5.

Industrial symbiosis networks: application of the

circular economy for resource efficiency
Michael Martin

INTRODUCTION
Industrial symbiosis (IS) is a research topic which focuses on inter-firm collaboration to
create competitive advantages through resource exchanges, where no firm is seen as an
island but interacts with other firms to create mutual benefits and valorized processes
(Chertow 2000; Lombardi and Laybourn 2012; Martin and Eklund 2011). Chertow
(2000, p. 314), the most-cited researcher in the field, defined industrial symbiosis as
follows: ‘Industrial symbiosis engages traditionally separate industries in a collective
approach to competitive advantage involving physical exchange of materials, energy,
water, and/or by-products. The keys to industrial symbiosis are collaboration and the
synergistic possibilities offered by geographic proximity.’
Industrial symbiosis stems from the symbiotic relationships seen in the natural environ-
ment, where organisms, or species, exchange energy and materials for mutual benefits.
These exchanges which mutually benefit one another are also known as ‘synergies’ in
the industrial symbiosis community and are assumed to create ‘win‒win’ situations for
all firms involved. The exchanges of resources, energy, utilities and knowledge between
firms are fundamental to industrial symbiosis. These exchanges include the handling of
wastes, raw materials, energy, by-products, knowledge and risks. By integrating with other
systems or building cooperation, these synergies are created between the industries. These
synergies are the major mechanism for industrial symbiosis to allow for cross-sectoral and
multi-stakeholder resource, knowledge and innovation exchanges, typically referred to as
including by-product, utility and knowledge synergies. These can be defined as follows:

● By-product synergies may be defined as synergies which involve the use of previ-
ously disposed by-products, residues and wastes which are subsequently used as
inputs for other firms. These by-products can be used as imminent raw materials,
additives or fillers for other firms within different geographical boundaries, for
example, within a defined industrial park, between entities or firms across regions.1
● Utility synergies involve the sharing and management of utilities, including the
sharing of energy, water, electricity, heat, joint treatment of emissions, as well as
recovery and treatment plants (Martin et al. 2012; van Berkel 2007).
● Knowledge synergies are also key to IS networks, which involve the development
and deployment of knowledge for processes to create and manage new products,
services and markets (Mirata et al. 2018).

While the term implies that industrial production and practices are of primary
importance in the field, this limitation is not exclusive. Industrial symbiosis networks and

50
Michael Martin - 9781788972727
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/01/2021 10:05:04AM
via Jönköping University

BRANDAO_9781788972710_t.indd 50 23/11/2020 15:20

 Industrial symbiosis networks  51

Note: CHP ‒ combined heat and power.

Source: Adapted from Martin and Eklund (2011).

Figure 5.1  xample of synergies between firms and regional sectors and urban systems
E
from the Händelö industrial symbiosis network in Sweden

their exchanges may extend beyond the industrial setting. This can include synergies with
surrounding systems to include agriculture, horticulture, forestry, fisheries, municipal
and urban systems (Mirata et al. 2018; Martin and Harris 2018), extending the bounded
geographical proximity generally associated with the concept. Figure 5.1 illustrates many
of the potential synergies with surrounding systems, including synergies with the forestry
and agricultural sectors and urban environments.

INDUSTRIAL SYMBIOSIS RESEARCH

Industrial symbiosis includes a large range of scientific methods and disciplines to under-
stand more about the exchanges between firms and surrounding systems. The field has
seen significant advances in recent years, evolving from studies of ‘uncovering’ examples
of industrial symbiosis networks worldwide (Chertow 2007), to include a large suite of
academic disciplines to understand the contextual development, sustainability, dynamics,
facilitation tools, business models, and so on, involving researchers worldwide (see, e.g.,
Chertow and Park 2016; Yu et al. 2014; Akhtar et al. 2019; Walls and Paquin 2015).
Eklund (2017) summarized industrial symbiosis for a broader audience to capture how
and why industrial symbiosis developed as a discipline, stating that: ‘industrial symbiosis
is the science of residual streams’.

