Content uploaded by Leonie Schlüter
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Leonie Schlüter on Nov 16, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Cleaner Production 429 (2023) 139499
Available online 30 October 2023
0959-6526/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Review
Can we replicate eco-industrial parks? Recommendations based on a
process model of EIP evolution
L. Schlüter
a
,
b
,
*
, L. Mortensen
b
,
c
, A.N. Gjerding
a
,
b
, L. Kørnøv
c
a
Aalborg University Business School, Fibigerstræde 11, 9220, Aalborg, Denmark
b
Port of Aalborg A/S, Research & Development, Langerak 15, 9220, Aalborg, Denmark
c
Aalborg University, Department of Planning, DCEA, Rendsburggade 14, 9000, Aalborg, Denmark
ARTICLE INFO
Handling Editor: Cecilia Maria Villas Bˆ
oas de
Almeida
Keywords:
Eco-industrial park
Industrial symbiosis
Process
Critical factors
Systematic literature review
Innovation diffusion
ABSTRACT
This article develops a process model of eco-industrial park evolution. It draws on two article communities
previously identied through a scoping literature review, concerning the development of eco-industrial parks
and industrial symbiosis, respectively. The study seeks to nd answers to the main research question: How should
phases of eco-industrial park evolution and their critical factors be considered when replicating or reproducing
existing eco-industrial park successes in new contexts? By identifying four phases of eco-industrial park evolution
and shedding light on the critical factors inuencing these, the study presents replication and reproduction
recommendations, and thereby provides knowledge to diffuse success stories into other contexts. The study
undersores the need for a exible and adaptive approach to diffusion of EIP successes, considering elements such
as the costs and benets of replication, the idiosyncratic nature of some critical factors, and their relevance in the
new context. Moreover, the results of the study highlight the need for capacity building in the replicatee context,
focusing on mobilizing and activating existing resources to curate initiatives for EIP formation. Strong collab-
oration between the replicator and replicatee, where empowerment is central, is seen as a key factor in effective
EIP replication.
1. Introduction
As the global economy is facing a need to economize on resources
and mitigate emissions from human activities, not only international
solutions are suggested for this global problem, but collective ap-
proaches at the local level are receiving attention as well. Industrial
solutions, in which two or more organizations exchange, share, or
transact excess resources, such as by-products or waste, in a systematic
way to reduce the consumption of virgin material, energy inputs, and the
generation of waste and emissions has received increased attention in
research (Mallawaarachchi et al., 2020; Vahidzadeh et al., 2021). This
collaborative concept has its roots in the industrial ecology described by
Graedel T.E. and Allenby (1993) and Ayres and Ayres (2002), and dis-
cussed further by Ehrenfeld (2004) describing industrial symbiosis (IS)
concept, which eco-industrial parks (EIPs) build upon (Behera et al.,
2012). EIPs are thus a way to demonstrate industrial ecology in practice
(Roberts, 2004).
This article concerns the evolution of EIPs. Taddeo et al. (2012) refer
to an EIP as the companies’ geographical agglomeration model,
irrespective of whether we are analyzing industrial districts, business
networks, local production systems, exible specialization, or regional
clusters. These operate with the focus on optimal circulation of materials
where waste resources from one company being the resources for
another and mimicking natural ecosystems, taking the relation between
environment, business and urban landscapes into consideration creating
a valuable inter-organizational network with multiple benets (Tudor
et al., 2007). Gibbs and Deutz (2005) state that especially this
inter-organizational networking and exchanges of waste or energy must
be in place to earn the denition of an EIP. Also, Cˆ
ot´
e and
Cohen-Rosenthal (1998) see eco-industrial parks mainly as systems of
rms that are interacting and interdependent. A number of denitions of
EIPs are presented, where interactions among businesses and their
environment (ibid.) are the essential feature across these denitions.
These apply the principles of industrial ecology (Interacting ecosystems,
cycling of materials and energy, networking and cluster building, and
sustainable development) in a specic location (Gibbs and Deutz, 2007).
Industrial ecology research has provided knowledge on what drives the
coming about and evolution of such industrial clusters. This, can be used
* Corresponding author. Aalborg University Business School, Fibigerstræde 11, 9220, Aalborg, Denmark.
