See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/341372191

A Vision for Industrial Symbiosis: Build Your Platform (Ecosystem)

Conference Paper · May 2020

CITATIONS READS

5 895

2 authors:

Linda Kosmol Christian Leyh

18 PUBLICATIONS 127 CITATIONS

Technische Hochschule Mittelhessen
115 PUBLICATIONS 1,436 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Christian Leyh on 14 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A VISION FOR INDUSTRIAL SYMBIOSIS: BUILD YOUR
PLATFORM (ECOSYSTEM)

Research in Progress
Kosmol, Linda, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany, [email protected]
Leyh, Christian, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany, [email protected]

Abstract
Digital platforms, regarded as ecosystem enablers, and ecosystems themselves are currently fields of
action that are frequently addressed in research and in business practice. One area of interest in this
context is the concept of industrial symbiosis, which aims to create sustainable industrial ecosystems
through resource exchange and sharing. Platform-supported industrial symbiosis is considered a prom-
ising way to accelerate sustainable industrial development. However, the diffusion and maturity of both
industrial symbiosis and its corresponding platforms are still low in practice. This paper examines dig-
ital platforms developed specifically for industrial symbiosis. Different, currently neglected, issues lim-
iting the number/diffusion of these platforms in practice are derived and discussed. To address these
issues, we propose adoption of a platform ecosystem perspective, which is currently not present in in-
dustrial symbiosis research. Based on this, we present a novel idea: an industrial symbiosis platform
builder. Within this paper, we describe the concept of this tool and how it could lead to an industrial
symbiosis-specific platform ecosystem. At its core, the tool shall enable and support the development of
multiple different platforms for individual industrial ecosystems in a convenient way.
Keywords: Digital platforms, Industrial symbiosis, Eco-industrial parks, Ecosystems.

1 Introduction
The term sustainability has become omnipresent and a central issue also in discussions of industrial
development. In this context, industrial symbiosis aims to create industrial ecosystems by exchanging
or sharing underutilized resources (material, energy, logistics, capacities, knowledge, etc.) between
companies in geographic proximity, yielding economic, environmental and societal benefits (Lowe,
1997; Chertow, 2000; Lombardi and Laybourn, 2012). Generally, ecosystems are networks of interact-
ing organizations or individuals that form mutually beneficial (symbiotic) relationships (Moore, 1996;
Chertow, 2000; Tsujimoto et al., 2018). They form a community of entities linked by common values
and processes that enable them to participate in (co-)value creation beyond their own capabilities. Ac-
cordingly, industrial ecosystems are characterized by the common pursuit of a sustainable industry.
These days, ecosystems in combination with digital platforms receive large attention in business practice
and research. Digital platforms leveraging information technology (IT) can facilitate the aforementioned
interactions between different actors (e.g., resource buyer and supplier) in order to create, share or ex-
change value of any form, whether it be property, physical goods, monetary value, information, or rep-
utation (Iansiti and Levien, 2004). Platforms are therefore seen as a means of facilitating industrial sym-
biosis (Scafá et al., 2018). Since industrial symbiosis is a very information- and knowledge-intensive
domain (Grant et al., 2010; Kosmol, 2019), in particular the ability of platforms to enable and support
the exchange of (real-time) information and knowledge while reducing transaction costs leads to an
increasing interest in them. However, the diffusion and maturity of industrial symbiosis platforms (ISPs)
are still low in practice for manifold reasons. Many ISPs are no longer operational (Grant et al., 2010;
Maqbool et al., 2018). Although IT support for industrial symbiosis is studied (e.g., Maqbool et al.,
2018; Yeo et al., 2019b), often only its functionality is examined. Research on design aspects of ISPs
and their implications for platform-driven industrial symbiosis in practice is scarce. Especially, the role
of the platform provider and platform management, the actual contribution of ISPs to the creation of

Twenty-Eigth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2020), Marrakesh, Morocco. 1

Kosmol and Leyh / A Vision for Industrial Symbiosis

industrial ecosystems, and their implementation in existing industrial structures and processes are insuf-
ficiently investigated (Benedict et al., 2018; Kosmol, 2019).
Since industrial and platform ecosystems have different theoretical backbones, key concepts and actors
both remain separated. However, applying a platform ecosystem perspective, that is, shifting the focus
from the platform toward the “on- and offline ecosystem” that interacts with or emerges from it, may
support the creation of industrial ecosystems and the related platform (ecosystems) (Benedict et al.,
2018). In addition, this perspective may promote the collaboration of companies and raise the motivation
to invest in related IT infrastructure leading to sustainable platforms. Therefore, we have launched a
long-term research project (for detailed research steps see Kosmol and Leyh, 2020) aiming at the design
of an IT artifact to mitigate and overcome informational and managerial issues in industrial symbiosis.
Within this research project, we follow the design science paradigm, specifically the approach of Peffers
et al. (2007). In previous studies, we have identified problem areas of industrial symbiosis—in particu-
lar, informational and managerial issues—that can be addressed in information systems research through
IT artifacts (Kosmol, 2019; Kosmol and Otto, 2020) and have confirmed them empirically (Kosmol and
Leyh, 2020) (Identify Problem & Motivate). In a further study (Benedict et al., 2018), we investigated
the current solution space—the ISPs—and presented first conceptual design guidelines (Define Objec-
tives of a Solution). In the present paper, we deepen the investigation of ISPs by identifying further
points to be considered for designing ISPs and extend the scope of our platform concept from a technical
viewpoint (Design & Development) and address the following research questions (RQs):
• RQ1: How are (existing) industrial symbiosis platforms discussed in the literature?
• RQ2: How could industrial symbiosis (platforms) benefit from a platform perspective to facili-
tate sustainable industrial ecosystems and corresponding IT support?
The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 presents a short theoretical background on industrial sym-
biosis and digital platforms. Section 3 addresses RQ1, first describing the design of our literature review
before presenting and discussing the results. Section 4 proposes an IT artifact—the industrial symbiosis
platform builder (ISPB)—as a first answer to RQ2. Section 5 concludes the paper with future steps.