Michael Martin - 9781788972727

Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/01/2021 10:05:04AM
via Jönköping University

BRANDAO_9781788972710_t.indd 51 23/11/2020 15:20

 52  Handbook of the circular economy

The topic has its origins in the industrial ecology research field. Since the 1990s, scholars
have attempted to develop concepts to examine resource reduction through sharing and
exchanges. At this time, some seminal developments brought industrial symbiosis to light,
most prominently the uncovering of Kalundborg by Lowe and Evans (1995). Similar
concepts, such as eco-industrial parks, zero waste, by-product synergies and integrated
biosystems were also explored by a number of researchers around the same time (Chertow
and Park 2016). Despite the similarities of industrial symbiosis with these other concepts,
industrial symbiosis research is not traditionally single-industry dominated and has a
broader systemic perspective. As Chertow and Park (2016) describe, early pioneers of
the research and term have expressed concern that while often used interchangeably with
the term ‘eco-industrial park’ (EIP), it should be noted that eco-industrial parks extend
beyond exchanges of resources and are a more bounded spatial concept.
To reflect developments from research in the IS community challenging previous defini-
tions, especially those limited to resource exchanges and the spatial limitations, Lombardi
and Laybourn (2012) postulated a new definition of industrial symbiosis to extend many
of the ‘traditional’ classifications of what is included in IS to include new areas important
to convey its richness to practitioners and other stakeholders. In the new definition, the
geographic proximity requirements are negated and exchanges are extended to include
personnel and knowledge transfer. Furthermore, competitive advantages from IS are
extended beyond resource efficiency to include reduced costs, valorization of products,
diversification and management of risks.
Furthermore, extensive work in the social sciences literature has also been focused on
reviewing the theoretical approaches of industrial symbiosis development. This includes
the motivations, dynamics, interactions and governance, which are important for facilitat-
ing and maintaining the synergies. Nearly all research in the field suggests that industrial
symbiosis is highly dependent upon arenas for interaction and dialogue; above all, trust is
often cited as key to the development of synergies and exchanges between firms (Wolf et
al., 2005; Chertow and Park, 2016). As Jiao and Boons (2014) suggest, this is significant,
as the growing diversity in the field is important to understand, especially to connect the
diverse contexts to promote IS in the policy realm.

CASES WORLDWIDE

Worldwide, there are many operative industrial symbiosis networks, which offer many
effective examples for a more circular and bio-based economy. These IS networks all have
their unique characteristics based on the local contexts, making them difficult to compare
(Boons et al. 2017). Many of these examples have been highlighted in recent literature
reviews of scholarly practice in the field (see, e.g., Yu et al. 2014; Chertow and Park 2016;
Akhtar et al. 2019), showing great diversity in their size, outcomes, the firms involved and
the approaches used for their successful implementation.
Internationally, examples from Kalundborg, Denmark (Jacobsen 2006), the United
Kingdom’s (UK) National Industrial Symbiosis Programme (Jensen et al. 2011) and many
parks in Asian countries such as South Korea (Kim et al. 2018a) and China, have domi-
nated the literature (Yu et al. 2014). The mechanisms involved in these networks range
in their application and development, from those organically developed, to facilitated

Michael Martin - 9781788972727

Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/01/2021 10:05:04AM
via Jönköping University

BRANDAO_9781788972710_t.indd 52 23/11/2020 15:20

 Industrial symbiosis networks  53

Table 5.1 Examples of industrial symbiosis networks worldwide

Americas Europe Asia/Pacific

Keystone Industrial Port NISP (UK) Ulsan Eco-Industrial Park
Complex (USA) Händelö IS Network (Sweden) (Korea)
Intervale Food Center (USA) Harjavalta Industrial Eco-Park Kwinana Industrial Area
Guayama Industrial Symbiosis (Finland) (Australia)
Network (Puerto Rico) Kalundborg (Denmark) Lubei National Eco-industrial
Norte Fluminense IS Network Kaiserbaracke Industrial Park Demonstration Park (China)
(Brazil) (Belgium) Suzhou Industrial Park (China)
Natura Eco Industrial Park Rotterdam Harbour INES Nanjangud Industrial Area
(Brazil) (Netherlands) (India)
Altamira-Tampico industrial Chemical Industrial Park Vatva Industrial Park (India)
corridor (Mexico) Knapsack (Germany) Eco-Town Kawasaki (Japan)
Deux Synthe Industrial Park
(France)

Source: Based on descriptions and information in Santos and Magrini (2018), Massard et al. (2014) and
Morales et al. (2019).

