Operationalizing the concept of Industrial Ecology - two different approaches

"Industrial Ecology is a systems-based, multidisciplinary discourse that seeks to understand emergent behaviour of complex integrated human/natural systems." (Graedel and Allenby, 2003; Allenby, 1999; Socolow  et al., 1994)

The emergence of this new field was seen early on as a "unifying principle for operationalizing sustainable development" (Ashford and Cote, 1997). Sustainable development demanded a "more systematic thinking and interdisciplinary approaches" (Wellford, 1998), a systems perpspective that would assess the material and energy flows that occur within a system and at a specific time frame.

Coming back to the definition of IE used in the beggining of this text, a very important term contained within it is "complex systems". Never before in human history were we able to produce so much information concerning so many processes in so many different fields of science. This two delimitations (system boundaries, time frame) are then necessary for limiting the area of application, the specific tools and methodologies used and the policy context surrounding them.

Trying to operationalize Industrial Ecology, without first specifying the different variables (application, approach, processes, technologies,  etc.) as well as the political, economical and cultural context, would be something near impossible. "Industrial Ecology is not only an analytical framework but a cultural phenomenon" (Boons and Roome, 2000), meaning that it encompasses various people, technologies, tools and industrial activities as well as the social interactions (and their importance in shaping the system) of all those actors involved in the system.

A first, much needed, distinction in the attempt to operationalize IE is the distinction between the geographical or product-based approach (Boons and Baas, 1997). The geographical approach contains analysis on regional networks of material flows (eg. eco-industrial parks) while incorporating human-activities to natural ecosystems. The product-base (or process) approach can be the use of specific tools like Cleaner Production, Pollution Prevention (*) or even Design for Environment, "an integration of industrial ecology principles into a product realisation design process, being an early example of the implementation of industrial ecology." (Allenby, 1992)

For the first case, alot has been written about the important variables of eco-industrial parks. The exchange of materials and energy, the use of residual products from one company to inputs in another, the minimization of waste and energy use and environmental impacts inside the area are but some. But since we already stressed the importance of the relationships between the actors of the system, in-depth insights of how companies interact to jointly reduce their environmental impacts is needed (Seuring, 2004). Ecological strategies, routines and norms that are being developed in such systems and what their impact is on the system will need to be identified.

For the second case, i will use the example of a mining operation. Mining activities are very important to industrial systems, as they provide most of the input required (discounting recycling streams) for their operations. Because of the nature of these activities, three factors are very important when analyzing them; resources, energy and capita. All three are used in a great extent in mining operations.

As we can see on the figure, Cleaner Production and Pollution Prevention, on a lower system level, represent two popular approaches towards reducing the environmental impacts of a product/process. Industrial Ecology, residing on a higher system level, provides the framework to synthesize those approaches and a stepping stone towards a strategic plan for implementing effecitve policies. (Arun J. Basu, 2006)

A description of this operationalization procedure would be first the creation of an environmental performance system that would measure "the trends, scales and relations for materials (consumed, emitted, dissipated and discarded)" (Arun J. Basu, 2006)

Relevant indicators would then be extracted from that data (waste minimization, recycling, waste disposal etc.), to be used in conjuction with the concepts of CP and P2. Industrial Ecology as a systemic approach that encompasses both technical processes and the social aspects of those processes (impact on local communities, labor conditions, wages etc), creating those indicators as inputs for the social governance of the system.

(*) These tools are not limited on that category of IE approach.

References


Allenby BR. 1999a.  Industrial Ecology: Policy Framework and Implementation

Ayres RU, Ayres LW. 1996.  Industrial Ecology. Towards Closing the Material Cycle

Boons F, Baas LW. 1997. Types of industrial ecology: the problem of coordination.  Journal of Cleaner Production 5(1/2): 79–86

Boons F, Roome N. 2000. Industrial ecology as a cultural phenomenon. Journal of Industrial Ecology 4(2): 49–54.

Graedel TE. 1994. Industrial ecology – definition and implementation.

Arun J. Basu and Dirk J.A. van Zyl. 2006. Industrial ecology framework for achieving cleaner production in the mining and minerals industry

Brad Allenby. 2006. The ontologies of industrial ecology?
Stefan Seuring, Industrial Ecology, life cycles supply chains: Differences and Interrelations

Hammer, B., 1996, What is the relationship between cleaner production, pollution prevention, waste minimization and ISO 14000?

