INDUSTRIAL SYMBIOSIS

IN AN

EXTENDED PERSPECTIVE

INGER BOJSEN NEHM AND PROFESSOR JOHN P. ULHØIDepartment of Organisation & Management

The Aarhus School of BusinessFuglesangs Allé 4

DK-8210 Aarhus V, DenmarkTel: +45 8948 6688Fax: +45 8615 7629E-mail: ibo@asb.dk

AbstractThe environmental management systems (EMS's) used in industrytoday is mainly focussing on the intra-organisational level. Thispaper suggests that a realisation of sustainable development, amongother things, will require extending EMS’s from the intra-organisational to include the inter-organisational level. IndustrialSymbiosis is a concept borrowed from biology, which is about co-operation and exchange of waste materials among participatingcompanies. Industrial Symbiosis has an interesting opportunity toactively contribute to a sustainable development because itproduces a win-win situation. But despite these great potentialsIndustrial Symbiosis has some problems that need to be addressed.Based on a literature review and a discussion of the problems andpotentials of Industrial Symbiosis a revised framework is proposedwhich may improve the future success of its practical applicability.In closing future research needs, as well as implications for theory,practice, and policy makers are addressed.

1

Introduction

Present environmentalism dates back to the early 1960s and1970s. The book “Silent Spring” (Carson, 1962), which drewattention to the implications of the increasing use of pesticides,and the publication “The Tragedy of the Commons” (Hardin,1968), which exposed man’s preference for the maximisation ofself-interest, did a lot to spread environmental awareness amongthe general public. Two events from the early 1970s in particular -the Club of Rome’s report “Limits to Growth“ in 1972, and theUN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972- can be seen as important milestones in the development ofinternational environmental policy. In the 1980s, the introductionof the concept of “Development Without Destruction“ (Tolba,1976), “The Global Possible“ (Repetto, 1985), and, last but notleast, the report of the World Commission on Environment andDevelopment, “Our Common Future” (Development, 1987) shedlight on the role of market forces in the development, process andthe role of poverty and overpopulation in natural resourcedegradation.

These publications, which emphasised the need to recognise andbuild on common interests, were all based on the premise thatnatural systems (i.e. ecological systems) and human-made systems(i.e. economic systems) should not be seen separately, but must beaddressed in tandem. They further stressed that presentenvironmental problems require not so much zero development asless traditional growth and different kinds of development. Incontrast to the early years of the limits-to-growth debate,therefore, they saw the main environmental issues as being theuneven spatial distribution and exponential growth of thepopulation relative to the carrying capacity and insufficient andirrational use of natural resources (Turner, 1988). Thisdevelopmental trajectory has led to considerations, which argue fora more holistic approach to environmental actions and initiatives.One such example is the concept of Industrial Symbiosis, a conceptborrowed from biology, which has gained increasing attention inthe last decade.

2

The idea of borrowing concepts from biology is not new. On thecontrary, the social sciences have a long tradition of this (e.g. mostnotably population ecology and evolutionary economics). In thefield of Industrial Symbiosis it reflects an attempt to transferNature’s organisational principle of symbiosis to human-madesystems, such as industrial systems. An interesting feature ofindustrial ecosystems is the potential win-win situation that can bea result from symbiotic relationships, i.e. all symbionts win fromco-operating, and thus creating opportunities for improvedeconomic as well as environmental efficiency.

The paper is organised in the following way. After an introductionto the key concepts in the field of Industrial Symbiosis in section 2,a critically review of the existing framework of Industrial Symbiosisis carried out in section 3, where we argue that the framework needsto be expanded and redefined in order to improve its practicability.Section 4 follows up with a discussion of our proposal, includingsome of the potentials and limitations of the proposed framework.Section 5 addresses the implications for theory, practice andpolicy-making. Finally in section 6, there is a brief conclusionregarding the main points.

Industrial SymbiosisIndustrial Symbiosis is a fairly new interdisciplinary research field,which was first introduced, in the late 1980s by researchers arguingfor the necessity of increasing the recycling, reuse and substitutionof materials. This in turn meant approaching the industrial systemfrom an integrated point of view – as an industrial ecosystem(Frosch & Gallopoulos, 1989).

The industrial ecosystem concept is based on an analogy withnatural ecosystems. Natural ecosystems are interacting andinterdependent systems of organisms of varying degree ofcomplexity which live off each other, either consuming each otheror each other’s waste (Frosch, 1992; Allenby & Cooper, 1994).Put another way, the system evolves in such a way that anyavailable source of material or energy will be used by at least one of

3

the participating organisms in the system. Such ecosystems aretypically symbiotic.

According to Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary,symbiosis means ‘a living together’. In biology the term is used todescribe the living together of two or more dissimilar organisms[symbionts] in close association. A symbiotic relationship maytake the form of mutualism, commensalism, or parasitism. Withmutualism, all symbionts benefit from the association. Withcommensalism, none of the symbionts are harmed, and one ormore may benefit. With parasitism, one symbiont, the host, isharmed, while the other, the parasite, benefits. By and large, suchsystems are self-contained as well as self-sustained.

