cleaner production and industrial ecosystems, a dutch experience

Journal of Cleaner Production 6 (1998) 189–197

Cleaner production and industrial ecosystems, a Dutch experience

Leo Baas*

Faculty of Social Sciences, Erasmus Centre for Environmental Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam,The Netherlands

Abstract

This article opens briefly with the recent discussions about the effectiveness of pollution prevention. As pollution prevention andcleaner production are important elements of industrial ecology, the different definitions and approaches of industrial ecology as aterm also need clarity. The major part of this article reflects the first results of the cleaner production and industrial ecology concepts,applied in an industrial ecosystem project (INES) in the Rotterdam harbour area. In this industrial area with many refineries and(petro)chemical facilities, the possibilities for companies to reuse waste streams, by-products and energy from each other wasresearched. The project was initiated by an industrial association. Sixty-nine members of the industrial association joined the INESproject and provided confidential information about their resources, products and waste streams to the research team. Based on thisinformation, 15 projects were designed. The selected three projects for further feasibility studies showed the potency to reduce theuse of energy, water and bio sludge significantly. 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Bio sludge; Compressed air and water use reduction; Industrial ecology; Pollution prevention/cleaner production

1. Pollution prevention and industrial ecology

While the concept of prevention of waste and emis-sions became increasingly known within companies,nonetheless there are still vastly different interpretationsof the ‘prevention approach’. Often the company’sknowledge about the real emissions and waste streamsis poor. Also the interpretation, that prevention meansthe avoidance of the ‘produced’ pollutants, beingreleased into the environment, is still very evident.Hirschhorn’s critical review [1] of approximately 15years of pollution prevention (P2) innovation concludesthat the P2 revolution failed, among other reasonsbecause of the strength of the pollution control (PC)stakeholders (PC gives even in the perception of regu-lators and environmentalists more certainty than P2), andthe confusion in semantics in creating new labels likeclean technology and eco-efficiency. Also cleaner pro-duction and industrial ecology are classified as weakerP2 variations: cleaner production has less P2 integrity,industrial ecology has a high potential for subversion of

* Tel: 1 31 10 4082050; Fax:1 31 10 2120834; E-mail: [email protected]

0959-6526/98/$19.00 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S0959-6526 (98)00015-8

P2 (in industrial ecology even the off-site recycling isequal to P2). Hirschhorn’s criticism seems to be a signof an anomaly situation, which can be illustrative of aparadigm shift [2]. Until now P2 has not given a break-through in the mainstream economics, although P2 canultimately succeed1, because it is more than just a betterenvironmental solution. In the analysis of Geiser [3] aninteresting observation occurs. The P2 innovators wereenvironmental idealists, not revolutionaries. In that waygovernments and industry perceived the P2 innovationsonly in the margin of the micro-level, but “the movementcan still be revolutionary. It could go beyond conven-tional reform initiatives, break with the conventional‘command and control’ paradigm, and launch a newmode of environmental and industry policy, but to dothis, the pollution prevention movement would need tobe more visionary in its goals and more aggressive inits tactics” [3].

Will the industrial ecology concept experience thesame kind of semantic confusion and subversion asHirschhorn mentioned for P2? At least there are differentsemantics like industrial ecosystem, industrial symbiosis

1 The second part of the title of Hirschhorn’s article.

190 L. Baas /Journal of Cleaner Production 6 (1998) 189–197

and industrial metabolism for nearly the same kind ofconcept. There is also a variety of definitions, startingwith simple bilateral relationships between companieson one side of a continuum until an integrated systemat the regional community level at the other side. Manyarticles on industrial ecology, however, focus largely onthe physical flows of substances and the physical trans-formation processes. They do not address issues of co-ordination (mechanisms) within and between organis-ations, they ignore the institutional structures withinwhich organisations operate. These may be markets, forraw materials, commodities, products, services, labour,capital and insurance. These may be legislative, address-ing issues of competition, ‘right to know’, fiscal incen-tives, environmental regulations and liability. They mayalso be cultural, social, historical or ethical. Industrialecology should include the ‘neurology of organisms’,‘competition between species’ and ‘population dynam-ics’ without getting trapped in oversimplifications ofsocio-biology [4].