Two social networks i am a part of - two aspects of my life here in the Netherlands

It's been more than 5 months since i got on the plane and left Greece (and my loved ones) to come to the Netherlands and participate in the Industrial Ecology master program. It was only natural that this would alter my life, especially the every day activities, almost completely.

I have to say, some years have gone by and i do not consider myself the party animal i was during my bachelor studies, and a good thing that is; trust me. So, it's only natural that the locations where i spent most of my time, can be used as a proxy to identify the (tangible) social networks i am part of. All that was just fancy words, basically saying that the two of the main social networks i am a part of derive from the amazing group of students i was lucky enough to meet in my first year here and by the complex, fragrant, loud and mysterious crowd of residents and friends in my block of a building.

Before i start analyzing these two systems according to their structure, relationships and mechanisms of coordination, i would have to point out that these do not represent organizations or firms. They contain people and as such, people can be spontaneous, they can change preferences and actions towards others easily, and  finally these networks can lack a straightforward coordination and structure. Nevertheless, i will do my best in describing them.

Let's begin from the wonderful, soon to be, 2012 Industrial Ecology alumni. I honestly did not know what i would find coming here, i was mainly excited to meet people from all over the world. But what i did find was beyond my expectations, as these group of people have become partners in this new effort of ours and good friends. 

These network started out as a group of dots, spread across the classroom, not yet connected, but to the single dot that represented (faintly for me) Industrial Ecology. Even that connection was not so well defined i guess at the start. As time passed, we started knowing about each other, talking about our lives, experiences and sharing views and opinions about things we learned, loved, or hated. 

Soon enough, we started having fun too, as the small number of our group and our enthusiasm helped us to do some wicked (i might say) dinner parties and some good nights out. So that collection of single dots became, quite fast, a network where no actor (thats us) had more power than the other. No specific dependencies (if u exclude the very small smokers club and their need for lighters) can be identified. What i can identify though is that this increased interaction, this creation of trust and sharing of information, led to the creation of a network of people, which can be a future social capital for its members and others, for along time to come.

This polycentricity of our network (equal dots on equal distances) gave birth to some not so usual coordinative mechanisms. Instead of asymmetric dependencies or power and personal gain, other variables like trust, common goals, friendship created an equitable network of knowledge and collaboration, The dynamic of this network is reflected not only on the informality of these relationships but also on their strength, which reflects its embeddedness on our everyday lives.

Finally, i would like to point that the blurry dot of Industrial Ecology, when came into focus,  transformed to another network (of teachers, second year students, people working in Delft or Leiden universities) which are invaluable to our efforts and to the process i just described. They gave us the safe haven, the knowledge, expertise and the push towards the right (and fascinating) direction.

The second social network, is the one formed by all the tenants and caretakers of our fabulous (not) housing arrangements. It is a big, square building, housing about 200 (speculating) souls and since most are students, people from all over the world. This social network is harder to analyze, since the interactions are not always straightforward. can be argued. 

Thick walls and doors but mostly responsibilities and routines, separate the tenants. After 5 months in this building i've come to meet some wonderful people and make some good friends. In many ways this network is similar to the previous one, since the relations aren't determined by power or gain (well sometimes we do only knock for coffee or smokes) but mostly about informal relationships. Difference is that the creating of trust is a lot harder when your interpersonal relations are limited to some beer and dinner parties. 

The coordinative mechanisms aren't entirely clear once more. I mean there are spatial characteristics of the network, that determine the strength the relationships (floor u live in, apartments close to you) but also cultural (common language or origins) and finally external characteristics specific to everyone (responsibilities outside the network).

Coming from Greece, where we value highly the existence of a house, a personal space you can fit to your needs and imagination, or sometimes a place to built walls and keep everyone else out, i find living in a place like this refreshing. The opportunities it provides, through the social network you engage when being a tenant, very much outweigh whatever negative things i can mention about it.

The ecological analogy of Industrial Ecology seen as a puzzle to be solved by the scientific community

As argued in the seminal publication by Frosch and Gallopoulos (1989), Industrial Ecology looks to non-human 'natural' ecosystems as models for industrial activity. This is what researchers on the field dubbed as the 'ecological analogy'.

Industrial Ecology strives to recognize those analogies, as they are presented in a social, political and economical context, throughout the industrial (eco)systems. The realization of those analogies and how they can be identified and used to ultimately transform industrial activity (and life connected to it) is, in my eyes, one of the greatest puzzles of our field. Dynamic and prescriptive, and not static and descriptive, approaches will need to be implemented, focusing on all areas of environmental interventions. This develops a link between the human impacts on the environment and the tools used to counteract them, leading to more adaptive and efficient technologies.

