214
achieving symbiosis, defi ned as system exchanges that convert ‘negative environmental externalities in the form of waste that used to be discarded into positive
environmental externalities such as the spillover benefi ts of decreased pollution and
reduced need for raw material imports’ (Chertow and Ehrenfeld 2012 : 15). Industrial
symbiosis research points to the relevance of self-organizing systems, working in
mutually benefi cial forms of cooperation, with mobilization capacity, and on a local
and regional scale (Massard et al. 2014 ; Chertow and Ehrenfeld 2012 ; Boons and
Spekkink 2012 ; Chertow 2007 ), which is very much the terrain of the social and
solidarity economy. As different cooperative movements begin to federate and create new models in the SSE, the industrial ecology community could gain from
understanding how services are shared and maximized between these entities.
Cooperatives are not the usual stomping ground of industrial ecology activities, but
could represent an interesting starting point for discussions that bring together
social and biophysical dimensions.
Given the important role of small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs) in developing
countries and following the fourth World Social Forum in 2004 (Mumbai, India), a
report focusing on the social responsibility of SMEs also sought to make a link
between industrial ecology and the solidarity economy. In that report, the late Ramesh
Ramaswamy – co-author of a novel book on applied industrial ecology in developing
countries and particularly India (Erkman and Ramaswamy 2003 ) – suggested that
SMEs could gain competitive advantages in the global market by organizing production into ‘complementary clusters’ particularly in the agricultural sector (Asian
Coalition 2004 : 17). The report suggested industrial ecology could enhance the
‘social responsibility’ of SMEs in four ways, by addressing: ‘producers (greater consciousness in using biodegradable and recyclable materials, lesser waste, more profits); consumers (better quality products); the environment (lesser toxic wastes); and
society at large (more socially responsible enterprises, healthier environment)’ (ibid.).
In theory, industrial ecology principles should be retained, no matter the organizational structure or system at hand, be it a for-profi t SME or a cooperative. Here
industrial ecology joins recent interpretations of the social and solidarity economy,
in focusing more on how guiding principles can be applied in practice, rather than
on institutional settings. That being said, there tends to be a bias towards democratic
systems in the industrial ecology literature; the same is true for the social and
solidarity economy, which upholds democracy as the key governance system. On
this level, the two fi elds are compatible.
3 Linkages Between the SSE and IE in Practice
3.1 The Sharing Economy vs. End of Pipe Giving:
Applicability to IE
The sharing economy is generally understood as involving ‘sharing’ in the creation,
fi nancing, production, distribution and consumption of a variety of goods and services. Certain activities that fall under this banner are part of the current dominant
M. Sahakian
achieving symbiosis, defi ned as system exchanges that convert ‘negative environmental externalities in the form of waste that used to be discarded into positive
environmental externalities such as the spillover benefi ts of decreased pollution and
reduced need for raw material imports’ (Chertow and Ehrenfeld 2012 : 15). Industrial
symbiosis research points to the relevance of self-organizing systems, working in
mutually benefi cial forms of cooperation, with mobilization capacity, and on a local
and regional scale (Massard et al. 2014 ; Chertow and Ehrenfeld 2012 ; Boons and
Spekkink 2012 ; Chertow 2007 ), which is very much the terrain of the social and
solidarity economy. As different cooperative movements begin to federate and create new models in the SSE, the industrial ecology community could gain from
understanding how services are shared and maximized between these entities.
Cooperatives are not the usual stomping ground of industrial ecology activities, but
could represent an interesting starting point for discussions that bring together
social and biophysical dimensions.
Given the important role of small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs) in developing
countries and following the fourth World Social Forum in 2004 (Mumbai, India), a
report focusing on the social responsibility of SMEs also sought to make a link
between industrial ecology and the solidarity economy. In that report, the late Ramesh
Ramaswamy – co-author of a novel book on applied industrial ecology in developing
countries and particularly India (Erkman and Ramaswamy 2003 ) – suggested that
SMEs could gain competitive advantages in the global market by organizing production into ‘complementary clusters’ particularly in the agricultural sector (Asian
Coalition 2004 : 17). The report suggested industrial ecology could enhance the
‘social responsibility’ of SMEs in four ways, by addressing: ‘producers (greater consciousness in using biodegradable and recyclable materials, lesser waste, more profits); consumers (better quality products); the environment (lesser toxic wastes); and
society at large (more socially responsible enterprises, healthier environment)’ (ibid.).
In theory, industrial ecology principles should be retained, no matter the organizational structure or system at hand, be it a for-profi t SME or a cooperative. Here
industrial ecology joins recent interpretations of the social and solidarity economy,
in focusing more on how guiding principles can be applied in practice, rather than
on institutional settings. That being said, there tends to be a bias towards democratic
systems in the industrial ecology literature; the same is true for the social and
solidarity economy, which upholds democracy as the key governance system. On
this level, the two fi elds are compatible.
3 Linkages Between the SSE and IE in Practice
3.1 The Sharing Economy vs. End of Pipe Giving:
Applicability to IE
The sharing economy is generally understood as involving ‘sharing’ in the creation,
fi nancing, production, distribution and consumption of a variety of goods and services. Certain activities that fall under this banner are part of the current dominant
M. Sahakian