The phenomenon of symbiotic relationships appears at variousorganisational levels in biology, from the micro level of mutualsymbiosis, e.g. fungi and algae, which together form lichen, throughcommensal symbiosis, e.g. the flagellate protozoa, which inhabitthe intestines of termites, to the macro level, e.g. a tropical rainforest, an ecosystem which includes all three kinds of symbioses.The smaller and simpler symbiotic systems are, the more fragilethey become; i.e. symbiosis will cease if one of the organismswithdraws. Conversely, the larger and more complex symbioticsystems are, i.e. ecosystems such as lakes, rivers, forests, etc., theless likely they are to break down if one element is suddenlydestroyed.

Another term used in connection with Industrial Symbiosis ismetabolism (Ayres, 1989). The term metabolism is used in biologyto describe the sum total of chemical processes that occur in livingorganisms and cells, resulting in growth, production of energy,elimination of waste materials, etc. It was first introduced inindustrial systems as an analytic tool for analysing the total patternof energy and materials flows (Ayres, 1989). At the most abstractlevel of description, industrial metabolism is the whole integratedcollection of physical processes that convert raw materials andenergy and labour into finished products and wastes (Ayres, 1993).It has proved applicable in both whole industrial systems andindividual companies or industrial processes.

4

We use the concept of Industrial Symbiosis to describe co-operatingfirms organised according to the principle of symbiosis. See Table 1for an overview of the different terms used in connection with theIndustrial Symbiosis concept.

TABLE I: Key Terms and Definitions

Key terms Definition AuthorsIndustrialEcology

A research field where theindustrial system isapproached in an integratedway, as an industrial ecosystem

Ehrenfeld, 1992; Frosch,1992; Hileman, 1992;Jelinski et al., 1992; Patel,1992; Piasecki, 1992; Tibbs,1992; Allen, 1993; Lowe,1993; Allenby, 1994;Graedel & Allenby, 1995;Karamanos, 1995

Eco-systems Systems where companiesminimise waste and savemoney by using each other’swaste in the production. Basedon an analogy with natural eco-systems (symbiosis)

Frosch & Gallopoulos, 1989;Jelinski et al., 1992; Tibbs,1992; Allenby & Richards,1994; Ayres, 1994; Gertler,1995; Côté, 1997; Lowe etal., 1997

IndustrialSymbiosis

Covers the same as IndustrialEcology

Edgington, 1995; KCIS,1997

EcologicalIndustrial Parks(Eco-parks)

Area where industry isengaging in Industrial Ecology

Ayres, 1994; Fairfield, 1995;PCSD, 1996; Cohen-Rosenthal et al., 1997; Côté,1997; Lowe et al., 1997

Metabolism The integrated collection ofphysical processes that convertraw materials, labour, andenergy into finished productsand waste.

Tibbs, 1992; Ayres, 1993;Lowe, 1993; Ayres, 1997

Design forEnvironment

Process and product designthat takes environmentalissues into consideration

Lowe, 1993; Allenby, 1994;Allenby & Laudise, 1995;Allenby, Gonzalez & Raber,1996; Fiksel, 1996

Life CycleAssessment

Assessment of products totalaffect on the environment

Assies, 1991; Huppes, 1991;Lindfors, 1992; Weidema,1993; Ulhøi, 1995a;

5

As used here, industrial symbiosis refer to the organisationalprinciple of either symbiotic mutualism or commensalism. Theconcept of industrial metabolism refers to the total pattern ofinput- and output processes in human-made industrial systems.

The rationale of Industrial Symbiosis is that industry should imitatenature by transferring the idea of symbiotic relationships to theindustrial system in order to achieve more efficient manufacturingprocesses with a minimum of waste (Tibbs, 1992; Lowe, 1993;Szekely, 1996). An industrial ecosystem is a system where industryreuses products and recycles waste materials during manufacturing,thereby maximising the exploitation of resources and minimisingthe generation of waste.

Industrial Symbiosis has been defined in several ways, from moregeneral definitions, such as the total pattern of relationshipsbetween industrial activities, their products, and the environment(Patel, 1992), the study of the evolution of human industrial andeconomic systems (Allenby & Cooper, 1994), and the efficientinterchange of by-products and intermediates between industrialplayers (Tibbs, 1992), to more esoteric definitions, such as acorporate focus on toxic emissions per unit of resource used(Piasecki, 1992). A consensual definition describes IndustrialSymbiosis as a systemic organising framework that perceives theindustrial world as systems in the same sense as natural systems,embedded in local ecosystems and the global biosphere (Lowe,1993). According to Lowe et al. (1997), Industrial Symbiosisembraces all concepts for reducing negative impacts on nature andthe environment. It involves focusing less on the impacts of eachindustrial activity in isolation and more on the overall impact of allsuch activities. This means recognising that the industrial systemconsists of much more than separate stages of extraction,manufacturing, and disposal, and that these stages are linked acrosstime, distance, and economic sectors.

