298 A. Klitkou et al.
If we put together results coming from the different sections of the book,
two main suggestions can be brought to businesses. The first is based on
incorporating waste valorisation explicitly in the firms’ strategies. Without
setting aside resources devoted to valorisation objectives, a firm will rarely
improve the utilisation of current residues. By resources, we mean both
human resources (for instance, in the form of R&D employees) and other
physical resources (e.g. the equipment needed for waste transformation).
Having one or more employees, within the firm, who explicitly take over the
responsibility of waste valorisation, and get acquainted with themes that
would not otherwise enter the firm’s strategic discourse, can be an essential
step. Waste valorisation may result from different technologies and can lead
to different markets: expertise in this cannot be developed overnight, nor can
the related subjects enter the firm’s internal debates automatically. However,
once expertise is developed within the firm, the subject is faced during
regular meetings and investments take place as a consequence of long- term
strategies, then waste valorisation can correspond to the promotion of the
firm’s main product: corporate social responsibility can become an element
for product branding, and the firm itself can become an exemplary case in the
eyes of environmental groups and national authorities, possibly helping to
shape state regulations.
The second suggestion pertains to the cross- sectoral nature of waste valorisation. If a firm keeps a narrow view within its sectoral boundaries, it will
rarely be exposed to the technical opportunities for waste transformation, or
to the potential markets for future by- products. Keeping an innovative
mindset within the firm, and letting incremental innovations shape the firm’s
development over time, would help to detect opportunities which sit outside
the firm’s comfort zone, and can lead to radical innovations in relation to
new technologies and new markets. Once the opportunities have been
explored, and cross- sectoral paths to waste valorisation have been established,
the exploitation of those paths can be made stable by building organisational
bridges between the sectors involved: for instance, entrepreneurs and managers from other sectors, who can have a specific interest in the waste valorisation processes of a firm, could be involved in the board or in the
management of the same firm. Directorate interlinks or strategic partnerships
could facilitate the connections needed for the valorisation of residues, and in
particular contribute to ensure that resources can flow between sectors in a
constant and efficient way. Such stability is often necessary to convince
potential investors about the long- term profitability of waste valorisation.
To refine the two suggestions above, further research could proceed along
two directions. First, it is important to understand whether agency within a
firm can play a role in initiating processes of waste valorisation. While we can
easily imagine firms reacting to changes in regulations, or in general reacting
to traceable external impulses, it is more difficult to determine which forces
can push a firm towards new valorisation pathways in the absence of a specific external impulse. Are there particular types of firms, and particular types
If we put together results coming from the different sections of the book,
two main suggestions can be brought to businesses. The first is based on
incorporating waste valorisation explicitly in the firms’ strategies. Without
setting aside resources devoted to valorisation objectives, a firm will rarely
improve the utilisation of current residues. By resources, we mean both
human resources (for instance, in the form of R&D employees) and other
physical resources (e.g. the equipment needed for waste transformation).
Having one or more employees, within the firm, who explicitly take over the
responsibility of waste valorisation, and get acquainted with themes that
would not otherwise enter the firm’s strategic discourse, can be an essential
step. Waste valorisation may result from different technologies and can lead
to different markets: expertise in this cannot be developed overnight, nor can
the related subjects enter the firm’s internal debates automatically. However,
once expertise is developed within the firm, the subject is faced during
regular meetings and investments take place as a consequence of long- term
strategies, then waste valorisation can correspond to the promotion of the
firm’s main product: corporate social responsibility can become an element
for product branding, and the firm itself can become an exemplary case in the
eyes of environmental groups and national authorities, possibly helping to
shape state regulations.
The second suggestion pertains to the cross- sectoral nature of waste valorisation. If a firm keeps a narrow view within its sectoral boundaries, it will
rarely be exposed to the technical opportunities for waste transformation, or
to the potential markets for future by- products. Keeping an innovative
mindset within the firm, and letting incremental innovations shape the firm’s
development over time, would help to detect opportunities which sit outside
the firm’s comfort zone, and can lead to radical innovations in relation to
new technologies and new markets. Once the opportunities have been
explored, and cross- sectoral paths to waste valorisation have been established,
the exploitation of those paths can be made stable by building organisational
bridges between the sectors involved: for instance, entrepreneurs and managers from other sectors, who can have a specific interest in the waste valorisation processes of a firm, could be involved in the board or in the
management of the same firm. Directorate interlinks or strategic partnerships
could facilitate the connections needed for the valorisation of residues, and in
particular contribute to ensure that resources can flow between sectors in a
constant and efficient way. Such stability is often necessary to convince
potential investors about the long- term profitability of waste valorisation.
To refine the two suggestions above, further research could proceed along
two directions. First, it is important to understand whether agency within a
firm can play a role in initiating processes of waste valorisation. While we can
easily imagine firms reacting to changes in regulations, or in general reacting
to traceable external impulses, it is more difficult to determine which forces
can push a firm towards new valorisation pathways in the absence of a specific external impulse. Are there particular types of firms, and particular types