symbiotic exchanges and regionally supported networks. Table 5.1 provides a selection
of many of the different IS networks worldwide. A number of web-based documentation
pages are also available to outline the many IS networks worldwide.2
Interestingly, while many of the more prolific examples are confined to industrial
parks, the largest number of industrial symbiosis networks outlined worldwide include
symbiotic exchanges between industrial firms and with regional systems and urban
activities (Mirata et al. 2018). The largest number of IS networks can be found in Europe.
Scandinavian countries, in particular, have a large number of IS networks which have
developed organically, and have developed as industrial and urban symbiotic systems (see
discussions in Domenech et al. 2019; Mirata et al. 2018). While a number of interesting
examples are available in other developed economies, there are few examples available
in Africa and South America, although work is developing to promote more symbiotic
networks in these regions (Oguntoye et al. 2019; Park et al. 2018; O’Carroll et al. 2017).

RESOURCE EFFICIENCY THROUGH SYNERGIES

While much of the literature and discourse used to promote industrial symbiosis suggests
largely positive performance (for society, business and the environment), there is a limited
number of studies reviewing and assessing the implications of industrial symbiosis, both
in number and in scope. Often studies focus on a few indicators of performance, such as
reduced waste streams, potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions savings and reduced
costs for landfilling due to exchanges between firms (see, e.g., Chertow and Lombardi
2005; Kim et al. 2018b; van Berkel 2010). Nonetheless, significant research has been
developed in the field to extend and advance the quantitative assessments of the implica-
tions of industrial symbiosis networks, primarily focusing on environmental sustainability
(see, e.g., Martin et al. 2015; Sokka et al. 2011; Mattila et al. 2012; Kim et al. 2018b; Røyne

Michael Martin - 9781788972727

Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/01/2021 10:05:04AM
via Jönköping University

BRANDAO_9781788972710_t.indd 53 23/11/2020 15:20

 54  Handbook of the circular economy

et al. 2018). An important feature of these studies is the life cycle perspective, which allows
for broadening the scope to review the consequences of activities both within and outside
the networks. Martin et al. (2015) outlined approaches for reviewing the benefits for firms
in the IS network, extending previous assessment techniques for reviewing the overall
impacts and benefits from the IS network. Furthermore, using life cycle assessment can
allow the review of impact categories beyond GHG emissions, and of the regionally
specific impacts and implications of the IS networks.
In comparative studies of IS networks, the choice of reference system has been identi-
fied as one of the most important methodological choices for reviewing the potential
impacts and benefits (see, for example, assertions of Martin et al. 2015; Mattila et al.
2012; van Berkel 2010). Typically, studies review an existing IS network and compare it
to a counterfactual reference system. Few studies have reviewed assessments of future
systems and improvement possibilities, despite the importance of continuing to develop
the networks; for example, towards less fossil-based material and energy inputs (see, e.g.,
Røyne et al. 2015; Martin and Harris 2018).
Studies focusing on the other sustainability pillars ‒ that is, social and economic impli-
cations of industrial symbiosis networks ‒ with a broader scope, are lacking. Recent work
by Martin and Harris (2018), Dong et al. (2013) and Mirata (2018), however, has extended
the assessments of socio-economic impacts of industrial symbiosis networks and the
potential business value, combining these with environmental assessments. However, few
assessments of the implications of IS networks combining the environmental, economic
and social pillars of sustainability are available in the literature.
It is also important that the scientific advancements and methods available for review-
ing the performance of IS networks are salient beyond the scientific sphere. Many of
the European Union (EU) projects supported through Commission funding continue to
repeat earlier development practices, guided partly by mandatory life cycle-based perfor-
mance assessment criteria. For example, findings from a recently completed industrial
symbiosis project funded through the EU Commissions by Domenech et al. (2019) suggest
that no methods are available for reviewing the environmental performance of industrial
symbiosis networks, and that assessments of the networks have been ad hoc, referring to
a collection of papers published before the year 2011; thus making the transparency and
availability of the previously developed knowledge important to highlight to promote the
potential sustainability performance improvements of IS for the circular economy.

