Sustainability Atlas
Biology & Biotechnology·15 min read··...

How-to: implement Bioprocess scale-up & biomanufacturing economics with a lean team (without regressions)

A step-by-step rollout plan with milestones, owners, and metrics. Focus on data quality, standards alignment, and how to avoid measurement theater.

Ninety percent of biomanufacturing technologies fail to transition from laboratory bench to commercial production. This sobering statistic, drawn from comprehensive industry analyses in 2024, reveals a fundamental truth: bioprocess scale-up is less about biological elegance and more about rigorous data governance, standards alignment, and the disciplined avoidance of what practitioners call "measurement theatre"—the collection of metrics that look impressive on dashboards but fail to predict actual production outcomes.

For UK sustainability leads navigating the £22.2 billion biotechnology sector, the imperative is clear. The UK's next-generation biomanufacturing market is forecast to grow at 12.3% CAGR through 2035, outpacing the global average of 8-10%. Yet capturing this growth requires lean teams to move beyond aspirational sustainability claims toward verifiable, standards-compliant environmental performance. This playbook provides the operational framework to achieve precisely that.

Why It Matters

The UK biomanufacturing sector stands at a critical inflection point. According to the BioIndustry Association, UK biotech raised £3.5 billion in total investment during 2024—a 94% increase from 2023 and the highest figure since 2021. Venture capital funding alone reached £2.06 billion across 111 deals, with 51% of capital originating from UK investors and 26% from North America, signalling renewed international confidence in British biotechnology.

This investment surge coincides with intensifying regulatory pressure. The UK's commitment to net zero by 2050 demands that manufacturing, which generates approximately 14% of national carbon emissions, undergoes fundamental transformation. Biomanufacturing offers a pathway: the Systemiq and GFI Europe analysis projects that precision and biomass fermentation could add £9.8 billion to the UK economy by 2050, with exports potentially reaching £2.4 billion.

However, the economic opportunity masks significant execution risk. UKRI has invested £11.5 million specifically in sustainable biomanufacturing innovation, recognising that successful scale-up requires more than capital—it demands robust measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems that can withstand regulatory scrutiny and investor due diligence. The difference between projects that achieve commercial viability and those that stall at pilot scale often reduces to data quality: whether teams can demonstrate genuine environmental additionality rather than paper improvements.

The stakes extend beyond individual companies. The UK Food Standards Agency has launched a dedicated Innovation Research Programme in fermentation science, while Imperial College London's Microbial Food Hub and the National Alternative Protein Innovation Centre at the University of Leeds represent significant public investment in fermentation research infrastructure. These institutions require industry partners capable of generating publication-quality data that advances both commercial and scientific objectives.

Key Concepts

Bioprocess refers to the use of living organisms or their components to manufacture products at industrial scale. In the context of biomanufacturing economics, bioprocess encompasses not merely fermentation or cell culture but the entire system of inputs, transformations, and outputs—including feedstock sourcing, energy consumption, waste streams, and downstream processing. A rigorous bioprocess framework treats biological production as an integrated engineering challenge rather than isolated unit operations.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) provides the methodological foundation for quantifying environmental impacts across a product's entire existence. ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 establish the international framework, while ISO 14067:2018 (confirmed current after 2024 review) specifically addresses carbon footprint of products. For biomanufacturing, LCA must carefully distinguish biogenic carbon—carbon absorbed during biomass growth and potentially released at end-of-life—from fossil carbon emissions. The established −1/+1 approach credits carbon uptake during feedstock cultivation and accounts for release upon product degradation, but application requires meticulous boundary definition and sensitivity analysis.

Bioreactors are the vessels in which biological transformations occur at scale. The choice of bioreactor architecture profoundly influences both process economics and environmental footprint. Traditional stirred-tank reactors require energy-intensive mechanical agitation; air-lift fermenters, pioneered by Quorn's 40-metre vertical systems, achieve comparable mixing through gas circulation, substantially reducing electricity consumption. For filamentous organisms that increase broth viscosity, reactor selection represents a make-or-break design decision affecting decades of operational economics.

Carbon Fixation describes the biological conversion of atmospheric or industrial CO₂ into organic compounds. In biomanufacturing contexts, carbon fixation potential influences whether a process achieves carbon neutrality, carbon negativity, or merely reduced emissions relative to petrochemical alternatives. Rigorous quantification requires distinguishing between carbon temporarily stored in products, carbon permanently sequestered, and carbon that cycles back to atmosphere within product lifespans.