Frosch and Gallopoulos [5] first introduced a simpledefinition of an industrial ecosystem in 19892. This con-cept focuses on the relations among companies in adirect waste/by-product exchange. Connections with anatural ecosystem have also been made, both at the levelof the interface between man-made ecosystems with thenatural global ecosystem3 [6] as well as the applicationof the principles of natural systems to man-made sys-tems4 [7]. In a brief reflection on the usefulness of bio-logical metaphors, Boons and Baas [8] point to the pre-scriptive nature of the analogy. Frosch and Gallaloupolos[5] for instance are writing “… much could be gainedif the industrial system were to mimic the best featuresof the biological analogue” and further on: an industrialsystem should “… approximate the ideal closed systemor mimic individual biological organisms or specific bio-logical subsystems.” However, a biological ecosystemevolves towards a—local—equilibrium via the evol-utionary mechanism which operates through the pro-cesses of variation, selection and reproduction at thelevel of organisms. Arriving at an equilibrium state is

2 “An industrial ecosystem is the transformation of the traditionalmodel of industrial activity, in which individual manufacturing takesin raw materials and generates products to be sold plus waste to bedisposed of, into a more integrated system, in which the consumptionof energy and materials is optimised and the effluents of one processserve as the raw material for another process.”

3 Tibbs (1992): “Industrial ecology involves designing industrialinfrastructures as if they were a series of interlocking man-made eco-systems interfacing with the natural global ecosystem. Industrial ecol-ogy takes the pattern of the natural environment as a model for solvingenvironmental problems, creating a new paradigm for the industrialsystem as a process.”

4 Kirschner (1995): “Industrial ecology applies the principles ofnatural systems—such as carrying capacity, material flows, resilience,and connectivity—to man-made systems”.

not necessary, but it often results in biological systemsbecause the process of variation, selection and repro-duction (in short, adaptation) runs faster than theenvironment is changing. It should be noted that an equi-librium state is not necessarily an optimal state [9].

In relation to a narrow mimic of the industry-ecologyanalogy, two points are stressed [8]:

1. the use of this metaphor rightly emphasises the factthat industrial processes are interrelated;

2. the adjustment of different processes towards eachother, and towards their (natural) environment, doesnot result from autonomous processes, but can onlybe achieved by intentional action.

Although the cleaner production/P2 techniquesexclude off-site recycling persistently, the first wasteminimization opportunity assessment manual includessuch developments [10]. Ayres [11] also developed theconcept of industrial metabolism in such a broader con-text of the material flows5. Other definitions cover simi-lar approaches at the industrial level. Sometimes in aglobal context of natural resources management6 [12],sometimes in an industrial infrastructure and consumer–producer relationship7 [13].

Finally, industrial ecology is used as a level beyonda company’s internal cleaner production optimum(including product ecodesign, extended producerstewardship) [14]. Brattebø [15] identifies cleaner pro-duction and environmental management as process-ori-ented, while industrial ecology is systems oriented andcovers a longer time frame and the whole array of manu-facturing.

2. Considerations of the INES project

The project was initiated in the western region of theRotterdam harbour area under the leadership of theindustry association ‘Europoort/Botlek Interests’ (AEBI)[16]. This association is engaged in both the societalaspects of a good residence and industry infrastructureas well as the environmental management development

5 “The metabolism of industry is the whole integrated collection ofphysical processes that convert raw materials and energy, plus labour,into finished products and wastes in a more or less steady-state con-dition.”

6 Ehrenfeld (1994): “Industrial ecology is a large analytical frame-work that serves mostly to identify and enumerate the myriad flowsof materials and technological artifacts within a web of producersand consumers.”

7 Allenby (1993): “To manage the earth’s resources in such a wayas to approach and maintain a global carrying capacity for our specieswhich is both desirable and sustainable over time, given continuedevolution of technology and quality of life. The study of what thisentails, especially in terms of existing (objective) and desirable(normative) patterns, is industrial ecology”.

191L. Baas /Journal of Cleaner Production 6 (1998) 189–197

of its member companies. For the development ofenvironmental management systems (more or less con-forming with the BS 7750 system) 69 member compa-nies were clustered in the following sectors: industrialservices (10 companies), refineries (seven companies),inorganic chemistry (11 companies), storage and trans-port (15 companies), mass goods (13 companies) and(petro)chemistry (13 companies). This environmentalmanagement system project was based on a voluntaryagreement between the government and the industry toimplement such systems in 1995. This process shouldbe in its last phase at the start of the INES project, butshowed delays within several companies. However, thesatisfying communication structure for the implemen-tation of environmental management systems was con-tinued for the INES project.