Jelinski et al. (1992:795) suggest that Industrial Symbiosis can beapproached in either of the following two ways: (i) in a material-specific approach; i.e. selecting a particular material or group of

6

materials and analysing the ways in which it flows though theindustrial ecosystem. Or (ii) in a product-specific approach; i.e.selecting a particular product and analysing the ways in which itsdifferent component materials flows can be modified or redirectedin order to optimise product-environment interaction.

Industrial Symbiosis is based on a systems perspective; i.e.perceiving industrial systems as part of a larger ecological whole. Itmeans thinking of waste not only as an output which can beprevented, but also as something that can be designed as part of theindustrial process product stream (Frosch, 1992). Closely related tothe systems approach is the extended life cycle perspective (Ulhøi,1995a). This seeks to optimise the total materials cycle fromvirgin material, through finished material, component, product,waste product, to ultimate disposal. Factors to be optimised include[physical] resources, energy, and capital (Graedel et al., 1993;Graedel & Allenby, 1995).

Industrial Symbiosis: Problems and PotentialsThe environmental management systems (EMS's) used in industrytoday are mainly concentrated at the intra-organisational level.This paper suggests that sustainable development require extendingEMS’s from the intra-organisational to the inter-organisationallevel.

Industrial Symbiosis, we argue, is an environmental managementperspective based on inter-organisational co-operation. Graedel etal. (1993) define Industrial Symbiosis as an industrial designapproach capable of maintaining a desirable carrying capacity whileat the same time allowing for a continued economic, cultural, andtechnological evolution. Or, differently put an increase inthroughput; i.e. ‘to do more with less’. Another interesting featureof Industrial Symbiosis is that reducing waste can conserveresources, reduce pollution, and save money at the same time(Duchin, 1992). In other words, an opportunity for having a win-win situation.

From a theoretical point of view, it may come as a surprise torealise how little attention Industrial Symbiosis has attracted among

7

industrialists and regulators. This may be due to several reasons.Firstly, there seems to be some confusion about terminology.Different authors tend to use different terms for basically the samething, e.g. industrial Symbiosis (Graedel et al., 1993), industrialsymbiosis (Edgington, 1995), industrial metabolism (Ayres, 1997)and industrial ecosystems (Allenby & Richards, 1994) are more orless used synonymously. This, we believe, may contribute tounnecessary confusion both inside and outside the researchcommunity.

Despite the straightforward analogy between natural and industrialsystems there are, however, some important differences (Allenby& Cooper, 1994). Firstly, biological systems operate in closedcircles; i.e. materials and energy circulate continuously within acomplex web of interactions in a self-contained and self-sustainedway. Industrial systems, on the other hand, are based on opensystems, i.e. where input is continuously added to keep themetabolism running. Secondly, biological communities are, by andlarge, localised, or relatively closely connected in time and space,whereas communities of firms tend to be very loosely connected intime and space. Thirdly, (mature) biological communities are self-organised without any centralised controlling function. Matureindustrial firms, on the other hand, are often hierarchical, with ahighly centralised controlling function. Fourthly, biologicalcommunities display moderation in processing rates andcomplexity in spatial patterns, while industrial systems tend to becharacterised by increasing bio-mass or throughput of energy ormaterials during their metabolism. Fifthly, biological organismsreproduce themselves, whereas firms produce products and services(not – normally – other firms). Finally, biological organisms tendto be highly specialised and unable to adapt to dynamic change.Industrial firms, however, need not be highly specialised and theycan fairly quickly change from one product or business to another.

Another interesting dimension of Industrial Symbiosis concerns thetype of industrial symbiosis in question, i.e. spontaneous anduncoordinated symbioses or well-designed and engineeredsymbioses. We therefore propose a distinction between: (i) non-planned industrial symbioses; i.e. realised through an evolutionary

8

process of decentralised bottom-up initiatives from the symbionts,and (ii) planned industrial symbioses; i.e. through a design-from-scratch process (typically centralised/top-down driven). A well-known example of the former is the Kalundborg symbiosis, whichbegan some 25 years ago. An example of the latter is the Baltimoreindustrial symbiosis, Fairfield, which is an Eco-industrial park (EIP)where manufacturers use petroleum and chemicals in their processes– asphalt manufacturing, chemical plants and oil companies.(Cohen-Rosenthal et al., 1997).

