Industrial Ecology a Framework

ELSEVIER PII: SO959-6526(97)00015-2

J. Cleaner Prod. Vol. 5, No. 1-2, 87-95, pp. 1997 0 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Printed in Great Britain 0959-6526/97 $17.00 + 0.00

Industrial ecology: a framework and process design

John R. Ehrenfeld

for product

MIT Program on Technology, Business, and Environment, Room E40-247, MIT, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

Industrial ecology is a new system for describing and designing sustainable economies. Arising out of an ecological metaphor, it offers guidelines to designers of products and the institutional structures in which production and consumption occur, as well as frameworks for the analysis of complex material and energy flows across economies. 0 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd.

Keywords: industrial ecology; paradigm; product design

Introduction

Industrial ecology, as an emerging concept, plays several roles in shaping technological change as manifest in products. In its present state of evolution, industrial ecology takes many forms’. For some, it is a new, powerful analytic framework, capable of capturing the systematic and dynamic characteristics of socio-econ- omit systems. For others, it is a metaphor that leads to a new vocabulary* for talking about and making sense of the world. In this latter sense, industrial ecology is paradigmatic in nature.

Institutionalist models of organized, social behavior can be illustrated, as in Figures I and 2, by a set of structures resting on a paradigmatic foundation in which dominant beliefs and social norms are con-

tained3. The specific forms of social structures arising at any time in history are the result of the diffusion of these culturally foundational (or paradigmatic) notions into more explicit organizational forms- government, church, family, corporate, etc.-and the shape of missions, tools, and authoritative relationships that characterize them. For some several centuries, industrial societies in the West have been driven by ‘a dominant social paradigm (DSP) which will be further elaborated below (Table I). Arguably, the economic structures that have evolved within this paradigm (Figure Z) to produce the goods and services demanded by the marketplace have led to large negative impacts to the natural world. This set of structures is little informed by the natural world and a sense of society’s place therein. In this analytic world, industrial ecology

Figure 1 Paradigmatic structure of current dominant social system.

J. Cleaner Prod., 1997, Volume 5, Number l-2 87

A framework for industrial ecology: J. R. Ehrenfeld

Natural

lnstiitional Structures

Figure 2 Paradigmatic structure of industrial ecology-based social system.

Table 1 The paradigmatic base of Western modernity

Anthropocentric-Homo sapiens outside of nature Cartesian, ahistoric, context-free constitution of knowledge and action Individual autonomy and self-realization Economic man and the free market as the primary coordination institution The invisible hand Technological progress and scientific knowledge No explicit destination or goal; progress is continuous, always positive, and measured largely by reference to historical conditions Democracy and freedom Individual libertarian Rational action and decision-making Delegation to experts

can serve as a means to improve positive knowledge about the socio-technological-natural system, parti- cularly about material and energy flows.

If there is to be a change that will reduce these impacts to a tolerable level (Figure 2), many sociol- ogists and social philosophers would argue that the paradigmatic base out of which the more practical institutions arise must shift3. In particular, it would seem that, to connect the natural world more directly to social thinking and action, the links that, are weak or missing in Figure 1 would need to be replaced by inward-leading flows to the action-producing social structures. Further, the DSP would need to be changed at the base level to incorporate new beliefs about human’s place in nature and the inter-relatedness of societal and individual actions to the health and well- being of the natural surround as well as of the aggre- gate social systems. Industrial ecology, in its paradigmatic form, would become part of a new evolving DSP that would include the maintenance of the natural world as a fundamental normative goal. At this time, industrial ecology has been defined in a variety of forms including both the positive/analytic and paradigmatic/normative forms1’“‘2.

Sustainable development

In recent years, policy and strategic discussions focused on concerns over the maintenance of the world have found voice in the concept of sustainability, which extends the time horizons of concern to future generations. More specifically, these concerns have been related to economic patterns of development and to the apparent incompatibility between continued economic development and limits of the natural system to provide the framework for development indefinitely. Further, the dimension of fairness has been added to the definition expressed in the (Brundtland) report of the World Commission on Environmental and Develop- ment as reiterated and broadened at the 1992 Rio Environmental Summit. The Brundtland report defines sustainable development as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’13.

