2005) and the trust and loyalty resulted from these relationships (IIRC, 2013). However, these aspects of IC are not independent and they should be assessed according to their inherent characteristics. While the individual knowledge associated with human capital can change as a result of employees’ mobility, the organizational capital is static, being preserved within the company (Subramaniam and Youndt, 2005). In a similar vein, the social capital, which includes a network of individuals cannot be easily impacted by the changes in specific individual actors (Bourdieu, 1985). Moreover, while organizational knowledge is generally bounded within a set of rules and procedures that tend to follow a predetermined pattern, social capital entails a flexible exchange of knowledge (Kostova and Roth, 2003; Subramaniam and Youndt, 2005). As a result, these intangible resources are dynamic and tend to complement each other: the human capital facilitates knowledge creation by giving rise to unique ideas, the organizational capital facilitates the storage and dissemination of knowledge resources throughout the company (Subramaniam and Youndt, 2005; Cabrita and Vaz, 2006) and the social capital enhances the abovementioned roles by facilitating the collaboration of individuals both within and between organizations (Subramaniam and Youndt, 2005; Melloni, 2015). Dumay (2009), Dumay and Garanina (2013) and Cuozzo, et al. (2017) show that many of the IC studies are aimed at identifying and measuring its components, while the current interest lies in understanding how IC interacts with organizational practices and how IC is mobilized Perspectives of Bioeconomy: The Role of Intellectual Capital and of Knowledge Management AE Vol. 20 • No. 49. • August 2018 671 for various projects. This study thus extends previous research by investigating the extent to which organizations utilize their IC abilities and blend its various components to develop bioeconomic projects. 1.3. Theoretical framework Following a literature review of 453 papers on bioeconomy published between 2005 and 2014, Bugge, Hansen and Klitkou (2016) identify three ideal visions of bioeconomy, namely the bio-technology vision, the bio-resource vision and the bio-ecology vision. The key characteristics of the three bioeconomy visions are presented bellow (table no. 1). Table no. 1. Key characteristics of the bioeconomy visions The BioTechnology Vision The Bio-Resource Vision The Bio-Ecology Vision Aims & objectives Economic growth & job creation Economic growth & sustainability Sustainability, biodiversity, conservation of ecosystems, avoiding soil degradation Value creation Application of biotechnology, commercialization of research & technology Conversion and upgrading of bio-resources (process oriented) Development of integrated production systems and highquality products with territorial identity Drivers & mediators of innovation R&D, patents, Technology Transfer Offices, Research councils and funders (Science push, linear model) Interdisciplinary, optimization of land use, include degraded land in the production of biofuels, use and availability of bio-resources, waste management, engineering, science & market (Interactive & networked production mode) Identification of favorable organic agro-ecological practices, ethics, risk, transdisciplinary sustainability, ecological interactions, re-use & recycling of waste, land use, (Circular and self-sustained production mode) Spatial focus Global clusters/ Central regions Rural/Peripheral regions Rural/Peripheral regions Source: Bugge, Hansen and Klitkou, 2016, p. 10 As explained in Bugge, Hansen and Klitkou (2016), the bio-technology vision clearly privileges economic growth and job creation, assuming positive effects on climate change and environmental aspects. Investments in research and innovation are fundamental in this vision, resulting in the production of scientific knowledge from a linear model of innovation, concentrated in a limited number of regions globally. More sustainability concerns are addressed in the bio-resource vision of bioeconomy, as capitalizing on bio-resources would drive economic growth. This vision highlights the processing and conversion of bioresources into new products. Research and innovation are also important to this vision, but result from collaboration of partners with dissimilar competences and across sectors. Finally, the bio-ecology vision is primarily directed to achieving sustainability, promotes biodiversity, conservation of ecosystems and prevention of soil degradation. These visions are not mutually exclusive and can overlap (Devaney and Henchion, 2018). AE Types of Intellectual