Furthermore, there are a number of different barriers to the widerdiffusion and adoption of Industrial Symbiosis philosophy. Oneimportant barrier is what we call cognitive barriers. The presentparadigm is based on an anthropocentric view, with an overall focuson the economic system. This means that environmental problemsare seen and treated as economic externalities (Ehrenfeld, 1995).For Industrial Symbiosis to be successful, it is necessary to viewhuman society as part of the ecological system, with a focus onecology rather than economics. Thus, perceiving the firm as asmall part of a larger community of firms dependent on Naturemay require a fundamental shift in corporate values, from a myopicethnocentric focus on creating shareholder value to a more broadfocus which includes an eco-centric perspective. Important meansof achieving such a shift include education and continuous on-the-job training (Ulhøi et al., 1996).

Economic barriers are also important. During the throughputprocesses of human-made systems, materials and substances areused, mixed and created with little or no consideration to thesubsequent need for separation. In order to recycle and reuse suchmaterials it will be necessary to separate them. Traditionaleconomic considerations normally rule out recycling, since itmeans additional costs for separation (due to the additional inputsof labour and energy required). The implementation of ‘design-for-environment’ may ease some of the effects of this constraint.

With regard to technical barriers, there is still a lack of fullyautomated dismantling and separation technologies to preventinternal environmental problems from occurring. Developing such

9

technologies can be very costly, however, and here economicbarriers can again be expected, due to the huge economic intereststypically vested in existing technological infrastructure. Newregulations based on economic incentives, e.g. rewarding researchand development activities in environmentally less harmfultechnical infrastructure, is one, albeit small, step in the rightdirection, however.

To prevent informational barriers, precise technical informationabout the specific content of waste is critical if separation is to beeconomically feasible. For the participating partners in particular,it will be of vital importance to share such information. This willmean an expanded product information, which provides sufficientinformation about the content of waste. Another related problem isthe choice (or lack) of diffusion strategy, i.e. how to disseminateknowledge of and experiences with practical industrial symbioses.

Regarding contractual barriers, reliable mechanisms are required toensure long-term co-operation between the participating partners.At this stage in the evolution of the Industrial Symbiosis paradigm,there is little, if any, practical experience as to how such contractscan be designed to work efficiently.

A key regulatory barrier is that existing regulatory frameworks tendnot to favour closed-loop systems. There are few incentives forrecycling and reusing industrial materials, and no regulation ofvirgin materials has yet been considered.

Organisational barriers can also prove to be a serious brake on thediffusion of Industrial Social Ecology. Expanding the life cycleperspective to embrace all stages from ‘birth-to-reincarnation’may require fundamental changes in how firms operate and areorganised.

Moreover, at the moment, Industrial Symbiosis tends to focusprimarily on the product itself. Little, if any, attention is given toall the other aspects of production and distribution. At this stage ofits development, the objective of industrial symbiosis seems to belimited to the minimisation of waste, and only as a secondary

10

objective (and as a result of the former) to minimise theconsumption of natural resources.

A final problem we would like to emphasise is the scope and focusof many of the discussions on how to increase the practicaldiffusion and adoption of industrial symbioses. The literature tendsto take a rather myopic interest in only (part of) theenvironmental aspects of the concept - i.e. the potential ofrecycling and reusing waste materials among participatingsymbionts.

In our view, a broader approach is needed to realise the fullpotentials of industrial symbiosis. We find that a systemsperspective is far too narrow. In fact, we argue that this could beone of the most critical bottlenecks for a future large-scaleimplementation of industrial symbiosis in industry. By enlargingthe scope, the future success of the principle may be substantiallyimproved. However, this will necessitate a thorough discussion ofthe concept of Industrial Symbiosis in relation to the concepts ofenvironmental management and sustainable development.

From Indsutrial Symbiosis to Industrial Social EcologyAccording to Ayres, a number of requirements must be fulfilled toensure the success of an industrial symbiosis (Ayres, 1989:1).Firstly, a large scale of operation at the first tier of exporter.Secondly, there must be at least one other major firm nearby toimport and utilise the waste of the exporter. Finally, one or morespecialised satellite firms are required to convert the waste of themain waste exporter to useful raw materials for the consumer, andto convert the wastes into marketable commodities, secondaryinputs to other local firms, or final wastes for disposal.

This systemic framework is inspired by biology, and, like themature biological systems it is compared with (Allenby & Cooper,1994), it has one major disadvantage – the systemic frameworktend to be static in nature. The ultimate environmental objectivefor industry must be sustainability in its broadest sense. However,sustainability is impossible in a static framework, because the worlditself is dynamic. Another disadvantage of the Industrial Symbiosis

11

framework is the focus on waste minimisation. Sustainabilitycannot be achieved by waste minimisation alone. Both resourcesand capacity must be exploited to the full; this means besides theeconomic and environmental dimensions of sustainability includingthe third pillar of sustainable development, the social dimension(Ulhøi, 1995b; Welford, 1997). Resources are not just rawmaterials and waste, but also human capacity and excess machine-and transport capacity. In other words, the symbiosis principleinvites an ‘exchange’ of services of varies kinds within thesymbiosis, thus improving the efficiency of the productionapparatus (i.e. resource optimisation) while at the same timereducing the overall environmental impact (the same machines,etc., produce more for more symbionts, thus reducing the need to‘buy new machines’). Symbionts might also be able to reap othertraditional ‘economies of scale’ (well known from ordinary inter-organisational networks), e.g. temporarily redundant employeesfrom one company could be ‘rented out’ to meet the acute need ofanother company. Joint research and development activities andtraining activities involving waste and cleaner technology may benatural components of a more extended symbiosis.