INDUSTRIAL SYMBIOSIS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE

CIRCULAR ECONOMY

Industrial Symbiosis in Policy

The circular economy (CE) has gained significant traction in society, business and policy
spheres, by expanding the traditional understanding of resources. The discourse used is
generally of the positive expectations of the potential to create a more sustainable society
by reducing environmental impacts and ensuring green growth and sustainable develop-
ment (Lazarevic and Valve 2017). Whilst few examples of applications of CE concepts
are available beyond descriptions of products and actions taken by producers to become

Michael Martin - 9781788972727

Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/01/2021 10:05:04AM
via Jönköping University

BRANDAO_9781788972710_t.indd 54 23/11/2020 15:20

 Industrial symbiosis networks  55

more ‘circular’, IS has been identified as an important part of the CE to ensure the value
of products and to reduce (or eliminate) waste (European Commission 2011), with many
examples of IS networks worldwide. Industrial symbiosis has been recognized as a practi-
cal approach for the CE through the final ratification of the European Commission’s
Circular Economy Action Plan (2019). As Domenech et al. (2019) outline, the EU
Circular Economy Package suggests IS in the following two areas:

●● As a way to increase circularity in production processes, through more efficient use

of by-products, through clarifications in the definition of by-products and further
harmonization of practices across member states.
●● As a key theme of the innovation, investment and horizontal measures, through
expanding the base of knowledge in Horizon 2020 projects and as part of research
and innovation investment for cohesion funds and policies.

The European Commission has also revised legislative proposals on waste in order
to identify by-products from co-production processes to facilitate industrial symbiosis.
Article 5 of the Waste Framework Directive is now amended to state that: ‘a substance or
object resulting from a production process the primary aim of which is not the production
of that substance or object is considered not to be waste, but to be a by-product’.

Research

Through the symbiotic activities, industrial symbiosis research provides many relevant
contributions to the industrial ecology field and the circular economy literature by
adopting and implementing ecosystem traits to promote sustainable and circular resource
use at the inter-firm level to reduce wastes (Chertow 2000; Lowe 1997; Saavedra et al.
2018). Industrial symbiosis and the concepts linked to the circular economy stem from
the industrial ecology field, sharing many similar research aspects. Nonetheless, in the
industrial symbiosis literature, and as previously suggested, research is focused primarily
on the context for the IS networks, their facilitation and outcomes (Chertow and Park
2016). However, as the symbiotic networks require a business dimension, and do not exist
in the absence of an economic model, the economic role of the symbiotic exchanges in
the literature is currently less developed, despite attempts to review economic aspects of
the exchanges (Martin and Harris 2018; Mirata 2018). This puts the ‘win‒win’ situation
of the symbiotic networks into question, although previous studies have shown this to be
beneficial for the environmental performance of firms in the network (Martin et al. 2015;
Martin 2015; Chertow and Lombardi 2005; Sokka 2011; Sokka et al. 2011). Furthermore,
much of the literature focuses primarily on the IS network as the object of analysis. Less
focus has been placed on the actual products from industrial symbiosis networks, which
are important for the firms involved. Only recently has literature emerged which reviews
and highlights the potential benefits of products from circular-based production methods,
and industrial symbiosis (see, e.g., Martin 2018; Martin and Harris 2018; Martin 2015).
Both fields highlight the importance of mutual collaboration and the momentum
needed to allow for collective action. As such, synergies and collaborative approaches, in
both the CE and IS networks, require institutional capacity from the actors involved in
order to highlight issues and find resources, both internal and external, to achieve their

Michael Martin - 9781788972727

Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/01/2021 10:05:04AM
via Jönköping University

BRANDAO_9781788972710_t.indd 55 23/11/2020 15:20

 56  Handbook of the circular economy

goals (Abreu and Ceglia 2018; Boons and Spekkink 2012), transforming from a linear to
a circular-based economy (Saavedra et al. 2018).
In recent years, the concept has been extended to other disciplines and has been studied
as a business model for the circular economy to promote resource efficiency (Chertow
and Bocken 2014; Bocken et al. 2014). As Baldassarre et al. (2019) and Saavedra et al.
(2018) suggest, industrial ecology and the circular economy perspective have divergent
perspectives on the symbiotic exchanges, although the goal is similar: that is, for more
circular and resource-efficient use of resources. However, the logic used in much of the
available literature on the circular economy places importance primarily on the technical
aspects of exchanges and economic logic, paying little attention to the dynamic systemic
perspectives applied in IE research. Thus, research has emerged to enhance and promote
the concepts, bridging this gap (see, e.g., Bocken et al. 2014; Fraccascia et al. 2016; Short
et al. 2014). While often identified as an important aspect, research into the economic
models and contractual agreements of industrial symbiosis networks remains absent in
the literature, due in part to the sensitivity of this information. As previously outlined, an
increasing share of the literature in the industrial symbiosis field directly reviews the social
aspects which are important to operationalize and facilitate synergies. However, much of
the literature available for the circular economy has neglected such aspects (Stahel 2016).

