Abstract
Insects and their derivatives are increasingly recognised as a (more) sustainable and circular protein source for feed and food. The European insect industry is growing, but upscaling remains a challenge due to multiple uncertainties. This study analysed the robustness of three different business models for insect production for feed and food in six future scenarios. Business models and scenarios were identified through literature review and refined through expert elicitation (n = 5). The three business models comprised: (1) full-liner black soldier fly production for pet food, (2) decentralised black soldier fly production for aquafeed, and (3) mealworm processing cooperative for food. The six scenarios addressed uncertainties around the use of side streams, insect welfare, energy, and sustainability. We used the Business Model Stress Test in four focus groups with experts (n = 23) from six European countries. Heat maps for three distinct business models were presented, detailing the impacts of scenarios on business model components. Experts regarded full-liner black soldier fly production for pet food and mealworm processing cooperative for food as more robust than decentralised black soldier fly production for aquafeed. These differences were mainly related to the customer segments, value proposition, revenue structure, and cost structure. In full-liner black soldier fly production for pet food, stringent regulations were expected to have no negative impact on business model components, in contrast to liberal regulations with anticipated adverse effects. Examination of regulatory uncertainty indicated strict legislation’s advantageous expected impact on consumer trust in the pet food and food market. High energy prices were anticipated as a major challenge across all business models, while improved sustainability compliance was viewed positively. The classification in relatively more or less robust business models serves as a guide for business and policy in further developing the insect sector for feed and food in Europe.
1 Introduction
Insect production for feed and food is generally considered as a sustainable and circular solution to meet growing protein demand (Henchion et al., 2017; Van Huis and Oonincx et al., 2017). The potential of insects lies in their ability to convert low-value streams into high-value proteins, the entire valorisation potential of mature larvae, and the minimal land-use requirements for production (Madau et al., 2020; Phi et al., 2020). Only in recent decades has insect production for feed and food started to emerge in Europe and gained interest from entrepreneurs and other experts. Nevertheless, the sector still faces considerable challenges in creating and scaling up viable business models (BMs) (Marberg et al., 2017; Niyonsaba et al., 2023a; Payne et al., 2019). The main barriers are existing regulations, high production costs, unstable demands, and low revenues (Niyonsaba et al., 2023a; Veldkamp et al., 2022). Recent years have shown an increase in large commercial investments and increased research funding (Marberg et al., 2017; Payne et al., 2019). These initiatives increased production volumes, stimulated the authorisation of the use of various insect species as food and feed (Lähteenmäki-Uutela et al., 2021; Rabobank, 2021), and generated more insight into economic performance (Niyonsaba et al., 2023b) thereby facilitating operators’ access to credit and other services (Blanken et al., 2022). In Europe, insects are primarily produced for the pet food, aquaculture, poultry, and pig market, as well as other niche markets (IPIFF, 2021). Within the existing regulatory framework, insect fat and Processed Animal Proteins (PAPs) of insect origin can be included in pet food formulations, as well as in feed formulations for aquaculture, poultry, and pigs (Meijer et al., 2023; Regulation (EC) No 1069; Regulation (EC) No 142/2011). The pet food market, currently having the largest share compared to other markets, is projected to constitute 40% of the total market share of insect meal for feed in 2025. The pet food market is followed by the aquaculture market, which is expected to account for approximately 28% (IPIFF, 2021). On the food market, insects are offered as whole insects, but are also incorporated as ingredients to foods (e.g. snacks, meat-like products, and bread) (IPIFF, 2020). Since 2018, insect-based food products can only be sold after authorisation by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (Lähteenmäki-Uutela et al., 2021). Successful authorisation of different processed insect species has taken place for use in food products since 2021. These include dried and frozen L. migratoria; dried, ground, and powdered T. molitor; dried, ground, frozen and partially defatted A. domesticus; and frozen and freeze-dried formulations of A. diaperinus (IPIFF, n.d.). Although the European insect sector is becoming more solid, businesses still operate in dynamic and uncertain environments (Niyonsaba et al., 2023a). In this study, we exclusively considered insect species that are currently authorised for use in feed and food applications in Europe.
Uncertainties in the agribusiness environment impede a business’s ability to become competitive and achieve long-term sustainable development (Lezoche et al., 2020). A BM describes how a business can create and deliver (competitive) value in the context of turbulent and dynamic external environments (Dudin et al., 2015; Teece, 2010). Different ontologies can be used to visualise a BM design. All ontologies have in common that they consist of components that describe the targeted customer, the value proposition for this customer, the delivery of this value to the customer, and the revenues generated by this value creation and delivery (Teece, 2010). A BM is considered robust when it is technically feasible and economically viable in current and future (uncertain) environments (Haaker et al., 2017). While technical feasibility refers to the technical possibility of implementation, economic viability relates to generating positive financial results and the ability to maintain those results in the future (Haaker et al., 2017).
The developments in the European insect sector follow each other rapidly, creating positive future prospects. However, with the concurrent instability of many insect businesses, the questions arise of what the potential insect BMs are and which of these remain robust in uncertain future environments. While previous studies examined the circularity of different insect BMs (Madau et al., 2020; Phi et al., 2020), a structural assessment of BM components is lacking.
In this study, we explore three potential BMs for European insect production and examine their robustness by applying a Business Model Stress Test (BMST) (Haaker et al., 2017) in four focus groups. We first assess and describe the robustness of three BMs in six identified scenarios separately. We then compare the robustness of the three BMs with the aim of identifying their main commonalities and differences. This enables us to identify the relatively most robust BMs for insect production for feed and food in Europe and reveal the underlying factors that influence their robustness. The BMs comprise two models for black soldier fly (BSF) and one for mealworm production;1 these are species that are considered suitable for insect production for feed and food in Europe (Francuski et al., 2020). The considered BMs include the stages of the chain from reproduction or production of larvae to the delivery of a processed product. Robustness is assessed for scenarios that capture sector concerns about side-stream regulations, insect welfare regulations, and sustainability requirements and energy prices.
This study has two main contributions. First, in the domain of insect production, the structured identification and assessment of BMs add a business perspective to the already much wider developed technical knowledge, as summarised in Smetana et al. (2021) and Veldkamp et al. (2021). Second, in the BM domain, the contribution is in the application of BMST to not yet existing BMs in an emerging agricultural sector. The results can be used by (starting) insect rearers for decision-making on BM design and innovation, and by experts and governing bodies as a basis for strategic planning or intervention design to stimulate the development of the insect sector.