E-mail address: leonie@business.aau.dk (L. Schlüter).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Cleaner Production
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139499
Received 19 July 2023; Received in revised form 29 September 2023; Accepted 23 October 2023
Journal of Cleaner Production 429 (2023) 139499
2
in practice to revitalize existing clusters (Taddeo et al., 2012) and/or to
replicate these by designing and creating new, more sustainable indus-
trial areas.
Some typologies, such as the one by Scaf`
a et al. (2020), distinguish
between the way in which these EIPs come about, whether there was a
bottom-up approach, where relationships develop independently from a
facilitator and through shared agreements between businesses, or pro-
grammed EIPs that are planned and implemented through a top-down
approach (ibid.). Both approaches have some drawbacks, such as e.g.
top-down EIP planning encountering challenges due to e.g. lacking
engagement of rms (Chertow, 2000), while bottom-up approaches to
EIP development can show a limited employment of sustainability
practices (Bellantuono et al., 2017) among other factors. Bottom-up
approaches require e.g. existing co-location of rms, a regional cul-
ture, or similar production processes that foster relatability (Dai et al.,
2022). Costa and Ferr˜
ao (2010) provide an alternative to this dichotomy
and propose the middle-out approach to EIP development, a facilitated
approach. This approach has received increasing attention and support
among researchers and practitioners (Tudor et al., 2007; Behera et al.,
2012), as in many practical cases of EIP development, actors neither
self-organize nor follow blindly a top-down designed development plan,
but instead work with local conditions while getting inspiration from
outside. This study therefore builds on the middle-out approach by
emphasizing the strategic aspect of the action taken (including the vision
and initiatives to support it) for both its development and replication to
other contexts.
Over time, research has presented a myriad of process models that
aim at describing how exactly EIPs come about and develop over time,
and which phases this development follows.
However, the literature seems to lack a synthetized process model for
EIP development with specic critical factors driving (or inhibiting)
each phase, which can assist in the development of new EIPs in same or
new contexts, hence replicating the existing ones. In order to be able to
replicate the best practices of EIPs, and thus contribute to new EIPs
coming about, there is a need to better understand EIP evolution and the
critical factors driving it.
Gibbs and Deutz (2005) state that a variety of strategies can be used
to make EIPs come about and develop over time. The authors emphasize
the design of EIPs as a strategy for EIPs coming about and mention the
characteristics that must be in place. First, a long-term vision must be
agreed between the relevant actors. Then, the emphasis must be on
networking, collaboration and community developing, as this is the
factor that will drive resource exchanges in the long term and create an
eco-industrial network among the rms that is different than other
greening initiatives.
One factor that has received less attention is that the coming about
and development of EIPs does not happen in a vacuum and that suc-
cessful examples, such as Kalundborg in Denmark, have inspired new
eco-industrial park developments worldwide. EIP coordinators from
various contexts are increasingly collaborating with each other inter-
nationally, transferring know-how from one, successful EIP to another,
with a focus on replicating the good examples from one context to the
other context. Another example is Icelandic Ocean Cluster, which goes
as far as to spread and “copy” their concept to other contexts, leading to
the emergence of the New England Ocean Cluster and Pacic Northwest
Ocean Cluster, among others (Iceland Ocean Cluster, n.d.). We refer to
this dynamic of diffusing successful solutions as mechanisms of repro-
duction and replication, which describe different extents of a “diffusion
of innovations” (Winter and Szulanski, 2001, p. 731) from one context to
another. We want to highlight and start addressing this gap in literature
by discussing the relevance of critical factors in the EIP development
process when replicating successes to other contexts.
The present study therefore revolves around the following research
question: How should phases of EIP evolution and their critical factors be
considered when replicating or reproducing existing EIP successes to new
contexts?
To answer the research question, we rst answer the guiding ques-
tion of what are the phases of EIP evolution, and which critical factors drive
these? The aim is to identify critical factors inuencing EIP evolution and
outline the resulting process model. This allows us to nuance the
generalizability of these factors by discussing in how far they are
replicable or reproducible to other contexts and for new EIPs, and by this
start a discussion on the reproduction and replication dynamic of EIP
development.