EXTENDING AND SUPPORTING INDUSTRIAL SYMBIOSIS

In recent years support for industrial symbiosis has come from both policy-makers and
business sector. Once again, industrial symbiosis has been highlighted as a key concept
in the transition to the circular economy while promoting green growth and improved
resource efficiency (European Commission 2015). With the circular and bio-based
economy gaining increased private, political and business traction, the potential of
industrial symbiosis is also growing.
While much of the academic literature focuses on reviewing established industrial
symbiosis networks, in order to promote further industrial symbiosis among industry,
the needs and concerns of private businesses must be better captured. Identification and
reviews of viable options for further synergies are often not enough to lead to s­ uccessful
symbiotic development, due in part to organizational risks, trust and inflexibility (see, e.g.,
Chertow and Park 2016; Walls and Paquin 2015; Martin et al. 2012). Thus, it will be
important to include facilitators to identify and develop synergies between ­stakeholders,
identifying the business opportunities in order to ensure that these are positioned as
providing solutions to problems, which can help with the success. This can come from
more hands-on facilitation or direct support from decision-makers. Many researchers
have suggested that facilitation is key for successful industrial symbiosis networks (Zhu
and Ruth 2014; Martin and Harris 2018; Mirata and Hamilton 2018; Mirata et al. 2018;
Harris et al. 2018), although knowledge dissemination of the scientific state-of-the-art to
facilitation and policy-making stakeholders is currently inadequate (Mirata et al. 2018).
In recent years a large number of programmes have been supported ‒ for example,
through European Commission funding ‒ to promote industrial symbiosis and its facili-
tation. Often these programmes have developed online platforms and applications, for
match-making systems for synergies between firms and for highlighting the potential ben-

Michael Martin - 9781788972727

Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/01/2021 10:05:04AM
via Jönköping University

BRANDAO_9781788972710_t.indd 56 23/11/2020 15:20

 Industrial symbiosis networks  57

efits (for example, reduced costs, environmental performance). There are several examples
of such tools being implemented for regional development (see, e.g., Aid et al. 2015;
Jensen et al. 2011). These tools provide excellent examples of feedback on performance
and synergy identification for practitioners and firms looking to use, or employ, residual
materials and energy. However, without continued support, these systems may ultimately
lose momentum and fail to provide regional actors with updated information on potential
synergies once funding for such projects is concluded. It is important to actively support
these collective approaches for resource efficiency in the transition to a circular economy.
Mobilizing efforts to develop synergies is necessary for these to happen (Boons and
Spekkink 2012; Abreu and Ceglia 2018). Furthermore, it is important to review the
potential consequences of facilitation efforts. While facilitators may identify and develop
more synergies through supporting exchanges and financing, direct relationships between
firms may become weaker as the role of facilitators grows, requiring additional research
into these dynamics (Chertow and Park 2016). Trust, above all, has been identified as a
critical resource to allow industrial symbiosis to be feasible (Laybourn and Lombardi
2007; Golev et al. 2015; Wolf et al. 2005; Chertow 2007).

CONCLUSIONS

Industrial symbiosis, a research topic which focuses on collaborative strategies for exchang-
ing physical resources and sharing services among industrial actors, to enable resource
efficiency, has been outlined as an important application of circular economy concepts.
Many examples of industrial symbiosis networks exist worldwide, with extensive research
to understand more about the exchanges between firms and surrounding systems. The field
has advanced significantly to include a large suite of academic disciplines, to understand
the contextual development, sustainability, dynamics, facilitation tools, business models,
and so on, involving researchers worldwide. The circular economy literature can learn from
the extensive research related to mobilizing collaborative efforts for transitioning from
linear to circular approaches; taking into account not only the technical and economic
dimensions of this transition; this will require further knowledge on the broader systemic
perspective and social dimensions of collaborative approaches for more resource efficiency,
and require increased institutional capacity to facilitate and support these goals.