2 Theoretical background
Industrial symbiosis is a subarea of industrial ecology that studies material and energy flows in indus-
trial systems. By applying the principles of circular economy and optimizing material and energy flows,
sustainable industrial systems/networks – ‘industrial ecosystems’ – are created (Frosch and Gallopoulos,
1989; Lowe and Evans, 1995). Industrial symbiosis aims to create such ecosystems through regional
cross-industry collaboration between companies. This collaboration encompasses all (business) models
of interfirm exchange or sharing of underutilized resources such as material, energy, logistics, capacities,
space, expertise, and knowledge (Chertow, 2000; Neves et al., 2019). This concept is realized through
different models: self-organized (bottom-up), planned (top-down) and facilitated (intermediary)
(Chertow and Ehrenfeld, 2012; Paquin and Howard-Grenville, 2012). In this context, a platform-driven
approach toward industrial symbiosis can be regarded as a facilitated model. Depending on the business
model and form of implementation, intermediaries (e.g., third-party logistics providers or treatment
plants) and coordinators (e.g., research institutes or municipalities) are involved in addition to resource
providers and consumers (Benedict et al., 2018).
Industrial symbiosis is often associated with eco-industrial parks (EIPs) in which companies adopt
symbiotic behavior and commit to sustainable development (Lowe and Evans, 1995; Park et al., 2008).
Through this collaboration, this community of co-located businesses becomes an industrial ecosystem
(Ehrenfeld and Gertler, 1997; Lowe, 1997). The two concepts—industrial symbiosis and EIPs— are
often equated, but they differ in terms of geographical scope, actors and practices (Lowe et al., 1996;
Chertow and Park, 2016; Neves et al., 2019). This differentiation is important as it implies differences
in the platform that is required or suitable in terms of users, functionality, governance, etc.
The term platform is used inconsistently in science and practice. In this paper, we refer to digital plat-
forms that are, from a technical viewpoint, an “extensible codebase of a software-based system that

Twenty-Eigth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2020), Marrakesh, Morocco. 2

Kosmol and Leyh / A Vision for Industrial Symbiosis

provides core functionality shared by the modules that interoperate with it and the interfaces through
which they interoperate“ (Tiwana et al., 2010, p. 676). Such platforms are increasingly perceived as
management and economic concepts that create value by acting as an intermediary or digital broker
between different actors with different interests (Evans et al., 2011; Tsujimoto et al., 2018).
Within the context of platforms, the ecosystem perspective is increasingly being adopted, leading to the
introduction of the platform ecosystem, in which the platform additionally mediates the relationship
between third parties who complement the platform (Iansiti and Levien, 2004). In line with the defini-
tions above, a platform ecosystem is about the community and business environment, not just the plat-
form, which is a tool or particular way an ecosystem is organized to interact and create value. Key roles
in a platform ecosystem are platform providers, demand-side and supply-side users (Eisenmann et al.,
2009). Platform providers provide and own the technical infrastructure (e.g., software developer). They
are responsible for the existence of a platform and the growth of the platform ecosystem evolving around
the platform. Individuals/organizations are either demand-side or supply-side users. Demand-side users
(e.g., resource buyer) consume, use and/or access the value created by and on the platform, while supply-
side users are third parties that create complements offering additional value through collaboration with
platform owners (e.g., plugin developers). Supply-side users access so-called boundary resources (e.g.,
APIs), which are provided by the platform owner, to develop new applications based on the platform
(Ghazawneh and Henfridsson, 2013).

3 Systematic literature review

3.1 Procedure
To obtain an overview of platforms in current industrial symbiosis research and thus to address RQ1,
we conducted a systematic literature review following the steps of Fettke (2006) who proposes a sys-
tematic procedure (problem statement (see Section 1), literature search, literature evaluation, literature
analysis, presentation) similar to other researchers (e.g., vom Brocke et al., 2009).
Search: The databases Scopus, AISeL, IEEEXplore and Web of Science were queried with the follow-
ing search string in the title, abstract and keywords: ("industrial symbiosis" OR "eco-industrial park"
OR "industrial ecosystem") AND (platform AND [digital OR web OR online OR ICT OR information]).
Evaluation: Removing duplicates resulted in 78 articles of which the full texts were screened to deter-
mine their relevance. Articles were considered relevant if the investigated industrial ecosystem ad-
dressed material and energy flows within the manufacturing industry, and if digital platforms were dis-
cussed in this context. Applying these criteria, we excluded 11 articles because they were not relevant;
23 articles as they focused on other ecosystems (e.g., software ecosystem); and 13 articles because they
only pointed out that platforms are relevant for industrial symbiosis without going into detail.
Analysis: To analyze the contributions of the remaining 31 articles from a methodological viewpoint,
we followed the categorization of Malhotra et al. (2013), who divide the value space of research into
four groups: conceptualize (review papers, conceptual frameworks, etc.), analyze (case studies, empiri-
cal analyses, etc.), design-oriented (design science), and impact-oriented (action research, impact of use,
etc.). To investigate the design of ISPs, we further analyzed the contents of the papers in terms of plat-
form features (e.g., components) and design choices (e.g., access). After these contents were extracted,
they were discussed among the authors and affiliated researchers.

3.2 Results
Table 1 lists all investigated articles. Please note that some articles refer to the same ISP. Regarding the
value space of research, little research is being done in the areas of analysis and impact. From twelve
conceptual papers, four are reviews of IT tools for industrial symbiosis (see Halstenberg et al., 2017;
Maqbool et al., 2018; van Capelleveen et al., 2018; Yeo et al., 2019b), examining the different tool
types, supported industrial symbiosis phases, shortcomings, etc. The term platform is used for various

Twenty-Eigth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2020), Marrakesh, Morocco. 3

Kosmol and Leyh / A Vision for Industrial Symbiosis

IT tools for industrial symbiosis (e.g., social network platform, knowledge repository, online waste mar-
ket, synergy identification system) without a specific definition. Some researchers refer to ISPs as ‘in-
formation platforms’ as they create interoperable, integrated and shared information and knowledge
bases by multiple actors to collaborate (e.g., Chen and Feng, 2012; Migliore et al., 2020). Articles of the
category analysis are primarily case studies demonstrating how the developed ISP works. An exception
is the article by Fric and Rončević (2018), which presents the results of a survey on industrial symbio-
sis/circular economy. However, this survey contains only one question about ISPs. This question ad-
dressed the willingness of 25 industrial actors to use an ISP, if it was available. Nineteen of the 25
participants (four abstentions) were in favor of ISPs, regardless of their current involvement in industrial
symbiosis. However, the platform was not specified.