The INES project shows the elements of physicalflows of substances and flows of transformation pro-cesses (cascading, facility sharing, and so on), infor-mation feed-back and a project team (staff member ofthe industry association, chairman of the environmentalmanagement communication platform, a consultant anduniversity researchers from the Technical UniversityDelft and Erasmus University Rotterdam) as co-ordin-ator. This structural ‘beyond-company’ approach wasnew in the region, although several bilateral arrange-ments already existed.

2.1. Goals of the INES project

The goals of the INES project were:

1. To stimulate the development of cleaner productionapproaches within the environmental managementsystems in each company;

2. To perform network analyses of the activities,materials and energy streams of identified chains ofcompanies and their individual capability to reusewaste streams, by-products and energy from eachother in a preventive perspective;

3. To develop a knowledge infrastructure among com-panies and the involved universities and govern-mental organisations to help ensure the increasinglybetter functioning of the industrial eco-system ofthis region.

2.2. Questions at the beginning of the INES project

Because the INES project was a new concept for thecompanies involved, uncertainty about the final resultsgenerated the need for clarity and credibility. After thesuccessful fund-raising phase and before the start of thefirst phase of the research project, the industry associ-ation formulated the following prerequisites:

I waste and emission reduction have to be measurable;

I implementation of chain management and cleanerproduction options must be profitable for the compa-nies or at least cost-neutral.

The prerequisites were implicitly accepted by the uni-versity researchers, partly because the approach was sup-posed to resemble the experiences in cleaner productioncase studies, that only after doing the research the posi-tive results should become clear. On the other hand, nozero measurement and criteria for the development andutilisation of milestones/yardsticks in time frames andprofits were formulated. As such, the time frame, mile-stone indicators and reduction targets were not explicitlydesigned. Also the level of analysis and the hypothesisformulation of the cleaner production/chainmanagement/industrial ecology approach were notexplicitly formulated. Should the analysis be at thelevel of:

I within the companies;I all companies in the region;I among companies in industrial networks;I among regions;I among chains of resources or activities.

As the INES project is limited to a defined industrialarea, the question was whether such a regional focuscould provide sufficient industrial ecosystem opport-unities for the companies?

3. Performance of the INES project

The INES project is designed in different phases. Thefirst three phases were the phase of getting commitmentand designing projects, the phase of pre-feasibility stud-ies and the phase of feasibility studies of three selectedprojects. These phases were funded by NOVEM (aDutch energy and environment research funding organis-ation, managing funds from the Ministries of Economicsand Environment), the province of Zuid-Holland, theRotterdam municipality, the Rotterdam Harbour Boardand a European Union renovation fund. The implemen-tation phase, starting in phase 4, is assumed to be perfor-med on a commercial basis.

3.1. First phase

As a first phase of the project two targets weredefined. At first, the concepts had to be communicatedto all companies at a plant management and environmen-tal co-ordination level.

Two workshops with the companies for ‘cleaner pro-duction and industrial ecology’ education and commit-ment were organised. In the first workshop, two industri-alists of the well-known example of industrial ecology—the symbiosis project in Kalundborg in Denmark—gave


a presentation. They referred to the development of apartnership between several industries, farmers and themunicipality of Kalundborg in the past 30 years. Thepartners developed a series of bilateral exchanges offlows of materials, at first on a base of financial-econ-omical incentives. This partnership has led to a hugeimprovement of the environmental and economic per-formance of the Kalundborg region [17].

The second workshop gave both feed-back from aquestionnaire about the state-of-the-art of the environ-mental management systems as well as the design of theINES project. At the end of this 1.5-day industrial ecol-ogy workshop environmental managers of approximately50 companies formulated an INES declaration for thecompanies in the Europoort/Botlek industrial area, basedon the elements company environmental managementsystem, cleaner production, integral chain management,industrial ecosystem and sustainable development.