NOTES

1. This is dependent upon the characteristics (physical) and regulatory systems in place for the exchanged
resources.
2. See web pages such as www.industriellekologi.se, http://www.synergiequebec.ca/, http://www.simbiosiindus​
triale.it/, http://ie.tbm.tudelft.nl/index.php/Main_Page, http://www.industrialsymbiosis.fi/.

REFERENCES

Abreu, M.C.S.D. and D. Ceglia (2018), On the implementation of a circular economy: The role of institutional
capacity-building through industrial symbiosis, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 138, 99–109.

Michael Martin - 9781788972727

Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/01/2021 10:05:04AM
via Jönköping University

BRANDAO_9781788972710_t.indd 57 23/11/2020 15:20

 58  Handbook of the circular economy

Aid, G., N. Brandt, M. Lysenkova and N. Smedberg (2015), Looplocal – a heuristic visualization tool to support
the strategic facilitation of industrial symbiosis, Journal of Cleaner Production, 98, 328–335.
Akhtar, N., Z. Saqib, M. Khan, M. Martin, S. Atif Bokhari and M. Zaman-ul-Haq (2019), A bibliometric
analysis of contemporary research regarding industrial symbiosis: A path towards urban environmental
resilience, Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 17(1), 1159–1221.
Baldassarre, B., M. Schepers, N. Bocken, E. Cuppen, G. Korevaar and G. Calabretta (2019), Industrial symbio-
sis: Towards a design process for eco-industrial clusters by integrating circular economy and industrial ecology
perspectives, Journal of Cleaner Production, 216, 446–460.
Bocken, N.M.P., S.W. Short, P. Rana and S. Evans (2014), A literature and practice review to develop sustainable
business model archetypes, Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42–56.
Boons, F. and W. Spekkink (2012), Levels of institutional capacity and actor expectations about industrial
symbiosis, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 16(1), 61–69.
Boons, F., M. Chertow, J. Park, W. Spekkink and H. Shi (2017), Industrial symbiosis dynamics and the problem
of equivalence: Proposal for a comparative framework, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(4), 938–952.
Chertow, M.R. (2000), Industrial symbiosis: Literature and taxonomy, Annual Review of Energy and the
Environment, 25, 313–337.
Chertow, M.R. (2007), ‘Uncovering’ industrial symbiosis, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 11(1), 11–30.
Chertow, M.R. and N. Bocken (2014), Industrial symbiosis as a sustainable business model: Theoretical and
empirical findings. Paper presented at Resilience 2014, 4–8 May, Montpelier, France.
Chertow, M.R. and D.R. Lombardi (2005), Quantifying economic and environmental benefits of co-located
firms, Environmental Science and Technology, 39(17), 6535–6541.
Chertow, M.R. and J. Park (2016), Scholarship and practice in industrial symbiosis: 1989–2014, in Clift, R. and
A. Druckman (eds), Taking Stock of Industrial Ecology, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 87–117.
Domenech, T., R. Bleischwitz, A. Doranova, D. Panayotopoulos and L. Roman (2019), Mapping industrial
symbiosis development in Europe ‒ typologies of networks, characteristics, performance and contribution to
the circular economy, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 141, 76–98.
Dong, L., H. Zhang, T. Fujita, S. Ohnishi, H. Li, et al. (2013), Environmental and economic gains of industrial
symbiosis for Chinese iron/steel industry: Kawasaki’s experience and practice in Liuzhou and Jinan, Journal
of Cleaner Production, 59, 226–238.
Eklund, M. (2017), ‘Vetenskap om det som blev över!’, Ragn-Sells Framtidsdagen 2017, 12 May, Bro, Sweden.
European Commission (2011), LIFE08 ENV / H / 000291 Mid-term Report ISIM-TCC-Industrial Symbiosis an
Innovative Method in Tackling Climate Change Data Project.
European Commission (2015), COM/2015/0614 Closing the Loop – An EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy.
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.
European Commission (2019), COM/2019/190. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Implementation
of the Circular Economy Action Plan.
Fraccascia, L., M. Magno and V. Albino (2016), Business models for industrial symbiosis: A guide for firms,
Procedia Environmental Science, Engineering and Management, 3(2), 83–93.
Golev, A., G.D. Corder 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.
Harris, S., M. Mirata, S. Broberg, P. Carlsson and M. Martin (2018), A Roadmap for Increased Uptake of
Industrial Symbiosis in Sweden, IVL Research Report, IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute,
Stockholm.
Jacobsen, N.B. (2006), Industrial symbiosis in Kalundborg, Denmark: A quantitative assessment of economic
and environmental aspects, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 10(1–2), 239–255.
Jiao, W. and F. Boons (2014), Toward a research agenda for policy intervention and facilitation to enhance
industrial symbiosis based on a comprehensive literature review, Journal of Cleaner Production, 67, 14–25.
Jensen, P.D., L. Basson, E.E. Hellawell, M.R. Bailey and M. Leach (2011), Quantifying ‘geographic proximity’:
Experiences from the United Kingdom’s National Industrial Symbiosis Programme, Resources, Conservation
and Recycling, 55(7), 703–712.
Kim, H.-W., L. Dong, A.E.S. Choi, M. Fujii, T. Fujita and H.-S. Park (2018a), Co-benefit potential of industrial
and urban symbiosis using waste heat from industrial park in Ulsan, Korea, Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 135, 225–234.
Kim, H.-W., S. Ohnishi, M. Fujii, T. Fujita and H.-S. Park (2018b), Evaluation and allocation of greenhouse
gas reductions in industrial symbiosis, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 22(2), 275–287.
Laybourn, P. and R. Lombardi (2007), The role of audited benefits in industrial symbiosis: The UK National
Industrial Symbiosis Programme, Measurement and Control, 40(8), 244–247.
Lazarevic, D. and H. Valve (2017), Narrating expectations for the circular economy: Towards a common and
contested European transition, Energy Research and Social Science, 31, 60–69.