Capital Employed in Bioeconomic Projects – A Longitudinal Case Study 672 Amfiteatru Economic 2. Research methodology An important number of international, regional and national governmental and policy organizations have developed bioeconomy strategies in the past decade. For example, OECD and the European Commission have both produced key strategy documents (OECD, 2009; European Commission, 2012), and several European countries (including Austria, Denmark, France and the Netherlands) have developed national policy strategies for the bioeconomy. We thus investigate the application of those policies in the case of OMV, a listed Austrian group acting in the oil and gas industry. We select OMV first because it is based in a European country equipped with a national strategy for the bioeconomy (i.e. Austria). Second, the oil and gas industry where our case organization acts, is one of the appropriate fields for having projects and initiatives pertaining to bioeconomy. Third, given the nature of its activity, the Group’s activities have an environmental impact, and is therefore expected to be committed to sustainability policies. Therefore, the general approach of our research is to construct a case study, since we have proposed a “comprehensive description of an event or social unit” (Şandor, 2013, p. 22). Cassell and Symon (1994) show that the dynamic analysis of organizational phenomena is an important area of research and that case studies allow for a detailed analysis of the change. The case study as a research strategy is specific to qualitative research, which in turn involves inductive analysis, the use of some theories to understand the phenomenon and the factors that influence each other, as well as a design of context-dependent research continuously adapted along the way (Şandor, 2013, p. 22). Case studies can be based on different types of data, depending on the researcher's access to data (Şandor, 2013). Given the limited access to the Group’s activities, as well as previous research in the IC field (Guthrie, Petty and Yongvanich, 2004), we utilize the corporate reports issued by OMV. Previous studies in the IC area show that the analysis of corporate disclosures is a common method of research (Guthrie, Petty and Yongvanich, 2004; Dumay and Cai, 2015). “Annual reports are highly useful sources of information, because managers of companies commonly signal what is important through the reporting mechanism” (Guthrie, Petty and Yongvanich, 2004, p. 287). They are therefore an important means of communicating with the stakeholders the main achievements and strategic projects of the companies. We thus select for our study the seven most recent SR that address the OMV’s bioeconomic actions and policies, starting with the year 2010. We excluded prior reports from the analysis because it was after 2010 that most such initiatives in the area of bioeconomy have emerged and developed in OMV. We performed a manual content analysis of the corporate reports, following prior literature (Guthrie, Petty and Yongvanich, 2004; Melloni, 2015). This research method is predominant in IC studies (Dumay and Cai, 2015), and its limits are primarily related to the quantitative analysis employed sometimes. We have not, however, attempted to measure IC but to investigate its effects, and thus circumvent such criticism. This approach facilitated the in-depth analysis of corporate narratives. The content analysis was carried out in a qualitative manner (Şandor, 2013, pp. 172-178), where the coding is not aimed at the statistical analysis of trends and causality, but it is a theoretical one (Krippendorff, 2013). Particularly, the analysis was performed through a process of close reading of the documents, while also comparing their content in order to assess the evolution of the messages. The first procedure entailed the identification of statements devoted to IC Perspectives of Bioeconomy: The Role of Intellectual Capital and of Knowledge Management AE Vol. 20 • No. 49. • August 2018 673 disclosures with a focus on (but not limited to) a specific section of the SR (i.e. the section in which the company discloses information about innovation). We also considered other statements in the reports that highlighted the company’s perspective on innovation. The second procedure concerned the classification of statements into one of the three IC categories, namely human, organizational and social capital. Thus, from a methodological point of view, coding was both open (text analysis and code attachment) and selective (the identification of the phenomena and aspects related to the subject investigated) (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Finally, we have analyzed nine bioeconomy projects launched by OMV post2010 and considered their characteristics. Coding of these characteristics was made independently by two team members, thus ensuring the validity of the approach. Based on this analysis, we employed the theoretical framework and its three visions to organize the codified material. We presented our results in accordance with the methodological recommendations for qualitative content analysis (Şandor, 2013, pp. 177-178), in a narrative style (with quotes from the reports), in a quantitative style (highlighting the trends – for example, the evolution of expenses), and in a tabular and graphical style. 