This paper argues that, in order to minimise the impact of industryand consumption on nature, it is necessary to extend theframework of Industrial Symbiosis to include the social dimensionsof the concept of sustainability. It is therefore necessary to moveaway from the systems perspective of Industrial Symbiosis to adynamic perspective. This broader perspective could appropriatelybe called Industrial Social Ecology. Table 2 below outlines thedifferences between Industrial Symbiosis and Industrial SocialEcology.

12

TABLE II: Industrial Ecology Compared to Industrial SocialEcology

Industrial Symbiosis Industrial Social EcologyPerspective Systems perspective Network perspective

A system of individualentities

A network of integratedentities

Main focus Environment as external to thecompany

Environment in an integratedway

Not necessarily a learningperspective

A learning perspective

Purpose Waste minimisation Resource optimisationDimension Economic Social and economic

Static, inflexible Dynamic

Extending the principle of Industrial Symbiosis to include other notdirectly environment-related issues results in advantages. Firstly,there is the extra synergy involved in combining the advantages ofexisting concepts of Industrial Symbiosis (direct environment-related advantages) and concepts of inter-organisationalrelationships (indirect environment-related advantages), therebyimproving the possibility for symbionts to contribute positively tothe overall symbiosis. Secondly, it might prepare firms forembracing the non-environment-related dimensions of sustainabledevelopment, i.e. the social issues, which are an inescapablechallenge of the near future even though industry is still a long wayfrom embarking on the social dimensions of sustainability (Ulhøi etal., 1994; Madsen & Ulhøi, 1996). Thirdly, it increases thepossibility for a less unsustainable production.

Industrial Social Ecology as a management tool calls for a networkperspective. Important to highlight in this connection, however, isthat when talking about network we are not only referring tonetwork between the participating companies but also networkwithin the organisation, and network between the companies andtheir surroundings. In other words, Industrial Social Ecology is thenetwork of all industrial processes, since they can interact with andlive off each other, not only in an economic sense, but also in thesense of directly using each other’s material and energy wastes and

13

products (Ausubel, 1992). In order to further speed up thisdevelopment, we suggest utilising other synergetic potentials of theprinciple of symbiosis to include other issues in addition toenvironmental issues. This in turn involves drawing on a well-developed theoretical management framework – the inter-organisational network perspective.

A network perspective has some attractions. Instead of viewingbusiness markets as an exchange of products, they can be seen as anetwork of interdependent relationships (Håkansson & Snehota,1995). These relationships can be long-term or short-term,depending on the activity. There is a continuity of change inbusiness relationships, which implies that ongoing evolution ratherthan equilibrium (Håkansson & Snehota, 1995:269) characterisebusiness networks. Another appealing thing about the networkperspective is that it integrates social relations and social cognition(Bovasso, 1996), whereas the systems perspective only takes thephysical links into consideration. The social perspective isimportant because social factors contribute to the success anddiffusion of the Industrial Social Ecology perspective.

Finally, for other reasons, many companies are already part ofnetworks, which can also be extended to embrace the IndustrialSocial Ecology concept. A network approach to Industrial SocialEcology offers improved possibilities for inter-organisationallearning between the participating firms (Rikhardsson & Ulhøi,1997). Networks allow for a flow of information, ideas andexperiences between individuals within and between theorganisations of the symbiosis thus challenging any situation ofstatus quo within the individual company. The inherent dynamicsof inter-organisational learning are continuously reinforced byindividuals entering or leaving the different companies and relatednetworks thus constantly challenging existing knowledge, valuesand beliefs before they may become rigid hindrances towards newenvironmental innovations and improvement of the existingsymbiosis.

The networks perspective is an interesting managerial approachthat may go hand-in-hand with the idea of symbiosis. It offers, it is

14

argued, an opportunity to eliminate some of the barriers to theextension of Industrial Social Ecology. Economic barriers can beeliminated through co-operation and shared expenses. Companiesin Industrial Social Ecology-based networks have access toimportant information concerning the existence of excesscapacity, as well as the need for additional resources, in othercompanies in the web. An Industrial Social Ecology-based network,with representatives from local research institutions (universitiesand local technological info-centres), could overcome some of thetechnological barriers. And regulatory barriers can be eliminatedthrough the establishment of new and dialogue-based partnershipswith local government bodies.