Risk in bioprocess scale-up encompasses biological variability (strain stability, contamination, productivity drift), engineering uncertainty (heat transfer limitations, mixing heterogeneity at scale), and economic exposure (feedstock price volatility, energy costs, regulatory timelines). Effective scale-up requires probabilistic thinking rather than deterministic projections.

Additionality represents the critical test for sustainability claims: does the intervention deliver environmental benefits that would not have occurred under business-as-usual conditions? Measurement theatre occurs when teams report outputs (fermentations completed, batches produced) rather than outcomes (verified emissions reductions, demonstrated resource efficiency improvements relative to appropriate baselines).

What's Working and What Isn't

What's Working

Air-lift fermentation architecture for filamentous organisms. Quorn's 155m³ continuous fermenters, operating at 40 metres height, demonstrate that organism-specific reactor design can simultaneously improve process economics and reduce environmental footprint. The air-lift approach eliminates mechanical impellers, reducing capital costs and ongoing energy consumption while accommodating the high-viscosity broths characteristic of fungal fermentation. This design philosophy—matching engineering choices to biological requirements rather than forcing organisms into standard equipment—has enabled Quorn to target 8 billion annual servings by 2030 from facilities requiring substantially less land than equivalent protein production through conventional agriculture.

University-industry partnerships for process intensification. The two-year collaboration between Marlow Foods and Teesside University's National Horizons Centre exemplifies productive knowledge transfer. Using mass spectrometry for molecular-level analysis of mycoprotein behaviour, the partnership refined fermentation process control to improve product quality while reducing production costs and environmental impact. Such collaborations address the capability gap that lean teams face: accessing sophisticated analytical techniques without maintaining specialist equipment and personnel in-house.

Digital twin technology and computational fluid dynamics for scale-up prediction. The Centre for Process Innovation (CPI) has deployed process analytical technology (PAT) and machine learning-driven analytics to virtualise bioprocess behaviour before physical scale-up. These tools enable systematic exploration of operating parameter space, identification of scale-sensitive phenomena, and early detection of design choices that will create bottlenecks at commercial volumes. For lean teams, virtual experimentation at marginal cost replaces expensive physical trial-and-error.

Techno-economic analysis integrated from proof-of-concept. Research published in Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems demonstrates that formal economic modelling should commence immediately after proof-of-concept, not after pilot trials. For a hypothetical 13,000 tonnes/year mycoprotein facility, fermentation vessels alone represent approximately £47 million capital expenditure, translating to £1.40/kg capex cost over 30-year depreciation. Teams that model these economics early can identify whether their process has any path to cost competitiveness before committing to expensive scale-up campaigns.

What Isn't Working

Measurement theatre in sustainability reporting. Too many biomanufacturing projects report activity metrics (fermentation runs completed, grant milestones achieved) rather than outcome metrics (verified GHG reductions against defined baselines, demonstrated energy intensity improvements). This creates a credibility gap: investors and regulators increasingly demand third-party verified claims aligned with recognised standards. The ISO 14067 framework exists precisely to enable such verification, yet many projects lack the data infrastructure to support rigorous carbon footprint assessment.

Underestimating downstream processing complexity. Fermentation represents only the first stage of biomanufacturing; recovery, purification, and formulation frequently constitute 50-70% of total production costs. Teams that optimise upstream bioprocessing while treating downstream as an afterthought discover that impressive fermentation yields cannot translate into economically viable products. The Ghost of Scale-Up phenomenon, documented in 2024 analyses of precision fermentation ventures, reflects this imbalance: pilot-scale success generating investor enthusiasm, followed by commercial-scale failure when total system costs become apparent.

Regulatory capacity mismatch with innovation pace. The UK Food Standards Agency faces significant application backlogs for novel food approvals, creating timeline uncertainty that undermines investment cases. Teams cannot reliably project when products will reach market, making economic modelling dependent on optimistic regulatory assumptions that may not materialise. This systemic issue requires industry-government coordination beyond what individual companies can address.

Feedstock cost exposure. Many bioprocesses depend on purified glucose or other refined substrates that represent substantial operating costs. For a commercial mycoprotein facility, annual glucose expenditure can exceed £1 million—a cost that scales linearly with production volume. Teams using agricultural commodity inputs face price volatility that introduces economic risk difficult to hedge over multi-year scale-up programmes.

Key Players

Established Leaders

Sartorius AG provides bioprocess equipment spanning single-use bioreactors, sensors, and automation systems. Their portfolio addresses the full development pathway from laboratory screening through commercial manufacturing, with particular strength in flexible manufacturing systems that reduce capital intensity for emerging biomanufacturers.

Thermo Fisher Scientific offers integrated solutions across fermentation, purification, and analytics. Their bioprocessing division supports both established pharmaceutical clients and emerging biotechnology ventures, providing equipment, consumables, and technical services that lean teams can access without building internal capabilities.

