222
Whether ‘solidaristic’ enterprises would be more receptive to such efforts and more
adept at embracing such resource exchanges remains to be seen and would be an
interesting area of future research. Another fi eld of inquiry would be to ascertain to
what extent companies already involved in symbiotic relations also embody social
and solidarity values. Chertow and Ehrenfeld found that ‘one of the most distinctive
elements of industrial symbiosis is that, while all industrial actors seek to reduce
private costs and increase private benefi ts, those in the symbiotic networks that have
been studied also participate in the creation of public environmental benefi ts’ ( 2012 :
18). Here, the SSE can contribute through an analysis of the profi t structure, governance system, societal aims and, more generally, in better understanding the culture
and values within such systems. Two other fi elds of inquiry involve the consideration of ‘solidaristic’ crowdfunding as an opportunity for abating economy-wide
rebound effects through the promotion of more socially just and environmentally
sound investments; and fi nally, the potential for complementary currencies to work
towards industrial ecology aims, such as reducing global carbon emissions.
One of the weaknesses of the social and solidarity economy has been that of
scale: although various institutions exist at the level of cities, countries and regions
to federate activities across sectors, the actors within the SSE typically operate on a
more micro scale. Over the past few years, there has been increasing attention to
macroeconomic thinking in the industrial ecology and ecological economics community, questioning notions of wellbeing and prosperity, the inadequateness of current models and the need for transformative investments in the future (Røpke in
Cohen et al. 2013 ; Jackson 2009 ; Victor 2008 ). As Tim Jackson put it ‘The truth is
that there is as yet no credible, socially just, ecologically sustainable scenario of
continually growing incomes for a world of 9 billion people.’ ( 2009 : 86). The social
and solidarity economy is not a magic wand solution and operates at the margins of
the dominant capitalist economy, yet it is well underway and expanding, in research
and practice. Refl ecting on how the SSE and industrial ecology community might
come together towards more macro-level perspectives would be a worthy exercise.
One main outcome of this analysis is that transactions and exchanges are important
fl ows, but more attention should be placed on the underlying values holding together
our everyday practices and put forward in our economy, workplaces and society as
a whole – including social and environmental values that are not always aligned.
Acknowledgements The author would like to thank the editors for shepherding this chapter into
this volume and for their comments. I am indebted to the Industrial Ecology Group at the University
of Lausanne for their generous contribution of ideas, including Suren Erkman, Loïc Leray, Frederic
Meylan, Ignes Contreiras, Theodore Besson and Vincent Moreau. I thank particularly Jean-Michel
Servet for his detailed comments in relation to the solidarity economy. I thank Guillaume Massard
for his insights, as well as Maurie Cohen and Sophie Swaton for fruitful exchanges around sharing.
The term ‘end-of-pipe’ sharing emerged from a lively discussion with Nedal Nassar at the 2014
GRC on Industrial Ecology.
Open Access This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
Noncommercial License, which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in
any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
M. Sahakian
Whether ‘solidaristic’ enterprises would be more receptive to such efforts and more
adept at embracing such resource exchanges remains to be seen and would be an
interesting area of future research. Another fi eld of inquiry would be to ascertain to
what extent companies already involved in symbiotic relations also embody social
and solidarity values. Chertow and Ehrenfeld found that ‘one of the most distinctive
elements of industrial symbiosis is that, while all industrial actors seek to reduce
private costs and increase private benefi ts, those in the symbiotic networks that have
been studied also participate in the creation of public environmental benefi ts’ ( 2012 :
18). Here, the SSE can contribute through an analysis of the profi t structure, governance system, societal aims and, more generally, in better understanding the culture
and values within such systems. Two other fi elds of inquiry involve the consideration of ‘solidaristic’ crowdfunding as an opportunity for abating economy-wide
rebound effects through the promotion of more socially just and environmentally
sound investments; and fi nally, the potential for complementary currencies to work
towards industrial ecology aims, such as reducing global carbon emissions.
One of the weaknesses of the social and solidarity economy has been that of
scale: although various institutions exist at the level of cities, countries and regions
to federate activities across sectors, the actors within the SSE typically operate on a
more micro scale. Over the past few years, there has been increasing attention to
macroeconomic thinking in the industrial ecology and ecological economics community, questioning notions of wellbeing and prosperity, the inadequateness of current models and the need for transformative investments in the future (Røpke in
Cohen et al. 2013 ; Jackson 2009 ; Victor 2008 ). As Tim Jackson put it ‘The truth is
that there is as yet no credible, socially just, ecologically sustainable scenario of
continually growing incomes for a world of 9 billion people.’ ( 2009 : 86). The social
and solidarity economy is not a magic wand solution and operates at the margins of
the dominant capitalist economy, yet it is well underway and expanding, in research
and practice. Refl ecting on how the SSE and industrial ecology community might
come together towards more macro-level perspectives would be a worthy exercise.
One main outcome of this analysis is that transactions and exchanges are important
fl ows, but more attention should be placed on the underlying values holding together
our everyday practices and put forward in our economy, workplaces and society as
a whole – including social and environmental values that are not always aligned.
Acknowledgements The author would like to thank the editors for shepherding this chapter into
this volume and for their comments. I am indebted to the Industrial Ecology Group at the University
of Lausanne for their generous contribution of ideas, including Suren Erkman, Loïc Leray, Frederic
Meylan, Ignes Contreiras, Theodore Besson and Vincent Moreau. I thank particularly Jean-Michel
Servet for his detailed comments in relation to the solidarity economy. I thank Guillaume Massard
for his insights, as well as Maurie Cohen and Sophie Swaton for fruitful exchanges around sharing.
The term ‘end-of-pipe’ sharing emerged from a lively discussion with Nedal Nassar at the 2014
GRC on Industrial Ecology.
Open Access This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
Noncommercial License, which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in
any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
M. Sahakian