In the Americas, the large-bodied mammals (mega-fauna), such as saber-toothed cats (Smilodon) or Mammoths, vanished around 11.000 - 13.000 years ago; following the arrival of human populations. Constructing the cause-effect chain of this phenomenon, we start with the ice age (cause) leading to a system wide disruption of their natural environments and to a major loss of biodiversity, affecting their hunting groups (smaller prey). That coupled with the large amount of energy required for the biochemical reactions that are sustaining them through life (reproduction, hunting, feeding), precipitated the reduction of their population and finally their extinction (effect).

Analyzing the current state of the adaptive cycle, it is evident that the ecosystems following a large scale distortion (ice age) through all levels of adaptive cycles, from higher (slower) to lower (faster) cycles, released the long accumulated trasformative properties of the ecosystem (creative destruction). The ecosystem then entered a state dominated by transformation and opportunity, where change and variety are increased. This way new cycles were created and new species came to occupy the newly formed niches of the ecosystem (rapid reorganization).

The respective analogy of this ecological phenomenon to our socio-technical systems can be reflected in the growing concern for resource scarcity. As the ecosystem works in completely closed loops, no resources used are actually removed from the environment but they are transformed and used in other processes. Only minimum energy losses (mainly heat exchange and biochemical reactions) take place although there are some exergy losses (quality losses). The need for storage of materials is minimized, due to its high energy need.

This cannot be said for our industrial (eco)systems, where the processes entail higher energy losses and there is an ever increasing demand for products and services (and their use, storage, disposal). The scarcity of materials used in many of our advanced technologies (e.g. ICT) sets an interesting challenge for our industrial systems. But even when considering abundant materials, the exergy losses we mentioned earlier combined with their increasing amount needed to match the demand, have as a result an inevitable increase of their energy intensity (KW/tn of material).

These considerations create a sense of urgency for analyses from a system perspective and changes in a system level. A redirection of the physical flows of our systems is needed, transforming waste products into commodities, by efficiently recycling and reusing them. The puzzle contains not only the need too find suitable technologies required in the myriad of transformations but also creating new governance systems that have a broader scope than the ones we have today. They will have to consider the relationships and the newfound dependencies, among the new clusters of actors, governance and the problems, at different levels. These systems will  have to foster and regulate this new interconnectedness.

The second possibility of the mega-fauna extinction, the arrival of human population, leads to a different cause-effect chain that could have a significant impact on the transformation and a key role in the analogy. Through the increased complexity of their social interactions humand created societies, small at first, bigger and more complex as time passed. With the appearance of this communities, the large mammals were seen as a contester of the available resources; that belief shaped their intentions and ultimately their actions towards them (cause).

The transformation of human societies of that era to more organized forms (people started to settle in a specific area, institutionalizing their societies by creating norms) presented the need for harvesting food, acquiring water sources, shelter and the subsequent need to protect them. The development of more efficient forms of communications (sign language transformed to speech) led to a diffusing of knowledge through their societies, and that in its turn brought more efficient ways of dealing with their problems; ultimately this facilitated in the extinction of their adversaries (effect).

There are two aspects of this analogy applied to modern industrial (eco)systems. We can see that humans, through a rationality, which was sub-optimal concerning information about the ecosystem around them, brought about (negative?) large scale effects. Even nowadays, in spite of the higher quality and quantity of information, the uncertainty still remains; current beliefs, norms, dependencies of the social, economical, political and regulatory systems of society form intentions that inhibit the change needed in the system to deal with problems wanting a systems-approach like resource scarcity.

On the other side, the analogy can provide us with useful insights if we can use it more as a guide instead than a tool.  Optimizing the forms of communication and information sharing through the various levels (cycles) of the social-ecological systems, in a way that it will enable them to transform product and process design alike, will be the other big challenge of this puzzle.

Diffusing sustainable policies inside and outside a firm : the Nokia case

The documentary, A Decent Factory, followed Hanna Kaskinen, the Head of Nokia's Ethics Department, from a boardroom full of top-level managers in Finland, to one of its vendor's factory compounds in China. This documentary, directed by Thomas Balmès, illustrated the effort of diffusing responsible policies, throughout Nokia's supply chain. 