Marlow Foods (Quorn) represents the UK's most commercially successful biomanufacturing scale-up, having transitioned from laboratory research in the 1960s through pilot production in the 1970s to current operations producing hundreds of thousands of tonnes annually. Their technical innovations in continuous air-lift fermentation established manufacturing paradigms now being adapted for next-generation products.

Danaher Corporation through its life sciences segment provides analytical instruments, bioprocessing equipment, and diagnostics technologies. Their Cytiva brand specifically serves biomanufacturing clients with chromatography systems, filtration equipment, and single-use technologies.

GE Healthcare Life Sciences (now part of Cytiva) continues to supply bioprocess development services and manufacturing technologies. Their FlexFactory modular manufacturing platform enables faster facility deployment than traditional construction approaches.

Emerging Startups

New Wave Biotech (London) has raised €1.2 million for AI-powered bioprocess simulation software. Their Bioprocess Foresight platform conducts techno-economic calculations in hours rather than months, at subscription costs starting from £83/month versus tens of thousands for traditional consulting approaches. This democratises sophisticated analysis for lean teams.

CellulaREvolution develops continuous bioprocessing technology including peptide coating systems and serum-free bioreactors designed for scale-up. Their approach addresses the batch-to-continuous transition that many biological manufacturers struggle to implement.

3F BIO (University of Strathclyde spinout) has developed an integrated bioethanol and mycoprotein fermentation process using wheat hydrolysate sidestreams rather than purified glucose. Their zero-waste process targets production costs below 50% of conventional mycoprotein and 25% of beef protein.

Ascend Gene & Cell Therapies (Potters Bar) raised €122 million in 2024 Series B funding for manufacturing and process development services supporting gene and cell therapies from clinical through commercial scale. They represent the contract manufacturing approach to scale-up risk mitigation.

Clean Food Group (London) has raised €8.9 million to develop sustainable alternative fats and oils through fermentation. Their focus on food ingredient applications addresses a different market segment than whole-product fermentation ventures.

Key Investors & Funders

UKRI (UK Research and Innovation) through Innovate UK, BBSRC, and EPSRC has deployed £12 million in sustainable bio-based materials and manufacturing R&D funding. Their competition-based grant programmes support project costs of £300,000 to £1 million per award, with explicit emphasis on step-change improvements in sustainable biomanufacturing.

Octopus Ventures (London) actively invests in advanced therapeutics, diagnostics, biomanufacturing, AI drug discovery, life science tools, and industrial biotech from pre-seed through Series B stages. Their pan-European focus with US presence makes them a key connector between UK ventures and international capital.

Syncona (London) provides patient capital specifically structured for life sciences ventures requiring extended development timelines. Their signalled renewed backing for the UK sector in 2025 suggests continued commitment to British biotechnology.

Oxford Sciences Enterprises manages over £1 billion through a University of Oxford partnership, investing across life science, deep tech, and healthtech at all stages. Their proximity to academic research enables early identification of commercially promising technologies.

Sofinnova Partners (Paris/London) manages €4 billion across biotech, medtech, industrial biotech, and digital medicine investments from seed through late-stage. Their 2025 fundraise of €1.2 billion for 50-60 new companies indicates substantial deployment capacity.

Examples

Quorn's Continuous Fermentation Achievement. Marlow Foods operates 40-metre air-lift fermenters with 155m³ capacity running continuous fermentation where medium is fed in while broth is simultaneously harvested. This architecture produces mycoprotein at scale using substantially less energy per kilogram than stirred-tank alternatives. Their February 2024 partnership with Teesside University's National Horizons Centre employed mass spectrometry for molecular-level process analysis, resulting in quantified improvements to product quality, production costs, and environmental impact. The Net Positive Report 2024 confirmed their position as one of the most land-efficient protein production systems globally.

UK-CPI's Digital-First Scale-Up Services. The Centre for Process Innovation provides bioprocess development infrastructure including computational fluid dynamics modelling, process analytical technology implementation, and digital twin creation. Their approach enables virtual experimentation before physical scale-up, reducing both timeline and cost for ventures moving from proof-of-concept toward commercial production. For lean teams lacking specialist equipment, CPI's facilities provide access to high-throughput experimentation, advanced analytical techniques, and pilot-scale validation mirroring industrial environments.

3F BIO's Waste-Stream Integration. This University of Strathclyde spinout, operating through Glasgow's Industrial Biotechnology Innovation Centre, has developed an integrated process producing both bioethanol and mycoprotein from wheat processing sidestreams. By avoiding purified glucose feedstocks, their zero-waste approach targets production costs representing <50% of conventional mycoprotein manufacturing. Their use of the Rapid Bioprocess Prototyping Centre demonstrates how academic-industry infrastructure enables technology validation without venture-owned facilities.