The evolution of environmental policy frameworks

Industrial ecology can be an opening to a new way of thinking and acting that offers new insights into designing a world that approaches the ends of sustainable development. Industrial ecology is different from the more established modem, economic, capitalistic, demo- cratic ideals on which advanced Western societies rest. Its paradigmatic character can be seen by tracing the evolution of environmental management frameworks over the past several decades. A paradigm is a framing set of concepts, beliefs, and standard practices that guide human action. This way of thinking is a deriva- tive of Thomas Kuhn’s14 exploration into science and the occasional revolutions where scientists turn from one great theory of the world to another.

Everyday social life consists analogously of a paradigmatic set of activities. Society works out its normal set of problems, guided by the prevalent concepts and

88 J. Cleaner Prod., 1997, Volume 5, Number l-2


Table 2 Economic/environmental paradigms

(A) Frontier economics Earth is limitless in terms of supporting human societies Environmental problems as we know them are absent Sustainability is not a concern

Future is created through a price system based on free choice Policy strategy

Free market-goverments act as necessary to deal with unavoidable market imperfections Technological optimism-technology is good, progressive, and can cure any problem it creates; no premarket assessments of technology

(B) Externality control (environmental protection) Earth is an open system

Waste and pollution are economic externalities Environmental problems are failures in the economic system

Sustainability is not a concern Future can be protected by interventions in the market

Policy strategy Pollution reduction and control through laws and regulations Technological optimism-risk management to handle uncertainty

(C) Resource management Earth is a closed economic system

Mismanagement of resources is an externality to be internalized Sustainability (weak) means maintaining the combined stock of human and natural capital Policy strategy

‘Economize ecology’ or ‘get the price right’ Technological optimism/clean technology

beliefs, using current technologies and coordinating action in familiar institutions like schools, governments, families, businesses, etc. Sometimes the whole system breaks down and paradigmatic change comes abruptly as in the French Revolution. After that revolution, the fabric that formed the society-the prevailing beliefs about human rights and the primary societal organizing forms-changed. Concerns about sustainability arise in much the same way. For some, signs of persistent ecological breakdown indicate an inability to work out the problems of everyday activities.

The dominant social paradigm of modem life in the West is too complex to be characterized by a simple set of ideas and practices; a few of the central beliefs are listed in Table 1. Many have argued that this paradigm creates a certain inevitability towards a collapse of human institutions and of natural sys- tems15*r6*17. Focusing on environmental concerns, a number of alternative systems (see Tubles 2 and 3) of thought have emerged in recent years. They represent a succession of world-views, each moving closer to a unity of man and nature. The three parts in Table 2 belong to the current DSP, differing only in the details of the ways environment is valued and social strategies are designed. In the first, that of untrammeled free

market economics (Table 2A), the word ‘sustainability’ has no inherent meaning at all. Sustainability is unprob- lematic; life is fundamentally focused on the here and now. The future will take care of itself. Nature is presumed to be limitless and always available to serve humankind. Scarcity is an economic idea, not a physical reality. Malthus’ vision of a collapse due to excess demands on the resources available to a growing economy is seen as ungrounded. New, improved, and more economical technological substitutes will always emerge as the cost of the old ways makes them non- competitive. The only problems are those that arise out of imperfections in the market.

The second environmental management system (Table 2B), externality control (or environmental protection), has been the dominant approach since the 1960s in addressing environmental breakdowns in the USA, Europe, Japan, and the rest of the developed world. Again, sustainability is not problematic and does not arise as an issue in this way of thinking and acting. The third, resource management (Table 2C), has arisen alongside of an awakening societal consciousness of the natural world and acceptance that the basic life- support ecosystem is showing signs of breakdown and potential or actual collapse. Sustainability is problem-

Table 3 Industrial ecology (eco-development)

Earth is a closed ecological system The scale and design of development are inconsistent with long-term ecological survival

Human society and natural ecosystems have co-evolved Nature has intrinsic value, revealed through economic activity The ethical/moral underpinning of economic actions omit concerns for the world

