106
Personal communication; Shi 2015, January 18, Personal communication; Tian
2015, January 21, Personal communication).
A potential double-edged sword for industrial symbiosis noted by practitioners
is that governments, organizations, and businesses have diverse motivations for pursuing and promoting zero-waste/by-product synergy/eco-development and are not
necessarily strictly focused on industrial symbiosis (Massard 2015, January 28,
Personal communication). A large motivation seems to be the growing cost of landfi lls. Few actors are overly concerned if their activities neatly fi t an academic mold,
as long as the cost of waste is reduced. While this is benefi cial for the environment,
it may not acknowledge or increase awareness of industrial symbiosis (Massard
2015, January 28, Personal communication). At the same time, the growing recognition of industrial symbiosis in various national and regional programs and policies, as illustrated in Table 5.4 , is a countervailing positive trend for industrial
symbiosis.
Generally, the relationship between practitioners and academics seems productive. There continue to be several business-interested groups, and academics and
practitioners are both represented in the EID/IS section of the ISIE, which produces
a newsletter and fosters other personal exchanges (Lowitt 2015, January 20, Personal
communication with Director of Devens Enterprise Center). Practitioners appreciate academics for providing graduates who help identify symbiosis opportunities
and seek to “determine what is working, what isn’t, and why.” Academics can also
usefully address big questions such as “what is the function of global market competition for the industrial symbiosis system in a given area?” Still, there is much
room for improvement. While the literature describes a wide diversity of industrial
symbiosis cases, this diversity appears to be easily overlooked, meaning some
scholarship is built on a limited empirical basis where even the most available anecdotes of resource sharing remain out of view (Howard-Grenville 2015, January 28,
Personal communication; Spekkink 2015, January 21, Personal communication).
Practitioners want more novel ideas beyond the existing canon of symbiosis such as
combined heat and power (CHP) or gypsum reuse identifi ed in the academic literature. Others feel that academics sometimes misunderstand what they see on the
ground or may not suffi ciently engage the work of practitioners in their research
(Laybourn 2015, January 26, Personal communication; Mangan 2015, January 19,
Personal communication; Tian 2015, January 21, Personal communication).
Going forward, it seems that industrial symbiosis will have to be more attuned to
the wants and needs of private businesses to abate the trust and risk barriers identifi ed earlier. Also, more attention needs to be paid to the individual and intra-fi rm
level motivations and dynamics in choosing whether to engage industrial symbiosis
practices (Walls and Paquin 2015 ). The role of facilitator companies such as
International Synergies, Sofi es, and many more regionally focused fi rms will continue to grow, as will the role of specialized waste companies (Massard 2015,
January 28, Personal communication). While these facilitators can help identify
more opportunities for industrial symbiosis and thus accomplish greater environmental gains, a side effect may be that the direct relationship between fi rms becomes
weaker as the role of the facilitator grows. This will be an interesting issue for continued observation.
M. Chertow and J. Park
Personal communication; Shi 2015, January 18, Personal communication; Tian
2015, January 21, Personal communication).
A potential double-edged sword for industrial symbiosis noted by practitioners
is that governments, organizations, and businesses have diverse motivations for pursuing and promoting zero-waste/by-product synergy/eco-development and are not
necessarily strictly focused on industrial symbiosis (Massard 2015, January 28,
Personal communication). A large motivation seems to be the growing cost of landfi lls. Few actors are overly concerned if their activities neatly fi t an academic mold,
as long as the cost of waste is reduced. While this is benefi cial for the environment,
it may not acknowledge or increase awareness of industrial symbiosis (Massard
2015, January 28, Personal communication). At the same time, the growing recognition of industrial symbiosis in various national and regional programs and policies, as illustrated in Table 5.4 , is a countervailing positive trend for industrial
symbiosis.
Generally, the relationship between practitioners and academics seems productive. There continue to be several business-interested groups, and academics and
practitioners are both represented in the EID/IS section of the ISIE, which produces
a newsletter and fosters other personal exchanges (Lowitt 2015, January 20, Personal
communication with Director of Devens Enterprise Center). Practitioners appreciate academics for providing graduates who help identify symbiosis opportunities
and seek to “determine what is working, what isn’t, and why.” Academics can also
usefully address big questions such as “what is the function of global market competition for the industrial symbiosis system in a given area?” Still, there is much
room for improvement. While the literature describes a wide diversity of industrial
symbiosis cases, this diversity appears to be easily overlooked, meaning some
scholarship is built on a limited empirical basis where even the most available anecdotes of resource sharing remain out of view (Howard-Grenville 2015, January 28,
Personal communication; Spekkink 2015, January 21, Personal communication).
Practitioners want more novel ideas beyond the existing canon of symbiosis such as
combined heat and power (CHP) or gypsum reuse identifi ed in the academic literature. Others feel that academics sometimes misunderstand what they see on the
ground or may not suffi ciently engage the work of practitioners in their research
(Laybourn 2015, January 26, Personal communication; Mangan 2015, January 19,
Personal communication; Tian 2015, January 21, Personal communication).
Going forward, it seems that industrial symbiosis will have to be more attuned to
the wants and needs of private businesses to abate the trust and risk barriers identifi ed earlier. Also, more attention needs to be paid to the individual and intra-fi rm
level motivations and dynamics in choosing whether to engage industrial symbiosis
practices (Walls and Paquin 2015 ). The role of facilitator companies such as
International Synergies, Sofi es, and many more regionally focused fi rms will continue to grow, as will the role of specialized waste companies (Massard 2015,
January 28, Personal communication). While these facilitators can help identify
more opportunities for industrial symbiosis and thus accomplish greater environmental gains, a side effect may be that the direct relationship between fi rms becomes
weaker as the role of the facilitator grows. This will be an interesting issue for continued observation.
M. Chertow and J. Park