The first few minutes of the video show a meeting held in a small village in Finland, hosting a number of top-managers of Nokia. We see Hanna, trying to convince the participants in following a responsible policy towards the company's environmental and social impacts, and ultimately their consumers. This policy would encompass, mainly, the fabrication of mobile phones, gadgets and spare parts, which over the last few years has been contracted to offshore companies (operating mainly in China). 


The first impression we get from her speech is that she is actually trying to convince the audience of the long-term benefits of this policy. Trying to induce a consensus around a beyond-compliance policy (as no regulation is forcing Nokia to undergo this project) is a hard thing to do, as the profitability of the policy cannot be objectively assessed. Furthermore, her role in the company limits her possibilities of coercively enforcing such a policy. As a result, she is trying to use her expertise in order to play a key role of building a shared vision and long-term thinking, through dialogue. This is what is called a leadership based process of policy making, within a firm.


The next step for Hanna is to travel thousands of miles to mainland China, and visit the industrial compound of one of Nokia's outside vendors. The goal of her visit was to take a general picture of their operations with regard to environmental regulations, labor rights, working, and (as it turned out) living conditions. Various comic sequences take place while she is there, starting with terrified workers trying to avoid their scrutiny, moving to a very cynic throughout the movie factory manager and ending with a grim image of the workers everyday lives at the factory. One characteristic example was the increase in the workers salary just two weeks before Hanna visited them.


All these comic (to viewers) events might make the movie enjoyable but they do also point out the defects of their approach. With the possibility of preemptive actions taken by the vendor company, this kind of audit would never give satisfying results. It can be valuable as a first view of their operatipns or creation of communication channels between the two companies.


This cannot be an effective way of diffusing sustainability criteria to Nokia's second-tier producers. Since decisions are taken under uncertainty, the decision making itself is influenced by inter-managerial interactions. This can be used by Nokia's managers, as they represent the top-managers of the system,  to enforce these policies to their second-tier producers. This represents a power-based procedure a dominant company can employ in order to diffuse "unwanted" policies to external parties.


Another form of governance system can be a close collaboration with the Chinese government, ensuring that environmental, labor and hunan rights regulations will be enforced on the sites. These regulations have to be constructed in accord with governmental regulations, social and cultural criteria. But external structures like these cannot provide a solution by themselves. Internal factors need to coexist, like for example a monitoring mechanism (in place), working together with the government, exchanging information and expertise around the specific processes. 


This institutional approach can be very valuable in this specific case since - if established - it can be diffused to a wide range of industrial activities, as many of the world's "second-tier" suppliers are situated in China. This can create an institutional isomorphic change through governmental mandates and regulations, and might create organizations structured to conform to these institutions.


On the same note, one more mechanism of isomorphism, can help in the creation of a different governance system. Apart from coercion, Nokia has in its disposal the market power (as the dominant brand), technological expertise and experience. By using this dominant place in the economy, Nokia can create inter-organizational networks out of its vendors as well as the second-tier suppliers, educating them in a sense, leading to the development of norms, licencing of technologies and diffusing of expertise. This professionalization represents a normative form of isomorphism and can lead to extending responsible policies through the supply chain. This can be accentuated by the already existant interaction of companies with the Chinese state, which can speed up the process.


On a more ternal basis, Nokia, as the focal company, has the opportunity to support the implementation of a sustainable supply chain management; supporting it with monitoring, reporting, evaluation and communication activities. Sanctions can also be imposed to the suppliers in order to ensure their compliance. Also Nokia can identify, through a structured procedure, supplier qualification prerequisites in order to ensure minimum performance, according to the standards in place.


This procedure should not be limited to environmental criteria but should also try to take into account the social dimensions of the issue, which are very important for suppliers in developing countries (like we witness in the documentary). This can start as a procedure to reduce risk towards the environmenta as well as the workers and to increase efficiency of the process. The latter can be a very good incentive for going through with the project. The final goal should aim on creating a supply chain management, capable of producing sustainable products. This would require extensive information gathering, mainly by using analytical methodologies (LCA) to create standards that can later be implemented in the supply chain.


Finally Nokia could, as a market leader, foster the creation of a sectoral organization, whose purpose would be to promote responsible strategies and policies throughout the sector, all the way to the second-tier suppliers. With sustainability as its main focus, it could be a key actor in transforming the relationships between the stakeholders. 


Coming to decision making inside a firm, the main difficulty is explaining why the firm should adopt a policy that is not obligatory and its benefits are not easily and objectively measured. So Hanna's goal should be to show them that such a policy can provide legitimacy to the company, while serving long-term objectives (of economic growth, dominance in the sector). To do that, Nokia must design a policy while taking into account the preferences (and in some cases demands) of multiple stakeholders (consumers, NGOs, governments, media, international institutions).

