As global eyes scan the horizon for technologies to usher in a post-carbon age, a quieter revolution is already under way—one that is grounded not in solar panels or electric cars, but in forest management, organic agriculture, and the circular use of biological resources. This is the bioeconomy: an emerging economic model built around renewable biological resources, and Europe is staking a great deal on its success.
A new EU-funded study, published in the Romanian Journal of Economics, offers the most comprehensive attempt yet to assess how well different European regions are embracing this transition. The results are revealing. While Southern and Western regions — e.g. Cataluña, Île-de-France, Central Macedonia — dominate the top of the rankings, a cohort of Northern European regions is quietly closing the gap, offering a distinctly Nordic vision of green prosperity.
The Nordic Advantage
Sweden, in particular, stands out. The country’s three main NUTS II regions—Västsverige, Stockholm, and Östra Mellansverige—all rank among the top ten bioeconomy performers in the EU-wide assessment. Even Norra Mellansverige and Småland med öarna, less densely populated and often overlooked, score well.
What gives Sweden this edge? The answer lies in a combination of long-term investment in sustainable forestry, strong regional innovation systems, and a national ethos that prizes environmental stewardship. Stockholm, for instance, performs well not only on environmental indicators but also on measures of R&D intensity, technological employment, and green innovation. Sweden’s approach is holistic: it does not treat the bioeconomy as an offshoot of climate policy, but as a structural transformation of its entire economic base.
Lessons from the Data
The analysis, part of the Horizon BIO2REG project, assessed 125 regions across eight EU member states plus Iceland. It applied a multi-criteria model built on dozens of indicators—from organic farming coverage and land use to employment in biotech sectors and household income. Each region was scored and ranked according to its economic, social, and environmental bioeconomy attributes.
Crucially, the study did not only measure outcomes—it also considered whether a region had a dedicated bioeconomy strategy, either at national or local level. Here too, Northern Europe often led by example. Sweden’s alignment between national vision and local policy execution provided a consistent framework for innovation and adaptation.
In contrast, several German and French regions with comparable technological capacity were let down by patchy regional strategies or insufficient integration of bioeconomic objectives.
Iceland’s Outlier Status
Although not an EU member, Iceland was included in the study owing to its unique contribution to the European bioeconomy. Its fisheries sector and geothermal expertise present a distinct, sector-led model that could inform circular economy efforts elsewhere. Yet Iceland also exemplifies the challenge of aligning small-scale, resource-intensive economies with broader EU goals—especially in the absence of extensive regional data.
A Wake-Up Call for Northern Laggers
The findings, while encouraging, also contain a warning. Not all Northern regions are capitalising on their potential. In Finland and parts of northern Germany — with abundant biomass, high education levels, and strong infrastructure — there remains a surprising lack of dedicated regional bioeconomy strategies. The data suggest that resources alone are not enough; strategic direction and policy coherence matter just as much.
As the EU prepares to revise its Bioeconomy Strategy, first launched in 2012 and last updated in 2018, this regional analysis may prove instrumental. It signals where support, investment, and data collection should be prioritised. If the bioeconomy is to underpin the EU’s climate and industrial policies, then understanding its regional foundations is no longer optional.
The Path Ahead
For Northern Europe, the challenge is not one of capacity but of clarity. The raw materials, institutional competence, and public support all exist. What is needed now is sharper policy focus, greater coordination between national and local authorities, and, crucially, more robust data collection at regional level.
In the end, the future of the European bioeconomy may not be won by the loudest innovators, but by the regions that combine ambition with pragmatism: Regions that, like much of Northern Europe, are beginning to see the forest not just for the trees, but for the economy of the future.
Source
A primary assessment of the EU regions’ transition towards bioeconomy, Romanian Journal of Economics, 2025
Boˆreal 