Sustainability & Social Innovation

Technological, Commercial, Organizational

and Societal (TCOS) analysis of insect
protein powder technology.

Author: Andy Vicente

Introduction
Entrepreneurship and innovation have been extensively addressed as the main source of
modern economic growth and, in recent years, come to solve most social and environmental
problems (Hall et al., 2017). However, it is important to accurately predict and assess as many
of the likely impacts of new technologies as possible due to the diversity of stakeholder
positions and interests. Such a vast task would be inconsistent and time consuming without
the use of the Technological, Commercial, Organisational and Societal (TCOS) theoretical
framework for innovation uncertainty. The TCOS framework is a widely recognised and
valuable tool for the study and management of uncertainties associated with innovative
technologies. It enables entrepreneurs to identify potential risks and opportunities associated
with innovating. This information can then be used to make informed strategic decisions about
the deployment of the new technology.

Insect Powder Protein or Insect Protein Powder (IPP) is a new foodstuff, supplement or
additive produced from cultivated insects (Kosečková et al., 2022). Yan (2022), Tzompa-Sosa
et al. (2023) and Van Huis and Oonincx (2017) agree that there is a growing interest in IPP in
Europe to achieve protein supply, food diversity and environmental sustainability. Payne et al.
(2015) state that IPP has even been endorsed by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of
the United Nations. According to Liceaga (2021), grinding the insects into an unrecognisable
ingredient is an effective practice to reduce negative human perceptions. However, as with
many new technologies, opinions and interests vary. Thinking about potential impacts and
considering all available stakeholders at the early stages of technology development is key to
avoiding undesirable outcomes and costly adjustments later on. The TCOS framework can be
used to analyse the IPP technology based on its inherent technological, commercial,
organisational and societal uncertainties.

For the purposes of this analysis, each category of uncertainty is developed individually to
provide a clearer and stronger argument. During the analysis, it is common to find that some
barriers or opportunities can be assigned to more than one category. In these cases, they are
assigned to the category where their impact is more relevant.
TCOS analysis
Technical uncertainties
IPP is a relatively new and innovative technology that is still in the early stages of development.
The processing of insects into IPP involves rearing, lipid extraction, chitin separation,
temperature processing, sterilising/pasteurisation, drying and, in some cases, fermentation
(Liceaga, 2021).

Opportunities
There is significant potential for technological innovation in the production of IPP. According
to Igini (2023), new production methods such as vertical farming or bioreactor technology can
offer increased efficiency and scaling. In addition, the development of new insect strains
optimised for protein production can lead to higher efficiency. This scalability also has a lower
environmental footprint compared to traditional livestock production (Christina et al., 2018;
Mota, N. et al., 2020).

Salter (2019) notes another aspect of insect production's sustainability, which is that it does
not rely on growing human edible crops, as is the case with most livestock production. There
is also the potential for product diversification as production capacity increases, as well as the
development of new insect-based foods and ingredients for use in more applications.

Hurdles
Some of the technological hurdles are also related to the efficiency of the production, the
manufacturing scalability, and the potential impact of environmental factors on production
(Lundy and Parrella, 2015).

Further investigation is needed to improve the production processes to achieve the attributed
benefits. There are also health and safety concerns such as bio-pathogens, zoonotic agents,
allergens and their ability to accumulate toxins that need to be addressed when considering
their inclusion in the human diet (Salter, 2019; Mota, 2020). In addition, there is a risk of using
the inappropriate insects, or collecting them at an inadequate developmental stage, or using
an incorrect processing technique. Further attention needs to be paid to the exposure of
insects to contamination and how their biology deals with it.

Commercial uncertainties
Opportunities
From a commercial perspective, Yan (2022) agrees with Tzompa-Sosa et al. (2023) that IPP
has a relatively better market acceptance than previous insect protein alternatives.
Consumers are more receptive when insect products are incorporated as IPP or flours
because they become invisible. As more consumers become aware of the product and its
benefits, demand may increase and the market may expand (Liceaga, 2021). There are also
opportunities to target niche markets such as the sports supplement market, environmentally
conscious consumers and pharmaceutical products.

As the global population grows and traditional protein sources become less sustainable, the
demand for alternative protein sources will increase. Byrne (2021) predicts that demand for
insect protein will grow fifty-fold by 2023. In addition, there is an increasing amount of
investment and funding available to companies working on these innovative food
technologies. This may provide opportunities for insect protein powder manufacturers to
secure the capital needed for research, development and commercialisation.

