▼ Viewpoint
Industrial Ecology: Coming of Age A new interdisciplinary field is facing growing pains. JOHN R. EHRENFELD
early 300 delegates from 29 countries came to the inaugural meeting of the newly created International Society for Industrial Ecology (ISIE), in Noordwijkerhout, the Netherlands, in November 2001, clearly demonstrating that industrial ecology is slowly gaining legitimacy. From the podium and in the hallways, the delegates asked serious questions about the state of industrial ecology: “Is industrial ecology really a new field?”; “What does industrial ecology really mean?”; “What are its boundaries?”; and “What kinds of research are appropriate?” These questions depict a growing and lively community, made up mostly of academics, but also attracting people from industry, government, and nongovernmental organizations. Although many of the same basic questions have been asked during industrial ecology’s 10-year evolution, this meeting was the largest gathering of people interested in joining the community. In 1994, Robert White, then president of the National Academy of Engineering, provided one of the first definitions of industrial ecology as “the study of the flows of materials and energy in industrial and consumer activities, of the effects of these flows on the environment, and of the influences of economic, political, regulatory, and social factors of the flow, use, and transformation of resources” (1).
MARC MONGEAU
N
© 2002 American Chemical Society
The ideas that have shaped industrial ecology began to emerge before the 1970s in the pioneering work of Robert Ayres and colleagues as they began to examine the flows of materials (and energy, to a lesser extent) in systems ranging from river basins to whole economies. They worked under the rubric of industrial metabolism, which suggested the flows of energy and food within an ecological system (2, 3). About the same time, research and planning groups studying how to make the Japanese less dependent on materials used the name “industrial ecology” in their official title (4). And, a little known but significant book published in 1983 introduced industrial ecology to describe the Belgian economy in terms of material and energy flows instead of the usual economic monetary flows (5). None of these works, however, gained much attention. That situation changed in 1989 when Robert Frosch and Nicholas Gallopoulos published an article in a special issue of Scientific American calling for the restructuring of industry in the form of an ecosystem with materials flowing through a myriad of interconnected production processes (6). Wastes and demand for virgin materials would be drastically reduced, they argued. The article came at a time when concerns about the long-term sustainability of the earth’s resources were rising. Industrial ecology conveyed a powerful metaphoric alternative to the profligate ways of a modern industrial society. JULY 1, 2002 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
■
281 A
Now, 13 years later, it is time to assess how far industrial ecology has come and how much it will grow. In an early critical review of the field, Dara O’Rourke, Lloyd Connelly, and Catherine Koshland pointed to three topics that still needed to be addressed: refining the concepts of industrial ecology, creating mechanisms for discussions involving a “broad range of actor and interested parties”, and experimenting with implementation of these concepts (7). These three challenges still face us.
human-generated activity than found in natural systems. It seems clear that most practicing industrial ecologists do not see the biological metaphor as rigid but rather as a suggestive metaphor or model leading to new ways to analyze and design societies for more sustainable activities (11). A more practical arguIt is time to assess how ment for industrial ecology is simply that there is far industrial ecology a need to expand the focus of socioeconomic has come and how much analysis to look at larger systems than have been it will grow. traditionally examined within the standard fields. The larger focus answers The concepts of industrial ecology critics who argue that designs and actions based on Much activity has been aimed at refining the connarrow analytic frameworks can lead to unintended cepts of industrial ecology. On the basis of discusconsequences. For example, nobody planned for the sions at the first ISIE meeting and other meetings, loss of the ozone layer or deliberately sought to inthe conversations generally fell into two groups— crease the mean global temperature. Nevertheless, looking at the metaphor and at the scientific basis of both phenomena have alerted all nations to the the field. threats ahead. Thus, industrial ecology can make a The first focuses on the ecological or biological contribution by carefully examining the flows of enmetaphor that gives the field its name and much of ergy and materials in multiscale systems, ranging its distinctiveness. How far should