Value Space of Research Collaboration Platform Platform Components

Article Knowledge Social Manage-

Concept Analysis Design Impact Scope Exchange Sharing Platform Facilitator Access Provider Matching Market
Base Network ment

Ding et al. (2010) 4 0 2 0 EIP 4 0 0 0 n/s n/s 4 4 4 0 4

Chen and Feng (2012) 4 0 2 0 EIP n/s n/s 0 0 n/s n/s 0 0 4 0 4
Guo et al. (2014) 4 0 2 0 EIP n/s n/s 0 4 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
Zhou, Pan, Sikorski, Garud, Aditya, et
al. (2017); Zhou, Pan, Sikorski, 0 2 4 2 EIP n/s n/s 4 0 n/s n/s 4 4 0 0 4
Garud, Kleinelanghorst, et al. (2017)
Benedict et al. (2018) 4 0 2 0 EIP 4 4 0 4 n/s 2 4 4 4 0 4
Raafat et al. (2012); Trokanas et al.
0 0 4 0 IS 4 0 4 0 register n/s 4 4 0 0 0
(2014); Cecelja et al. (2015)
Cutaia et al. (2014), (2015); Luciano
0 2 0 2 IS 4 4 4 4 register n/s 4 4 0 0 0
et al. (2016)
Cruz et al. (2015) 2 0 2 0 IS 4 0 2 0 n/s n/s 0 0 0 0 0
Stirna et al. (2016); Stratigaki et al.
4 0 4 0 IS 4 4 2 0 register 4 4 4 0 0 0
(2016); Loucopoulos et al. (2018)
Ghali et al. (2016); Ghali and Frayret
4 0 4 0 IS 4 0 0 4 register n/s 4 4 0 4 0
(2018)
Raabe et al. (2017); Low et al. (2018);
Yeo, Choong Low, et al. 2019; 0 2 4 2 IS 4 0 4 0 n/s n/s 4 4 0 0 0
Kerdlap et al. (2019)
Fraccascia and Yazan (2018) 0 0 0 2 IS n/s n/s 0 0 n/s n/s 4 n/s n/s n/s n/s
Fric and Rončević (2018) 0 2 2 0 IS 4 0 2 0 n/s n/s 0 0 0 0 0
Dounavis et al. (2019) 0 0 2 0 IS n/s n/s 0 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
Bakogianni et al. (2019) 0 0 4 0 IS 4 0 4 0 register n/s 4 4 0 4 4
Migliore et al. (2020) 4 0 0 0 IS 4 0 0 0 n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
Halstenberg et al. (2017) 4 0 0 0 IS n/a n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Maqbool et al. (2018) 4 0 0 0 IS/EIP n/a n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
van Capelleveen et al. (2018) 4 0 0 0 IS/EIP n/a n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Yeo, Masi, et al. (2019) 4 0 0 0 IS/EIP n/a n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
IS = industrial symbiosis; EIP = eco-industrial park; n/s = not specified, n/a = not applicable;
Circles indicate level of detail of the ISP design or apects considered: 0 = low/no; 2 = moderate/partially; 4 = high/yes

Table 1. Literature on industrial symbiosis platforms.

Though the majority of the articles cover the design of ISPs, few researchers explain their design and
reasoning in detail. None of the articles mention design science as method and none go through the
complete process of design science, as there is no evaluation of the IT artifact (the platform). Little
research is done on the actual impact of ISPs, although their presumed benefits (e.g., cost reduction,
reduction of information asymmetry) are regularly mentioned. Halstenberg et al. (2017) even claim that
most IT tools have made little impact on the development of industrial symbiosis. Overall, the applica-
tion context of ISPs seems to be primarily prior to the creation of industrial symbiosis/exchanges, pre-
suming yet undiscovered opportunities. Two articles display the number and type of matches (synergy
opportunities) identified through the platform (Raabe et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2017a), but the actual use
of or interaction with the platform (who, how, when) and its contribution to implement industrial sym-
biosis is not investigated. Within the report of Cutaia et al. (2015), in whose project an ISP was used,
the overall impact of the project is positively evaluated, but no conclusions can be drawn about the
effects of the ISP as it was embedded in a holistic approach including promotion activities, facilitators,
etc. The use of the platform was not explained in more detail. Fraccascia and Yazan (2018) study the
effects of ISPs and related information exchange on the emergence of industrial symbiosis by simulating
different scenarios. This is an interesting but hypothetical study.
The geographic scope regarding the collaboration supported by ISPs ranges from regional to national
to global. We found that approaches to platforms for EIPs differ from platforms for a geographically
less-bounded industrial symbiosis. EIP platforms aim at the design and optimization of industrial eco-
systems, while general ISPs aim at identifying synergy opportunities. Therefore, EIP platforms focus on

Twenty-Eigth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2020), Marrakesh, Morocco. 4

