213
industrial ecology community (Cohen-Rosenthal 2004 ), was consistently critical of
reductionist strategies that would rely solely on engineering know-how, proper technologies and market-based incentives. For Cohen-Rosenthal, the focus should be on
social processes, or the actual points of connection between material and energy
fl ows, and specifi cally connections between people. Yet little attention is given in IE
to the relation between interests, institutions and resources (Opoku 2004 ), and this
dimension remains to be further conceptualized – although interest in this dimension has been growing in the past decade, as we will now turn to.
IE engages with various tools, which are now considered a part industrial ecology
approaches, including Input–Output Accounting and Material Flow Analysis, as well
as Life Cycle Assessments. The value of LCA has been to extend beyond the ‘end of
pipe’ perspective, which only addresses fi nal outputs, in terms of pollution and environmental degradation. Rather, inputs and outputs are described and can be quantifi ed and qualifi ed across the production-consumption chain, from extraction of
natural resources, through manufacturing, distribution, usage and fi nal disposal. In
more recent years, social LCA has developed to consider the social impacts in the life
cycle of products and processes (UNEP 2009 ; Andrews et al. 2009 ; Hauschild et al.
2008 ), with more recent work in developing a social hotspots database that includes
a consideration of labour intensity and worker rights (Benoit-Norris et al. 2012 ) and
on integrating occupational health and safety standards (Scanlon et al. 2015 ). One
aspect of the social and solidarity economy is that the primacy of people over profi t
is not an ‘end of pipe’ gesture, but rather embedded across the economic activity in
question, from its guiding principles and mission, to how salaries and employee benefi ts are organized, to how profi t is shared. We will come back to this notion in the
next section of this chapter, when we consider forms of ‘end of pipe sharing’ to distinguish more robust solidarity economy activities from ‘business as usual’.
The notion of reciprocity, which is an important concept underpinning the SSE, is
interesting to explore in relation to IE. If we continue with the notion of IE as being
based on a metaphor, can we identify any forms of reciprocity in nature? In other
terms, do we see cooperation or competition in natural systems? Ehrenfeld ( 2000 )
suggests that a balance is needed between both. Does altruism exist in nature? Perhaps
something closer would be mutualism, which would suggest cooperation between
members that lead to mutually benefi cial or even neutral outcomes. For Ehrenfeld,
‘…the power of the concept of industrial ecology lies in its normative context and in
its potential to shape paradigmatic thinking. It is normative in the sense that (…) three
features of the ecological metaphor – community, connectedness, and cooperation –
are characteristics we should strive for in designing our worlds.’ (Ehrenfeld 2000 :
238). These three features, of community, connectedness and cooperation, are closely
related to the social and solidarity economy and would merit being further conceptualized. We could draw on the work of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809–1865) here, the
father of mutualism in economic theory, who suggested that human activities could
be mutualized towards the creation of a collective good.
In terms of governance systems, the notion of voluntary engagement in complementary relations, which is important in the SSE literature, is not explicit in the IE
literature. Forms of auto-organization are usually upheld as the preferred way of
10 The Social and Solidarity Economy: Why Is It Relevant to Industrial Ecology?
industrial ecology community (Cohen-Rosenthal 2004 ), was consistently critical of
reductionist strategies that would rely solely on engineering know-how, proper technologies and market-based incentives. For Cohen-Rosenthal, the focus should be on
social processes, or the actual points of connection between material and energy
fl ows, and specifi cally connections between people. Yet little attention is given in IE
to the relation between interests, institutions and resources (Opoku 2004 ), and this
dimension remains to be further conceptualized – although interest in this dimension has been growing in the past decade, as we will now turn to.
IE engages with various tools, which are now considered a part industrial ecology
approaches, including Input–Output Accounting and Material Flow Analysis, as well
as Life Cycle Assessments. The value of LCA has been to extend beyond the ‘end of
pipe’ perspective, which only addresses fi nal outputs, in terms of pollution and environmental degradation. Rather, inputs and outputs are described and can be quantifi ed and qualifi ed across the production-consumption chain, from extraction of
natural resources, through manufacturing, distribution, usage and fi nal disposal. In
more recent years, social LCA has developed to consider the social impacts in the life
cycle of products and processes (UNEP 2009 ; Andrews et al. 2009 ; Hauschild et al.
2008 ), with more recent work in developing a social hotspots database that includes
a consideration of labour intensity and worker rights (Benoit-Norris et al. 2012 ) and
on integrating occupational health and safety standards (Scanlon et al. 2015 ). One
aspect of the social and solidarity economy is that the primacy of people over profi t
is not an ‘end of pipe’ gesture, but rather embedded across the economic activity in
question, from its guiding principles and mission, to how salaries and employee benefi ts are organized, to how profi t is shared. We will come back to this notion in the
next section of this chapter, when we consider forms of ‘end of pipe sharing’ to distinguish more robust solidarity economy activities from ‘business as usual’.
The notion of reciprocity, which is an important concept underpinning the SSE, is
interesting to explore in relation to IE. If we continue with the notion of IE as being
based on a metaphor, can we identify any forms of reciprocity in nature? In other
terms, do we see cooperation or competition in natural systems? Ehrenfeld ( 2000 )
suggests that a balance is needed between both. Does altruism exist in nature? Perhaps
something closer would be mutualism, which would suggest cooperation between
members that lead to mutually benefi cial or even neutral outcomes. For Ehrenfeld,
‘…the power of the concept of industrial ecology lies in its normative context and in
its potential to shape paradigmatic thinking. It is normative in the sense that (…) three
features of the ecological metaphor – community, connectedness, and cooperation –
are characteristics we should strive for in designing our worlds.’ (Ehrenfeld 2000 :
238). These three features, of community, connectedness and cooperation, are closely
related to the social and solidarity economy and would merit being further conceptualized. We could draw on the work of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809–1865) here, the
father of mutualism in economic theory, who suggested that human activities could
be mutualized towards the creation of a collective good.
In terms of governance systems, the notion of voluntary engagement in complementary relations, which is important in the SSE literature, is not explicit in the IE
literature. Forms of auto-organization are usually upheld as the preferred way of
10 The Social and Solidarity Economy: Why Is It Relevant to Industrial Ecology?