The second target was the stock-taking of somematerial flows. As a next step in the data collection, thecompanies received a floppy disk with questions abouttheir three major products, resources and waste streams.A very high response of 81% was the basis for the defi-nition of 15 INES projects (see Table 1).

In a feed-back workshop with all the companies, allthe projects were further tuned. The first phase endedhere. Already it was clear that such a project with a com-plex communication structure between different stake-holders would consume nearly twice as much time asplanned.

3.2. Second phase

In this phase, pre-feasibility studies were performedfor all projects. The interesting trend is that on the onehand internal cleaner production developments need

Table 1Categories and potential INES projects

Category Project

Prevention Cargo waste in transit and storageSmall size packagingOff-spec products

Chain management Reuse of sulphurDesulphuringSilicium- and aluminium-oxideCrude oil sludge

Energy/utilities sharing Demand/supply steamAir capacityLow pressure steamOff-spec natural gasHigh-caloric waste incineration forgeneration of electricity

Joint treatment Bio sludgeWaste waterBallast water

reinforcement. Earlier assessments were successful at amicro level within a plant, but in many cases a lack ofsupport for continuous cleaner production improvementsat higher decision-making levels in the companies wasshown. Several company representatives favoured newinputs for cleaner production assessments, but these werenot allowed in the scope of the fund-raising conditions.On the other hand at the company level, the societalimportance of the environmental issues (for reasons ofcontinuity of the company), is shaping minds for stra-tegic alliances for industrial ecosystems. This develop-ment is influenced by the re-evaluation and internalis-ation of the free market (either as reality or asmystification) and the changing interaction with theDutch government. The Dutch Environmental Regu-lation Offices developed changes from strict regulationtowards a mixture of regulation, economical instrumentsand voluntary agreements (covenants).

Although the full environmental stewardship thinkingis still exceptional, some elements occur on the horizon(examples of this level are companies with an eco-philosophy). The single company develops its environ-mental policy in different, often not in continuous ways.Winsemius [18] distinguishes different phases and newactors in the trend of new response patterns (see Table2).

Although the company representatives, involved withenvironmental management, are knowledgeable and fav-our a constructive and pro-active approach, in practicemost of the companies are still in a reactive and recep-tive phase.

After ending the pre-feasibility studies, the projectteam developed a selection matrix and prioritised theprojects ‘bio sludge’, ‘compressed air’ and ‘waste water’for further assessment. In the selection, projects werequalitatively analysed on their relevance for the environ-ment, and after that on their economic and company par-ticipation potency. Different scores (four-point scale: 1means bad; 4 means very good) selected the projects inthe categories potentially successful, successful underconditions and potentially unsuccessful. An overview ofthe project selection model is given in Table 3.

After this selection, the characteristics of the projectswere formulated to be able to cluster projects and toelaborate on the final selection of three projects basedon criteria and cluster characteristics.

Potentially very successful projects are small-sizepackaging, desulphuring, off-spec natural gas and high-caloric waste incineration for the generation of elec-tricity. Several private organisations showed interest inthe further elaboration of all these projects. A specialexample of blindness in everyday normal practice wasoff-spec natural gas, a by-product in the oil drilling pro-cess in the region. Everybody in the industrial area wasfamiliar with the flaring of the gas that was needed fromtime to time. Only after the stock-taking of waste


Table 2New business approaches toward environmental issues

Response pattern liaison Reactive Receptive Constructive Pro-activePerspective End-of-pipe Process Product NeedsParticipants Specialists Managers Industrial sector SocietyConsequences Minimisation Optimisation Quantum Jump Vision

Table 3INES project selection model

Potential qualification Relevance for the environment Economical potential Company participation potential

Successful Score 3–4 Score 3–4 Score 3–4Successful under conditions Score 4 Score 1–2 Score 1–2Not successful Score 1–3 Score 1–2 Score 1–2

streams could the supply and demand for this off-specproduct be commercialised in one week.

Potentially successful, but not on a short-term forjuridical reasons, are the projects prevention of cargowaste in transit and storage of resources and a sulphuracid plant for the reuse of sulphur.

Potentially successful with a need of further researchare the projects reuse of off-spec products,demand/supply of steam, together with low pressuresteam, compressed air capacity, bio sludge and waste-water. As stated before, the last three projects wereselected for the feasibility study.

