Industrial ecology, functional economy,
firms and territories: towards new productive and organizational models?
Call for papers from the Journal “Developpement durable et territoires”
http://developpementdurable.revues.org Coordinated by
Muriel Maillefert (Université Lille 3 and Clersé), Isabelle Robert (Reims Management School and LSMRC) and Paul Schalchli (OREE)
Industrial ecology, functional economy, and circular economy are concepts increasingly mobilised in academic, economic, institutional and managerial circles. A school of thought still in the making, industrial ecology consists in emulating natural ecosystems and addressing industrial systems as particular ecosystems: the ideal closed loop system (the type III system of Graedel and Allenby, 1995) consists in not drawing any new resource from outside and recycling all the waste of firms back into the system. This “biomimecry” has led to renewing the approach to production systems by giving up the usual linear vision to the benefit of a circular vision of resources. This approach challenges the “end of pipe” philosophy, which consists in dealing with pollution at the end of the process in a fragmentary and compartmentalized manner. The industrial ecology approach can be implemented at various levels: that of the firm, of firm or even territorial networks. In the latter case, it can be analysed as a process of territorial development (Brullot and Maillefert, 2009).
If the concept has gained popularity in the last few years, there are still many questions today regarding its content, and how it translates into organisations or territorial areas. Beyond the metaphorical aspect of the term, this concept raises questions in particular on its essence and its finality. If industrial ecology is often considered as an operational implementation of the notion of sustainable development (Lowe and Evans, 1995), it can also be considered as a marginal strategy to adapt to productive constraints or in a way a new guise for the previous productive system. Some criticism has also been formulated on its epistemological value. The idea according to which nature has become the model for reshaping the industrial system lacks specificity and deserves clarification (Isenmann, 2003). Conversely, the biological metaphor forgets that human processes are fundamentally different from natural processes through the question of intentionality. Moreover, even if these industrial ecology practices have started to be better and better studied, in particular in France, where many calls for projects have made it possible to launch more in depth research on this theme, there are still many grey areas concerning the technical, organisational, and human factors that foster successful experimentation (Boiral and Kabongo, 2004; Duret, 2007).
As for the functional economy, it is understood as a new economic model that rests on a simple rule: selling use rather than products. In this sense, it can also be a new model of firm, or even a new territorial model (Du Tertre, 2010). Having appeared in 1986 under the terms service economy or functional service economy, this approach initially disconnected from the concept of sustainable development follows the logic of servicisation or dematerialization (Langeard E et al, 1981). Nowadays the functional economy encourages firms to change their mission, by orienting their activity towards a rental service while minimising the environmental impacts. This breakthrough innovation deeply modifies the relational
dimension between the client and the service provider. As says F. Cusin (2010) “the functional economy is an economy to capture the customer...”). However, some successful experiments (Xerox or Elys) conceal many pitfalls, or even failures (Bourg and Buclet, 2005).
Indeed this new model is especially adapted to B-to-B, since it goes towards the externalization and subcontracting of the activities that are not directly linked to the core activity of the firm. Moreover, in many fields, the “rebound effect” offsets the environmental gains achieved by the functional economy by an increase in use. Altogether, this model fundamentally challenges our relationship with the object, our relationship with consumption and in particular, the link between acquiring objects and fulfilment.
The objective of this file is to deepen the theoretical understanding and the conceptual content of industrial ecology on the one hand and of the functional economy on the other hand, and possibly of the links that exist between them. Its objective is also to explore the current levels of knowledge and implementation of these two models and to take stock of present practices and modes of application.
We suggest two approaches in this file:
1) Definition, acceptation and areas of industrial ecology and of the functional economy
In view of the current debates on the very notions of industrial ecology and functional economy, a certain number of new avenues for research can be suggested.
The first set of questions could address the nature of economic models, business and society models underlying these practices. Are we just confronted with a development at the margin of former practices, or even the visibilisation of these practices (ex. existing mutually attractive exchanges, sub-contracting relationships etc.)? In particular, what is the relationship between these practices and the notion of sustainable development?
The second set of questions could address the links between the anthropogenic or social dimension of the models and their eco-systemic dimension. Is this just a simple metaphor?
How can dialogue between social sciences and earth sciences be fostered?
The third set of questions could involve the territorial dimension of practices. How do productive, consumption and territorial logics fit together? Can these models claim to complement, or even compete with, the current logics based on competition through price and nomadism?