Sustainability (strong) means independently maintaining stocks of human and natural capital Policy strategy

‘Ecologize economy’ or an economy based on functionality (service), not goods, or quality, not quality, of life Moral/ethical transformation to instill environmental concerns Technological realism; precautionary principle to handle uncertainty Life cycle framework; product policy

J. Cleaner Prod, 1997, Volume 5, Number 1-2 89


atic, but limited in concern. The future must be taken into account explicitly, but needs can be met through continued consumption of the stock of resources as long as the total of human and natural resources is carefully husbanded. This change within the DSP con- tinues to be technologically optimistic and assumes new technologies will arise that maintain a balance between human economic output and nature. Sus- tainable development has, as yet, no upper limits put upon it; at best, society recognizes only limits to the rate of expansion. This is the main underpinning of the Brundtland definition.

A new paradigm, industrial ecology (Table 3), is now emerging, suggested perhaps by comparison to sustainable ecosystems. Industrial ecology has many similarities to the earlier concept of eco-develop- ment18*19,20*21*22. The move into this framework departs significantly from the first systems as it starts to recon- struct the fundamental relationship between man and nature23. Human societies begin to look like part of the global ecosystem, no longer standing outside of nature. In this notion, sustainability is a condition in which both the human stocks and natural systems would be maintained in a stable, undiminished state over time as separate categories. The economic notion of scarcity, which is always self-referrent to the idea of capital to exploit the resources, would now be viewed on an absolute basis. The potential of growth and innovation would be seen relative to the limit of the earth’s ecosystem to support no more than a certain level of economic activity as measured by the demands on resources and the carrying capacity as a recipient of polluting wastes. Residuals that are returned in a form that could be used again and would not upset the ecological system would fall outside of this limit.

To design within this concept, it is important that the economic and material linkages within societies be identified, understood, and modified to reduce the withdrawals of energy and materials from the natural stock and the disposal of wastes back into the environ- ment24. The coupling of human activities to such a systematic framework is the basis for this new organizing principle called industrial ecology. The first text- book on industrial ecology adopts a practical frame and defines industrial ecology as12: [T]he means by which humanity can deliberately and rationally approach and maintain a desirable carrying capacity, given continued economic, cultural, and technological evolution. The concept requires that an industrial system be viewed not in isolation from its surround- ing systems, but in concert with them. It is a systems view in which one seeks to optimize the total materials cycle from virgin material, to finished material, to product, to waste product, and to ultimate disposal. Factors to be optimized include resources, energy, and capital.

Hardin Tibbs’ has articulated a practical framework for industrial ecology around a set of seven elements:

1. improving the metabolic pathways of industrial processes and materials use;

2. creating loop-closing industrial ecosystems; 3. dematerializing industrial output; 4. systematizing patterns of energy use;

balancing industrial input and output to natural ecosystem capacity; aligning policy to conform with long-term industrial system evolution; creating new action-coordinating structures, com- municative linkages, and information.

Tibbs’ categorization offers a convenient way to organize a complex set of notions. Industrial ecology in this format is a strategic framework illustrating the interweaving of practices into a whole and has been used as a guide for the development of product policy . lo The first four of these items can be used as the technical skeleton of a product design system. The Natural Step, a Swedish industrial-ecology-like program for transforming production and consumption patterns, points to a similar set of broad guidelines25*26s27.

With these quite distinct paradigms in view, what then are the issues that are important? Firstly, it is critical to understand the different sets of beliefs that are triggered by the ‘question of sustainability’. Sec- ondly, the strategic framework for addressing environmental breakdowns is very different in each paradigm. And thirdly, each framework will produce a different response to the question of knowing whether we are on a consistent path with the definition. To produce a strongly sustainable world, it seems clear that a new paradigm is needed as a framework for coping with current environment ‘problems’.