Kosmol and Leyh / A Vision for Industrial Symbiosis

the continuous management of a park and the creation of interorganizational information systems (e.g.,
Qin and Guo, 2011). In addition, most platforms support exchange- rather than sharing-based synergies.
Only five platforms were actually developed and put to use, and two were prototypes. The role of a
facilitator introducing a platform or coordinating activities on it is mentioned in only four articles but
without further explanation. Although different user groups (e.g., resource provider/owner, technology
provider, researcher) are distinguished in the various platform concepts, their permissions and access to
the platform (components) are rarely discussed. Access to the platforms is often not specified or enabled
via self-registration. However, the level of openness has implications for platform utilization. For ex-
ample, it can be assumed for an EIP that only park members can use the platform. The park size would
accordingly determine the number of potential users, which in turn would affect the usefulness and
economy of the platform. Only Cutaia et al. (2015) describe a restrictive approach. A registered user
may search for resources, but only associated users, who offer information about their resources, are
allowed to use the full functionality of the platform. The role of a facilitator introducing a platform or
coordinating activities on it is mentioned in only four articles but without further explanation. The role
of the platform provider is also neglected and not specified. Most tools are developed with public fund-
ing (Maqbool et al., 2018), with the developers usually being research institutes (e.g., Cecelja et al.,
2015), and are rarely cooperative projects between research institutes and software developers (e.g.,
Stirna et al., 2016). Although the platforms are provided and operated by the developers, this seems to
be limited to the funding period. Furthermore, ISP development effort and economics are unclear (time,
cost, etc.). A platform ecosystem perspective is adopted in only one paper (Benedict et al., 2018). How-
ever, such a perspective could contribute to mitigating the fragmented nature of available tools support-
ing industrial symbiosis that operate in isolation of each other (Yeo et al., 2019b). Reuse and integration
into existing information infrastructures is not a topic of discussion even though most ISPs have similar
objectives and components, and work with the same types of data (e.g., waste quantity).
Although each ISP has its own unique features, all contain similar platform components. The majority
enable communication and sharing of information in order to support synergy identification and assess-
ment (Maqbool et al., 2018). Therefore, the main component of an ISP is a matching module. Various
matching algorithms (e.g., inference engines) dealing with the same kind of data are used for this pur-
pose. The platforms contain various databases and (ontology-based) knowledge repositories that provide
a basis to match resource providers and consumers. In some cases, the knowledge base is predefined
and only extensible by the developers (e.g., Cecelja et al., 2015), whereas in other cases it can be col-
laboratively extended by users of the platform (e.g., Enipedia). This knowledge base is a distinctive
feature compared to other platforms in other areas (e.g., Sharing Economy). Some platforms also pro-
vide databases of general information for practitioners, such as case study data. Many concepts for EIP
platforms also include technological (e.g., cleaner production information) and policy information (e.g.,
Guo et al., 2014) intended to help park operators planning and managing the industrial park. Since
matching only enables the identification of potential partners, some ISPs provide a market function that
enables the transactions necessary for the realization of the exchange. Thus, two-sided markets are cre-
ated. Social network applications (e.g., forum or event calendar) are fairly new components with regard
to ISP. Their aim is to support information and knowledge exchange between different actors in the
community and to connect people with similar interests (Ghali et al., 2016). Management functionalities,
such as reporting and real-time monitoring, are primarily included in EIP platforms.

3.3 Discussion: problems of ISP diffusion

ISPs do not seem to get past the pilot stage. The maturity and diffusion of ISPs are still at an early stage.
Based on the scientific literature, we identified these four issues—besides a lack of design guidance for
ISPs—that are neglected in current research but are crucial to the success and diffusion of ISPs.
1. Design capability: Most ISPs that are developed by research institutes support a specific project
community (e.g., industrial parks) and are not provided/accessible to other regions after project comple-
tion (Benedict et al., 2018; Maqbool et al., 2018). Furthermore, documentation and design guidance for
ISPs are both scarce (Benedict et al., 2018). Industrial actors (park management and/or members) lack

Twenty-Eigth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2020), Marrakesh, Morocco. 5

Kosmol and Leyh / A Vision for Industrial Symbiosis

the time, workforce and competencies to deal with industrial symbiosis, let alone to design a platform
from scratch for an existing (eco)system (Golev et al., 2015; Kosmol, 2019).
2. Design flexibility: Suitability and adaptability to a region and its actors seem to play subordinate
roles. Many approaches are based on the idea that a large range of services or functions will lead to a
better platform. However, not every function is necessarily relevant or desirable for each system and its
actors. One size does not fit all. Moreover, a system that is not imposed but is jointly devised may
encourage cooperation between companies and convince them to participate in an exchange of unused
resources in any form (e.g., materials, energy, knowledge). Design capability and flexibility are prob-
lems that were confirmed to us by industrial experts.
3. Platform sustainment: The role of the platform owner/provider responsible for platform sustaina-
bility is hardly addressed in the literature (as discussed in Benedict et al., 2018). The analysis of IT tools
and ISPs by Maqbool et al. (2018, p. 11) shows that successful tools are those developed by “facilitators
whose core business is coupled with the development of such a tool,” indicating that clear ownership by
a third party and continuous improvement is advisable. In addition, many ISPs do not provide support
beyond initial tasks (e.g., synergy identification) and are thus obsolete in the further course of the de-
velopment of synergies and industrial ecosystems. Against the backdrop that synergies often already
exist, especially in industrial districts, ISPs should support the management of existing synergies. This
can also be a starting point to motivate companies to use ISPs.
4. Strategic embeddedness: Being able to construct an ISP does not necessarily mean that companies
will use it. It seems hard to convince multiple companies to participate in industrial symbiosis. Technical
factors determine whether the potential for cooperation exists, but people turn that potential into reality.
This problem cannot be overcome by a platform per se. However, instead of isolating ISPs, their inte-
gration into existing processes and interfaces to information systems can push their use (Kosmol, 2019).