First, we present the state of the art regarding the development and
(lacking) literature on replication and reproduction of EIPs (section 2).
After laying out our methodology (section 3), we present the results and
answers to the guiding question (section 4). Finally, we discuss the
implications of the results for replication and reproduction of EIPs and
connect them to the research eld and practice (section 5), concluding
with recommendations for avenues for future research (section 6).
2. State of the art and analytical framework
2.1. EIP evolution
Previous research has tried to make sense of the EIP literature in
different ways. Tudor et al. (2007) critically examined the use of EIPs as
a means of improving resource efciency within companies and
reviewed literature to understand the key environmental, economic,
social, and institutional driving and restraining factors that inuence the
successful development and functioning of an EIP. They mention several
challenges for EIP development pointing at the fact that EIPs are fragile
systems that can be disrupted by problems with information dissemi-
nation, communication, price changes that makes exchange of resources
less attractive, and a series of problems that have to do with coordina-
tion of the ecosystem. Tellier et al. (2019) conducted an analysis of the
multidisciplinary literature positioning the concepts surrounding the
sustainability of business parks. Dai et al. (2022) conducted a systematic
literature review of 61 articles that address transformation of ageing
industrial parks to EIPs. In their introduction they differentiate between
two main literature streams: One that addresses EIPs from a rm- or
value-chain perspective and emphasizes trust, information exchange,
and local processes for the emergence of IS, and another that adopts a
macro perspective and emphasizes policies and incentives and evaluates
national EIPs programs. In their systematic literature review, they
identify a ve-stage process of EIP transformation and inuencing fac-
tors, among which accentuating the role of ve key stakeholders. They
highlight how stakeholders work together over time for EIP
transformation.
Other reviews of literature focused on specic aspects of EIP devel-
opment. Butturi et al. (2019), for example, provide an overview of the
scientic literature on energy synergies within eco-industrial parks,
which facilitate the uptake of renewable energy sources at the industrial
level, potentially creating urban-industrial energy symbiosis. They
categorize urban-industrial energy symbiosis solutions, in terms of
design and optimization models, technologies used and organizational
strategies. Other reviews target even more detailed aspects of EIP
development, such as driving and limiting factors for EIPs (Sakr et al.,
2011), indicators to manage EIPs (Felicio et al., 2016), quantitative tools
for facilitating IS in industrial parks (Kastner et al., 2015), or the roles of
geospatial technology for selecting sites for EIPs (Nuhu et al., 2021).
However, no literature review has yet been conducted from a process
(design) perspective that captures a variety of approaches for EIP
development.
2.2. EIP reproduction and replication
While several scholars certainly highlight the context-dependency of
EIP development, to our knowledge none have discussed how this in-
uences the replication of successful EIPs experiences and solutions. In
none of the above-mentioned review articles have scholars connected
L. Schlüter et al.
Journal of Cleaner Production 429 (2023) 139499
3
EIP development phases to the ongoing diffusion of successful EIP de-
velopments taking place in practice from one context to another.
The various cases described in the literature show, however, that the
diffusion from one existing context to new contexts can take place in a
later development phase of the original EIP, where successes and/or
potential failures have been acknowledged, and ideas and lessons
learned worth being spread to other contexts are identied. We use
diffusion as an overarching meta-concept differentiating between
reproduction and replication dynamics and conceptualize these as two
mechanisms of diffusing successful EIP solutions from one context to
another one. Diffusion is thus in itself not a phenomenon, but a new
dynamic of EIP evolution, where the EIP in context A (EIP replicator)
develops by replicating or reproducing its best practices into Context B
(EIP replicatee). By this, the EIP replicatee (in context B) comes about
and develops into a new EIP, with the inspiration, knowledge and
experience injection from the EIP replicator (Context A). Fig. 1 visual-
izes this regarding an EIP’s development.
The mechanisms of replication and reproduction are understood and
dened in this study as the diffusion of local EIP solutions (from context
A) to other contexts (context B), based on the knowledge and learning
accumulated from and about the initial contexts.