There are many possible ways to select or design the basic elements of a new paradigm for sustainability. After some examination of the above collections of values and practices, the set of characteristics shown in Table 4 offers a potential framework for organizing human activities in a sustainable fashion. Like all social paradigms, it is a collection of beliefs, values, technology, and practices. This collection comprises parts taken from the several historic systems depicted above, as well as items not yet in play. As in all historic shifts, those parts of the old that continue to work need not be discarded merely on the grounds of ‘throw out the old, bring in the new’.

Sustainability requires a profound shift in basic human perceptions about the world, one where the prevailing sense of abundance gives way to one of scarcity or limits to the common pool of resources. But not merely scarcity in the economists’ sense that everything is scarce in that there is not enough to give everyone all they want. This transition requires a shift in the basic set of human values and ways of finding meaning in the world. The self-interestedness and indi- vidualism that work well to create wealth and growth in abundance are self-defeating in a world with limits. The lessons of Hardin’s classic article, ‘The tragedy of the commons’, become all too evident28. The challenge, then, in constructing a new paradigm for sustainability is not just dealing with the realities of the natural world, but the challenge of a profound shift in human understanding and values.

Industrial ecology speaks to many themes already



Table 4 Elements of a sustainable paradigm

Fundamentally ecological-Homo sapiens as a part of nature Balanced between man and the rest of nature Natural, not national, boundaries

Socially constructed constitution of knowledge and self Strongly interdependent and systems-oriented

Cooperation versus competition New forms of economic coordination

Fundamentally teleological (goal- or ends-directed) as opposed to the modern economic model Deliberate, planned approach to achieve sustainable levels of human activity under conditions deemed appropriate for humankind and

other species Maximal sustainable levels of activity are not clear at present; high-output economics appear to exceed such levels The visible foot instead of the invisible hand

Technological innovation of green products, including infrastructure such as power generation, housing, or transportation, and green processes, including manufacturing and agriculture Democracy and freedom

Participatory/communitarian Equitable New forms of responsibility

present or slowly emerging and offers a learning, guiding framework that can move from the present base to a more sustainable world without such trauma. It can serve as a set of strategic principles to guide the design of products and processes. It has some limits as a guide; its focus on the production side omits concerns about the consumption proclivities of developed economies. It speaks directly to the need to merge economic and environmental goals as called for by many authoritative bodies. Some of its principles, like closing materials loops, provide a means for uncoupling development from ever-growing demands for raw resources and waste-receiving capacity. By looking at the whole economic/ecological system, it offers a more robust definition of eco-efficiency than models based on standard economic theory.

Product development and design

In this new framework, product design and the policy framework that impacts design assume a central role, guiding the flows of materials in and out of the environment, and, at the same time, reflecting their social, economic importance. Looking at products, rather than processes, shifts the policy-maker’s focus from the end of the process pipe to the center stage of the market and the market’s social importance as a means to satisfy the collective demands of a polity. Adding a connection to the ecological context via life cycle frameworks expands the designer’s world beyond the narrow confines of consumer satisfaction as the only important performance criterion.

Focusing on products and product development is different. It forces producers to face challenges to the most central of their assets, market share. It shows up not merely as marginally more expensive goods and services to the consumers, but as threats to the very availability of familiar (technological) options in the marketplace. The economic consequences are obvious and large. Green products are emerging from the demand pull of customers with new attitudes towards environmental values. Additionally, addressing the pro-

duct captures the process as well, whereas the converse is not true.

The significance of the industrial ecology either as a paradigm or system of analysis for products arises in the design or development stage in a product’s life history . 29 In the context of this paper, design is a conscious, explicit activity to establish new forms of technology, organizational (institutional) structures, human competence (education), or rules (laws) such that social activities become more effective in achiev- ing the desired state that the current structures fail to produce. Design of technological artifacts, in the form of products and processes, fits the everyday sense of design.

Design, here, does not mean the conventional top- down, solution-driven process that is always constrained by the pre-existing mental models of experts operating in worlds fragmented by narrow disciplinary professional niches. Design is, rather, a mindful set of actions taken to transform everyday activities from old, unsatisfying ways to a new set that moves the action in the intended direction. Ultimately it must be bottom- up, participatory, rooted in practical experience, and arising from the understanding of those most centrally involved. Design is located near the top of the institutional pyramid (Figures 1 and 2) and is informed by inputs from the paradigmatic upward flows and inward contextual flows.

