Analyzing bio-economy value requires focusing on assets rather than commodities

Evidence

As the discussion above illustrates, rethinking value in the bio-economy entails incorporating the firms and their assets into the analysis, and not primarily focusing on commodities or commodification. As some recent work in STS shows (e.g., Lezaun and Montgomery 2015; Martin 2015), it is important to analyze how value is understood by financial actors and how they act on that knowledge. Accounting for the value of life science businesses, for example, requires an analysis of their (tangible and intangible) assets—which correspond to a set of liabilities (e.g., equity and debt)—and how these are conceptualized in corporate finance (e.g., Brealey et al. 2003). — Kean Birch, Rethinking Value in the Bio-economy, 68

Categorization

  • QUESTION: The shift from commodities/commodification to assets/assetization marks a real epistemological break in STS literature worth chasing down in the cited works (Muniesa, Doganova).
  • XREF: connects to: Life sciences firms may never produce products, so valuation is prospective rather than embodied — Kean Birch, Rethinking Value in the Bio-economy:…, 38; Understanding value requires studying the assets underpinning firm valuation, not commodity production. — Kean Birch, Rethinking Value in the Bio-economy:…, 39; Value in the bio-economy is better theorized through assetization than commodification. — Kean Birch, Rethinking Value in the Bio-economy:…, 112 (+8 more)

Broader Connections