2.1. The OMV Group as case organization OMV is one of the most important listed entities in Austria, with a workforce of 20,700 employees and an important international representation. The Group is active in Refining and Marketing in 13 countries and in Exploration and Production in 17, on four continents. The Austrian government holds a significant participation in the Group (31.5%) and IPIC Abu Dhabi holds 24.9% of the shares; the rest (43.3%) represents free float, shares being mainly held by investors from Austria, UK and USA, and own shares (0.3%). OMV has taken a stance towards a more sustainable environment by signing the United Nations Global Compact, the world’s largest initiative to encourage companies to adopt sustainable practices and report on their implementation. This position is further illustrated in the Group’s strategy: “We aim to provide energy for a better life. We are producing and marketing oil & gas, innovative energy and high-end petrochemical solutions – in a responsible way” (www.omv.com). In its SR OMV recognizes the dangers of climate change and has committed to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Group has also adopted a comprehensive code of conduct and a business ethics directive. OMV publishes a SR simultaneously with its annual report. The SR focuses on managing sustainability along the entire value chain. SRs also provide detailed information on stakeholder relationships, human resources, health and safety, human rights, security, environmental management, climate change, renewable and future energies and R&D. The focus of the Group is on combining economic prosperity, social cohesion and environmental protection. Consequently, these actions are oriented towards creating long-term sustainability. Moreover, OMV has initiatives and projects in the area of bioeconomy, which we further analyze in terms of innovative effort and the bioeconomy vision. 3. Results and discussion OMV’s commitment to sustainability is visible through its reporting. As a first step, the results of the qualitative analysis of open and selective coding data (Strauss and Corbin, 1998; Şandor, 2013) are narratively presented (Şandor, 2013). AE Types of Intellectual Capital Employed in Bioeconomic Projects – A Longitudinal Case Study 674 Amfiteatru Economic The company’s reports show how OMV integrates social, environmental and economic considerations into its business, by developing strategies in the areas of health, safety, security and environmental management as well as human resources support to sustainability management. Moreover, the evolution reported over time is a first indication of the innovation efforts that OMV is pursuing in the area of sustainability. This evolution is sizeable in two directions: the form of the disclosure and the initiatives disclosed. The form of disclosure and assurance indicates, first, the plurality of disclosure standards (Albu, et al., 2013). OMV SRs for the period 2010-2013 meet the requirements of the A+ application level of the GRI G3 framework, with assurance provided by Deloitte. Since 2014, the company follows the G4 Guidelines which will be superseded with the GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards starting with the 1st of January 2018. Second, the sustainability efforts intensify during the period investigated. As such, the reports indicate that OMV engaged in consultations with the external stakeholders of the company. The Group identified 18 distinctive areas of interest and classified them on three levels of importance:  High importance: health and safety; oil spills; security; business ethics and corruption; energy efficiency; regulatory environment; employee attraction, retention and training; impacts of climate change; governance; community engagement; diversity; human rights;  Moderate importance: water management; renewable energy; supply chain management; R&D;  Low importance: unconventional energy