A. Relevance and sustainability context
A.1 Policy relevance
This is a highly relevant indicator related to the goals of the National Bioeconomy Strategy to develop an innovative bioeconomy and lead markets. Firm dynamics in the bioeconomy are unclear. Some databases would allow e.g. for additional questions such as employees, investments, age structure, etc.
A.2 Sustainability and / or comparative evaluation options
Benchmark can be the firm structure in other countries, or whole segments (e.g. fossil-based and bio-based firms in a sector).
B. Data availability
B.1 Stage of development
It is a new indicator as there have been a few attempts to identify bioeconomy firms (e.g. Kriesch/Losacker 2024), ECBF, Technopolis, but data is not publicly available and partly questionable. In some segments/sectors, there has been identification of bioeconomy firms in databases; for example for 2nd generation bio-based surfactants in Wydra (2025). Generally, data quality and coverage has limitations in a bottom-up selection and therefore focus was on selected innovative segments.
B.2 Data sources
Ideally a structured database of firms with high coverage of start-up and tech firms (e.g. Orbis, Crunchbase...) and firm characteristic (e.g. employees) to delineate different indicators. Other possibility is web-scrapping, which we would propose as an input to identify firms in databases.
B.3 Coverage over time and replicability
Once a year update thinkable but laborious to continually identify new firms.
B.4 Coverage across scales and sectors; compatibility
In principle international coverage feasible, but difficult (as identification highly manual and also underlying databases have bias in geographical coverage) to achieve same data quality.
C. Considerations for operationalization
C.1 Feasibility: Fit for monitoring
The robust ranking is sufficient. The identification of firms and broad coverage is challenging and the more approaches to identify firms are used (patents, web-scrapping, search's trying in databases), the less transparency is provided.
C.2 Institutions
Fraunhofer ISI, based on Crunchbase data
C.3 Future prospects
The data collection is laborious, probably future coverage dependent on funding for collection.
C.4 Costs, considerations and reproducibility
Reproducibility by others is low, but steps could be made transparent. If database is used, access costs arise.
C.5 Potential for automation
Rather limited, some work (e.g. web-scrapping for identification of firms) could be partly standardized
C.6 Presentation options and breakdown / sub-indicator needs
Number and trend of firms, age structure, investments
C.7 Potential for scenario integration
Rather low
C.8 Interlinkages and alignment with other monitoring activities
Not for the bioeconomy (only for other technologies or segments)