Action Checklist

  • Establish baseline metrics aligned with ISO 14040/14044 LCA framework before initiating scale-up activities, ensuring functional unit definition, system boundaries, and cut-off criteria are documented
  • Implement ISO 14067:2018 carbon footprint methodology with explicit treatment of biogenic carbon using the −1/+1 approach, specifying IPCC GWP values and time horizons employed
  • Conduct techno-economic analysis immediately after proof-of-concept, modelling capital expenditure, operating costs, and production economics across realistic volume scenarios
  • Design reactor architecture matched to organism characteristics rather than defaulting to standard stirred-tank configurations—consider air-lift systems for filamentous organisms, continuous processing for stable production strains
  • Develop downstream processing cost models with equivalent rigour to fermentation optimisation, recognising that recovery and purification frequently dominate total production economics
  • Engage university partnerships for analytical capabilities beyond internal team capacity, leveraging institutions such as the National Horizons Centre or Imperial College Microbial Food Hub
  • Structure data collection to support third-party verification from project inception, avoiding retroactive data reconstruction that undermines credibility
  • Model feedstock price sensitivity across historical and projected commodity price ranges, identifying process designs that maintain viability under adverse scenarios
  • Map regulatory pathways and timeline distributions probabilistically, incorporating uncertainty into business case projections
  • Establish outcome metrics distinguishing genuine additionality from activity reporting, ensuring sustainability claims can withstand investor and regulatory scrutiny

FAQ

Q: How do we distinguish genuine sustainability metrics from measurement theatre? A: Genuine metrics demonstrate outcomes—verified emissions reductions against appropriate baselines, demonstrated resource efficiency improvements, third-party audited claims aligned with recognised standards such as ISO 14067. Measurement theatre reports activities: batches completed, equipment utilised, grant milestones achieved. The test is whether metrics would satisfy a sceptical external auditor seeking evidence of additionality—environmental benefits that would not have occurred under business-as-usual conditions. If metrics cannot support that inquiry, they represent internal tracking rather than sustainability verification.

Q: What LCA standards should UK biomanufacturing teams align with? A: ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 provide the foundational framework for life cycle assessment. ISO 14067:2018, confirmed current after 2024 review, specifically addresses carbon footprint of products and should guide GHG quantification. These standards require explicit treatment of biogenic carbon, sensitivity analysis, and uncertainty quantification. The UK's alignment with EU frameworks including the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) methodology may also be relevant for products targeting European markets, though the PEF transition phase concluded at end of 2024.

Q: How can lean teams access scale-up infrastructure without building owned facilities? A: The UK offers substantial shared infrastructure. CPI provides bioprocess development and scale-up services including pilot-scale facilities, advanced modelling, and analytical capabilities. Contract development and manufacturing organisations (CDMOs) such as Ascend Gene & Cell Therapies offer outsourced manufacturing from clinical through commercial scale. University partnerships—exemplified by Marlow Foods' collaboration with Teesside University—enable access to specialist analytical techniques. Innovate UK grant programmes can fund access to these facilities for qualifying projects.

Q: What typically causes biomanufacturing projects to fail during scale-up? A: The 90% failure rate reflects multiple mechanisms. Biological factors include strain instability at scale, contamination in larger vessels, and productivity decline under commercial operating conditions. Engineering factors include heat transfer limitations, mixing heterogeneity, and downstream processing bottlenecks. Economic factors include feedstock costs that scale linearly while revenues may face market saturation, regulatory delays that extend timelines beyond investor patience, and capital intensity that requires funding capacity beyond team access. Successful navigation requires probabilistic planning across all dimensions rather than optimistic single-point projections.

Q: How do we handle biogenic carbon accounting in our LCA? A: The established approach credits carbon uptake during biomass growth (−1) and accounts for release at end-of-life (+1). This requires defining system boundaries carefully: is analysis cradle-to-gate or cradle-to-grave? What is the expected product lifetime and end-of-life pathway? ISO 14067, PAS 2050, and the GHG Protocol all build on this framework but differ in implementation details. Best practice reports biogenic and fossil carbon separately, specifies assumptions about temporary versus permanent storage, and conducts sensitivity analysis around uncertain parameters. The DOE Best Practices for BiCRS (January 2025) provides additional guidance for systems involving biomass carbon removal and storage.

Sources

Topics

bioprocessscaleLCAbioreactorscarbon fixationriskadditionality

Related Articles