2 Material and methods
Six steps of the business model stress test
The BMST (Haaker et al., 2017) assesses the robustness of BMs and enables identifying opportunities and threats for specific BMs. The method follows a sequence of six steps (Haaker et al., 2017): (1) description of the BM, (2) identification and selection of stress factors or uncertainties, (3) exploration of the relationship between uncertainties and BM components, (4) creation of a heat map, (5) analysis of results, and (6) formulation of improvements and actions. We did not incorporate the sixth step as part of the BMST; instead, we discuss possible improvements and actions in the discussion section of this paper.
Step 1: description of business models through expert elicitation
Similarly to Haaker et al. (2017), we used the Business Model Canvas to describe the BMs, as this is the most popular ontology in practice. The three types of BMs were selected based on relevant literature (Le Feon et al., 2019; Niyonsaba et al., 2023a; Saatkamp et al., 2022) together with the experience of the authors from previous research and interactions with experts. The three identified BMs comprised: (1) full-liner BSF production for pet food, (2) decentralised BSF production for aquafeed, and (3) mealworm processing cooperative for food. Detailed descriptions of these BMs in the European context were then developed together with experts (n = 5) who had long-standing experience in the insect industry or as consultants. Interviews were held in January and February 2023 with experts from Denmark, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and the Netherlands, identified through the network of the first author. Consent was signed before the start of the online interviews, and all interviews followed a similar structure. Experts were asked to describe the BM following the Business Model Canvas ontology and to elaborate on each BM component as complete as possible, based on which the BMs were designed. It is important to note that in practice, numerous combinations of BM components can form a single business model. For this study, we meticulously chose three distinct combinations of components, each representing an unique BM. These selections were made based on their relevance for discussions and their distinctiveness, which allowed for an effective assessment of the impact of scenarios across a broad spectrum of BM components. BMs eventually differ with regard to ownership, geographical concentration, scale of production, degree of mechanisation, and the chain stages covered (Table 1). A description of the BM components of each BM follows hereafter.
Overview of characteristics per business model
Citation: Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 2024; 10.1163/23524588-00001141
The full-liner BSF production for pet food is a large-scale BSF facility in which reproduction, production, and processing are centralised at one location (Table 1). The main side streams as input for production are purchased from the food industry and sourced from distant locations (Figure 1). A high quality of side streams is required to guarantee optimal quality of the end product: a sustainable hypoallergenic ingredient for pet food (i.e. larvae meal and oil). Additional resources for production include a starter colony for BSF larvae, utilities, and skilled labourers. The main activities involve the fully mechanised rearing and processing of BSF larvae, as well as the development and marketing of end products. To build a long-term, loyalty-based relationship with customers (pet food producers) for a high level of consumer (pet owners) satisfaction, this BM puts emphasis on high quality, marketing, and product development. This, among others, materialises by involving pet food producers in product development through co-creation. The core target market is the pet food market, in which consumers value high quality over low price. The end products of the full-liner facility include larvae meal, insect oil, and insect frass. The former two products are sold to pet food producers, and the latter to a digester. The major production expenses include labour, side-stream procurement, utilities, and quality assurance.
Decentralised BSF production for aquafeed is a large-scale production and processing system, which is excecuted at different locations, including a reproduction facility, multiple rearing facilities, and one processing unit (Table 1). All processes are mechanised, necessitating the use of advanced technologies (Figure 2). In addition, an advanced logistic network optimises frequent transport between reproduction, rearing, and processing locations. The main side streams for production come from the food industry and are sourced in close proximity to the rearing locations. The food industry pays the rearer for offtake of side streams; these side streams have high quality variations. The value proposition of this BM is the processing of side streams and the simultaneous production of a sustainable aquafeed ingredient. The relationship with customers – side-stream suppliers and aquafeed producers – is based on long-term contracts. The end consumers in this BM are individuals who purchase fish products, while the fish are fed with insect-based aquafeed. The revenue model is two-sided: on the one hand, the rearer is paid for the offtake of side streams; on the other hand, revenues come from the sales of larvae meal for aquafeed and, to a small extent, from sales of frass.
Business Model Canvas for full-liner BSF production for pet food.
Citation: Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 2024; 10.1163/23524588-00001141
Business Model Canvas for decentralised BSF production for aquafeed.
Citation: Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 2024; 10.1163/23524588-00001141
Business Model Canvas for a mealworm processing cooperative for food.
Citation: Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 2024; 10.1163/23524588-00001141
The mealworm processing cooperative for food is a BM with multiple rearing sites, and one processing facility (Table 1). Young larvae from reproduction, dry substrates, and side streams are purchased by the rearer who also manages the rearing operations, mostly with a low level of mechanisation (Figure 3). Processing and frass hygienisation are organised by the cooperative. The key activities for this BM include the rearing and processing of mealworms, cooperative and logistics management, and quality control. The value proposition of mealworm processing cooperative is to process mealworms into an intermediate product which could be incorporated into food products. The relationship with customers, (i.e. food producers), is contract-based and characterised by high transparency and a high level of information sharing. The end consumers of this BM are individuals who purchase insect-based food products. The main revenues come from the sales of the intermediate processed food product, and, to a lesser degree, from the sales of frass.
Step 2: identification and selection of stress factors or uncertainties
Where Haaker et al. (2017) made use of single factor uncertainties (so-called stress factors) we chose for more elaborate descriptions. Uncertainties were elicited with experts (n = 7) who were selected in a similar way as in Step 1. Three experts could cover both steps. For these experts, interviews for Step 1 and Step 2 were combined. The interviews for Step 2 also took place in January and February 2023. During the interviews, experts were asked to mention two or three potential uncertainties for each of the components (political, economic, social, technical, legal, and environmental) of the PESTLE framework (Perera, 2017). This framework is often used to analyse factors impacting the business environment; see e.g. Widya Yudha et al. (2018). Expertise differed among experts and some components of the framework remained unanswered in case experts did not feel confident to elaborate on these. The final list of uncertainties was selected by the authors on the basis of indicated relevance to the three BMs.
The uncertainties were categorised into three types, each of which exhibited two manifestations. The six resulting scenarios (1.A–3.B) are described in Table 2, together with their short names. For pragmatic reasons, the third uncertainty type merges two uncertainty issues, i.e. sustainability requirements and energy prices.
Description of uncertainties and scenarios. Short names are in brackets
Citation: Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 2024; 10.1163/23524588-00001141
Uncertainty 1: Regulations on the use of side streams. Since authorised side streams are limited to GMP+ streams, side streams are currently a major and costly input for insect production (Van Peer et al., 2021). To reduce costs and increase availability of side streams, and improve circularity of insect production, the use of additional side streams (such as catering waste) will be crucial for its viability, implying that side-stream regulations should change (Broeckx et al., 2021). However, a lack of standardisation and scientific evidence on the safe use of these side streams limits the likelihood of changes in the regulations (Meyer et al., 2021).