Thus, on top of the obvious environmental advantages, symbiosiscan also result in more traditional advantages, such as jointmarketing – including profiling the symbiosis as a strongenvironmentally and socially concerned industry area; enhancedlearning from extended co-operation; ‘speaking with one voice’when negotiating with local authorities; borrowing machines whichare not being used to full capacity; borrowing employees who aretemporarily redundant in one of the participating companies; jointdevelopment of retraining programmes, etc.

Implications and Research NeedsThis final section addresses some of the key implications fortheory, practice (managers) and policy-making separately.

Implications for TheoryThe extension of the Industrial Symbiosis perspective to anIndustrial Social Ecology perspective has some implications fortheory. Firstly, the Industrial Social Ecology perspective challengesthe traditional way of perceiving the natural environment inmainstream economics - i.e. an externality separate from thehuman-made system (the economic system), which is capable ofbeing substituted by new technology when in danger of beingoverused. In other words, Industrial Symbiosis rests on recognitionof the laws of thermodynamics.

15

Industrial Symbiosis also challenges the traditional way oforganising scientific disciplines into specialised scientificcommunities governed by a single or a few paradigms, which havelittle or no tolerance for co-existing paradigms. It fundamentallytransgresses existing boundaries both within and across existingscientific fields (the natural sciences, the social sciences and thehumanities), and requires an interdisciplinary collaboration betweenoften conflicting research traditions.

The proposed framework calls for a reconsideration of existingtheories and techniques of inter-organisational networking: TotalQuality Environmental Management, Research and Development(Design for Environment), Production Planning, Logistics, Wastemanagement (recycling) and Human Resource Management.

Another critical factor concerning Industrial Social Ecology is therelative importance of geographical boundaries. Geographicalboundaries can be a hindrance to the development of IndustrialSocial Ecology and thus require further research.

As regards the field of organisation and management behaviour, thenetworks perspective requires further development in relation tothe Industrial Social Ecology perspective. There are still somequestions, concerning how to administer and maintain the networkin a sustainable way that need to be addressed. There is a demandfor further research in the field of network contracting and howlong-term co-operation with respect to Industrial Social Ecologycan be ensured. One key problem in this respect is how to deal withthe possibility of inflexibility in networks as a result of mutuallybinding long-term contracts.

As regards the further testing of Industrial Social Ecology inpractice, we need to know more about the impact of industrialsymbiosis on the way the individual firm (symbiont) is organised,i.e. the organisational, strategic and managerial changes required tomeet the challenge of Industrial Social Ecology.

16

Implications for PracticeExpanding Industrial Symbiosis to Industrial Social Ecology also hassome important implications for practice. Firstly, it is necessary tochange the focus from the intra- to the inter-organisational level.This implies changes in employee values as well as changes in thecompany’s overall strategic plan (Forrest, 1992). Secondly,managers have to overcome the cognitive barrier and start to seethe environment as an important, integrated factor, and not just asan externality. Changing mental outlooks, however, is notsomething that can be accomplished overnight. Thirdly, managersneed to create an atmosphere of mutual trust among participatingcompanies. Furthermore, networks must be cultivated in order to beoptimal. One way of doing this is to select alliance champions withoverall responsibility for network communication (Forrest, 1992).

Implications for Policy-makersThere is a need to develop a new approach to regulation (new mixof instruments) which can encourage individual businesses to engagein long-term relationships. At the local level, Industrial SocialEcology can be integrated into existing planning activities. Thiscould lead to a use of Industrial Social Ecology as a ‘synergeticbridge’ between existing and isolated areas of planning for businessdevelopment and the environment. In other words, local regulatorscould support the diffusion and adoption of the proposedframework in several ways. They could act as local co-ordinatorsand agents of important information to assess the potentials forestablishing a symbiosis (this has advantages for SME's, that do nothave the necessary resources for this). They could also act as aplanning instrument in existing business development planning(regulators can reward new firms joining the symbiosis, e.g. throughfavourable land prices, taxation, etc.). There is thus a need to tryout new forms of stewardship between the participating companiesin the symbiosis and local regulators.

17

ConclusionThere are several problems concerning the concept of IndustrialSymbiosis, problems that may be the reason for the lack ofattention among industrialists and regulators and therefore must beaddressed.

First of all there is some confusion about the differentterminologies used together with Industrial Symbiosis. Secondly,there are problems concerning the metaphor used. Thirdly, therehas to be a distinction between the two types of symbioses.Fourthly, there are a number of different barriers that has to beaddressed. Fifthly, there is a focus on the product, with a lack ofattention on other aspects of production. Finally, there seems to bea myopic interest in the environmental aspects of the concept.

If the full potentials of Industrial Symbiosis have to be reached abroader approach is needed. We suggest, to extend the concept ofIndustrial Symbiosis to Industrial Social Ecology, a concept thatincorporates all aspects of the production process including non-environment-related aspects.

18

ReferencesAllen, D.T. (1993): “Using Waste as Raw Materials: Opportunities to Createan Industrial Ecology.” Hazardous Waste & Hazardous Materials, vol. 10 no.3, pp. 273-278.