Hurdles
Currently, the market for IPP is still emerging and there is a lack of consumer awareness and
acceptance of the product in countries where entomophagy is not traditional (Tzompa-Sosa
et al., 2023). This is evident in the United States and Europe, where consumers are reluctant
to consume insect-based products (Liceaga, 2021). This means that there may be significant
barriers to adoption and it may take time for the market to mature.
In addition, there are challenges around the price competitiveness of the product compared to
other protein sources. As the technology is still developing, the high cost of IPP production
makes it difficult to compete with other protein sources such as fishmeal and soy protein (Mota
et al., 2020; Carpenter, 2021).
Organisational uncertainties
Opportunities
From an organisational perspective, there is potential for collaboration and partnerships
between companies involved in insect protein powder technology. Sharing resources and
knowledge can help to reduce costs and accelerate the development of the technology (Byrne,
2020). Moreover, companies can adopt different strategies to take advantage of insect
diversity and differentiate themselves.

From the perspective of the conditions to be met for the customer to benefit from the product,
it can be said that IPP can be mixed with different foods and ingredients and has a long shelf
life (Yan, 2022).

Hurdles
One of the main organisational challenges associated with IPP technology is resource
allocation. Developing and scaling this technology requires significant investment in R&D,
production facilities and marketing (Kok, 2021). Additionally, navigating complex regulatory
frameworks and managing relationships with suppliers and customers can be challenging
(Liceaga, 2021; Reverberi, 2021; MacDonald, 2021).
Insect protein production requires less space and resources, but it is important to develop
efficient supply chains and distribution channels to ensure that the product reaches consumers
in a timely manner. Locating facilities close to sustainable feed sources such as farm waste
could be attractive, but there is a risk of unwanted aerial pesticide releases that could
potentially harm insects. Developing measures to address this risk will add cost to technology
development.

Societal uncertainties
Opportunities
Byrne (2020) affirms that managers of major retailers are already recognising the potential of
IPP to help their supply chains achieve environmental sustainability. There is an opportunity
for IPP producers, as well as other companies that use the product, to meet the demands of
green stakeholders and society at large for more environmentally friendly products.

Insect protein production can have a positive social impact, especially in regions where
traditional protein sources are not readily available (Baiano, 2020). This can create
opportunities for producers to market their products as socially responsible and to support
development in these regions. Furthermore, it is generally considered to be more ethical than
traditional livestock production (Kosečková et al., 2022), as it involves less animal suffering
and a lower environmental footprint. This can be attractive to consumers concerned about
animal welfare and sustainability.

Hurdles
Liceaga (2021) argues that even though arguments regarding environmental and health
benefits are strong drivers for people to move to a different protein source, positive evaluations
of taste and ingestion experiences carry a lot of weight to gain more acceptance in society.
This is confirmed by Gravel and Doyen (2019), with a focus on society's reluctance towards
edible insects in Western countries. Furthermore, policies, food regulations and general
societal expectations in the United States and Europe state that only insects that are intended
as food can be considered as such. Therefore, human consumption insect should not be
harvested from wild nature and must be reared in permitted cultivation facilities.
Conclusions
The TCOS framework is not the solution to the uncertainties faced by IPP producers, but it is
a powerful tool that helps to consider the interests of as many stakeholders as possible and
to avoid undesirable outcomes. The application of this analysis in the early stages of
innovation development is key to ensuring that valuable resources are not wasted as a result
of poor decisions.

Overall, the technological, commercial, organisational and societal uncertainties associated

with IPP production present both challenges and opportunities for entrepreneurs/innovators.
By addressing ethical concerns, working with regulators, engaging with consumers, promoting
social impact and fostering collaboration, producers can work to overcome these uncertainties
and build public trust and acceptance of this emerging technology.
References

Baiano, A. (2020) Edible insects: An overview on nutritional characteristics, safety, farming,

production technologies, Regulatory Framework, and socio-economic and ethical
implications, Trends in Food Science & Technology. Elsevier. Available at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224419302511#sec3
(Accessed: April 2, 2023).

Byrne, J. (2020) Investment in insect production hits a new level, feednavigator.com. William
Reed Ltd. Available at: https://www.feednavigator.com/Article/2020/10/06/Investment-
in-insect-production-hits-a-new-level (Accessed: April 2, 2023).