Finally, some contributions could ponder the more philosophical question of the acceptability of the models from the individual behaviour point of view. How can the link between property and use, the prevailing link in the consumption act, be analysed and possibly made to evolve? Should the link between production and consumption also be reconsidered when communities are concerned, as suggested by Godbout (2000)?
2) Experimentation: feedback and assessment
Many studies have recently tried to produce a comprehensive update of the concrete experiments carried out with regard to industrial ecology and the functional economy.
A first set of questions could revisit newly undertaken initiatives, emphasising the challenges and concrete difficulties for firms and territories. In particular, questions could be raised concerning the ex ante and ex post evaluation of experiments.
The models could also be questioned from the point of view of organisations: what cultural and social values do these concepts raise? How are industrial ecology and functional economy practices perceived and integrated within organisations? What are the reasons that mobilise actors to experiment these approaches?
Finally, questions could be raised concerning the concrete dimension at the territorial level.
How do actor networks achieve institutionalisation and perenniality within an industrial ecology approach? What is the contribution of regulation and the environmental context to the development of industrial ecology? What is the actual contribution of industrial ecology and functional economy to the reduction of our ecological footprint? The experiments mobilised could cover all geographical areas in developing as well as developed countries
Indicative Bibliography
Allenby, B., 1992, “Design for environment: implementing industrial ecology”, Thesis Dissertation, University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, 381 p.
Boiral O et Kabongo J, 2004, « Le management des savoirs au service de l’écologie industrielle », Revue française de gestion, n°149, pp. 173-191
Bourg D et Buclet N, 2005, « L’économie de la fonctionnalité », Futuribles, N°313 pp 27-38.
Brullot S. et Maillefert M., 2009, « Propositions méthodologiques pour l’analyse de la stratégie des acteurs et des modes de gouvernance de projets d’écologie industrielle sur des parcs d’activité », Journées de la proximité 14, 15 et 16 octobre 2009, Poitiers.
Cusin F, 2010, « De la fonctionnalité à l’accès. Vers le remplacement des biens matériels par des services en réseau », Futuribles, N°360, pp. 5-20.
Ehrenfeld J. R., 2004, « Industrial Ecology: a new field or only a metaphor? », Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 12, pp. 825-831.
Du Tertre C., 2010, « Le développement durable: quelles articulations micro-macro? Une approche institutionnaliste », in : Theys J, Du Tertre C et Rauschmayer F, Le développement durable, la seconde étape, Editions de l'Aube, la Tour d’Aigues.
Duret, B., 2007, « Premiers retours d’expériences en écologie industrielle : études de cas en Europe et en Amérique du Nord », Cahiers de la Chaire d’écologie industrielle, UTT, n° 1, juillet, p. 1-60.
Erkman S, 2004, Vers une écologie industrielle, Ed Charles Léopold Mayer, Paris.
Godbout J.T, 2000, « Coproduction et représentation de l'usager », in M. Chauvrière et J Godbout (sous la dir), Les usagers entre marché et citoyenneté, Paris, L'Harmattan, pp. 291- 305.
Graedel T. et Allenby B., 1995, Industrial Ecology, Englewood Cliffs: N.J., Prentice-Hall, 411 p.
Insenmann R, 2003, “Industrial ecology: shedding more light on its perspective of understanding nature as mode”, Sustainable Development, 11, p. 143-158
Langeard E, Bateson E., Lovelock C, Eiglier P, 1981, Services marketing : new insights from consumers and managers, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Lowe E, Evans L, 1995, « Industrial Ecology and Industrial Systems », Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol 3, n°1-2, pp. 47-53.
Schalchli P. (coord), 2011, Rapport COMETHE, Mémoire scientifique, Rapport pour l’ANR, 175 p, miméo.
The analysis of the research directions envisaged in the file can fall across several scientific disciplines, in particular branches of sociology, economics, geography, political science, history, philosophy, law, psychology, natural sciences and engineering sciences. Reflections and theoretical work will, as much as possible, be based on practices and empirical examples.
Procedure and schedule:
1. Submit a one page abstract for 15 December 2011
2. Answer from « Développement Durable & Territoires » journal by end of January 2012
3. Submission of full paper on selected proposals for 31 March 2012 Editorial conditions are to be found on the journal’s website:
http://developpementdurable.revues.org/ document1269.html
Proposals ( abstracts and full papers are to be sent by e-mail to the following adress:
ecologie.industrielle@yahoo.fr