With this way of thinking about design, we can more clearly identify the context in which design arises. First, there must be a consciousness of the misdirection of current actions; i.e. an awareness that our routine activities are not producing satisfactory results. Second, there must be a commitment to act to change the context in which those actions take place. Third, we must have some framework for guiding the designer’s hand. Finally, we must have a process by which the new design becomes embedded in the everyday world of social activity. Broadly construedrO, industrial ecology can contribute to each of these items.

J. Cleaner Prod., 1997, Volume 5, Number 1-2 91


Specik avenues to product design

The following sections point to specific examples of how product design can be informed by industrial ecology. The categories are derived from the work of Tibbs and Ehrenfeld7*lo.

Improving the metabolic pathways of industrial processes and materials use

This category contains the most familiar and oldest of environmental control approaches and has an important place in an overall product strategy. Table SA shows several forms of pollution control and avoidance mech- anisms that have the primary function to keep substances that upset natural processes out of the environment. Improving the metabolism means preventing the outputs from industrial activities from interfering significantly in normal natural processes. The idea of looking at an economy ecologically and more specifically describing the flows of materials and energy through the economy as a metabolic system was intro- duced by Ayres, who coined the phrase ‘industrial metabolism’30*31.

Creating loop-closing industrial ecosystems

This class includes many items of current interest and represents a shift towards the systematic approach being put forth in this paper. Examples are shown in Table 5B. The first few entries represent the variety of practices constituting the broad class of recycling

Table5 Specific design principles and examples

(A) Controlling metabolic pathways Understandina and describing the oathwavs (industrial metabolism) Pollution pteiention (PP or ?9) and env&onmentally clean manufacturing (ECM)

No clean CFC alternatives Toxics use reduction

On-line production of gallium arsenide and arsenical dopants (AT&T)

Titanium oxide pigments in place of zinc oxide End-of-pipe pollution control and waste management (B) Loop-closing practices Reuse Remanufacturing

Asset management (Xerox) End-of-life product materials recycling Product packaging recycling Recovering and designing industrial by-products as feedstocks Integrated industrial communities (or industrial symbiosis)

Kalundborg, Denmark, industrial complex (C) Dematerialization Selling function rather than consumption

Telecommuting, the paperless office and other forms of the ‘information society’ Product prolongation Light-weighting Using recycled materials (also a part of loop-closing) (D) Systematizing energy usage Minimizing energy consumption

Reducing commuting through communication Energy cascades Renewable energy sources

that have become the focus of environmental policy in the USA and in Europe. This element of industrial ecology suggests that it is important to look beyond the simple closed-cycle rubric to identify complex paths that reduce the demand on the environment as a sink and source. It is instructive to look at the comprehen- sive approach taken by Xerox and others. The Xerox Asset Recovery Management program attempts to close the cycle at every stage of manufacture, use, and disposal through a combination of reuse, remanufac- ture, and recycle3*.

The above and other loop-closing systems follow a product’s life cycle, more or less. Another related practice is also central to industrial ecology. Here loop-closing takes the form of integrated industrial complexes or, as some have called them, ‘industrial symbioses’33. The loop is closed by routing wastes materials (and energy) from the sources of those wastes to other entities that use them as feedstocks. This was a central theme of one of the early papers that shaped the emerging form of industrial ecology4. Allen and others have developed models and databases describing by-product flows in major sectors of the US economy34. These practices are structurally and economically very different from recycling infrastructures, but can achieve the same overall materials conservation called for by the industrial ecology paradigm. An exemplar of such a system has been built in Kalundborg, Denmark33*35. The Kalundborg example illustrates the possibility of loop-closing primarily through the market, aided in the background by regulatory pressures. Interest in organizing small clusters of linked firms capable of eliminating process emissions altogether is rising, fueled by a new ‘zero emissions’ initiative36.