Allenby, B.R. (1994): “Industrial Ecology Gets Down to Earth”, Circuits &Devices, January 1994, pp. 24-28.

Allenby, B.R. & Cooper, W.E. (1994): “Understanding industrial ecologyfrom a biological systems perspective”, Total Quality EnvironmentalManagement, vol. 3, pp. 343-354.

Allenby, B.R., Gonzalez, M.A. & Raber, E. (1996): “ImplementingIndustrial Ecology and Design for Environment Practices: LawrenceLivermore National Laboratory”, Total Quality Environmental Management,vol. 5 no. 3, pp. 37-59.

Allenby, B.R. & Laudise, R.A. (1995): “The Importance of IndustrialEcology and Design for Environment to AT&T”, AT&T Technical Journal,November/December 1995, pp. 8-16.

Allenby, B.R. & Richards, D.J., Eds. (1994): The Greening of IndustrialEcosystems, Washington DC, National Academy Press.

Assies, J.A. (1991): "State of the Art", in: Workshop Report “Life CycleAssessment: Inventory, Classification, Valuation and Databases”, 2-3December 1991, Leiden, The Nederlandes. Brussels, Society ofEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

Ausubel, J.H. (1992): “Industrial Ecology: Reflections on a Colloquium”,Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States ofAmerica, vol. 83 no. 3, pp. 879-884.

Ayres, R.U. (1989): “The Future of Technological Forecasting”,Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 13, pp. 49-60.

Ayres, R.U. (1989): "Industrial Metabolism", in: J.H. Ausubel & E.Sladovich (Eds.). Technology and Environment, Washington, D.C., NationalAcademy Press.

Ayres, R.U. (1993): “Industrial Metabolism - Theory & Policy”,Productivity, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 331-339.

Ayres, R.U. (1994): Creating Industrial Ecosystems: A Viable ManagementStrategy?, Working Paper, November, Fontainebleau, INSEAD.

19

Ayres, R.U. (1997): Industrial Metabolism: Work in Progress, WorkingPaper, February, Fontainebleau, France, INSEAD.

Bovasso, G. (1996): “A Network Analysis of Social Contagion Processes inan Organisational Intervention.” Human Relations, vol. 49, no. 11, pp.1419-1435.

Carson, R. (1962): Silent Spring, Boston, MA, Houghton Mifflin.

Cohen-Rosenthal, E., McGalliard, T. & Bell, M. (1997): "Designing Eco-Industrial Parks", 01.20.1998, Work and Environment Initiative (WEI),Cornell University, Http://www.cfe.cornell.edu/wei/design.html.

Côté, R. (1997): "Canadian Project - The Industrial Park as an Ecosystem:Managing for Environmentally Sustainable Economic Development".Description, 9/12/97, Dalhousie University and Environmental PlanningDepartment Nova Scotia College of Art and Design,http://www.mgmt.dal.ca/sres/canadn.html.

Development (1987): World Council of Environment and Development, OurCommon Future, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Duchin, F. (1992): “Industrial Input-Output Analysis: Implications forIndustrial Ecology.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of theUnited States of America, vol. 89 no. 3, pp. 851-855.

Edgington, S.M. (1995): “Industrial Ecology: Biotech’s Role in SustainableDevelopment.” Bio/Technology, vol. 13 no. 1, pp. 31-34.

Ehrenfeld, J. (1995): "Industrial Ecology: A Strategic Framework for ProductPolicy and other Sustainable Practices". in E. Ryder & J. Strahl (Eds.).Green Goods , Stockholm, Kretsloppdelegationen.

Ehrenfeld, J.R. (1992): “Industrial Ecology: A Technological Approach toSustainability.” Hazardous Waste & Hazardous Materials, vol. 9 no. 3, pp.209-212.

Fairfield (1995): "Executive Summery: Fairfield Ecological Industrial ParkBaseline Study", 27.01.1998, Baltimore Development Co-operation,http://www.cornell.edu/wei/fairfield/exsum2.htm.

Fiksel, J., Ed. (1996): Design for Environment: Creating Eco-EfficientProducts and Processes, McGraw-Hill.

Forrest, J.E. (1992): “Management Aspects of Strategic Partnering”, Journalof General management, vol. 17 no. 4, pp. 25-40.

20

Frosch, R.A. (1992): “Industrial Ecology: A Philosophical Introduction”,Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States ofAmerica, vol. 89 no. 3, pp. 800-803.

Frosch, R.A. & Gallopoulos, N.E. (1989): “Strategies for Manufacturing”,Scientific American, vol. 261 no. 3, pp. 94-102.

Gertler, N. (1995): Industrial Ecosystems: Developing Sustainable IndustrialStructures, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.

Graedel, T.E. & Allenby, B.R. (1995): Industrial Ecology, Prentice Hall.

