5
1991 ), Xerox (Murray 1993 ; Azar et al. 1995 ), Procter & Gamble (Pittinger et al.
1993 ), Pitney Bowes (Ryberg 1993 ), AT&T (Allenby 1994 ), Motorola (Hoffman
1995 , 1997 ), IBM (Bendz 1993 ; Kirby and Pitts 1994 ), Hewlett- Packard (Bast
1994 ), Philips (Boks et al. 1996 ; Stevels 2001 , 2009 ), and Bosch (Klausner et al.
1998 ). The mantle was also taken up by industrial associations, particularly the
electronics industry (Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation
1994 ; Sony (Scheidt and Stadlbauer 1996 ); and NEC (Suga et al. 1996 )).
It is fair to say that while some corporate initiatives were inspired by altruism to
a signifi cant degree, those who were involved had other motives as well: simplifi cation of assembly and disassembly of products (Lundgren et al. 1994 ), reuse of material resources (Porada 1994 ), and recovery and recycling of components (Azar et al.
1995 ; Nagel 1997 ), among others. One of the most dramatic corporate initiatives in
the early years of industrial ecology was that of Volvo, which worked with Swedish
academic and governmental organizations to produce one of the fi rst workable versions of life-cycle impact assessment (Steen and Ryding 1992 ) and then used the
results to infl uence the design of Volvo products (Horkeby 1997 ).
Most of the early corporate and governmental initiatives related to industrial
ecology were uncoordinated and ad hoc. This situation began to change with a conference held in 1991 at the US National Academy of Sciences (Patel 1992 ).
Attendees at that meeting began the process of identifying what topics should be
included in an industrial ecology framework (material cycles, energy effi ciency,
input–output analysis, etc.). A 1992 conference in Colorado (Socolow et al. 1994 )
expanded that framework to incorporate human impacts on natural cycles, IE in
manufacturing, and IE in policy-making. In subsequent years, the fi eld has proceeded in fairly straightforward fashion from those foundations. That conference
also provided the name for the fi eld. As Socolow ( 1994 ) describes in the introduction to the book that came from the conference (Socolow et al. 1994 ) , the choice
was between “industrial ecology” and “industrial metabolism ” (Ayres 1989 ). As
conference chair, Socolow chose the former as being the more encompassing of the
two options and one that brought such ecological topics as food chains and resource
reuse into the discussion. Perhaps largely because conference attendees included a
number of those who went on to research and write about this area of study,
Socolow’s choice stuck. Nonetheless, metabolism has remained an important concept and analogy in the fi eld (e.g., Octave and Thomas 2009 ; Gierlinger and
Krausmann 2011 ), providing a rich and growing framework for much of the material fl ow analysis that is central to industrial ecology.
Governments joined the industrial ecology effort soon after its identifi cation by
corporations (e.g., MITI 1988 ; Offi ce of Technology Assessment 1992 ;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1995 ). Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that,
unlike many other fi elds of study, the origins of much of industrial ecology lay not
in academia but in industry. IE is today regarded as an academic specialty, but it
continues to rest on the foundation developed and practiced by industry and, to
some extent, by governments.
Industrial ecology was thus becoming a recognized fi eld in the mid-1990s, but
what exactly was industrial ecology? An early defi nition by the president of the US
1 Industrial Ecology’s First Decade
1991 ), Xerox (Murray 1993 ; Azar et al. 1995 ), Procter & Gamble (Pittinger et al.
1993 ), Pitney Bowes (Ryberg 1993 ), AT&T (Allenby 1994 ), Motorola (Hoffman
1995 , 1997 ), IBM (Bendz 1993 ; Kirby and Pitts 1994 ), Hewlett- Packard (Bast
1994 ), Philips (Boks et al. 1996 ; Stevels 2001 , 2009 ), and Bosch (Klausner et al.
1998 ). The mantle was also taken up by industrial associations, particularly the
electronics industry (Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation
1994 ; Sony (Scheidt and Stadlbauer 1996 ); and NEC (Suga et al. 1996 )).
It is fair to say that while some corporate initiatives were inspired by altruism to
a signifi cant degree, those who were involved had other motives as well: simplifi cation of assembly and disassembly of products (Lundgren et al. 1994 ), reuse of material resources (Porada 1994 ), and recovery and recycling of components (Azar et al.
1995 ; Nagel 1997 ), among others. One of the most dramatic corporate initiatives in
the early years of industrial ecology was that of Volvo, which worked with Swedish
academic and governmental organizations to produce one of the fi rst workable versions of life-cycle impact assessment (Steen and Ryding 1992 ) and then used the
results to infl uence the design of Volvo products (Horkeby 1997 ).
Most of the early corporate and governmental initiatives related to industrial
ecology were uncoordinated and ad hoc. This situation began to change with a conference held in 1991 at the US National Academy of Sciences (Patel 1992 ).
Attendees at that meeting began the process of identifying what topics should be
included in an industrial ecology framework (material cycles, energy effi ciency,
input–output analysis, etc.). A 1992 conference in Colorado (Socolow et al. 1994 )
expanded that framework to incorporate human impacts on natural cycles, IE in
manufacturing, and IE in policy-making. In subsequent years, the fi eld has proceeded in fairly straightforward fashion from those foundations. That conference
also provided the name for the fi eld. As Socolow ( 1994 ) describes in the introduction to the book that came from the conference (Socolow et al. 1994 ) , the choice
was between “industrial ecology” and “industrial metabolism ” (Ayres 1989 ). As
conference chair, Socolow chose the former as being the more encompassing of the
two options and one that brought such ecological topics as food chains and resource
reuse into the discussion. Perhaps largely because conference attendees included a
number of those who went on to research and write about this area of study,
Socolow’s choice stuck. Nonetheless, metabolism has remained an important concept and analogy in the fi eld (e.g., Octave and Thomas 2009 ; Gierlinger and
Krausmann 2011 ), providing a rich and growing framework for much of the material fl ow analysis that is central to industrial ecology.
Governments joined the industrial ecology effort soon after its identifi cation by
corporations (e.g., MITI 1988 ; Offi ce of Technology Assessment 1992 ;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1995 ). Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that,
unlike many other fi elds of study, the origins of much of industrial ecology lay not
in academia but in industry. IE is today regarded as an academic specialty, but it
continues to rest on the foundation developed and practiced by industry and, to
some extent, by governments.
Industrial ecology was thus becoming a recognized fi eld in the mid-1990s, but
what exactly was industrial ecology? An early defi nition by the president of the US
1 Industrial Ecology’s First Decade