Demuterializing industrial output

This class, exemplified in Table 5C, aims directly at bringing demands for resources in balance with the capacity of the environment. One path to dematerialization comes via the notion of function or service instead of the product itselF’. Stahel has argued for some time for an economy that focuses on the maxim- ization of the utilization rather than on the consumption of material goods. Such a ‘functional economy’ would be much less material intensive relative to the satisfaction of human needs than the present system. His arguments echo those of one of the first ‘ecological’ critics of modem economic thought, E. F. Schumacher, who wrote3*: ‘ . ..the aim [of an economy] should be to obtain the maximum of well-being with the mini- mum of consumption’.

This idea, which runs counter to the trend of shorter and shorter product cycles in consumerist societies, suggests that much gain can be made by designs that provide service over long periods of time. Product prolongation through remanufacturing and technological upgrades (new CPUs in old computer boxes), com- monalty of components among different products,


A framework for industrial ecology: 3. R. Ehrenfeid

innovative leasing and service arrangements, and new channels for routing products to other users (in developing countries, for example) and back into the re-manufacturing chain are elements of such a restruc- tured economy. Remanufacturing is different from recycling in that it is a form of product prolongation, not simple material loop-closing as above37. This practice closes the product, not the material, loop. Stahel also notes that these practices require structural changes in the economy and are more difficult to implement than recycling, which does not.

The development of new forms of information technology, especially the personal computer, offers a fundamental shift in the way social activities can be organized. Communication by electronic means may replace face-to-face settings in some settings, eliminating or reducing the need for large material- and energy- consuming transportation technologies. A more direct form of dematerialization, light-weighting, has been occurring for many years, driven primarily by economic forces39. The dematerializing trend can produce a perverse environmental effect, however, if products become so light and small that consumers prefer to throw them away rather than repair them. Modem merchandising tends to support this practice.

Systematizing patterns of energy use

This category is an important part of industrial ecology, but one that may appear to be more distant from product ‘development than the prior categories. Table 5D shows some of the kinds of technical approaches that fit this category. The embedded energy in a product is often more hidden from the view of the designer than are some of the more direct product characteristics. For many products, the major impact comes during use, not in materials processing and in manufacturing. Automobiles, refrigerators, and air conditioners are common examples of products exhibiting this characteristic.

Other systematic frameworks are also emerging which, although not called forms of industrial ecology by their creators, have much in common. The Natural Step, for example, developed by a Swedish physician, K.-H. Robert, is an educational and change program based on four natural systems principles. These principles are*%

1. Crustal substances must not systematically increase in nature.

2. Industrial products must not systematically increase in nature.

3. The productivity and diversity of the natural system must not be allowed to deteriorate.

4. Just and efficient use of energy and other resources.

The Natural Step system has been incorporated into the product strategies at several major Swedish firms, IKEA and Electrolux, and is being spread elsewhere

by a growing set of national organizations affiliated with the parent Swedish group.

By direct reference to such frameworks or by simply following analogous design rules, many research pro- ject and corporate programs are now moving to embody features in product systems. Many of these examples can be found in European projects-’ and in the electronics sector in the USA and elsewhere. A recent text on design for the environment includes a chapter on industrial ecology43.

Implementing frameworks

The last three of the items in the framework suggested by Tibbs are different. The fifth speaks of the need to understand and design within some set of limits to the carrying capacity. This item couples the physical reality of a thermodynamically-constrained system to produce material through-put indefinitely. This area of determin- ing the capacity of the natural system to support innovation and growth is outside of the realm of the product designer and policy analyst. However, it is critical that they build whatever knowledge is available into their design processes.

The sixth item, aligning policy to conform to industrial ecological principles has already begun in the form of extended producer responsibility and take-back legislation being adopted in Europe. At least eight European countries have or are considering a form of take-back policy, as is Japan as of late 1996. This concept, which requires firms to retain their responsibility for disposal at the end of a product’s life, fits the loop closing feature44*45. The knowledge that a firm will have to become physically or otherwise legally involved in the disposal stage has led to experimen- tation on practical disassembly practices and on the design of objects that can be more easily taken apart so that their components and materials content can be more efficiently recovered and returned to use. Other related policies ban the use of specific materials that are toxic or upsetting to the natural system. The Montreal Protocol which banned the production and use of CFCs is another form of policy that is consistent with and supportive of the technical principles listed.