one go and to what from product life-cycle analyses to national materiextent is the analogy between biological ecosystems als accounting to global cycles. and industrial ecosystems artificial? Is the analogy to For those in the environmental science and engiecology useful at all? Recently, John Harte argued that neering world, arguments for establishing an inter“natural systems are much too complex and wastedisciplinary field must sound quite familiar. New ful to serve as a practical blueprint for business acproblems need solutions that are not available withtivities and that the Darwinian forces that shape them in the standard fields. Moreover, multidisciplinary over time lack the moral compass needed to create a teams assembled to cope with these problems will just society” (8). Thomas Graedel takes a somewhat not last long enough to solve them. Environmental contrasting view and writes that “parallels between concerns are now transmuting to concerns about sus[biological ecology] and [industrial ecology] not only tainability, and industrial ecology is evolving in exist but seem natural rather than contrived” (9). parallel. Brad Allenby and William Cooper have drawn The second aspect of the conversation of refinanalogies between contemporary industrial econoing the concepts asks whether industrial ecology is mies and evolving ecosystems (10). In both, materior should be a positive science guiding objective inals flow through, going from source to sink without quiry or a normative, prescriptive set of ideas guidbeing recirculated and reused within the system as in ing the design of sustainable technologies and social mature ecosystems. Allenby and Cooper point out organization. In some ways, this is not an argument that as ecosystems evolve into more organized forms, at all, because science has long had both basic and they become more sustainable and robust, which the applied branches. The basic sciences are objective authors and others suggest are good criteria for and descriptive, performed by “neutral” actors, human societies to emulate. Ayres, however, points whereas the applied fields are practical and prescripout that materials within natural ecosystems are not tive with the investigators’ values lurking in the backalways recycled. Fossil fuels and limestone are exground. In the first textbook on the subject, amples of substances that were not returned to reindustrial ecology was defined as “the science of susplenish the same ecosystems, although human tainability”, a definition that concatenates both societies are, in a sense, recovering them many eons branches (12). The real problem is how far one later. Ayres also notes that industrial systems lack prishould carry these and earlier analogies into the mary producers such as photosynthesizers. However, practical world of systems design. As long as the some societies are beginning to use renewable eneranalogy is conjectural and skeptical, there is little gy sources and bio-based materials that emulate pridanger of being blinded by one’s own interests. mary production, although these transformative Science is still needed to test the hypothesis and esprocesses constitute a far smaller percentage of tablish the domains of application.
282 A
■
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / JULY 1, 2002
Most of the research being turned out by the industrial ecology research community appears to have followed the rules of scientific disciplines. As in other interdisciplinary fields, some of the rules have to be stretched on practical and ethical grounds. However, many of the ideas associated with the biological metaphor can be found in “proprietary” programs and strategies, such as biomimicry (13), or natural capital (14). These invoke principles such as loop closing or design based on natural systems’ properties, but without recourse to well-established scientific research. Although clearly much is to be gained by applying such principles, they are unlikely to become embedded in the mainstream of business or government policy without some basis in objective research.
Cultural change as catalyst
because technological or material infrastructures, such as computers, are necessary and ubiquitous even in a service economy. Moreover, although energy requirements may be lower on a per unit of service basis than those in the preceding industrial stage, the continued use of fossil fuels will remain a problem as long as the ecological consequences of using them as energy exceed the earth’s natural capacity to renew the resources and assimilate the pollution. Even among those who are skeptical about the utility or correctness of the ecological metaphor, most agree that a greater focus on the limits imposed by the ecological systems within which we live is important (8). In any case, eventually, any central role for industrial ecology in everyday life will have to be backed up by evidence of its practical value and supported by the institutions that allocate societies’ resources.