Byrne, J. (2021) Demand for insect protein could hit 500,000 tons by 2030, Feednavigator.
Available at: https://www.feednavigator.com/Article/2021/02/24/Demand-for-insect-
protein-could-hit-500-000-tons-by-2030 (Accessed: April 2, 2023).

Carpenter, S. (2021) World's largest insect protein farm signals future of Food Supply, Forbes.
Forbes Magazine. Available at:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcarpenter/2021/12/31/worlds-largest-insect-protein-
farm-signals-future-of-food-supply/?sh=6960fbaa4606 (Accessed: April 2, 2023).

Christina, H. et al.. (2018) Brave, health-conscious, and environmentally friendly: Positive

impressions of insect food product consumers., Food Quality and Preference. Elsevier.
Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329318301071
(Accessed: April 2, 2023).

Gravel, A. and Doyen, A. (2019) The use of edible insect proteins in food: Challenges and
issues related to their functional properties, Innovative Food Science & Emerging
Technologies. Elsevier. Available at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1466856419313062#s0100
(Accessed: April 2, 2023).

Hall, J. et al. (2017) From Green Technology Development to green innovation: Inducing
regulatory adoption of Pathogen Detection Technology for Sustainable Forestry, Small
Business Economics. Springer Verlag. Available at: https://nottingham-
repository.worktribe.com/output/885926 (Accessed: April 1, 2023).

Igini, M. (2023) Insect farming: The sustainable future of food production, Earth.Org. Available
at: https://earth.org/insect-farming/ (Accessed: April 2, 2023).

Kok, R. (2021) Preliminary project design for insect production: part 4 – facility considerations,
Wageningen Academic Publishers. Available at:
https://www.wageningenacademic.com/doi/10.3920/JIFF2020.0164 (Accessed: April 2,
2023).

Kosečková, P. et al. (2022) Mineral profile of cricket powders, some edible insect species and
their implication for gastronomy, Elsevier. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis.
Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889157521005408
(Accessed: April 1, 2023).

Liceaga, A.M. (2021) Processing insects for use in the food and feed industry, Current Opinion
in Insect Science. Elsevier. Available at:
 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214574521000869 (Accessed:
April 2, 2023).

Lundy, M. and Parrella, M. (2015) Crickets are not a free lunch: Protein capture from scalable
organic side-streams via high-density populations of Acheta domesticus, PLOS ONE.
Public Library of Science. Available at:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0118785
(Accessed: April 2, 2023).

MacDonald, A. (2021) Driving innovation in insect farming, Genomics Research from

Technology Networks. Available at:
https://www.technologynetworks.com/genomics/blog/driving-innovation-in-insect-
farming-355093 (Accessed: April 2, 2023).

Mota, N. et al. (2020) The potential of insects as food sources – a review, Critical reviews in
food science and nutrition. Taylor & Francis. Available at:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408398.2019.1703170 (Accessed:
March 31, 2023).

Payne, C. et al. (2015) A systematic review of nutrient composition data available for twelve
commercially available edible insects, and comparison with reference values, Trends in
Food Science & Technology. Elsevier. Available at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092422441500237X (Accessed:
March 31, 2023).

Reverberi, M. (2021) The new packaged food products containing insects as an ingredient ,
Wageningen Academic Publishers. Available at:
https://www.wageningenacademic.com/doi/abs/10.3920/JIFF2020.0111 (Accessed:
April 2, 2023).

Salter, A.M. (2019) Insect Protein: A Sustainable and Healthy Alternative to Animal Protein?,
The Journal of Nutrition. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/nxy315 (Accessed: April
2, 2023).

Tzompa-Sosa, D.A. et al. (2023) Consumers' acceptance toward whole and processed
mealworms: A cross-country study in Belgium, China, Italy, Mexico, and the US, PLOS
ONE. Public Library of Science. Available at:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0279530
(Accessed: March 31, 2023).

Van Huis, A. and Oonincx, D. (2017) The environmental sustainability of insects as food and
feed. A review - agronomy for sustainable development, SpringerLink. Springer Paris.
Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13593-017-0452-8 (Accessed:
March 31, 2023).

Yan, X. (2022) Processing edible insects into powders: A review of available processes and
potential microbial inactivation methods, Wageningen Academic Publishers. Journal of
Insects as Food and Feed. Available at:
https://www.wageningenacademic.com/doi/10.3920/JIFF2021.0203 (Accessed: April 2,
2023).