To arrive at a conceptualization of the two mechanisms and differ-
entiate between them, we rely on dictionary denitions, strategic
management (Jonsson and Foss, 2011), and organizational and man-
agement literature (Winter and Szulanski, 2001), supported by the
existing literature on EIP and IS (see Table 1 below).
2.2.1. Replication
Management theory describes replication as an organizational form,
which contributes to the creation of new entities similar to an existing
one and delivering a similar specic product or service. The literature
calls these ‘outlets’ (Winter and Szulanski, 2001, p. 730). We concep-
tualize the equivalent of outlets, as visualized in Fig. 1, as EIP replicatee
from context B. The original entities (EIP replicator), serve then as “the
historical template” (ibid.) for the new outlets. Furthermore, sometimes
the management literature refers to this type of strategy of replication as
the “McDonalds approach” (ibid.), stating that generally there is an
initial entity or process regarded as a successful one and presenting a
guiding example for a new one, the outlet, which comes about from
copying the original example. By this, new outlets, similar to the original
one, can come about in various contexts. In such processes of replication,
efforts usually focus on reproducing the success from the original site.
We lean on this conceptualization to dene replication in the context of
EIP development, i.e. diffusing the knowledge and experiences, lessons
learned – the historical template – to another context, and by that
contributing to the coming about and development of a new EIP.
In the context of EIP development, replication can be challenging,
because it requires a nexus of various factors among which inspiration,
site visits, and platforms of experience exchange play an important role
(Mortensen and Kørnøv, 2019). Thus, it necessities a process of knowl-
edge diffusion. For instance, Schlüter et al. (2020) determine that
existing industrial symbioses inuence the emergence of new ones and
contribute to industrial symbiosis network (ISN) development. Many of
the mechanisms they identify transcend the boundaries of single IS
linkages and span across several IS networks. They observe for example,
that in several cases targeted as well as non-targeted, knowledge diffu-
sion played a role in the emergence of new symbioses. The example of
the y-ash-symbiosis (where a by-product of coal combustion is used as
a supplementary cementitious material in concrete) illustrates how the
knowledge exchanges following earlier symbioses of this kind have
contributed to its emergence, without targeting it from the begging. This
type of symbiosis could be replicated as it did not need major adapta-
tions to a local context. This is, however, rarely the case in EIP
development.
The subject of replication needs to be elaborated on. Tsvetkova et al.
(2015) addresses the replication of ecosystems, in the contexts of a
biogas-for-trafc-solution. The authors specify that replication concerns
the transfer of accumulated business knowledge from one context to
another. Furthermore, the authors mention that the replication is a
suitable approach for businesses for sustainable development towards
distributed structures and interconnected systems. They also argue that
more value can be created if the ecosystem that is replicated is viewed as
a modular system with various interconnected parts in a
meta-ecosystem. This is also in line with Korhonen (2004) that argues
that industrial system is a subsystem to the parent ecosystem, and it is
turn consists of multiple subsystems. The subsystems or modules can e.g.
be organized according to the specic symbiotic ows, and/or the as-
pects or critical factors important for EIP development (e.g., infra-
structure, technology). Replication in this case is exible, and takes
place at the modules’ level, each of these being replicated from one
context to another by various means, and leading to the diffusion of the
EIP replicator’s learnings to the EIP replicatee.
2.2.2. Reproduction
While replication is characterized by knowledge diffusion leading to
an almost identical copy of existing solutions, reproduction is charac-
terized by a process adaptation to local contexts (see Table 1). In
consequence, reproduction puts less emphasis on copying successful
examples, but instead focuses on learning from existing EIP
Fig. 1. EIP evolution process including the two diffusion mechanisms: Reproduction and replication.
Table 1
Two mechanisms of diffusing existing EIPs success.