There is another route preceding such scientific legitimization by which industrial ecology could begin Expanding the conversation to replace the modern cultural models. Those frusO’Rourke et al.’s second topic looks at forums for trated by the failure of their everyday actions to move dialogue and debate and is easier to address. the world toward sustainability might question the Conversations about industrial ecology have excentral themes of the modernist, technological parpanded dramatically in the past decade. The Journal adigm. And in a Kuhnian-like paradigm shift, they of Industrial Ecology is in its fifth year with a circulamight then begin to draw on a new set of cultural tion approaching 1000. Activities begun under the beliefs and norms suggested by the ecological National Academy of Engineering in the early 1990s metaphor—advocating community, interconnectedspawned many of the first publications and texts in ness, and cooperation instead of autonomy, compethe field. The academy’s convening role in the United tition, and reductionism (15, 16). With cultural change, States has shifted to the Gordon Research Conference objective proof follows only after new metaphors lead (GRC) meeting on industrial ecology, which was to new methodologies. launched in 1998 as part of an experiment to include This sociological argument is important to those interdisciplinary and policy themes in the conferwho see industrial ecology as a program for deepence’s programs. Despite some rocky moments and seated change. For them, industrial ecology takes on questions about the rigor of the industrial ecology the shape of a new paradigm, a whole new set of besessions, this topic seems to have become a regular liefs and strategies to be applied to the design of techplayer. nological and institutional systems (15, 16). They tend At the first GRC on industrial ecology, many of the to see sustainability as an example of a crisis whose attendees talked about forming some sort of society significance is, as Kuhn said, “an occasion for retoolfor industrial ecology. The ISIE was launched formally ing” (17). Nevertheless, regardless of how many within mid-2001, and within the first few months, more in the industrial ecology than 400 people worldcommunity hold the parwide had joined. The soNothing will change adigmatic view of indusciety provides venues and trial ecology, nothing will globally until power-wielding media for dialogue and change globally until communication. power-wielding instituIn addition to buildinstitutional structures tional structures adopt ing structures for discusthe central tenets of the sion, one must consider adopt the central tenets field. Currently, such a what disciplines are needshift is not likely. ed to provide a robust of the field. Industrial ecology also base for research and holds out much promise subsequent dialogue. Part as a new model for thinkof the answer might be ing about the nexus found by examining the between material and large body of industrial energy flows and sustainecological research deability in industrial socivoted to studying energy eties. Some critics see the and materials flows along tie to “industrial” as limproduct life cycles and, iting the applicability of on a larger scale, throughindustrial ecology in out economies. Engineers, “postindustrial” or serenvironmental scientists, vice societies. I disagree physicists, economists, JULY 1, 2002 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
■
283 A
geographers, and others have been involved in these ing to pay higher prices for products designed on instudies. It is difficult to determine if any of these fields dustrial ecology principles. In today’s highly comare predominant. petitive marketplace, most consumer goods, even On the other hand, except for economists, few socomplex products such as automobiles, have become cial scientists have been involved in industrial ecolcommodities. Nonetheless, many companies proogy. Their absence has been noticed and questioned. ducing consumer goods like electronics or automoConceptually, actors (organisms in the ecological biles are developing increasingly greener products. analogy) in industrial ecological systems are primarAlthough laudable, these efforts are limited because ily firms that process energy and materials. Many orof consumer attitudes. More sustainable or environganizational social scientists base their theories on mentally improved goods and services will require the metaphor that organizations act as discrete uniresearch on consumer attitudes and consumption tary actors—although humans are always the real preferences. actors—and study how firms acting as discrete orAlthough better material and energy efficiencies ganisms develop strategies and operational manageare certainly possible, only incremental improvement systems. Industrial ecology, on the other hand, ments have been seen to date. One possible breakstresses the