212
and principles, such as thermodynamics and economic systems (Georgescu-Roegen
1971 , 2006 ). In this perspective, economic activities draw from and are dependent
on ecosystem services, suggesting that there are limits to economic growth (Daly
1977 ; Jackson 2009 ). Understanding patterns and trends from a biophysical perspective means assessing values based on environmental resources (material and
energy), rather than solely price valuation.
IE and SSE therefore share the principle that economic activity should be subordinated to other factors. Yet industrial ecology privileges the biophysical dimension
whereas the social and solidarity economy privileges the social dimension. These
different priority areas could be problematic: Is it more important to aim for solidarity in social relations and governance structures, or to minimize energy and material
throughputs? Can one be done at the expense of the other? This raises ethical issues
in industrial ecology: What if optimal symbiosis is achieved in companies that
exploit labour, for example? This also raises environmental sustainability issues
among SSE enterprises: Can social goals be achieved to the detriment of environmental considerations?
Beyond the conceptual underpinnings that relate industrial ecology to bioeconomics and ecological economics, the novelty of industrial ecology is to draw
inspiration from natural systems. According to Erkman, ‘the entire industrial system relies on resources and services provided by the biosphere, from which it cannot be dissociated’ ( 1997 : 1), yet material and energy throughputs could be better
managed through a more holistic approach to organizing economic activities and
industrial systems. Biomimicry in industrial ecology implies tending towards
reduced resource throughputs and negative impacts. As a descriptive and analytical
method, industrial ecology helps to uncover the ‘metabolism’ of systems, drawing
from a comparison with living organisms (Ayres and Simonis 1994 ) towards understanding ‘anthropogenic complex and coupled systems’ (Fischer-Kowalski et al.
2009 ). In addition to describing and analysing, IE suggests how such a system might
be ‘restructured to make it compatible with the way natural ecosystems function’
(Erkman 1997 : 1) and is therefore also an operational tool.
Ehrenfeld ( 2000 ) goes a step further in distinguishing these practical features in
the fi eld of IE from its founding conceptual basis, which tends towards a normative
context and can in turn shape paradigmatic thinking. Understood in analogy to natural systems, industrial ecology is a practical tool; in using natural systems as a metaphor , industrial ecology has the potential to go beyond prescription and
techno-focused solutions to become transformative (Ehrenfeld 2003 ; Hess 2009 ).
The analogy with natural systems allows IE to disengage with questions related to
people and power relations. There have been efforts to embed industrial ecology in
social relations (Boons and Howard-Grenville 2009 ). Some work has been done
relating IE to fair employment (Alsamawi et al. 2014 ), legal considerations (Slone
in Cohen-Rosenthal and Musnikow 2003 ) and the role of consumer culture and ethics (Hertwich 2005b ; Ehrenfeld 2008 ; Sahakian and Steinberger 2011 ), but these
aspects have not been suffi ciently theorized to date. The work of the late E. CohenRosenthal on environmental, labour and social issues is a key contribution in this
area. His focus on workplace issues (Cohen-Rosenthal 1979 ), specifi cally in the
M. Sahakian
and principles, such as thermodynamics and economic systems (Georgescu-Roegen
1971 , 2006 ). In this perspective, economic activities draw from and are dependent
on ecosystem services, suggesting that there are limits to economic growth (Daly
1977 ; Jackson 2009 ). Understanding patterns and trends from a biophysical perspective means assessing values based on environmental resources (material and
energy), rather than solely price valuation.
IE and SSE therefore share the principle that economic activity should be subordinated to other factors. Yet industrial ecology privileges the biophysical dimension
whereas the social and solidarity economy privileges the social dimension. These
different priority areas could be problematic: Is it more important to aim for solidarity in social relations and governance structures, or to minimize energy and material
throughputs? Can one be done at the expense of the other? This raises ethical issues
in industrial ecology: What if optimal symbiosis is achieved in companies that
exploit labour, for example? This also raises environmental sustainability issues
among SSE enterprises: Can social goals be achieved to the detriment of environmental considerations?
Beyond the conceptual underpinnings that relate industrial ecology to bioeconomics and ecological economics, the novelty of industrial ecology is to draw
inspiration from natural systems. According to Erkman, ‘the entire industrial system relies on resources and services provided by the biosphere, from which it cannot be dissociated’ ( 1997 : 1), yet material and energy throughputs could be better
managed through a more holistic approach to organizing economic activities and
industrial systems. Biomimicry in industrial ecology implies tending towards
reduced resource throughputs and negative impacts. As a descriptive and analytical
method, industrial ecology helps to uncover the ‘metabolism’ of systems, drawing
from a comparison with living organisms (Ayres and Simonis 1994 ) towards understanding ‘anthropogenic complex and coupled systems’ (Fischer-Kowalski et al.
2009 ). In addition to describing and analysing, IE suggests how such a system might
be ‘restructured to make it compatible with the way natural ecosystems function’
(Erkman 1997 : 1) and is therefore also an operational tool.
Ehrenfeld ( 2000 ) goes a step further in distinguishing these practical features in
the fi eld of IE from its founding conceptual basis, which tends towards a normative
context and can in turn shape paradigmatic thinking. Understood in analogy to natural systems, industrial ecology is a practical tool; in using natural systems as a metaphor , industrial ecology has the potential to go beyond prescription and
techno-focused solutions to become transformative (Ehrenfeld 2003 ; Hess 2009 ).
The analogy with natural systems allows IE to disengage with questions related to
people and power relations. There have been efforts to embed industrial ecology in
social relations (Boons and Howard-Grenville 2009 ). Some work has been done
relating IE to fair employment (Alsamawi et al. 2014 ), legal considerations (Slone
in Cohen-Rosenthal and Musnikow 2003 ) and the role of consumer culture and ethics (Hertwich 2005b ; Ehrenfeld 2008 ; Sahakian and Steinberger 2011 ), but these
aspects have not been suffi ciently theorized to date. The work of the late E. CohenRosenthal on environmental, labour and social issues is a key contribution in this
area. His focus on workplace issues (Cohen-Rosenthal 1979 ), specifi cally in the
M. Sahakian