Michael Martin - 9781788972727

Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/01/2021 10:05:04AM
via Jönköping University

BRANDAO_9781788972710_t.indd 58 23/11/2020 15:20

 Industrial symbiosis networks  59

Lombardi, D.R. and P. Laybourn (2012), Redefining industrial symbiosis, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 16(1),
28–37.
Lowe, E.A. (1997), Creating by-product resource exchanges: Strategies for eco-industrial parks, Journal of
Industrial Ecology, 5(1–2), 57–65.
Lowe, E.A. and L.K. Evans (1995), Industrial ecology and industrial ecosystems, European Roundtable on
Cleaner Production Programs, 3(1–2), 47–53.
Martin, M. (2015), Quantifying the environmental performance of an industrial symbiosis network of biofuel
producers, Journal of Cleaner Production, 102, 202–212.
Martin, M. (2018), Assessing the Environmental Implications of a Regional Industrial Symbiosis Network for
Innovative Products, IVL Research Report C297, IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Stockholm.
Martin, M. and M. Eklund (2011), Improving the environmental performance of biofuels with industrial
symbiosis, Biomass and Bioenergy, 35(5), 1747–1755.
Martin, M. and S. Harris (2018), Prospecting the sustainability implications of an emerging industrial symbiosis
network, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 138, 246–256.
Martin, M., N. Svensson and M. Eklund (2015), Who gets the benefits? An approach for assessing the environ-
mental performance of industrial symbiosis, Journal of Cleaner Production, 98, 263–271.
Martin, M., N. Svensson, M. Eklund and J. Fonseca (2012), Production synergies in the current biofuel industry:
Opportunities for development, Biofuels, 3(5), 545–554.
Massard, G., J. Olivier and D. Zürcher (2014), International Survey on Eco-Innovation Parks: Learning from
Experiences on the Spatial Dimension of Eco-Innovation, Environmental Studies, No. 1402, Bern, Switzerland:
Federal Office for the Environment and the ERANET ECO-INNOVERA.
Mattila, T., S. Lehtoranta, L. Sokka, M. Melanen and A. Nissinen (2012), Methodological aspects of applying
life cycle assessment to industrial symbioses, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 16(1), 51–60.
Mirata, M. (2018), Business value of industrial symbiosis: A comprehensive assessment with focus on synergies
between Econova, Holmen Paper Braviken, Tekniska Verken and Holmen Timber. Linköping University
Research Report.
Mirata, M. and I. Hamilton (2018), Organizational and institutional influences on industrial symbiosis: The case
of Econova and its synergistic partnerhips. Linköping University Research Report.
Mirata, M., P. Carlsson, S. Harris, M. Martin, R. Fornell, et al. (2018), International and Swedish state of
play in industrial symbiosis: A review with proposals to scale up industrial symbiosis in Sweden. Linköping
University Report.
Morales, E.M., A. Diemer, G. Cervantes and G. Carrillo-González (2019), ‘By-product synergy’ changes in the
industrial symbiosis dynamics at the Altamira-Tampico industrial corridor: 20 years of industrial ecology in
Mexico, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 140, 235–245.
O’Carroll, S., L. Basson, J. Lyons, S. Smout and H. Nuwarinda (2017), The nature and role of industrial
symbiosis in South Africa. TIPS Annual Forum, 13–14 June, Johannesburg.