relationships among, not within, firms through could be to apply the industrial concept of connected through the material and energy “food loop closing on a larger scale than at present. By itwebs” in economic systems. Thus, a major challenge self, closing loops is not sustainable in the long run, faced by industrial ecology is to wean researchers but it offers a strategy for radical ecoefficient gains in away from “interorganizational” to “intraorganizathe near term (14). Finding ways to substitute sertional” studies (18). vices for material products is another possibility that If industrial ecology systems are to find their way is particularly seductive. Early experience with elecinto the core of economies, researchers must expand tronic sales (“e-tailing”) and other Web-based sertheir meager knowledge about the processes by vices, however, has shown that consumers may not which industrial symbioses, such as many petrobe ready. Moreover, the environmental benefits have chemical complexes on the U.S. Gulf of Mexico coast yet to be proven. More social science research-based or Kalundborg in Denmark, evolve, or in a more posdata are needed before designers and business strateitive sense, can be designed from scratch (19). gists will take such concepts seriously. It is not enough Industrial symbiosis refers to industrial complexes for futurists to evoke images of a new world; practiin which firms and processes are closely interlinked cal decision makers and designers need credible through the exchange of waste materials and enerinformation. gy, which then are used as inputs to other processVirtually all discussions of the future for greener es. As forms of extended producer responsibility or more sustainable products assume that consumers become more common, it will also become impormust become more knowledgeable about the consetant to raise new questions about the dynamics in quences of consumption if they are to become more systems of organizations linked through product life responsible, which will require some education. But cycles (cradle to grave). When can one rely on inwho should provide such knowledge, which is fundustrial players to create the necessary infrastrucdamentally deeply normative and value-laden? ture without prodding from governments? What Industrial ecology must attract political scientists and kinds of regulatory rules moral philosophers—diswould be needed? When ciplines far from the more and why are third-party scientific roots of most in organizations effective, the field. such as the Duales System Deutschland, Testing industrial which manages the recyecology in the real world cling of packaging mateO’Rourke et al.’s last chalrial in Germany? lenge, experimenting with Other organizationthe concepts, is problemal, social science-related atic for two reasons. First, questions focus on the industrial ecology is at realities of applying lifeheart practical; it deals cycle assessment and with the workings of real Industrial ecology must ecodesign to products socioeconomic systems, and services in the marnot laboratory models, attract political scientists ketplace. There are nuand unplanned experimerous concepts in the ments are going on all the and moral philosophers— product design literature, time. The second is the but few marketed prodethical dilemma posed disciplines far from the ucts in stores and cataby experimenting with logs. One argument for human systems. Careful, more scientific roots of the slow rate of introducobjective examination of tion and diffusion is that these real-world experimost in the field. consumers are not willments can help in under284 A
■
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / JULY 1, 2002
standing the systemic forces thinkers from other fields. As it grows, the and structures that guide A few steps toward legitiboth material and human mating industrial ecology industrial ecology behavior. Each product that have been taken. I am confihas been deliberately dethat sustainability, the community will have to dent signed and produced to be object of our study, will more sustainable than whatattract those with the intelcope with the same ever it is to replace affords a lectual capabilities and appotential study case. Each preciation of the enormity growing pains as innovation is an experiment and importance of this issue begging to be examined. The enter the tent of industrienvironmental science. to factors that produce success al ecology. (Nevertheless, I or failure are not clear, and am sure that industrial ecolmany myths abound (20). ogy will continue to be criticized, just as environmenIndustrial parks, or estates, as they are called in the tal science has been.) It is hoped that a diverse developing world, are particularly interesting because community of researchers and practitioners will coathey are the homes for many of the small- and medilesce into a coherent group to study how the natural um-sized enterprises