3.3. Third phase

In this phase, the selected three projects were elabor-ated as design for implementation. All projects workedwith clusters of companies as a representative part ofthe total region. A short overview is described in thenext paragraphs.

3.3.1. Compressed air utility sharingUntil now every company has an individual supply

system with much back-up capacity, often in stand-byoperation. As compressed air is regarded as a resourcefor the production process, the technical engineeringdepartment is responsible for the maintenance of the sup-ply network. As compressed air is hardly ever seen froman environmental perspective, it surprised many(environmental) managers, that compressed air needsbetween 10 and 15% of the total electricity use of a com-pany. The participating companies in the pilot projectwere an air supplier, an organic chemical company, aninorganic chemical company, an aluminium processingcompany and a cement company. After an interview tourand the elaboration of the data provided by the partici-pating companies, the following results of a networksupply were assumed:

I The price can be lowered with approximately 30%;

I The energy saving can be approximately 20%.

When the actual use of compressed air was reallymeasured, the two major outcomes were:

I The real use of compressed air is lower than expected(7000 m3/h instead of the presumed 12,000–15,000m3/h);

I The total energy saving can decrease at two levels:1. lowering pressure, preventing leaks and re-designing

the existing pipeline system in the companies cansave approximately 20%;

2. central supply via a ring pipeline system can saveapproximately another 20%.

The results meant at the same time, that the economyof scale for price reduction became too low. The partnersdecided to explore the expansion of the number of com-panies to restore the original price effect. Among otherreasons because of this, the process of implementationis still ongoing (March 1998).

3.3.2. WastewaterThis project had a highly political enforcement

potency because of the Water Authority’s intention tobuild a wastewater sewer in the whole industrial area.Although the process wastewater was treated beforeemission in nearly every company, the Water Authorityalso wanted to reduce the non-point emission sources.The plan was based on estimated 1990 data, that partlyprocess water, partly housekeeping water (offices,toilets, canteens) and partly rainwater, are emitting80,000 inhabitant equivalents. However, later investi-gations showed that the untreated emissions werereduced to less than 10% of the 1990 estimation. Theenvironmental benefit/financial cost ratio for a newsewer became out of balance. Nevertheless, the projectraised the awareness that water management improve-ment can facilitate a remarkable reduction of water emis-sions and the use of clean water. A limited stock-takingwithin about 20 companies made clear that the exact data


of the quantity and quality of the water use made a leanerapplication feasible. The use of pinch technologyshowed the possibility of using a certain water qualityat the highest level of the company’s production processor an industrial ecology cluster of companies. Doing this,reuse of several wastewater streams will give a reductionof 10% water use. Some case studies were presented in aworkshop to inform all the companies. The target group‘water’ of the industrial association will lead the processto develop an optimal water use and cascade circulationboth within the companies as well as in clusters of com-panies.

3.3.3. Bio sludgeThe total amount of waste bio sludge in 12 companies

is about 57,000 tonnes each year including a 3% drycomponent of 1900 tonnes. The actual logistics andtreatment costs are DFl 23508 per tonne dry component.A pre-feasibility study showed that there are differentoptions for the actual and future bio sludge treatment.That is why the approach to the problem will be attwo levels:

1. an optimalisation of the management of the biologicaltreatment facilities to prevent waste bio sludge withinthe companies;

2. a joint central mechanical vapour compression instal-lation; a feasibility study will be performed to com-bine this installation with the use of dewatered sludge(90% dry component) as substitute fuel for coal in anelectricity works or in a cement company.

A waste bio sludge reduction between 10 and 20% isexpected. The savings will vary between DFl 500,000and 1 million each year.

4. Analysis

The project team members often discussed with eachother and with governmental members of the supervisioncommittee of the INES project the following items:

4.1. The tension between chain management andindustrial ecology

In general, the focus of chain management is verticalin a sector and the focus of industrial ecology is bothhorizontal and vertical among companies in the sameand other industrial sectors.

The INES project was funded for chain management,but was limited to the Europoort/Botlek area. Most ofthe chains cross the border of the region and/or the coun-try as can be illustrated in the case of the transportation

8 1DFl 5 US$0.5.

of the coal storage in the Europoort/Botlek area to theblast-furnace plants in the Ruhr area in Germany.