Uncertainty 2: Insect welfare regulations. Currently, there are few official species-specific regulations on the welfare of insects. This is mainly due to the lack of conclusive evidence, particularly regarding the sentience of insects (Barett et al., 2022; Delvendahl et al., 2022). Most of the literature has focussed on the importance and difficulty of obtaining scientific data on insect welfare aspects, but new insights can become available and significantly impact industry operations (Barett et al., 2022). Delvendahl et al. (2022) concluded in their recent publication that the predicted growth of the insect industry and increasing consumer concerns for animal welfare require regulations specified per species and production stage.
Uncertainty 3: Sustainability requirements & energy prices. The environmental footprint of livestock production is under pressure (Borodin et al., 2016). Although insect production is believed more sustainable compared to other livestock production systems, the high energy use of insect production and processing is still an environmental concern (Smetana et al., 2021). Data and benchmarks on the environmental sustainability of insect production systems and end products are limited. However, these data are crucial for evaluating the sustainability of insect production systems (Wade and Hoelle et al., 2020). There is a chance that governments will enforce compelling measures for companies to reduce their environmental impact in order to enhance their sustainability. Moreover, energy costs have seen a drastic rise in the last two years. The energy-intensive nature of insect production systems could result in economically unfavourable conditions (Van der Weele et al., 2019).
Explanation of the colours used in the impact assessment, based on Haaker et al. (2017)
Citation: Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 2024; 10.1163/23524588-00001141
Step 3: exploration of relationship between uncertainties and BM components
This is an intermediate step in which direct and indirect causal relationships between uncertainties and BM components are explored. It serves as an evaluation to confirm that described scenarios are related to the (majority of) BM components. This step was carried out by the first author. It helped to prepare for the focus groups (Step 4).
Step 4: creation of heat maps
This step assesses how scenarios are expected to affect the BM components. The impact assessment was conducted through four focus groups: one in Belgium (n = 5), one in Germany (n = 7), one in the Netherlands (n = 6), and one in Southern Europe (n = 5). Across focus groups, there were five experts from Belgium, six from Germany, three from Italy, seven from the Netherlands, one from Portugal, and one from Switzerland. The choice for these countries was primarily based on the network of the authors. Each focus group consisted of experts from the insect industry, consulting, and research. The BMs were assigned to a group based on the expertise of the experts with the different insect species. Each focus group addressed one or two BMs, eventually leading to the full-liner BSF for pet food production assessed in the German and Southern European focus group, the decentralised BSF production for aquafeed in the Dutch focus group, and the mealworm processing cooperative for food in the German and Belgian focus group. The focus groups took place in February and March 2023 and lasted approximately two hours each. During this period, there were no insect-related crises or major policy changes affecting the insect sector. Focus groups were hybrid (n = 2), physical (n = 1), or online (n = 1); all were recorded for data analysis purposes. Before joining the focus groups, participants received preparatory information on the discussed BM(s) and an overview of the related supply chain(s).2 Consent was signed prior to the focus groups and the sessions started with a detailed explanation on the assessment, the discussed BM(s) and scenarios. Then the participants were given time to rate the impact of each scenario on each BM component described in a pre-designed Excel sheet (on PC or printed version).
During the assessment, one of four colours (representing different impacts) could be selected: green, orange, red, or grey, representing ‘no negative impact’ or ‘possibly positive impact’, ‘requires attention’, ‘show-stopper’ or ‘not relevant’, respectively – see also Table 3. Detailed instructions given to participants regarding these colours are displayed in Supplementary Table S1.
After filling out the assessment, participants were asked to elaborate on their impact ratings for each scenario. The moderator (first author) asked deepening questions to better understand the given impact rating and its context, and invited participants to reflect on the reasoning of other participants. Due to time limitations, not all BM components could be discussed for each scenario.
Step 5: analysis of results
The assessment sheets were collected from each participant (some of whom added written explanations) and recordings of the meetings were manually transcribed. Heat maps, in which colours are indicative of impact ratings, were created based on impact ratings of the scenarios on the BM components. Data were processed using Microsoft Excel. For each cell in the matrix (i.e. an impact of one scenario on one BM component), the frequency of the colours green, orange, red, or grey was counted, representing the number of participants from the total group who indicated a colour for this cell. Of these, the colour with the highest frequency, i.e. the mode, was then selected for each cell, resulting in the final heat map. If a cell had two colours, both of which had the highest frequency, the cell was assigned two colours. The number of experts rating the mode and the total number of experts for this BM are displayed in each cell in the heat map. Not all participants were able to provide an impact estimate for all cells, therefore the sample size n differs per cell. In describing the underlying reasons for the chosen impact ratings, we focus on the BM components that provoked the most discussion in the group. Conclusions on the relative robustness of BMs are drawn on the basis of the percentage of coloured components. For instance, a BM with the most orange and red coloured components is regarded as the least robust.
3 Results
The following sections include the heat maps for the three BMs with the underlying reasons for the given impacts in each heat map. The BM components are indicated in italics; the uncertainty (numbers 1-3) or the scenario (alphanumeric 1.A-3.B) are enclosed in brackets and correspond to the numbering in the figures (see Figures 4-7 for heat maps).
Heat maps per business model
Full-liner BSF production for pet food
Strict side-stream and insect welfare regulations (1.B and 2.B) were considered to have a positive impact on BM components of the full-liner BSF production for pet food (Figure 4). On the contrary, liberal side-stream and absent insect welfare regulations (1.A and 2.A) were expected to have a negative impact on its BM components. The energy and sustainability scenarios (3.A and 3.B) appeared to be less relevant to the majority of BM components.
Heatmap for full-liner BSF production for pet food, showing the impact of six scenarios (1.A-3.B) on nine business model components. Numbers in the coloured cells indicate number of given responses for this colour divided by the total number of respondents for this business model. Cells with two colours indicate these both had similar highest frequency.
Citation: Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 2024; 10.1163/23524588-00001141
Heatmap for the decentralised BSF production model for aquafeed, showing the impact of six scenarios (1.A–3.B) on nine business model components. Numbers in the coloured cells indicate number of given responses for this colour divided by the total number of respondents for this business model. Cells with two colours indicate these both had similar high frequency.