that form the foundations of and the economic worlds are intertwined and how economies worldwide. Extended producer responsicomplex relationships can be made to work such that bility policies in strong or weak forms, although both worlds prosper. evolved without direct links to industrial ecology, are designed to close material loops, which is a core noReferences (1) White, R. M. In The Greening of Industrial Ecosystems; tion in the ecological metaphor. As experiments, they Allenby, B. R., Richards, D. J., Eds.; National Academy are difficult to put into play for certain ethical and poPress: Washington, DC, 1994; pp. v–vi. litical reasons. However, when they do occur, it is es(2) Ayres, R. U.; Kneese, A. V. Production, Consumption, and sential for researchers to capture the new knowledge Externalities; Resources for the Future: Washington, DC, 1969. they provide. So far, little research on these experi(3) Ayres, R. U. In Technology and Environment; Ausubel, J. ments, which are taking place primarily in Europe H., Sladovich, H. E., Eds.; National Academy Press: and Asia, has been published. Washington, DC, 1989; pp. 23–49. Almost all of these “experiments” require many (4) Watanabe, C. Industrial-Ecology: Introduction of Ecology into Industrial Policy; Ministry of International Trade and disciplines to do the work of extensive and difficult Industry: Tokyo, 1972. data gathering. Universities and other single research (5) Billen, G.; Toussaint, F.; Peeters, P.; Sapir, M.; Steenhout, institutions lack the intellectual and financial reA.; Vanderborght, J.-P. L’écosysteme Belgique. Essai d’ésources for such projects, but there are few alternacologie industrielle; Centre de Recherche et d’Information Socio-Politique: Brussels, 1983. tives. Perhaps the new society can catalyze new (6) Frosch, R.; Gallopoulos, N. Scientific American 1989, 261, collaborative structures, which will assist in convinc142–155. ing traditional funding sources that these nontradi(7) O’Rourke, D.; Connelly, L.; Koshland, C. P. Int. J. Environ. tional arenas are socially important and intellectually Pollut. 1996, 6, 89–112. (8) California Management Review 2001, 43, 16–25. sound.
Is industrial ecology “hyperdisciplinary”? Industrial ecology has been called variously inter-, multi-, or metadisciplinary (21). Although there are some differences in these classifications, all suggest a need to transcend the cognitive and epistemological bounds of a single traditional discipline. ES&T ’s editor, William Glaze, recently called environmental sciences hyperdisciplinary (22). This term is drawn not from conceptual or theoretical content but from its complexity and importance. The same label should be applied to industrial ecology, although the field is still in its infancy. Its lens focuses on sustainability—a subject that captures environmental science, industrial economics, organizational theory, ethics, design, political science, and more. As it grows, the industrial ecology community will have to cope with the same growing pains as environmental science. Questions of academic legitimacy, relevance, or quality are just a few topics demanding scrutiny. Industrial ecology requires challenging the particular ways of addressing questions and solving problems that have been honed within traditional fields, and it will need to provide rewards that will attract researchers and
(9) Graedel, T. Annu. Rev. of Energy. 1996; 21; 69–98. (10) Allenby, B. R.; Cooper, W. E. Total Qual. Environ. Manage. 1994, 3, 343–354. (11) Isenmann, R. Industrial Ecology: Paradigmatic Shift of Understanding Nature, In Proceedings of the 2002 International Sustainable Development Conference, University of Manchester, U. K.; ERP Environment, Eds.; Shipley, U.K. April 2002; pp. 261–270. (12) Graedel, T. E.; Allenby, B. R. Industrial Ecology; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1995. (13) Benyus, J. M. Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature; William Morrow & Co.: New York, 1997. (14) Hawken, P.; Lovins, A.; Lovins, L. H. Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution; Little, Brown and Company: Boston, 1999. (15) Ehrenfeld, J. R. J. Cleaner Production 1997, 5, 87–95. (16) Ehrenfeld, J. R. Am. Behav. Scientist 2000, 22, 229–244. (17) Kuhn, T. S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1970; p. 76. (18) Boons, F.; Baas, L. J. Cleaner Product. 1997, 5, 79–86. (19) Ehrenfeld, J. R.; Gertler, N. J. Indust. Ecol. 1997, 1, 67–79. (20) Ehrenfeld, J. R. In EcoDesign 2001; IEEE Computer Society: Tokyo, 2001; pp. 12–23. (21) Graedel, T. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2000, 34, 21A–31A. (22) Glaze, W. H. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2001, 35, 471A.
John R. Ehrenfeld is the director emeritus of the Business and Technology Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. JULY 1, 2002 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
■
285 A