4 Proposal: industrial symbiosis platform builder

Industrial symbiosis has two characteristic challenges that affect platform design. First, industrial sym-
biosis can create several industrial ecosystems in various settings with different geographic or adminis-
trative boundaries, for example, EIP, industrial district, or country (see the NISP program (Gibbs, 2009).
The geographic scope and number of potential ecosystem members is unknown up front, as synergy
opportunities need to be identified or uncovered first. In some cases, a more stable set of members may
emerge, but the community is overall amorphous, unknown and changing, with members entering and
exiting. In addition, the research community that is directly or indirectly involved should also be con-
sidered. Accordingly, there needs to be more than one ISP, and the platform design must take the extent,
dynamics and multilateralism of different industrial ecosystems into account, for example, through plat-
form access and governance mechanisms. Second, network effects are supposed to be what allows a
platform (ecosystem) to scale. However, in the case of regional industrial symbiosis and EIP, the number
of members is quite limited. To counteract this limitation, a structure of super- and sub-platforms could
be leveraged. Members may be part of or assigned to different ISPs for different regions (e.g., EIP-wide
ISP or nationwide ISP) and thus interact at different levels. A functionality to automatically cluster
registered and interacting users according to certain criteria might be worth considering. This will lead
to a larger set of members in the platform ecosystem creating the opportunity to restructure businesses
of ecosystem actors. In addition, the provision of (disclosed) information and content on a superordinate
information platform can facilitate community learning. Therefore, ISPs need to be interoperable.
As the general assumption is that ISPs are advantageous, it would be beneficial if not only actors or
industrial parks that are part of a research project would benefit from them. Hence, apart from questions
regarding design aspects of ISPs, building individual ISPs needs to be supported. In general, there are
three ways of achieving this, that is, to build platforms.
1. Use existing tools – reuse or adapt existing ISPs, components thereof, or platforms with similar func-
tionalities. However, finding suitable tools and integrating them will require a great effort.
2. Find a partner or investor – research or software institutes can develop a platform. However, finding
the right partner and devising the necessary functionalities will be time-intensive and costly.

Twenty-Eigth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2020), Marrakesh, Morocco. 6

Kosmol and Leyh / A Vision for Industrial Symbiosis

3. Build it yourself – an individual ISP can be developed with a company’s or park’s own resources.
However, the problems mentioned (issues 1 to 3) may occur.
To address and solve these issues, we propose an approach that combines all three aspects: A platform
provided and maintained by a knowledgeable third party (2) providing interfaces to or integrating exist-
ing tools (1) and offering tools and services to create individual platforms and marketplaces (3). We call
this tool the “Industrial Symbiosis Platform Builder” (ISPB) (Figure 1). This concept is not new per se.
IT technologies to build such a system exist but have not yet been applied to industrial symbiosis. Hence,
the main challenge is to apply it for industrial symbiosis and organize the affected industrial ecosys-
tem(s). The ISPB aims to support a more convenient and individual platform development according to
a specific setting and the needs of a community leading to a higher diffusion of industrial symbiosis
(platforms) and the reuse of already developed ISP components. Thus, both EIPs and industrial symbi-
osis communities spread across a broader region can be supported by one or more platforms.
The ISPB offers different modules (e.g., matching, analysis, exchange market, social network) that can
be integrated into a platform and added or removed as needed, enabling platform customization. As
ecosystems are characterized by evolution, they may require additional services over time. Hence, the
supporting platform should be adaptable. Furthermore, the platform must support operational activities
and analysis to maintain synergies and improve current practices. Otherwise, it may become obsolete.
In addition, by feeding back declassified (synergy) data into a repository, analyses and statistics can be
made available for eligible external entities, such as researchers or policymakers, who in turn can con-
tribute to regional development or the industrial symbiosis (research) community.
In the case of an industrial symbiosis network with open geographic boundaries, a participant-to-partic-
ipant interaction, that is, direct interaction, is required, whereas in an EIP, a facilitator model should be
chosen in addition. The facilitator model supports collaboration and the establishment of a network by
employing project management and collaboration software. The primary role of the facilitator, which
may be the EIP operator or a policymaker in a certain region, is to collect information, make knowledge
accessible and encourage cooperation through participatory processes (Grant et al., 2010).
In order to create a platform ecosystem, the platform must provide tools for third-party developers (e.g.,
software developers or researchers) to add complementary services to the platform and services for de-
mand-side users. Platforms must be open to innovation through supply-side users by providing appro-
priate boundary resources (e.g., information and interoperability standards) (Tiwana, 2013). Economic
viability for the platform provider and attractiveness of a platform to potential users results from com-
plementary assets that are generated by supply-side users creating a self-sustaining ecosystem
(Ghazawneh and Henfridsson, 2013). Providing these may counteract the currently isolated tool devel-
opments. Hence, the platform provider plays a crucial role providing the ISPB and the technical infra-
structure to host platforms built via the ISPB. Furthermore, the platform provider is responsible for
maintenance and continuous improvement of the tool. As highlighted by Maqbool et al. (2018), the
platform provider should be someone whose core business is the provision of the platform. This would
ensure the design capability of the platform owner and platform sustainment. Demand-side users of the
built platforms are the park operator and park members (resource providers, consumers and intermedi-
aries) in the case of an EIP or industrial actors in the case of industrial symbiosis networks. Especially
in the case of an EIP, the park operator would have an economic self-interest in discovering and facili-
tating new opportunities for synergies, finding suitable new industries and managing the park. An ISP
for an EIP may be easier to embed into an overall strategy of the park and its associated members.
Another important role is the platform constructor—the entity building the platform with the ISPB uti-
lizing design flexibility. Depending on the size, structure and willingness of the setting, the entity in
charge may differ. In an industrial park, the role can be performed by the park operator. In an industrial
area without operator, the constructor can be a local company. Alternatively, the platform provider con-
structs the platform according to the wishes of the industrial actors or other entities. Another option
would be the construction of a platform by researchers or political entities in the region. Moreover, it
seems valuable to enable the flow of information and knowledge and thus link the different regions/plat-
forms and the entities therein (Kosmol, 2019). In all scenarios, users need to cooperate to determine the

Twenty-Eigth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2020), Marrakesh, Morocco. 7

Kosmol and Leyh / A Vision for Industrial Symbiosis

modules of the platform. Although the constructor may act as coordinator, it is important that the indi-
vidual actors can use the platform themselves.
Platform Environment Business Environment

Industrial Park
ISPB M1 c c PO
instance of PM
M2 Platform 1 PM
Module 1
ppl - PM
APIs M4 PM
Module 2 ide er
Platform
B ilder
Tool Module 3 pro ide
C

Industrial
M1 C

Area
instance of
Module n Platform 2
C
M3 P

da a/
f a
Repositor

External
M5

Entities
instance of Platform 3 P
Infrastructure M6

M= d e, PO = a e a , PM = a e be ,
platform pro ider demand-side users
C=c a , R = e ea che , P = c a e

Figure 1. Concept of the Industrial Symbiosis Platform Builder (ISPB).