Citation: Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 2024; 10.1163/23524588-00001141
Uncertainty 1. When discussing the expected impacts of regulations on the use of side streams, experts perceived that including non-certified side streams (only possible under liberal regulations – 1.A) would enhance resource utilisation. This could increase the circularity of production, leading to an improved value proposition (1.A). However, including these non-certified side streams was also expected to result in a large variety of side streams (type, safety, and quality). Such a large variety requires different key resources and partnerships for operations and technologies (e.g. on pretreatment of side streams). Additionally, these non-certified side streams were expected to introduce risks for quality and safety variations of the end product, which negatively impact the value proposition, and complicate sales in the customer segment of the pet food market leading to lower revenues. Under strict side-stream regulations (1.B), experts expected a low availability of certified side streams that would push prices up, resulting in a negative impact on the cost structure of the BM. Moreover, this low availability was further projected to impede upscaling of an insect businesses and their realisation of economies of scale with existing side-stream suppliers. Despite these constraints, experts foresaw that the implementation of strict side-stream regulations (1.B) will lead to an increase in consumer trust, potentially resulting in a positive impact on the revenue structure through higher sales. Experts agreed that pet owners (consumers) in the customer segment of the pet food market are generally selective in their product choice and willing to pay more for a high-quality product, which could explain the experts’ indicated preference for the scenario of strict regulations (1.B).
Uncertainty 2. The plenary discussion on insect welfare revealed that the absence of regulations (2.A) was expected to negatively impact most BM components, mainly due to the welfare concerns of pet owners driving market contraction with subsequent negative impacts on the revenue structure. Strong customer relationships and marketing strategies with a high level of consumer (i.e. pet owners) education would be necessary to gain their trust with respect to insect welfare. Experts agreed that implementing strict insect welfare regulations would enhance the trust of pet owners and the value proposition, consequently leading to a positive impact on pet food sales. However, they acknowledged that strict welfare regulations also have negative aspects. Specifically, high costs for the implementation of key resources such as new technologies and quality systems to comply with these regulations (2.B) were expected to adversely impact the cost structure. Experts eventually agreed that in both scenarios (2.A and 2.B), the sector should not wait for regulations to be implemented by governmental bodies but instead use a pro-active sectoral approach in developing insect welfare standards.
Uncertainty 3. Although the scores in the heat map mostly indicated that sustainability requirements and energy prices were not perceived as relevant, experts discussed that raising energy prices (3.A) would increase production costs (cost structure), possibly resulting in nonprofitable business cases. They further expected that compliance with sustainability requirements (3.B) would require necessary changes in key resources, including high capital investments for technology adaptations, which also have negative impacts on the cost structure. At the same time, compliance with sustainability requirements (3.B) could result in positive sustainability evaluations of products that support marketing messages, positively impacting product sales. This would then likely lead to increased market shares and revenues (revenue structure). However, experts indicated that data on sustainability of insect production are still scarce and that clear comparisons with competitive products in similar market segments are essential to construct such marketing messages.
Decentralised BSF production for aquafeed
Overall, the heat map of the decentralised BSF production for aquafeed does not show a clear difference among the expected impacts of scenarios (i.e. between A and B scenarios) (Figure 5); most BM components require attention. An exception can be found in sustainability requirements and energy prices, where compliance and more stable prices (3.B) appear to have a more positive influence.
Heatmap for the mealworm processing cooperative for food, showing the impact of six scenarios (1.A–3.B) on nine business model components. Numbers in the coloured cells indicate number of given responses for this colour divided by the total number of respondents for this business model. Cells with two colours indicate these both had similar high frequency.
Citation: Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 2024; 10.1163/23524588-00001141
Uncertainty 1. When discussing regulations on the use of side streams, experts expected that liberal regulations (1.A) would increase side-stream availability, but also cause large quality variations in the side streams, produced insects, and the end products. These variations were estimated to negatively impact the value proposition and revenue structure. Experts further elaborated that food safety risks increase with liberal regulations (1.A), putting the reputation of the sector at stake and requiring strong partnerships to prevent deviations in product safety and quality. They also stressed that quality assurance is extremely important for customer relationships and stable revenues within the sector. Experts further emphasised that liberal side-stream regulations (1.A) call for strong intra- and inter-sectoral collaborations to achieve operational feasible solutions. If implemented well, large (economic) opportunities would open up for creating viable business cases. Therefore, the increased availability of side streams under liberal regulations was expected to reduce costs and facilitate the upscaling of BSF production (1.A). Regarding the revenue and cost structure, experts agreed that relying on revenues for the offtake of side streams would be risky under liberal (1.A) and unfeasible under strict side-stream regulations (1.B). In the former case, it might be only feasible with long-term fixed contracts and robust partnerships. Under strict regulations (1.B), the main concerns included the low availability of the side stream that prevents the execution of viable business cases and the opportunities for upscaling to become competitive in the aquafeed market (customer segment). Most experts further expected that the use of certified side streams benefits consumer trust and, thereby, sales (revenue structure). However, some experts felt that this benefit is not so pronounced and that fish consumers are less concerned about how the BSF that are part of the fish’s diet are fed.
Uncertainty 2. Experts expressed different concerns regarding BSF welfare: some did, while others did not consider this to be relevant for fish consumers (customer segment). Experts indicated that if consumer concerns about insect welfare arise, these concerns likely reduce market share and subsequently revenues, necessitating strong customer relationships. However, the majority of experts agreed that insect welfare regulations are essential to standardise BSF production to prevent large variations in production methods between companies (2.B). Implementing welfare regulations also requires potential adjustments in key activities and resources for individual businesses. Considering new methods or techniques (key resources) that are to be implemented to comply with insect welfare regulations, experts indicated that the size of additional investments (cost structure) and the extent of operational adjustments (key activities) are hard to quantify at the moment of the focus group discussion. They further concluded that a pro-active approach initiated by the sector and good collaboration with governmental bodies are crucial to deal with consumer concerns for insect welfare.
Uncertainty 3. Discussions on sustainability requirements and energy prices revealed that rising energy prices (3.A) increase cost prices (cost structure), which is considered a general threat for viable business cases and becomes a show-stopper in this BM. Hence, the increase of cost prices (cost structure) would inevitably result in higher sales prices (revenue structure), likely leading to lower sales. From a supply chain perspective, the implementation of sustainability requirements (3.B) could have a positive impact on the BM in general. These requirements could improve sustainability evaluations of production and the end products, resulting in a more positive value proposition. However, sustainability evaluations were mentioned to depend on the factors considered in environmental impact calculations. In this regard, experts agreed that a clear framework on sustainability measures for the insect industry in general is a key requirement, and that current sustainability data are insufficient to build standardisations for the BSF and wider insect industry.