Oguntoye, O., M. Geissdoerfer, H. Nuwarinda and S. Evans (2019), Facilitating industrial symbiosis programmes
in developing countries: reflections from Gauteng, South Africa, Development in Practice, 29(1), 115–121.
Park, J., J. Duque-Hernández and N. Díaz-Posada (2018), Facilitating business collaborations for industrial
symbiosis: The pilot experience of the Sustainable Industrial Network Program in Colombia, Sustainability
10(3637), 1–17.
Røyne, F., J. Berlin and E. Ringström (2015), Life cycle perspective in environmental strategy development
on the industry cluster level: A case study of five chemical companies, Journal of Cleaner Production, 86,
125–131.
Røyne, F., R. Hackl, E. Ringström and J. Berlin (2018), Environmental evaluation of industry cluster strategies
with a life cycle perspective: Replacing fossil feedstock with forest-based feedstock and increasing thermal
energy integration, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 22(4), 694–705.
Saavedra, Y.M.B., D.R. Iritani, A.L.R. Pavan and A.R. Ometto (2018), Theoretical contribution of industrial
ecology to circular economy, Journal of Cleaner Production, 170, 1514–1522.
Santos, V.E.N. and A. Magrini (2018), Biorefining and industrial symbiosis: A proposal for regional develop-
ment in Brazil, Journal of Cleaner Production, 177, 19–33.
Short, S.W., N.M.P. Bocken, C.Y. Barlow and M.R. Chertow (2014), From refining sugar to growing tomatoes,
Journal of Industrial Ecology, 18(5), 603–618.
Sokka, L. (2011), Local systems, global impacts: Using life cycle assessment to analyse the potential and
constraints of industrial symbiosesthesis. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Finland.
Sokka, L., S. Lehtoranta, A. Nissinen and M. Melanen (2011), Analyzing the environmental benefits of
industrial symbiosis: Life cycle assessment applied to a Finnish forest industry complex, Journal of Industrial
Ecology, 15(1), 137–155.
Stahel, W.R. (2016), The circular economy, Nature, 531(7595), 435–438.
van Berkel, R. (2007), Regional Resource Synergies for Sustainable Development in Heavy Industrial Areas: An
Overview of Issues and Opportunities, Perth: Curtin University of Technology.

Michael Martin - 9781788972727

Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/01/2021 10:05:04AM
via Jönköping University

BRANDAO_9781788972710_t.indd 59 23/11/2020 15:20

 60  Handbook of the circular economy

van Berkel, R. (2010), Quantifying sustainability benefits of industrial symbioses, Journal of Industrial Ecology,
14(3), 371–373.
Walls, J.L. and R.L. Paquin (2015), Organizational perspectives of industrial symbiosis: A review and synthesis,
Organization and Environment, 28(1), 32–53.
Wolf, A., M. Eklund and M. Soderstrom (2005), Towards cooperation in industrial symbiosis: Considering the
importance of the human dimension, Progress in Industrial Ecology, an International Journal, 2(2), 185–199.
Yu, C., C. Davis and G.P.J. Dijkema (2014), Understanding the evolution of industrial symbiosis research,
Journal of Industrial Ecology, 18(2), 280–293.
Zhu, J. and M. Ruth (2014), The development of regional collaboration for resource efficiency: A network
perspective on industrial symbiosis, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 44, 37–46.

Michael Martin - 9781788972727

Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/01/2021 10:05:04AM
via Jönköping University

BRANDAO_9781788972710_t.indd 60 23/11/2020 15:20