Analyzing a Socio-Ecological System, the island complex of Polyegos-Kimolos

I was fortunate enough to visit my grandparents' house, in the small island of Kimolos on a corner of the Aegean, every year since i can remember. As a result, i spent most of my childhood summers swimming in its blue waters or running in the stone paved streets. Even since i was a child, i traveled the short distance to the nearby uninhabited island of Polyegos; trying to take a peek on its famous inhabitants, the beautiful Monk seals.

The Monk seal (monachus monachus) is one of the six most threatened mammals in the world.  In 1993, the Greek population was estimated at 200-250 individuals. That was the largest global population and accounted for 90% of the European population. The efforts to conserve the Monk seal has led to the establishment of certain protected areas called Special Areas of Conservation (SACs). One of the seven most important protected areas was located in the island complex of Polyegos-Kimolos, due to the large number of population inhabiting its waters. I will proceed to an analysis of this Socio-Ecological System (SES).

According to Ellinor Olstrom's framework, the different elements a SES contains are the following (Olstrom 2009):

1. Resource System (RS),
2. Resource Units (RU),
3. Users (U),
4. Governance system (GS).

The Resource system in this case is the marine wildlife and the natural resources in their disposal, contained in the SAC of Kimolos-Polyegos (taking into account the surrounding coastal environment). The Resource units are, the protected species (Monk seals) as well as the harvested fish population inside the area. The Users of the SES are the local inhabitants, fishermen as well as the tourists visiting the area each year (local and international). Potential users of this Socio-Ecological System are the members of the international community, working to preserve the Monk seal species (NGOs). 

Finally, the organizational organs that manage this SES are: on the local scale the municipality of Milos-Kimolos, and on higher scales the prefecture of Cyclades and finally the Greek Ministry of the Environment. Since this program is under an EU directive, the European Commision represents the international organizational organ. Together, these organs form the Govarnance System of the SES, a multi-level governance with institutional arrangements operating at different scales (Andersson and Olstrom 2008).

Analyzing the relationships around multiple levels of this complex system, at different spatial and temporal scales, gives us a more complete view of the SES. The social, economic and political changes (S) connected with the SES - together with some other laws, regulations and restrictions in the particular area- over the passing of the years, have been substantial. The local community of Kimolos has followed the complete opposite direction of economic growth than the neighbouring island of Milos. This had a positive impact on the local marine (and coastal) environment, the related ecosystem (Eco) of the SES, as it was better preserved. On the other hand it had a negative impact on the local society, as the limited available means of economic development forced the island's youth to rellocate.

The structure of this complex system is best represented as a hierarchy of nested adaptive cycles, on semi-autonomus levels, which serve two functions: first to stabilize and conserve conditions for the faster levels and second to generate and test innovations for the slower ones. Each of these adaptive cycles is divided into two phases, the period of accumulation of resources and the period of rapid reorganization(Holling 2001).

As a result, the phase (and our ability to identify it) of the adaptive cycles in the SES, ranges across their levels in the panarchy. The faster levels represent the certain areas in marine environment (reefs, sea-floor, microfauna), where due to little external pressure its inherent potential (wealth) and its resilience have increased. It is very difficult to assess the (current) stage of their adaptive cycles, since the speed of transition from conservation to reorganization can be quite fast and has too many variables (specific data needed). 

As we go further up in the levels of adaptive cycles, we get to the slower levels, representing a more general view of the SES. Since their reorganization phase (omega-a : meaning the time when the environmental regulations came in place) the higher levels of the system have accumulated information (e.g. scientific data, time series for specific species etc.). This tightly regulated environment has created a resilient system, which managed to handle all the (incoming) social and environmental pressures (illegal poaching, touristic development, marine pollution etc).

The system's continuity will be tested the following years, due to major transformations on even higher level adaptive cycles (EU funding of the program, economic and political crisis in Greece etc) which will lead to a renewal of the lower cycles. It is to be seen if the faster, more adaptive levels will, through their creative destruction, influence the higher levels in a positive way. These two connections between the levels are needed to create, test and maintain adaptive capability, combining learning with continuity; ulitmately leading to the system's sustainability.

References:

Holling, Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems, 2001
Olstrom, A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems, 2009
Krister P. Andersson, Elinor Ostrom, Analyzing decentralized resource regimes from a polycentric perspective, 2008