Mealworm processing cooperative for food
In general, the heat map for the mealworm processing cooperative for food shows that strict regulations or set requirements (B scenarios) are in general not expected to negatively impact the BM components (Figure 6). Conversely, liberal or absent regulations and requirements (A-scenarios) require attention and even include a few show-stoppers.
Uncertainty 1. When discussing the regulations on the use of side streams, experts highlighted that liberal side-stream regulations (1.A) present opportunities to utilise more low-value side streams. This potentially enhances the circularity of production, which positively influences the value proposition. However, the use of low-value side streams – often not certified – was also anticipated to pose a serious threat to sales on the human food market (customer segment). The foreseen threat was attributed to reasons such as low consumer acceptance due to insufficient transparency on side-stream use, as well as elevated food safety and quality risks. Experts further emphasised that significant quality variations in both side streams and mealworms could present a substantial challenge for processors in achieving a marketable end product with a consistent nutritional profile and product quality. Experts acknowledged that a processing cooperative – given good cooperations and partnerships between its members – is in a strong position to control food safety. They also expected that the use of a larger side-stream variety (1.A) requires rearers and processors to make additional investments in key resources, including new technologies with high capital costs. The increase in the availability of side streams due to liberal regulations was expected to lower the price of side streams (1.A). However, the cost benefits of using cheaper side streams were expected to be small due to the relatively low possible share of side streams in mealworm feed. Increasing this share may require changes in farm operations (key activities). Therefore, experts agreed that strict regulations (1.B) would benefit mealworm production, the main reason being the quality and safety of the product for the customer segment human food market. Apart from the strict regulations for side streams (1.B) being more beneficial, experts were concerned about the low availability of side streams (key resources). Without a sufficient amount of input, the growing demand for insects for food cannot be met.
Uncertainty 2. Discussions on insect welfare disclosed that the absence of insect welfare regulations (2.A) could result in high consumer concerns, complicating sales and a negative impact on the revenue structure. Experts indicated that, even without insect welfare regulations, businesses should prioritise insect welfare by changing key activities such as greater chain coordination, quality control, and technology changes. They further agreed that the sector should proactively take initiative in consumer education and communication (customer relationship and channels) to inform consumers (i.e. food consumers) and show transparency about insect welfare. Hence, experts expected that strict insect welfare regulations (2.B) would benefit businesses due to increased consumer trust. However, they indicated that the design and implementation of insect welfare regulations require close collaboration with regulatory bodies. The experts also expected large challenges due to the investments required for technology adjustments (key resources) to comply with insect welfare regulations. Overall, they concluded that, considering the young and emerging nature of the sector, a strong focus on transparency and prevention of scandals with regard to insect welfare is key.
Heatmaps for three business models (in columns) showing the impact per scenarios (1.A–3.B) on their nine business model components. Cells with two colours indicate that there were two impacts with equal frequency.
Citation: Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 2024; 10.1163/23524588-00001141
Uncertainty 3. In the discussions on sustainability requirements and energy prices, some experts indicated that the rising energy prices (3.A) would cause great concerns for the utilities component in the cost structure. However, certain experts highlighted that the low degree of mechanisation leads to a relatively modest increase in energy costs compared to highly mechanised facilities. Furthermore, costs for transport were expected to be lower than those for central facilities due to the closer proximity of side-stream sourcing options for more dispersed mealworm production sites. The implementation of sustainability requirements (3.B) was generally regarded positive. Also, there was general consensus that more data and frameworks are needed for correct sustainability standardisations and calculations.
Comparison of robustness across business models
When examining the scenarios (1.A-2.B) linked to the uncertainty of regulations (1 and 2) (top and middle part of Figure 7), it becomes evident that strict legislation was considered advantageous for the BMs for pet food and food, primarily due to its positive effect on consumer trust (Figure 7). This picture is generally the opposite for the BM for aquafeed; the use of side streams as feed for insects and the requirements on insect welfare seemed to have less impact on the perceptions and sales of the final marketable product (i.e. the fish) of the aquafeed BM. This reduces the direct need of these regulations to ensure consumer trust and sales for the aquafeed market. In addition, the heat map (bottom part of Figure 7) for sustainability requirements and energy prices (3.A and 3.B) reveals that high energy prices (3.A) were expected to negatively impact all BMs, especially their cost structure, for which these high prices are considered a show-stopper. Compliance with sustainability requirements (3.B) was generally considered positive for the BMs. Improved compliance with sustainability requirements was expected to benefit the value proposition of all BMs.
4 Discussion
This study is the first to structurally assess the robustness of BMs for European insect production: full-liner BSF production for pet food, decentralised BSF production for aquafeed, and mealworm processing cooperative for food. Robustness was evaluated for six scenarios with varying uncertainties.
Robustness of business models
When examining the results across the BMs, we identified several factors that affect the robustness of the investigated BMs for insects as food and feed. The customer segment emerges, for instance, as a significant component for BM robustness, with BMs producing for the pet food and human food market exhibiting relatively greater robustness compared to those producing for the aquafeed market. Most of the experts in our study had experience in the insect sector, with some having expertise in food and pet food production, but none had direct involvement in aquafeed production. Although they also had knowledge of the aquafeed sector from collaborations, the absence of specific experience in this market may have influenced the results for the BM component of customer segments, impacting overall BM robustness. Concurrently, we assessed the robustness of BMs based on perceptions of experts from different regions, since we did not want to exclude specific regions (i.e. Northwest and Southern Europe). The level of development and (legal) conditions of the sector differed between the two regions and sometimes even between countries. Even though a few experts from Southern Europe had more positive expectations on side-stream availability and foresaw less problems on insect welfare, we did not observe substantial variations in the robustness impact assessment between focus groups. Although we acknowledge that variations in expertise and geographical location may have slightly influenced impact estimation in the robustness assessment, we believe that they did not affect the interpretation of BM descriptions and scenarios. This might be attributed to the fact that we provided the experts with clear explanations and repeatedly enquired for questions and clarity prior to and during the robustness assessment. In addition, the inclusion of quantitative details on the different BMs, particularly regarding the scale and degree of mechanisation (Table 1), would have enhanced the clarity of the BMs for the focus group participants. However, these details were not explicitly collected during the expert elicitation. This limitation underscores the need for incorporating quantitative details in future research to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the different types and sizes of businesses. Furthermore, three uncertainties (with six scenarios) were selected for the robustness assessment based on expert input (interviews). By doing so, we believe to have included the major uncertainties and reflected reality as much as possible. However, they only shed light on the robustness of insect BMs in a small number of scenarios. Therefore, the robustness results reflect a partial reality, as other potential uncertainties could impact BMs in different ways. We see this selectivity as a consideration for scenario analysis in general.