The array of (bulk) chemical compounds, energyresources and ‘semi-manufactured articles’ are more dif-ficult to manage via integral chain management thanconsumer products in a vertical chain. Crude oil and therefined compounds are the basis for many sectors, butare not continuously in the same condition in a chain.Richard [19] challenges the existence of linear and staticchains and emphasises that in practice these are actuallywebs and fans of chains.

4.2. The evaluation of the selected projects and theirrelative position

On environmental issues, an incremental developmentis ‘normal practice’. Most of the company leaders con-sider themselves belonging to a late majority inimplementing new practices and technologies [20]. Thatis why the decision was made to perform 15 pre-feasi-bility studies, both for the knowledge development andinvolvement of all member companies as well as for theprevention of eliminating potentially feasible projects inan early phase of INES. The pre-feasibility studies show,that several other projects can be performed besides theselected ones. An illustration of this is the project ‘cargowaste in transit and storage’. This project involves thecommitment of the environmental managers of two outof the three companies. However, an external intermedi-ary essential for overcoming the lack of internal supportfor a cleaner production assessment cannot be funded bythe government because it is said to be a routine job.The assumption is often that cleaner production conceptsare well known and can be initiated by companies them-selves. But in practice it is often found that the knowl-edge about and internal support for cleaner production islimited. In that case, environmental managers welcomeexternal help to foster more internal support for continu-ous cleaner production improvements.

4.3. The need for the performance of cleanerproduction assessments to serve as the basis forcontinuous improvements within companies should beaccomplished in a way that a premature ‘solution’ tothe waste problems through external approaches isavoided

Most companies were willing to give specific infor-mation confidentially on request. The commitment forthe INES project was growing by the awareness thatcompany alliances can also give synergistic results inenvironmental issues. At the same time it seems to bethat environmental managers meet fewer opportunitiesfor internal networks for continuous improvement in cle-aner production than in external networks.

The experiences, until now, indicate new possibilities


for improvements of environmental performances withinor among companies. However, projects like INESshould start with cleaner production audits within thecompanies. The audits can provide data for internal cle-aner production developments at first, and external INESdevelopments in a later phase. This approach can fit insector covenants and 4-year company environmentalmanagement plans for shaping conditions for optimalperformance.

4.4. Investments in environmental aspects can be partof four types of investments

The INES project team faced the following types ofinvestments in companies:

I replacement investments;I renewal investments for better return on investment

and a pay-back time less than 4 years;I so-called ‘must’ investments, particularly for environ-

mental and labour conditions issues and incidents.Also developments from covenants, like floating roofson storage tanks according the covenant on hydro-carbons, belong to this category;

I cleaner production assessment investments: optionswith a pay-back time less than 1 year.

Although every year investments for some environ-mental-driven projects are allocated, the environmentalmanagement policy of many companies can be classifiedas incremental. In the INES project necessary INESinvestments had to compete with traditional investmentpractice. Some of the investments were too small to jus-tify the needed input in time from company representa-tives in comparison with the spent time and financialresults in other projects.

4.5. Support system

The need for a ‘support system’ [21] or ‘symbiosisinstitute’ [22] as the driving force to generatecooperation processes is being confirmed in the INESproject. However, the case of this ‘brown field’ dis-cussion is which organisation is optimally occupied toperform this role. The municipal Rotterdam HarbourBoard, as owner of the harbours and the quays, looks atthe companies as responsible for this and sees a rolefor the industry association ‘Europoort/Botlek Interests’.The association has the opinion that the synergy willmeet the best performance via a public organisation likethe Rotterdam Harbour Board.

One of the suggestions for continuity in industrialecology in the Rotterdam region considers the ‘think-tank’ function of an ‘industrial ecology and sustainabledevelopment’ platform of different stakeholders fromindustry, municipality and expertise institutes. The aimof such a platform can be the stimulus of sustainable

development to achieve an attractive investment and liv-ing climate by stakeholder cooperation. The INES pro-ject did show elements of synergy in environmental per-formance approaches by expert confrontation andinteraction between industry and universities. The expertconfrontation leads to a broader consideration of the util-isation of resources, technology and investments, givesaccent to facilitation by the government and improveseducation and research.