Reproduction Replication
Dictionary
denition
“The act or process of
producing new life” (
Cambridge Dictionary,
2023b), “a copy of something,
especially a painting, or the
process of copying something”
(Cambridge Dictionary,
2023b)
“The act of making or doing
something again in exactly
the same way, or something
that is made or done in this
way” (Cambridge Dictionary,
2023a), “the process by which
organisms and genetic or
other structures make exact
copies of themselves” (
Cambridge Dictionary,
2023a)
Org. &
management
theory
A exible approach,
permitting to develop
alternatives that t various
contexts and environments (
Jonsson and Foss, 2011)
‘McDonalds approach’ (
Winter and Szulanski, 2001,
p. 730)
Own denition Emergence of a new EIP
through exible and adapted
diffusion from an existing EIP
Copying the EIP in its entirety
or in modules; a 1:1 copy
L. Schlüter et al.
Journal of Cleaner Production 429 (2023) 139499
4
development and adapting these learnings to new contexts. Jonsson and
Foss (2011) argue for this exible approach, which permits developing
alternatives that t various contexts and environments, focusing on
adjustments in order to adapt to local environments, and under the
impact of new learning.
In the literature on EIP development, examples of factors that drive
reproduction from one context to another one occur. For instance,
Schlüter et al. (2020) summarize that literature indicates that strong
capacities, embeddedness, and technological infrastructure are factors
that support further IS emergence and that can represent a link between
existing and new symbioses that are different from a direct copying of
solutions. In terms of capacities, they state that specic capacities
accumulate through development of symbiotic relationships, and these
can in turn inuence the emergence of new linkages. Mortensen and
Kørnøv (2019) nd that individual, organizational, and institutional
capacity is built when IS emerges, and at the same time this build the
ground for new symbioses. Tsvetkova et al. (2015) also stress that while
some of the parts of the symbiotic system can be transferred from one
context to another, through copying them, others need adaptation
through continuous learning and experience exchange.
Using this conceptualization, we distill the learnings from the pro-
cess model of EIP evolution to shed light and discuss implications for EIP
replication and reproduction for new EIP coming about.
3. Methodology
The study starts in a systematic literature review. Even though a case
study could have been applied, it is difcult “to examine the growth
patterns of IS networks empirically” (Zhu and Ruth, 2014, p. 38) and
“complete timeline data of IS networks are not readily available, making
regression analysis of a step-by-step network growth not feasible” (ibid.).
Additionally, empirical research describing EIP cases in various contexts
is rich. Learning from these through a systematic literature review was
found appropriate.
To develop a process model for evolution of EIPs, the methodology
took inspiration in the steps suggested by Jabareen (2009) and followed
the procedure displayed in Fig. 2.
The steps taken to conduct this systematic review of literature are
presented below.
1. Choosing data sources
The rst activity concerned the mapping of selected data sources,
described as phase 1 by Jabareen (2009). For conducting a systematic
review of literature, scoping reviews can represent a valuable point of
departure, as they provide insights into complex or heterogeneous
bodies of literature (Pham et al., 2014). This is what the present study
did by basing its research question on a previously conducted scoping
review of the scientic literature on sustainability in industrial areas
(Schlüter & Bekamiri, forthcoming). Here, distinct communities of
research have been identied and particularly two of these were of in-
terest to us, as they refer to the design and development of EIPs and ISNs.
These composed a total of 123 articles, of which 69 articles refer to IS
development and 54 articles to EIP development. As these concepts are
closely related, these two communities were the point of departure for
the following analysis.
2. Shortlisting and analysis of selected articles
Phase 2 concerns an extensive reading and categorizing of the
selected data (Jabareen, 2009). In our case, we viewed titles and ab-
stract of each of the 123 articles and inductively allocated topics to
them, which we then merged into larger categories. For the rst com-
munity on IS, these categories were: Context for IS development;
Goal-directed IS management; IS opportunity identication; Tools sup-
porting the process of IS creation; IS benets, drivers, and barriers; IS
from supply chain perspective; Robustness/resilience; IS facilitation
approach; Governance types; Prot & cost allocation; public–private
interplay for IS; IS implementation; IS environmental performance;
Economic value from IS; IS decisions and design; IS & Industry 4.0. For
the second community on EIP, a similar categorization has been con-
ducted. We used this information on the articles to allocate them into
topical groups. Then, the topical groups were either selected for further
reading or set aside.