Expected impact of uncertainties
On the basis of our findings related to regulations on the use of side streams, it was observed that liberal side-stream regulations were expected to enhance their availability, leading to an anticipated reduction in prices, thereby benefitting the cost structure of insect BMs. These results are in line with Broeckx et al. (2021) and Veldkamp et al. (2022), who concluded that inclusion of non-utilised side streams could enhance cost-effectiveness of insect production systems. In addition, experts’ expectations about the increase in circularity of production by including non-certified and more low-value side streams in insect diets are also mentioned by Aiking and De Boer (2019) and Hamam et al. (2024). Despite these economic and circular possibilities for BMs under liberal side-stream regulations, all experts in our study anticipated great concerns about the assurance of safety, quality, and along the supply chain for the three BMs. Remarkably, these concerns related to the use of non-certified side streams had not been reported in previous literature. A related aspect, i.e. the lack of standardisation on the use of side streams, was mentioned by Meyer et al. (2021) and Pinotti and Ottoboni (2021). Meyer et al. (2021) further concluded that available data on the safety of side streams are fragmented, implying that additional scientific insights and sectoral regulations are needed for successful change in side-stream regulations.
With respect to insect welfare regulations, it stood out that the presence of welfare regulations would benefit BMs and that there is a need for a pro-active sectoral approach in designing and implementing these. The need for such an approach was also emphasised by Barett and Fischer (2023), who concluded that transparent interdisciplinary collaborations are essential to guide the insect industry towards feasible insect welfare regulations. However, more scientific insights are needed to establish such welfare regulations (Barett et al., 2023; Klobučar and Fisher, 2023). The relevance of insect welfare regulations to increase consumer acceptance was previously also stipulated by Spartano and Grasso (2021).
With regard to the sustainability requirements and energy prices, it became clear that high energy prices in particular would form a major threat to insect businesses. Focus groups were held during a period of peaking energy prices, which contributed to business failures in the insect sector in some European countries. This external factor might have influenced the impact assessment of experts in our study. Compliance with sustainability requirements was generally evaluated positive as such requirements were expected to lead to more positive sustainability evaluations benefitting the selling position of insects on all considered markets. The literature discussing the impact of such environmental information on willingness to buy insect-based products remains ambiguous (Gassler et al., 2024). In line with Aiking and De Boer (2018), Vauterin et al. (2021), and Wade and Hoelle (2020), experts mentioned that additional scientific evidence on sustainability evaluations (e.g. a standardised and transparent approach for data collection) and strong multidisciplinary collaborations are needed for implementation of sustainability requirements.
Use and suitability of the method
We applied the BMST to multiple generic and potential BMs which not only provided insights on the robustness of different BM components but also revealed required actions for businesses and the entire sector in the studied scenarios. Considering that BMST has previously been applied to existing individual companies with industry experts and employees (Bouwman et al., 2018; Haaker et al., 2017), we see our use of BMST for multiple and generic BMs as an extension and most informative on a sectoral level (i.e. the insect sector). Furthermore, the inclusion of experts from different disciplines learned that their inputs complemented each other, resulting in complete discussions and well-reasoned arguments.
With respect to the suitability of the method, the formulation of scenarios introduced some challenges. We chose more elaborate scenarios compared to Haaker et al. (2017), with the aim of giving a complete picture of scenarios and to facilitate the discussion. In practice, the discussion among experts typically started with the initial (i.e. the first) part of the scenario; the consequentiality in the scenarios was confirmed by the experts during the focus groups. However, for the third uncertainty type, we included two seemingly unrelated components (i.e. sustainability requirements and energy prices). In practice, one scenario’s discussion primarily evolved around high energy prices, while the other scenario’s discussion focussed more on the sustainability requirements. The scenarios on sustainability requirements and energy prices have therefore not been explored to the fullest extent.
Eventually, realising that the BMST has robustness (which is a combination of technical feasibility and economic viability) as an outcome parameter, it is understandable that impact ratings have been selected and described in negative formulations. However, when considering business model innovation and development, adding a colour exclusively indicating positive impact would be beneficial. This would give more certainty in the positive impact formulations of certain scenarios. Although no ranking indicating a positive impact was present in the assessment, the focus group discussions with the underlying reasoning of experts largely revealed the distinctions between impacts seen as ‘no negative impact’ or ‘possibly positive impact’.
5 Conclusions and recommendations
Conclusions: We analysed the robustness of three European insect BMs: full-liner BSF production for pet food, decentralised BSF production for aquafeed, and mealworm processing cooperative for food, each in the context of uncertainties regarding regulations on the use of side streams, insect welfare regulations, and sustainability requirements and energy prices. Based on experts’ impact ratings of scenarios on the different BM components, we concluded that full-liner BSF production for pet food and mealworm processing cooperative for food were expected to be more robust compared to decentralised BSF production for aquafeed. The differences in robustness were primarily related to the customer segment of BM components the customer segment, value proposition, revenue structure, and cost structure. Furthermore, in general, the introduction of strict regulations for the use of side streams and for insect welfare was considered to have the least negative or even positive impact on the robustness of most BM components of pet food and food BMs (with the exception of the component of cost structure). The same was visible for compliance with sustainability requirements, that is, this was expected to have a less negative impact on the robustness of the BMs compared to high energy prices.
Recommendations: To pursue the robustness of insect businesses in general, three main areas of focus are recommended for the future. First, intra- and inter-chain collaborations should focus on obtaining data and achieving standardisations for the use of (non-certified) side streams and insect welfare practises, with the aim to jointly design feasible implementable regulations, e.g. with regard to side streams, insect welfare, and sustainability. The International Platform of Insects for Food and Feed (IPIFF) is an established non-profit organisation addressing such issues on a European level. The foundation of similar initiatives on a national level could stimulate collaboration between chain actors and governing bodies. Considering the emerging nature of the sector, we recommend policy makers to offer subsidies to finance the necessary technologies required to comply with standards. Linked to this, the design of guidance documents on operationalisation of new regulations within businesses and supply chains is suggested to successfully implement more liberal or new regulations and achieve a high compliance rate. Second, when implementing these regulations, consumer education and strong customer relationships are key to consumer trust and optimal market demand of the food, pet food and aquafeed market. The main focus should be on safeguarding product safety, quality, and transparency. Third, improving the sustainability of insect production as a result of the introduction of sustainability requirements could reveal important marketing opportunities by using sustainability evaluations (based on compliance to requirements) as competitive selling points and thus stimulate the demand for insect-based products. To implement requirements and develop evaluations this, more data on the environmental impact of different production systems should be recorded and analysed to design sustainability standards.