As a last example of the inclusion of industrial ecology in policy, the current Dutch environmental policy plan is based on two principles that reflect the above framework-environmental utilization space (EUS) and integrated chain managementi6. Environ- mental utilization space attempts to evaluate and compare the total set of resources needed to support the Netherlands’ economy and compare it to a reasonable measure of the available carrying capacity. The relative amount of EUS associated with current economic activities to the country’s capacity is then used as a basis for reduction or future limit targets. Integrated chain management implicitly seeks to close loops.

The seventh item is becoming manifest in the design for environment frameworks that firms are beginning to implement29~40*41. There are many such systems now



being established by companies. Many use some ‘sort of life-cycle model to evaluate material or design choices. The design practices of firms are changing to include environmental specialists and the consideration of life cycle characteristics early in the design pro- cess29.

Conclusion

Since this paper appears in a journal named Cleaner Production, it may be helpful to end with a short discussion of the differences between industrial ecology, cleaner production, and pollution prevention. The first two are generally taken to extend beyond the traditional regulatory bounds of single-media, end-of- pipe systems of environmental management. Pollution prevention is construed in this broad fashion by some, but has a more narrow process and locational orien- tation. Cleaner production and pollution prevention seem to lie more within the standard environmental management paradigm (pollution control and waste management) than does industrial ecology. I am being purposefully somewhat vague here as all of the distinc- tions are broadly defined in formal documents and through practice. Pollution prevention, at least in the USA, would argue that the most satisfactory system should produce zero emissions from every process. If it were practically possible to do this on a broad scale, pollution prevention might be a satisfactory framework, but, given practical limits, the broader loop-closing aspect of industrial ecology would seem to lead to more efficient use of resources within the larger system. Individual plants and products might produce what appear significant impacts taken separately, but by linkages such as at Kalundborg produce small overall impacts as an integrated system. It is the definition of the system bounds rather than the semantics that is more important.

The semantics and metaphorical sense are, neverthe- less, important in changing the culture and institutional structures that ultimately produce the technological artifacts on which sustainability rests. The richness of industrial ecology in extending beyond the disciplinary, political, and economic bounds of all the other frameworks is perhaps the most powerful of the three. It would seem to have the potential to change the dominant social paradigm to show the benefits to individuals and isolated organizations like firms in cooperating to produce sustainable behavior. In a sense it could lead to a kind of anti- or negative ‘Tragedy of the commons’ behavior regarding the utilization of the essential resources of the world that supports the human species.

References 1 O’Rourke, D., Connelly, L. and Koshland, C. P. International

Journul of Environment and Pollution, 1996, 6(2/3), 89 2 Rorty, R., Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, 1989. 3 Giddens, A., The Constitution of Society. University of Cali-

fornia Press, Berkeley, CA, 1984.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 21 22

23

24

25

26 27

28 29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Frosch, R. and Gallopoulos, N., Scientific American, 1989, September, 261 (3). 142. Allenby, B. R., MRS Bulletin, 1992, Match, 17 (3). 46. Hileman, B., Chemical and Engineering News, 1992, 24 August, 70 (33), 7. Tibbs, H. B. C. Pollution Prevention Review, 1992, 2(2), 167 Lowe, E. Total Quality Environmental Management, 1993, 3(l), 73. Socolow, R., Andrews, C., Berkout, F. and Thomas, V., Industrial Ecoloav and Global Change. Cambridge Universitv Press, New Yoz, 1994.