The model was developed for a prudent representationof the INES companies, the expert institutes and the Har-bour Board. The tasks of an intermediary organisation(for instance the university teams of Delft andRotterdam) can be to signal action points, to performcleaner production-oriented research and the interactivedissemination of the industrial ecology concepts.

As preliminary evaluation of the INES project it wasobvious that the analysed constraints in the ‘cleaner pro-duction’ PRISMA project [23] were also present at thestart of the INES project. These constraints for industrialecology are at the level of:

concepts: industrial ecology is seen as something ofthe future or not fit for their company or the region;expertise/knowledge: lack of knowledge about whatindustrial ecology really can be;organisation: who will organise joint approachesand how will that be feasible for environmental regu-lation;technical aspects: the investment in the technicalinfrastructure of the individual company has to fitwith new infrastructure techniques in the industrialecology approach;economical aspects: at least being cost neutral is themain condition for industrial ecology.

Besides these constraints, several other aspects needproper attention in the development of an industrial ecol-ogy infrastructure. These aspects can play both a positiveas well as a negative role:

I Infrastructural aspects: locations are preferred to benear to each other to avoid the disadvantage ofmore logistics;

I Being competitors or not: the companies are open forcommunication about ‘non-core-business’ issues, butin case of competition specific data can indicate infor-mation about the ‘core-business’;

I Knowledge of each other’s processes: this knowledgeconditions the process of cooperation;

I Size of companies: because of expertise and theamount of waste, the size of companies is dominantto the number of companies;

I Existence of an organising or support system[21,22]:a high performance industrial ecosystem needs someagent concerned with the network as a whole. Individ-ual companies will self-organise to manage their own(bilateral) exchanges. An office must support them


while seeking opportunities for optimising the largersystem;

I Trust: prospects for the network will want to knowthat they can trust the other companies;

I Assurance of future support: companies who recog-nise the value of being in a by-product exchange net-work will want to know that theirs is a structure com-mitted to maintain the network;

I Flexibility: the network will grow and participantswill change, but also the environment will change. Anindustrial ecosystem will need to remain flexibleand adaptive.

I Understanding of the industrial ecosystem concept:while pairs of companies will seek for possibleexchanges, the greatest benefits will come from amore systemic approach. Managers should be infor-med and motivated for example by means of work-shops and reports on cases demonstrating the econ-omic and environmental values of resource exchange.The diversity of the composition of the industrial eco-system is important. For example, competitive aspectsare obstacles for communication about core-business.Size aspects are also important. Large firms are likelyto provide more expertise and time.

5. Conclusions

It can be said that the development of an industrialecology project in a relatively big area is time-consum-ing and needs many feed-back loops to participants. Thefeed-back loops take place both at the level of a socialprocess—the level of commitment development and anexpanding number of stakeholders—as well as at thelevel of optimising cleaner production approaches insidebefore physical flow networking outside.

An important aspect is that all stakeholders in theregion recognise their interdependency and are willingto cooperate in the development of a sustainable region.The general issue is: will the concept of ‘industrial ecol-ogy’ provide sufficient incentives to explore regionalenvironmental stewardship in the industrial RotterdamHarbour area and how can this process be managed?

During the INES project several initiatives were takenfor the development of a regional ‘regional sustainabledevelopment’ platform with different stakeholders fromindustry, municipality and expertise institutes. A jointErasmus University/Rotterdam municipality approachinvolved the INES industry partners and the RotterdamHarbour Board. The platform with the name ‘the Rotter-dam Sustainablity Club’ is actually developed as aninformal network with participants from industry, localgovernment, science, cultural and societal organisations.The club will use 1998 as a pilot year and organise quar-terly evening meetings and a workshop with the aims ata concept level:

I To inspire each other by information exchange ofactivities;

I To find each other in the search for creativeapproaches for sustainability;

I To come forward jointly with concrete activitiesand visions.

Several activities have to show the operationalisationof the aims in the pilot year.

Another follow-up is the integration of industrial ecol-ogy concepts in the development of a new industrial areain the North Sea. A first report about possibilities hasbeen made [24]. Again the issue of the role of an indus-trial area developer with respect to industrial ecologybecomes actual. Can the process of developing an indus-trial ecology green field be realised and/or can the Rot-terdam Harbour Board wear two heads as industrial ecol-ogy stimulator and owner of the green field?