sources; biodiversity. Safety, security, environment, health, community and stakeholder relationships and socioeconomic affairs are reported to be at the core of OMVs vision for attaining long term sustainability. The Group reports to be involved in developing new technologies and by applying the best practices OMV strives to act in a responsible manner and promote sustainable growth for all its stakeholders and interested parties. Starting with 2010, two areas of interest – People and Planet – have been highlighted at the management level. In the first year, over 3,600 sustainability goals were defined by managers, with 53% related to health and safety, 30% in the area of CO2 emissions reduction, and 17% targeting diversity issues (OMV SR, 2010, p. 8). The Group set the goal of reducing the CO2 emissions generated from its activities by 80% by 2050, a target agreed by European Union and G8 leaders in 2009. This goal may require 95% decarbonization of the road transportation sector. In this respect, we have noted slight improvement over the time period we investigated, from 12.2 million tones CO2 equivalent in 2010 to 11 million tones CO2 equivalent in 2016 (which is a decrease by almost 10% of these emissions). Such improvements are achievable mainly as a result of sustainability projects focused on more ecological activities and biofuels, projects sustained by innovation. A significant part of the innovation in the area of sustainability pertains to bioeconomy projects. OMV’s engagement in bioeconomy projects has emerged starting in 2010. The content analysis of about 500 pages of OMV’s reports and the open and selective coding (Strauss and Corbin, 1998; Şandor, 2013) have led us to the identification of bioeconomic Perspectives of Bioeconomy: The Role of Intellectual Capital and of Knowledge Management AE Vol. 20 • No. 49. • August 2018 681 Cuozzo, B., Dumay, J., Palmaccio, M. and Lombardi, R., 2017. Intellectual capital disclosure: a structured literature review. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 18(1), pp. 9-28. D’Amato, D., Droste, N., Allen, B., Kettunen, M., Lahtinen, K., Korhonen, J., Leskinen, P., Matthies, B.D., and Toppinen, A., 2017. Green, circular, bio economy: a comparative analysis of sustainability avenues. Journal of Cleaner Production, 168, pp. 716-734. Davey, J., Schneider, L. and Davey, H., 2009. Intellectual capital disclosure and the fashion industry. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 10(3), pp. 401-424. Devaney, L. and Henchion, M., 2018. Consensus, caveats and conditions: international learnings for bioeconomy development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 174, pp. 1400-1411. Dumay, J., 2009. Intelectual capital measurement: a critical approach. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 10(2), pp. 190-210. Dumay, J. and Cai, L., 2015. Using content analysis as a research methodology for investigating intellectual capital disclosure. A critique. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(1), pp. 121-155. Dumay, J. and Garanina, T., 2013. Intellectual capital research: a critical examination of the third stage. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 14(1), pp. 10-25. European Commission, 2012. Commission staff working document, accompanying the document Communication on innovating for sustainable growth: a bioeconomy for Europe. [pdf] European Commission. Available at: <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52012SC0011&from=EN> [Accessed 1 February 2018]. Gowdy, J. and Mesner, S., 1998. The evolution of Georgescu-Roegen’s bioeconomics. Review of Social Economy, 16(2), pp. 136-156. Guthrie, J. and Petty, R., 2000. Intellectual capital: Australian annual reporting practices. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(3), pp. 241-251. Guthrie, J., Petty, R. and Yongvanich, K., 2004. Using content analysis as a research method to inquire into intellectual capital reporting. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(2), pp. 282-293. Heijman, W., 2016. How big is the bio-business? Notes on measuring the size of the Dutch bio-economy. NJAS – Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 77, pp. 5-8. IIRC, 2013. Capitals. Background paper for <IR>. [pdf] International Integrated Reporting Council. Available at: <https://integratedreporting.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ IR-Background-Paper-Capitals.pdf> [Accessed 1 February 2018]. Kostova, T. and Roth, K., 2003. Social capital in multinational corporations and a micromacro model of its formation. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), pp. 297-317. Krippendorff, K., 2013. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage. AE Types of Intellectual Capital Employed in Bioeconomic Projects – A Longitudinal Case Study 682 Amfiteatru Economic Lehtonen, O., and Okkonen, L., 2016. Socio-economic impacts of a local bioenergy-based development strategy – the case of Pielinen Karelia, Finland. Renewable Energy, 85, pp. 610-619. Lewandowski, I., Gaudet, N., Lask, J., Maier, J., Tchouga, B. and Vargas-Carpintero, R., 2018. Context. In: I. Lewandowski, ed. 2018. Bioeconomy. Shaping the transition to a sustainable, biobased economy. Cham: Springer. pp. 5-16. Mayumi, K., 2009. Legacies. Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen: his bioeconomics approach to development and change. Development and Change, 40(6), pp. 1235-1254. McAdam, R., 2000. Knowledge management as a catalyst for innovation within organizations: a qualitative study. Knowledge and Process Management, 7(4), pp. 233-241. Melloni, G., 2015. Intellectual capital disclosure in integrated reporting: an impression management analysis. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(3), pp. 661-680. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, M.A., 1994. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. London: Sage. Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S., 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(2), pp. 242-266. OECD, 2009. The bioeconomy to 2030. Designing a policy agenda. Main findings and conclusions. [pdf] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Available at: <http://www.oecd.org/futures/long-termtechnologicalsocietalchallenges/42837897. pdf> [Accessed 1 February 2018]. OMV, 2010. Sustainability report 2010. [online] Available at: <http://www.omv.com/ SecurityServlet/secure?cid=1255733335283&lang=en&&swa_site=> [Accessed 1 February 2018]. OMV, 2011. Sustainability report 2011. [online] Available at: <http://www.omv.com/ SecurityServlet/secure?cid=1255739972799&lang=en&swa_id=213135288417.61105 &swa_site> [Accessed 1 February 2018]. OMV, 2012. Sustainability report 2012. [online] Available at: <http://www.omv.com/ SecurityServlet/secure?cid=1255759062423&lang=en&swa_id=213135288417.61105 &swa_site> [Accessed 1 February 2018]. OMV, 2013. Sustainability report 2013. [online] Available at: <http://www.omv.com/ SecurityServlet/secure?cid=1255759063086&lang=en&&swa_site=> [Accessed 1 February 2018]. OMV, 2014. Sustainability report 2014. [online] Available at: <http://www.omv.com/ SecurityServlet/secure?cid=1255771090238&lang=en&swa_id=213135288417.61105 &swa_site> [Accessed 1 February 2018]. OMV, 2016. Sustainability report 2016. [online] Available at: <http://www.omv.com/ SecurityServlet/secure?cid=1255775510983&lang=en&swa_id=213135288417.61105 &swa_site> [Accessed 1 February 2018]. Perspectives of Bioeconomy: The Role of Intellectual Capital and of Knowledge Management AE Vol. 20 • No. 49. • August 2018 683 Philip, J., 2015. Balancing the bioeconomy: supporting biofuels and bio-based materials in public policy. Energy & Environmental Science, 8(11), pp. 3063-3068. Pop, N., and Valeriu, I.F., 2015. Crisis, globalisation, global currency. Procedia Economics and Finance, 22, pp. 479-484. Purkus, A., Hagemann, N., Bedtke, N., and Gawel, E., 2018. Towards a sustainable innovation system for the German wood-based bioeconomy: implications for policy design. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, pp. 3955-3968. Reinheimer, H., 1913. Evolution by Co-operation: A Study in Bio-economics. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co. Roos, G. and Roos, J., 1997. Measuring your company's intellectual performance. Long Range Planning, 30(3), pp. 413-426. Scarlat, N., Dallemand, J.F., Ferrario, F.M., and Nita, V., 2015. The role of biomass and bioenergy in a future bioeconomy: policies and facts. Environmental Development, 15, pp. 3-34. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J., 1998. Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Subramaniam, M. and Venkatraman, N., 2001. Determinants of transnational new product development capability: testing the influence of transferring and deploying tacit overseas knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 22(4), pp. 359-378. Subramaniam, M. and Youndt, M.A., 2005. The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), pp. 450-463. Şandor, S.D., 2013. Metode şi tehnici de cercetare în ştiinţele sociale. Bucureşti: Tritonic. Van de Ven, A.H., 1986. Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32(5), pp. 590-607. Youndt, M.A., Subramaniam, M. and Snell, S.A., 2004. Intellectual capital profiles: an examination of investments and returns. Journal of Management Studies, 41(2), pp. 335-361.