The proposed approach presents the application of knowledge we already have in the context of digital
platforms to the domain of industrial symbiosis. This solution offers design knowledge in the form of a
tool. The value created for demand-side users includes reduced effort for platform development, new
reach (e.g., new buyers or new knowledge) and reduced transaction costs. The ISPB provider receives
value via getting paid for providing the tool and hosting the respective built platforms.

5 Conclusion and future steps

The present paper pointed out some crucial issues that have ‘escaped’ the attention of researchers re-
garding ISP design and development so far. To address these issues, adopting a platform ecosystem
perspective and the development of an IT artifact—the industrial symbiosis platform builder (ISPB)—
is proposed. The ISPB is a tool to establish and facilitate industrial and corresponding platform ecosys-
tems in the field of industrial symbiosis. The main objective of the proposed artifact is to push the dif-
fusion and maturity of ISPs to create industrial ecosystems through platform ecosystems and vice versa.
This approach opens new directions for scholarly discourse in the field of industrial symbiosis and plat-
forms. Developing the ISPB will contribute to the knowledge base (design practices of ISPs) and prac-
tice (tool support to create ISPs). However, the key assumption is that industrial actors are willing to
join a platform and participate in an ecosystem working toward sustainability. Considering all the dif-
ferent possible platform settings, this approach is admittedly also a very idealistic one.
In a next step (DSR step: Design & Development), we need to identify the (minimum) requirements of
potential platform users and providers (platform modules, interaction mechanisms, etc.) and develop
more specific design guidelines. Furthermore, these guidelines have to be evaluated (DSR step: Evalu-
ation). A mixed-method approach combining quantitative approaches in the form of online surveys and
qualitative approaches in the form of in-depth expert interviews with researchers and companies that
have been involved in ISP projects as well as actors that have not yet been part of industrial symbiosis
projects is suitable. In addition, similar platforms in more mature domains such as the sharing economy
will be investigated as they could provide insights and design guidance we can adapt. Currently, even
though ISPs incorporate functionalities similar to other platforms, their research stream is separated.
Finally, with this paper we take the opportunity to remark that industrial symbiosis research could ben-
efit from perspectives and theories of information systems research, as both industrial symbiosis itself
and related IT are currently not strongly present in information systems research but are almost exclu-
sively employed in engineering and the natural sciences.

Twenty-Eigth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2020), Marrakesh, Morocco. 8

Kosmol and Leyh / A Vision for Industrial Symbiosis

References
Bakogianni, D., Skourtanioti, E., Meimaris, D.,Xevgenos, D. and M. Loizidou (2019). “Online Brine
Platform: a Tool for Enabling Industrial Symbiosis in Saline Wastewater Management Domain.”
In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Distributed Computing in Sensor Systems
(DCOSS 2019).
Benedict, M., Kosmol, L. and W. Esswein (2018). “Designing Industrial Symbiosis Platforms – from
Platform Ecosystems to Industrial Ecosystems.” In: Proceedings of the 22nd Pacific Asia Confer-
ence on Information Systems (PACIS 2018).
vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Niehaves, B., Riemer, K., Plattfaut, R. and A. Cleven (2009). “Recon-
structing the giant: On the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process.” In:
Proceedings of 17th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2009).
van Capelleveen, G., Amrit, C. and D. M. Yazan (2018). “A Literature Survey of Information Systems
Facilitating the Identification of Industrial Symbiosis.” In: From Science to Society: New Trends in
Environmental Informatics. Ed. by P. Hitzelberger, S. Naumann, V. Wohlgemuth and B. Ot-
jacques. Cham: Springer, pp. 155–169.
Cecelja, F., Raafat, T., Trokanas, N., Innes, S., Smith, M., Yang, A., Zorgios, Y., Korkofygas, A. and
A. Kokossis (2015). “e-Symbiosis: technology-enabled support for Industrial Symbiosis targeting
Small and Medium Enterprises and innovation.” Journal of Cleaner Production, 98, 336–352.
Chen, H. L. and N. P. Feng (2012). “Information Platform and the Stability of an Ecological Industrial
Park.” Advanced Materials Research, 616, 1631–1635.
Chertow, M. and J. Ehrenfeld (2012). “Organizing Self-Organizing Systems.” Journal of Industrial
Ecology, 16(1), 13–27.
Chertow, M. and J. Park (2016). “Scholarship and Practice in Industrial Symbiosis: 1989–2014.” In:
Taking stock of industrial ecology. Ed. by R. Clift and A. Druckman. Cham: Springer, pp. 87–116.
Chertow, M. R. (2000). “Industrial symbiosis: Literature and Taxonomy.” Annual Review of Energy
and the Environment, 25(1), 313–337.
Cruz, R., Hoppen, N., Rigoni, E. and E. Rigoni (2015). “Virtual Business Communities to Improve
Symbiotic Resource Sharing.” In: Proceedings of the 21st Americas Conference on Information
Systems (AMCIS 2015).
Cutaia, L., Luciano, A., Barberio, G., Sbaffoni, S., Mancuso, E., Scagliarino, C. and M. La Monica
(2015). “The experience of the first industrial symbiosis platform in Italy.” Environmental Engi-
neering and Management Journal, 14 (7), 1521–1533.
Cutaia, L., Morabito, R., Barberio, G., Mancuso, E., Brunori, C., Spezzano, P., Mione, A., Mungi-
guerra, C., Li Rosi, O. and F. Cappello (2014). “The Project for the Implementation of the Indus-
trial Symbiosis Platform in Sicily: The Progress After the First Year of Operation.” In: Pathways to
Environmental Sustainability: Methodologies and Experiences. Ed. by R. Salomone and G. Saija.
Cham: Springer, pp. 205–214.
Ding, X. H., Zhang, S. X., Zhang, Y. Y. and W. Z. Zhong (2010). “Pattern of the 3rd Party Reverse
Logistics System in Ecological Industrial Park.” Advanced Materials Research, 171–172, 648–653.
Dounavis, A. S., Kafasis, P. and N. Ntavos (2019). “Using an online platform for the improvement of
industrial symbiosis and circular economy (in Western Macedonia, Greece).” Global Nest Journal,
21(1), 76–81.
Ehrenfeld, J. and N. Gertler (1997). “Industrial Ecology in Practice: The Evolution of Interdependence
at Kalundborg.” Journal of Industrial Ecology, 1(1), 67–79.
Eisenmann, T. R., Parker, G. and M. W. Van Alstyne (2009). “Opening Platforms: How, When and
Why?” In: Platforms, Markets and Innovation. Ed. by A. Gawer. Edward Elgar Publishing, Chap-
ter 6.
Evans, D. S., Schmalensee, R., Noel, M. D., Chang, H. H. and D. D. Garcia-Swartz (2011). Platform
Economics: Essays on Multi-Sided Businesses. SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester: Competition
Policy International.
Fettke, P. (2006). “State-of-the-Art des State-of-the-Art.” Wirtschaftsinformatik, 48(4), 257–266.