Corresponding author; e-mail: julia.hoehler@wur.nl
In this paper ‘black soldier fly’ refers to the species H. illucens and ‘mealworm’ refers to the species T. molitor.
The preparatory information on the discussed BM(s) and an overview of the related supply chain(s) can be found in the Supplementary Figures S1-S3.
Supplementary material
Supplementary material is available online at: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25540294
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the European project SUSINCHAIN, funded under Horizon 2020 under Grant number 861976, as well as by the Business Economics Group of Wageningen University. The authors kindly thank the authors of Haaker et al. (2017) for providing the Excel-based tool for BM stress testing. The authors also acknowledge all experts who participated in expert interviews or focus groups. Those who wanted to be mentioned gave written confirmation and are hereafter named. Experts: Dr. Lars-Henrik Lau Heckmann – Head of Business Development, Better Insect Solutions; Montse Jorba – Area Manager Bioresources & Agrifood Technologies, LEITAT; Marian Peters – CEO, NGN Pro-active BV.; Alvaro Manzanares – Managing Director, Insect.Systems BV; Prof. Lara Maistrello – Department Life Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia; Daniel Murta – CEO, EntoGreen; Dr. Teun Veldkamp – Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen Livestock Research. Focus group participants: Christian Bärtsch – CEO, Essento Insect Food; Siebe Berrens – Researcher Insect Rearing, Expertisecentrum Duurzame biomassa & Chemie/RADIUS, Thomas More University of Applied Sciences; Fábio Carvão – Zootechnical Engineer, The Tomorrow Company; Prof. Laura Gasco – Department of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences, University of Turin (Italy); Jan-Willem Heesakkers – Bühler Insect Technology; Petra van den Hengel – manager, Network for Insect Knowledge; Mark Leipertz – Wageningen University; Marco Meneguz – Head of Research, BEF Biosystems; Mariam Nikravech – research associate, Department of Education for Sustainable Nutrition and Food Science, Technische Universität Berlin; Toon Peeters – Business Developer, Expertisecentrum Duurzame biomassa & Chemie/RADIUS, Thomas More University of Applied Sciences; Franziska Schindler – Hermetia Baruth GmbH; Dennis Smulders – M-food Natural Ingredients; Yannik Weinreis – Business Development Manager, madebymade GmbH; Giacomo Zeni – CTO, BugsLife srl.
References
Aiking, H. and De Boer, J., 2019. Protein and sustainability – the potential of insects. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 5: 3-7. https://doi.org/10.3920/JIFF2018.0011
Barrett, M. and Fischer, B., 2023. Challenges in farmed insect welfare: beyond the question of sentience. Animal Welfare 32: e4. https://doi.org/10.1017/awf.2022.5
Barrett, M., Godfrey, R.K., Schnell, A. and Fischer, B., 2023. Farmed yellow mealworm (Tenebrio molitor; Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) welfare: species-specific recommendations for a global industry. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 1: 1-46. https://doi.org/10.1163/23524588-20230104
Blanken, K., Evers, A., Groeneveld, I., Niyonsaba, H.H., Ouweltjes, W., Verkaik, J., Vermeij, I. and Wemmenhove, H., 2022. KWIN 2022-2023: Kwantitatieve Informatie Veehouderij. Handboek/Wageningen livestock research; No 46. Wageningen Livestock Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Borodin, V., Bourtembourg, J., Hnaien, F. and Labadie, N., 2016. Handling uncertainty in agricultural supply chain management: a state of the art. European Journal of Operational Research 254: 348-359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.03.057
Bouwman, H., Heikkilä, J., Heikkilä, M., Leopold, C. and Haaker, T., 2018. Achieving agility using business model stress testing. Electronic Markets 28: 149-162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-016-0243-0
Broeckx, L., Frooninckx, L., Slegers, L., Berrens, S., Noyens, I., Goossens, S., Verheyen, G., Wuyts, A. and Van Miert, S., 2021. Growth of black soldier fly larvae reared on organic side-streams. Sustainability 13: 12953. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132312953
Delvendahl, N., Rumpold, B.A. and Langen, N., 2022. Edible insects as food–insect welfare and ethical aspects from a consumer perspective. Insects 13: 121. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13020121
Dudin, M.N., Lyasnikov, N.V.E., Leont’eva, L.S., Reshetov, K.J.E. and Sidorenko, V.N., 2015. Business model canvas as a basis for the competitive advantage of enterprise structures in the industrial agriculture. Biosciences Biotechnology Research Asia 12: 887-894.
Francuski, L. and Beukeboom, L.W., 2020. Insects in production – an introduction. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 168: 422-431. https://doi.org/10.1111/eea.12935
Gassler, B., Koetzsche, M., Koemle, D. and Teuber, R., 2024. Promoting the consumption of insect-based foods: the role of information, protein-based nutrition claims, and dietary styles. Q Open 4: qoae001. https://doi.org/10.1093/qopen/qoae001
Haaker, T., Bouwman, H., Janssen, W. and De Reuver, M., 2017. Business model stress testing: a practical approach to test the robustness of a business model. Futures 89: 14-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2017.04.003
Hamam, M., D’Amico, M. and Di Vita, G., 2024. Advances in the insect industry within a circular bioeconomy context: a research agenda. Environmental Sciences Europe 36: 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-024-00861-5
Henchion, M., Hayes, M., Mullen, A.M., Fenelon, M. and Tiwari, B., 2017. Future protein supply and demand: strategies and factors influencing a sustainable equilibrium. Foods 6: 53. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods6070053
IPIFF, n.d. EU Novel Food Legislation. Brussels, Belgium. Available at: https://ipiff.org/insects-novel-food-eu-legislation-2/ (Accessed at 29 June 2023).
IPIFF, 2020. Edible insects on the European market. Brussels, Belgium. Available at: https://ipiff.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/10-06-2020-IPIFF-edible-insects-market-factsheet.pdf (Accessed at 26 June 2023).
IPIFF, 2021. An overview of the European market of insects as feed. Brussels, Belgium. Available at: https://ipiff.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Apr-27-2021-IPIFF_The-European-market-of-insects-as-feed.pdf (Accessed at 22 June 2023).