Graedel, T.E., Allenby, B.R. & Linhardt, P.B. (1993): “ImplementingIndustrial Ecology”, IEEE Technology & Society Magazine, vol. 12 no. 1,pp. 18-26.

Hardin, G. (1968): “The Tragedy of the Commons”, Science , vol. 162, pp.1243-1248.

Hileman, B. (1992): “Industrial Ecology Route to Slow Global ChangeProposed”, Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 70 no. 14, pp. 7-14.

Huppes, G. (1991): "Allocating Impacts of Multiple Economic Processes inLCA", in: Workshop Report Life Cycle Assessment: Inventory,Classification, Valuation and Databases, 2-3 December, 1991, Leiden, TheNetherlands. Brussels, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

Håkansson, H. & Snehota, I., Eds. (1995): Developing Relationships inBusiness Networking , London, Routledge.

Jelinski, L.W., Graedel, T.E., Laudise, R.A., McCall, D.W. & Patel,C.K.N. (1992): “Industrial ecology: Concepts and approaches”, Proceedingsof the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, vol. 83no. 3, pp. 793-797.

Karamanos, P. (1995): “Industrial Ecology: New Opportunities For thePrivate Sector.” Industry and Environment, vol. 18 no. 4, pp. 38-39, 44.

KCIS (1997): Industrial Symbiosis - Exchange of Resources, InformationMaterials, 29. January 1998, Kalundborg Center for Industrial Symbiosis(KCIS), Kalundborg, Denmark.

Lindfors, L.-G. (1992): Product Life Cycle Assessment - Principles andMethodology, København, Nordisk Ministerråd.

21

Lowe, E. (1993): “Industrial Ecology - An Organising Framework forEnvironmental management.” Total Quality Environmental Management,vol. 3 no. 1, pp. 73-85.

Lowe, E.A., Warren, J.L. & Moran, S.R. (1997): Discovering IndustrialEcology, Columbus, Ohio, Battelle Press.

Madsen, H. & Ulhøi, J.P. (1996): “Environmental Management in DanishManufacturing Companies: Attitudes and Actions”, Business Strategy andthe Environment, vol. 5 no. 1, pp. 22-29.

Patel, C.K.N. (1992): “Industrial Ecology”, Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Science of the United States of America, vol. 83 no. 3, pp. 798-799.

PCSD (1996): "Eco-Industrial Park Workshop Proceedings", 27.01.1998,President’s Council of Sustainable Development (PCSD),Http://www.whitehouse.gov/PCSD/publications/eco_workshop.html#v-b.

Piasecki, B. (1992): “Industrial Ecology: An Emerging ManagementScience”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the UnitedStates of America, vol. 89 no. 3, pp. 873-875.

Repetto, R. (1985): The Global Possible. Resources, Development, and theNew Century, New Haven, Yale University Press.

Rikhardsson, P.M. & Ulhøi, J.P. (1997): "A Stakeholder LearningPerspective on Corporate Environmental Management", The 13th EGOSColloquium: Organisational Responses to Radical Environmental Changes,Budapest University of Economic Sciences, Budapest.

Szekely, J. (1996): “Steelmaking and Industrial Ecology - Is Steel a GreenMaterial?”, ISIJ International, vol. 36 no.1, pp. 121-132.

Tibbs, H.B.C. (1992): “Industrial Ecology: An Environmental Agenda forIndustry”, Whole Earth Review, vol. 77, pp. 4-19.

Tolba, M.K. (1976): "Development Without Destruction" in M.K. Tolba(Ed.). Development Without Destruction: Evolving EnvironmentalPerceptions, Dublin, Tycooly Publishing, Ltd.

Turner, R.K. (1988): “Pluralism in Environmental Economics: A Survey ofthe Sustainable Economic Development Debate”, Journal of AgriculturalEconomics, vol. 39 no. 3, pp. 352-359.

22

Ulhøi, J.P. (1995a): "The Product Life Cycle Revisited" in K.B. Misra(Ed.). Cleaner and Economic Production for Performance, Heidelberg,Springer Verlag.

Ulhøi, J.P. (1995b): “Corporate Environmental Management: In Search of aNew Managerial Paradigm”, European Journal of Operational Research, vol.80, pp. 2-15.

Ulhøi, J.P., Madsen, H. & Rikhardsson, P.M. (1994): Training inEnvironmental Management - Industry and Sustainability: CorporateEnvironmental and Resource Management and Educational Requirements.The TEM Project No. 1. Dublin, European Foundation for the Improvementof the Living and Working Conditions.

Ulhøi, J.P., Madsen, H. & Villadsen, S. (1996): Training in EnvironmentalManagement - Industry and Sustainability: Corporate Environmental andResource Management and Educational Requirements. Brussels, Office forOfficial Publications of the European Communities.

Weidema, B.P. (1993): Environmental Assessment of Products. A Textbookon Life Cycle Assessment, Helsinki, UETP-EEE.

Welford, R. (1997): Hijacking Environmentalism, Earthscan Publications,London.