Twenty-Eigth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2020), Marrakesh, Morocco. 9

Kosmol and Leyh / A Vision for Industrial Symbiosis

Fraccascia, L. and D. M. Yazan (2018). “The role of online information-sharing platforms on the per-
formance of industrial symbiosis networks.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 136, 473–
485.
Fric, U. and B . Rončević, B. (2018). “E-Simbioza – Leading the Way to a Circular Economy through
Industrial Symbiosis in Slovenia.” Socijalna ekologija, 27(2), 119–140.
Frosch, R. A. and N. E. Gallopoulos (1989). “Strategies for Manufacturing.” Scientific American,
261(3), 144–153.
Ghali, M. R. and J.-M. Frayret (2018). “Social Semantic Web Framework for Industrial Synergies Ini-
tiation.” Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23(3), 726–738.
Ghali, M. R., Frayret, J.-M. and J.-M. Robert (2016). “Green social networking: Concept and potential
applications to initiate industrial synergies.” Journal of Cleaner Production, 115, 23–35.
Ghazawneh, A. and O. Henfridsson (2013). “Balancing platform control and external contribution in
third-party development: the boundary resources model.” Information Systems Journal, 23(2), 173–
192.
Gibbs, D. (2009). “Industrial Ecology and Eco-Industrial Development − The UK’s National Indus-
trial Symbiosis Programme (NISP).” In: EnviroInfo 2009: Environmental Informatics and Indus-
trial Environmental Protection: Concepts, Methods and Tools. Ed. by V. Wohlgemuth, B. Page
and K. Voigt. Aachen: Shaker, pp. 245-251.
Golev, A., Corder, G. D. and D. P. Giurco (2015). “Barriers to Industrial Symbiosis: Insights from the
Use of a Maturity Grid.” Journal of Industrial Ecology, 19(1), 141–153.
Grant, G. B., Seager, T. P., Massard, G. and L. Nies (2010). “Information and Communication Tech-
nology for Industrial Symbiosis.” Journal of Industrial Ecology, 14(5), 740–753.
Guo, J., Qiao, Q. and Y. Yao (2014). “New Trend of Eco-Industrial Parks’ Construction and Manage-
ment.” Advanced Materials Research, 962–965, 2436–2440.
Halstenberg, F. A., Lindow, K. and R. Stark (2017). “Utilization of Product Lifecycle Data from PLM
Systems in Platforms for Industrial Symbiosis.” Procedia Manufacturing, 8, 369–376.
Iansiti, M. and R. Levien (2004). “Strategy as ecology.” Harvard Business Review, 82(3), 68–81.
Kerdlap, P., Choong Low, J. S., Steidle, R., Loong Tan, D. Z., Herrmann, C. and S. Ramakrishna
(2019). “Collaboration Platform for Enabling Industrial Symbiosis: Application of the Industrial-
Symbiosis Life Cycle Analysis Engine.” Procedia CIRP, 80, 655–660.
Kosmol, L. (2019). “Sharing is Caring - Information and Knowledge in Industrial Symbiosis: A Sys-
tematic Review.” In: Proceedings of the 21st Conference on Business Informatics (CBI 2019).
Kosmol, L. and C. Leyh (2020). “Perspectives on Industrial Symbiosis Implementation: Informational,
Managerial, and IT Aspects.” In: Information Technology for Management: Emerging Research
and Applications. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing (LNBIP). Ed. by E. Ziemba.
Cham: Springer, pp. 192–213.
Kosmol, L. and L. Otto (2020). “Implementation Barriers of Industrial Symbiosis: A Systematic Re-
view.” In: Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS
2020).
Lombardi, D. R. and P. Laybourn (2012). “Redefining Industrial Symbiosis.” Journal of Industrial
Ecology, 16(1), 28–37.
Loucopoulos, P., Stratigaki, C., Zorgios, Y. and A. Mygiakis (2018). “The Case of Industrial Symbio-
sis.” Capability Management in Digital Enterprises. Ed. by. K. Sandkuhl and J. Stirna. Cham:
Springer, pp. 283–310.
Low, J. S. C., Tjandra, T. B., Yunus, F., Chung, S. Y., Tan, D. Z. L., Raabe, B., Ting, N. Y., Yeo, Z.,
Bressan, S., Ramakrishna, S. and C. Herrmann (2018). “A Collaboration Platform for Enabling In-
dustrial Symbiosis: Application of the Database Engine for Waste-to-Resource Matching.” Proce-
dia CIRP, 69, 849–854.
Lowe, E. A. (1997). “Creating by-product resource exchanges: Strategies for eco-industrial parks.”
Journal of Cleaner Production, 5(1–2), 57–65.
Lowe, E. A. and L. K. Evans (1995). “Industrial ecology and industrial ecosystems.” Journal of
Cleaner Production, 3(1–2), 47–53.