Klobučar, T. and Fisher, D.N., 2023. When do we start caring about insect welfare? Neotropical Entomology 52: 5-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13744-022-01023-z
Lähteenmäki-Uutela, A., Marimuthu, S.B. and Meijer, N., 2021. Regulations on insects as food and feed: a global comparison. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 7: 849-856. https://doi.org/10.3920/JIFF2020.0066
Le Feon, S., Thévenot, A., Maillard, F., Macombe, C., Forteau, L. and Aubin, J., 2019. Life cycle assessment of fish fed with insect meal: case study of mealworm inclusion in trout feed, in France. Aquaculture 500: 82-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2018.06.051
Lezoche, M., Hernandez, J.E., Dı́az, M.D.M.E.A., Panetto, H. and Kacprzyk, J., 2020. Agri-food 4.0: a survey of the supply chains and technologies for the future agriculture. Computers in industry 117: 103187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2020.103187
Madau, F.A., Arru, B., Furesi, R. and Pulina, P., 2020. Insect farming for feed and food production from a circular business model perspective. Sustainability 12: 5418. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135418
Marberg, A., Van Kranenburg, H. and Korzilius, H., 2017. The big bug: the legitimation of the edible insect sector in the Netherlands. Food Policy 71: 111-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.07.008
Meijer, N., Van Raamsdonk, L.W., Gerrits, E.W. and Appel, M.J., 2023. The use of animal by-products in a circular bioeconomy: time for a TSE road map 3? Heliyon 9: e14021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14021
Meyer, A.M., Meijer, N., Hoek-Van den Hil, E.F. and Van der Fels-Klerx, H.J., 2021. Chemical food safety hazards of insects reared for food and feed. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 7: 823-831. https://doi.org/10.3920/JIFF2020.0085
Niyonsaba, H.H., Höhler, J., Van der Fels-Klerx, H.J., Slijper, T., Alleweldt, F., Kara, S., Zanoli, R., Costa, A.I.A., Peters, M. and Meuwissen, M.P.M., 2023a. Barriers, risks and risk management strategies in European insect supply chains. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 9: 691-705. https://doi.org/10.3920/JIFF2022.0100
Niyonsaba, H.H., Groeneveld, I.L., Vermeij, I., Höhler, J., Van der Fels-Klerx, H.J. and Meuwissen, M.P.M., 2023b. Profitability of insect production for T. molitor farms in the Netherlands. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed: 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1163/23524588-20230154
Payne, C., Caparros Megido, R., Dobermann, D., Frédéric, F., Shockley, M. and Sogari, G., 2019. Insects as food in the global north – the evolution of the entomophagy movement. In: Sogari, G., Mora, C. and Menozzi, D. (eds.) Edible insects in the food sector: methods, current applications and perspectives. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 11-26.
Perera, R., 2017. The PESTLE analysis. Nerdynaut, Avissawella, Sri Lanka.
Phi, C.P.V., Walraven, M., Bézagu, M., Lefranc, M. and Ray, C., 2020. Industrial symbiosis in insect production – a sustainable eco-efficient and circular business model. Sustainability 12: 10333. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410333
Pinotti, L. and Ottoboni, M., 2021. Substrate as insect feed for bio-mass production. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 7: 585-596. https://doi.org/10.3920/JIFF2020.0110
Rabobank, 2021. No longer crawling: insect protein to come of age in the 2020s (Rabo Research Report). Available at: https://research.rabobank.com/far/en/sectors/animal-protein/insect-protein-to-come-of-age-in-the-2020s.html (Accessed at 23 June 2023).
Saatkamp, H.W., Aartsma, Y., Hogeveen, H., Augustijn, M., Baumann, A., Beukeboom, L.W., Borghuis, A., Bovenkerk, B., Van der Bruggen, M., Companjen, M.H., Dörper, A., Salles, J.F., Van der Fels-Klerx, H.J., Fischer, A.R.H., Haenen, O., Hosseini, A., Van den Hurk, J., Jacobs, P., Jansen, W.L., De Jong, M., Kortsmit, Y., Leipertz, M., Lommers, H., Van Loon, J.J.A., Van Loon, M.S., Maistrou, S., Niermans, K., Schmitt, E., Shah, P.N., Spaans, A., Veldkamp, T., Verweij, M.F., Vogel, M., Kokota, A.V., Wertheim, B. and Dicke, M., 2022. Development of sustainable business models for insect-fed poultry production: opportunities and risks. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 8: 1469-1483. https://doi.org/10.3920/JIFF2021.0216
Smetana, S., Spykman, R. and Heinz, V., 2021. Environmental aspects of insect mass production. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 7: 553-571. https://doi.org/10.3920/JIFF2020.0116
Spartano, S. and Grasso, S., 2021. UK consumers’ willingness to try and pay for eggs from insect-fed hens. Future Foods 3: 100026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2021.100026
Teece, D.J., 2010. Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long range planning 43: 172-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.003
Van der Weele, C., Feindt, P., Van der Goot, A.J., Van Mierlo, B. and Van Boekel, M., 2019. Meat alternatives: an integrative comparison. Trends in Food Science & Technology 88: 505-512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2019.04.018
Van Huis, A. and Oonincx, D.G., 2017. The environmental sustainability of insects as food and feed. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 37: 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0452-8
Van Peer, M., Frooninckx, L., Coudron, C., Berrens, S., Álvarez, C., Deruytter, D., Verheyen, G. and Van Miert, S., 2021. Valorisation potential of using organic side streams as feed for Tenebrio molitor, Acheta domesticus and Locusta migratoria. Insects 12: 796. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12090796
Vauterin, A., Steiner, B., Sillman, J. and Kahiluoto, H., 2021. The potential of insect protein to reduce food-based carbon footprints in Europe: the case of broiler meat production. Journal of Cleaner Production 320: 128799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128799
Veldkamp, T., Claeys, J., Haenen, O.L.M., Van Loon, J.J.A. and Spranghers, T., 2021. The basics of edible insect rearing: handbook for the production chain. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-902-2
Veldkamp, T., Meijer, N., Alleweldt, F., Deruytter, D., Van Campenhout, L., Gasco, L., Roos, N., Smetana, S., Fernandes, A. and Van der Fels-Klerx, H.J., 2022. Overcoming technical and market barriers to enable sustainable large-scale production and consumption of insect proteins in Europe: a SUSINCHAIN perspective. Insects 13: 281. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13030281
Wade, M. and Hoelle, J., 2020. A review of edible insect industrialization: scales of production and implications for sustainability. Environmental Research Letters 15: 123013. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aba1c1
Widya Yudha, S., Tjahjono, B. and Kolios, A., 2018. A PESTLE policy mapping and stakeholder analysis of Indonesia’s fossil fuel energy industry. Energies 11: 1272. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11051272