Y ~~,

Ehrenfeld, J. R., in Green Goods, ed. E. Ryden and J. Strahl. Kretsloppdelegationen, Stockholm, Sweden, 1995. Frosch, R. A. and Uenohara M.. in Industrial Ecoloev: U.S.- Japan Perspectives, ed. D. .J. Richards and A. B. Fullerton. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1994. Graedel, T. E. and Allenby, B. R, Industrial Ecology. Pren- tice Hall, Engelwood Cliffs. NJ. 1995. World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, New York, 1987. Kuhn, T., The Structure of ScienttjSc Revolutions. Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL, 1962. Gladwin, T. N., Freeman, T. K. and Kennelly, J. J. Academy of Management Review, 1995, 20(4), 874. Milbrath, L. W., Envisioning a Sustainable Society. State University of New York University Press, Albany, 1989. Daly, H. E., Steady-state Economics. Island Press, Wash- ington, DC, 1991. Riddell, R., Ecodevelopment: Economics, Ecology and Devel- opment: An Alternative to Growth Imperative. Gower, Lon- don, 1981. Glaeser, R., Ecodevelopment: Concepts, Policies, Strategies. Pergamon Press, New York, 1984. Sachs, I. Ceres, 1984, 17(4), 17. Norgaard, R. B. Futures, 1988, 6, 606. Colby, M. E., Environmental management in development. World Bank Discussion Paper 80, The World Bank, 1990. Jelinski, L. W., Graedel, T. E., Laudise, R. A., McCall, D. W. and Patel, C. K. N. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1992, 89, 793. Ayres, R. II., Industrial metabolism: closing the materials cycle. Presented at SE1 Conference on Principles of Clean Production, Stockholm, April 1991. Holmbera. J.. Robert. K.-H. and Eriksson. K.-E.. Socio- economic’ principles for a sustainable society. Presented at Down to Earth: Practical Applications of Ecological Econom- its, Heredia, Costa Rica, 24-28 October 1994: Robert. K. H. In Context. 1991. 28. 10. Erikssdn, K.-E. and Robert, K.-H: Reviews in Oncology, 1994, 4(2), 5. Hardin, G. Science, 1968, 162, 1243. Lenox, M. and Ehrenfeld, J. R. Total Quality Environmental Management, 1995, 4(4), 37. Ayres, R. II., in Technology and Environment, cd. J. H. Ausubel and H. E. Sladovich. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1989, ~23. Ayres, R. U. Proceedings of the National Academy <of Sciences, 1992, 89, 815. Berko-Boateng, V., Azar, J., de Jong, E. and Yander, G. A., in Proceedings: IEEE Intemationul Symposium on Elec- tronics and the Environment, Arlington, VA, 10-12 May 1993. Gertler, N. and Ehrenfeld, J. R. Technology Review, 1996, 99(2), 48. Allen, D. T. and Jain, R. Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials, 1992, 9(l), 1. Engberg, H., Industrial Symbiosis in Denmark. Stem School of Business, New York University, 1993. Krieger, J. H. Chemical and Engineering News, 1996, 74(28), 8. Stahel, W. R., in The Greening of Industrial Ecosystems, ed. B. R. Allenby and D. J. Richards. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1994. Schumacher, E. F., Small Is Beautifil: Economics as if People Muttered. Harper and Row, New York, 1973. Herman, R., Ardekani, S. A. and Ausubel, J. H., in Tech- nology and Environment, ed. J. H. Ausubel and H. E. Sladov- ich. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1989. Alting, L. and Legarth, J. B., in CIRP Annals, Vol. 2, CIRF’ General Assembly, Enschede, The Netherlands, 1995.


41

42

43

Norwegian Academy of Technological Sciences (NTVA), Workshop on Industrial Ecology and Sustainable Product Design, Trondheim, Norway, l-2 February 1996. Hanssen, 0. J., Sustainable product development. Ostfold Research Foundation Research Paper AR.08, Frederikstad, Norway, 1994. Fiksel, J., ed., Design for Environment. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1996.


44

45

46

Lifset, R. The Journal of Resource. Management and Tech- nology, 1992, 21(4), 163. Lindhqvist, T. Extended Producer Responsibility. In Proceed- ings of the Lund University Exper~Seminar on Extended Producer Resnonsibilitv. Trolleholm Castle. Sweden. Mav 4- 5, 1992. L -’

*

National Environmental Policy Plan 2, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, The Hague, 1994.


Date post:	02-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	leidy-marcela-montoya
View:	24 times
Download:	0 times

Industrial Ecology a Framework

Documents