Twenty-Eigth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2020), Marrakesh, Morocco. 10

Kosmol and Leyh / A Vision for Industrial Symbiosis

Lowe, E. A., Moran, S. R. and D. B. Holmes (1996). Fieldbook for the development of eco-industrial
parks. Indigo Development.
Luciano, A., Barberio, G., Mancuso, E., Sbaffoni, S., La Monica, M., Scagliarino, C. and L. Cutaia
(2016). “Potential Improvement of the Methodology for Industrial Symbiosis Implementation at
Regional Scale.” Waste and Biomass Valorization, 7(4), 1007–1015.
Malhotra, A., Melville, N. P. and R. T. Watson (2013). “Spurring impactful research on information
systems for environmental sustainability.” MIS Quarterly, 37(4), 1265–1274.
Maqbool, A., Mendez Alva, F., and Van Eetvelde, G. (2018). “An Assessment of European Infor-
mation Technology Tools to Support Industrial Symbiosis.” Sustainability, 11, Article 131.
Migliore, M., Talamo, C. and G. Paganin (2020). “Information and Communication Technologies
(ICTs) for Advanced Scraps/Waste Management.” In: Strategies for Circular Economy and Cross-
sectoral Exchanges for Sustainable Building Products: Preventing and Recycling Waste. Ed. by
M. Migliore, C. Talamo and G. Paganin. Cham: Springer, pp. 191–222.
Moore, J. F. (1996). The Death of Competition: Leadership and Strategy in the Age of Business Eco-
systems. HarperBusiness.
Neves, A., Godina, R., Azevedo, S. G. and J. C. O. Matias (2019). “A comprehensive review of indus-
trial symbiosis.” Journal of Cleaner Production, In Press, Corrected Proof.
Paquin, R. L. and J. Howard-Grenville (2012). “The Evolution of Facilitated Industrial Symbiosis.”
Journal of Industrial Ecology, 16(1), 83–93.
Park, H.-S., Rene, E. R., Choi, S.-M. and A. S. F. Chiu (2008). “Strategies for sustainable develop-
ment of industrial park in Ulsan, South Korea—From spontaneous evolution to systematic expan-
sion of industrial symbiosis.” Journal of Environmental Management, 87(1), 1–13.
Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A. and S. Chatterjee (2007). “A Design Science Research
Methodology for Information Systems Research.” Journal of Management Information Systems,
24(3), 45–77.
Qin, D. J. and X. J. Guo (2011). “Research on Implementation Strategies of Green Supply Chain Man-
agement.” Applied Mechanics and Materials, 84–85, 757–760.
Raabe, B., Low, J. S. C., Juraschek, M., Herrmann, C., Tjandra, T. B., Ng, Y. T., Kurle, D., Cerdas, F.,
Lueckenga, J., Yeo, Z. and Y. S. Tan (2017). “Collaboration Platform for Enabling Industrial Sym-
biosis: Application of the By-product Exchange Network Model.” Procedia CIRP, 61, 263–268.
Raafat, T., Trokanas, N., Cecelja, F., Kokossis, A. and A. Yang (2012). “Semantically-enabled For-
malisation to Support and Automate the Application of Industrial Symbiosis.” In: Proceedings of
the 11th International Symposium on Process Systems Engineering.
Scafá, M., Marconi, M. and M. Germani (2018). “A Critical Review of Industrial Symbiosis Models.”
Transdisciplinary Engineering Methods for Social Innovation of Industry 4.0, Advances in Trans-
disciplinary Engineering, IOS Press, 1184–1193.
Stirna, J., Zdravkovic, J., Henkel, M., Loucopoulos, P. and C. Stratigaki (2016). “Modeling Organiza-
tional Capabilities on a Strategic Level.” In: The Practice of Enterprise Modeling. Ed. by J.
Horkoff, M. A. Jeusfeld and A. Persson. Cham: Springer, pp. 257–271.
Stratigaki, C., Loucopoulos, P., Migiakis, A. and Y. Zorgios (2016). “Combining Model-driven and
Capability-driven Developments A Case Study of Industrial Symbiosis.” In: Proceedings of the
18th Conference on Business Informatics (CBI 2016).
Tiwana, A. (2013). Platform ecosystems: aligning architecture, governance, and strategy. Newnes.
Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B. and A. A. Bush (2010). “Research Commentary - Platform Evolution: Co-
evolution of Platform Architecture, Governance, and Environmental Dynamics.” Information Sys-
tems Research, 21(4), 675–687.
Trokanas, N., Cecelja, F. and T. Raafat (2014). “Towards a Re-Usable Ontology for Waste Pro-
cessing.” Computer Aided Chemical Engineering, 33, 841–846.
Tsujimoto, M., Kajikawa, Y., Tomita, J. and Y. Matsumoto (2018). “A review of the ecosystem con-
cept — Towards coherent ecosystem design.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136,
49–58.
Yeo, Z., Choong Low, J. S., Loong Tan, D. Z., Chung, S. Y., Tjandra, T. B. and J. Ignatius (2019a).
“A collaboration platform for enabling industrial symbiosis: Towards creating a self-learning

Twenty-Eigth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2020), Marrakesh, Morocco. 11

 Kosmol and Leyh / A Vision for Industrial Symbiosis

waste-to-resource database for recommending industrial symbiosis transactions using text analyt-
ics.” Procedia CIRP, 80, 643–648.
Yeo, Z., Masi, D., Low, J. S. C., Ng, Y. T., Tan, P. S. and S. Barnes (2019b). “Tools for promoting
industrial symbiosis: A systematic review.” Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23(5), 1087–1108.
Zhou, L., Pan, M., Sikorski, J. J., Garud, S., Aditya, L. K., Kleinelanghorst, M. J., Karimi, I. A. and M.
Kraft (2017a). “Towards an ontological infrastructure for chemical process simulation and optimi-
zation in the context of eco-industrial parks.” Applied Energy, 204, 1284–1298.
Zhou, L., Pan, M., Sikorski, J. J., Garud, S., Kleinelanghorst, M. J., Karimi, I. A. and M. Kraft
(2017b). “System Development for Eco-industrial Parks Using Ontological Innovation.” Energy
Procedia, 105(1), 2239–2244.

Twenty-Eigth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2020), Marrakesh, Morocco. 12

View publication stats