References

[1] Hirschhorn JS. Why the pollution prevention revolution failed—and why it ultimately will succeed. Pollution Prevention Review1997;7(1):11–31.

[2] Kuhn TS. The structure of scientific revolutions. Internal Paper.Chicago, 1962.

[3] Geiser K. Has the pollution prevention revolution failed? Lowell,MA: Toxics Use Reduction Institute, University of Massachu-setts, April 1997:6.

[4] Baas L, Bouman J, Hafkamp W. Kritische Akteure desUmweltmanagements in den Niederlanden. In: Birke M, BurschelC, Schwartz M, editors. Handbuch Umweltschutz und Organis-ation—Okologisierung—Organisationswandel—Mikropolitik (inGerman). Mu¨nchen/Wien: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1997:495–519.

[5] Frosch RA, Gallopoulos NE. Strategies for manufacturing. In:Managing planet earth. Scientific American Special Issue, Sep-tember 1989:97–108.

[6] Tibbs HBC. Industrial ecology: an environmental agenda forindustry. Whole Earth Review 1992;Winter:4–19.

[7] Kirschner E. Eco-industrial parks find growing acceptance.Chemical and Engineering News 1995;February 20:15.

[8] Boons FAA, Baas LW. The organization of industrial ecology;the importance of regions. Proceedings of the Roundtable on Cle-aner Production and Cleaner Products, Rotterdam, November 1–3, 1995:13.

[9] Elster J. Explaining technical change. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1983:52.

[10] US Environmental Protection Agency. Waste minimizationopportunity assessment manual. Cincinnati, OH: HazardousWaste Engineering Research Laboratory, EPA/625/7-88/003,1988.

[11] Ayres RU. Industrial metabolism. In: Ausubel JH, Sladovich HE(editors). Technology and environment. Washington, DC:National Academy Press, 1989:23–49.

[12] Ehrenfeld JR. Industrial ecology and design for environment: therole of universities. In: Allenby BR, Richards DJ (editors). Thegreening of industrial ecosystems. Washington, DC: NaturalAcademy Press, 1994:228–41.

[13] Allenby BR. (1993) Quoted in: Coˆte R, Hall J (editors). Theindustrial ecology reader. Halifax: Dalhousie University, 1994:7.

[14] Berkel R van, Willems E, Lafleur M. Industrial ecology fromconcept to industrial action. Amsterdam: IVAM EnvironmentalResearch, 1995.


[15] Brattebø H. Industrial ecology and sustainable product design.In: Proceedings of the Seminar and Workshop, Norwegian Acad-emy of Technology Sciences. Trondheim (Norway), February 1–2, 1996.

[16] Stichting Europoort/Botlek Belangen, INES Industrieel Ecosys-teem. Rozenburg (Netherlands), 1997 (in Dutch).

[17] Christensen J. Kalundborg; industrial symbiosis in Denmark. In:Proceedings of the Industrial Ecology Workshop; Making Busi-ness More Competitive. Toronto: Canadian Ministry of Environ-ment, 1994.

[18] Winsemius P. In search for new answers. Presentation in the Con-ference on Sustainability in Search of Knowledge. Utrecht(Netherlands), September 30, 1993 (in Dutch).

[19] Richard (Richert) W. Ketenbeheer bestaat niet. Milieuforum,May 10, 1995, (in Dutch).

[20] Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations, 3rd edn. New York: FreePress, 1983.

[21] Cote R. Support systems for industrial ecosystems. Proceedingsof the Second European Round Table on Cleaner Production andCleaner Products. Rotterdam (Netherlands), November 1–3,1995:13.

[22] Christensen J. Discussion in Session ‘Industrial Ecology’ of theSecond European Roundtable on Cleaner Production and CleanerProducts. Rotterdam (Netherlands), November 1–3, 1995.

[23] Dieleman H, van Berkel R, Reijenga F, de Hoo S, Brezet H,Cramer J, Schot J. Choosing for prevention is winning: to a pre-ventative environmental policy of industry and government.SDU, Den Haag (Netherlands), 1991 (PRISMA).

[24] van der Laak P, Bouman M, Slob A. Chain management atMaasvlakte 2, TNO-STB. Apeldoorn (Netherlands), May 1997(in Dutch).

cleaner production and industrial ecosystems, a dutch experience

Documents