To select articles for further reading, they needed to provide infor-
mation about EIP evolution (especially phases, roles of actors, barriers &
drivers, governance/curation, and organizing were judged as interesting
for nding critical factors for phases of EIP development); they reect on
elements important in different phases or highlight who is driving which
parts of the process. Tools on how to determine optimal design char-
acteristics or insights reached for specic cases alone were not enough to
qualify for reading, it needed to provide more information, for example
how actors decide and work with these designs, how the designs
developed over time (development paths), or how contextual factors
inuenced the development.
As a result of this process, 41 articles were selected for further
analysis. The list of selected articles and their use for different purposes
is summarized in Appendix A. The articles build on a total of 98 cases of
real-life EIPs, of which 45 are located in Europe, 40 in North America, 6
in Asia, 5 in Central and South America, and 2 in Oceania. Some studies
Fig. 2. Selection of articles and steps taken in the methodology.
L. Schlüter et al.
Journal of Cleaner Production 429 (2023) 139499
5
rely on a large number of cases, either by using selected characteristics
of the cases (Cˆ
ot´
e and Cohen-Rosenthal, 1998) or by conducting large
surveys (Tessitore et al., 2015). This partly contributes to the high
number of cases from USA and Italy. Other studies conduct in-depth
studies of one or two cases, which seems to be characteristic for
studies of Finnish IS networks (Pakarinen et al., 2010; Patala et al.,
2020; Uusikartano et al., 2022). Longitudinal studies of EIP evolution
are rare. Much more often, the EIP cases were analyzed at different
points of development. 13 cases are described as planned,
pre-operational, or as a potential EIP, while the remainder had at least
one resource exchanges in place. However, some represent much less
developed networks than others (e.g. the evolving network of interrm
exchanges in Guayama, Puerto Rico, that Mileva-Boshkoska et al. (2018)
analyze compared to the much older and more developed Kiwana EIP in
Australia (Faria et al., 2021)). We know from previous research that, in
practice, the majority of EIPs are in early stages of development (Gibbs
and Deutz, 2007) and several examples of these are also found in our
literature sample (e.g. Moerdijk EIP project analyzed by Heeres et al.
(2004)). Due to the lack of longitudinal studies on the majority of cases
and the varying depth with which the studies investigate the cases, a
comparative process analysis between EIP evolutions and their critical
factors is not possible. But the number of real-life cases used underlines
the validity of the critical factors observed at different points of EIP
evolution.
3. Providing a structure for the process model: setting up the
analytical framework
As one topical group concerned “Process perspectives” on EIP and IS
development, we took departure in the 10 articles belonging to this
group to build an analytical framework for the process model (see Ap-
pendix B for an overview of existing process models). The results of this
step were four distinct process phases and denitions of each phase. This
analytical framework provided the lens to look at the remaining articles.
4. Building the EIP process model
These 10 articles, together with the remaining 31 articles, were
distributed among the four authors for detailed reading. The authors
read the articles, extracted relevant information, and wrote a summary
for each article. To increase the validity and credibility of the ndings,
investigator triangulation was used, and two researchers were included
Fig. 3. Flowchart for allocating statements from article summaries to phases of EIP evolution of the analytical framework.
L. Schlüter et al.
Journal of Cleaner Production 429 (2023) 139499
6
in the analysis of each article. Furthermore, regular meetings were held
to agree on relevant aspects of interest for the process model. The
summaries’ content was then (i) sorted according to the previously
developed analytical framework (phases) and (ii) sorted into other
categories, as in some cases, no allocation into phases was possible, and/
or the article summary showed additional information that was relevant
to the study. The latter content was used to introduce and frame this
study. The summaries’ content was analyzed using the decision process
outlined in the following owchart (see Fig. 3).
5. Identication of critical factors
As the owchart indicates, within the phases, statements were
inductively grouped into categories to arrive at the critical factors that
are of importance in each phase. This process was similar to Jabareen’s
phase of integrating concepts, as here “the aim […] is to integrate and
group together concepts that have similarities to one new concept. This phase
reduces the number of concepts drastically and allows us to manipulate to a
reasonable number of concepts” (2009, p. 54). By revisiting and resorting
the content, a synthesis and resynthesis was reached.
6. Discussion in the light of replication and reproduction
It is not possible to formulate a simple theory that is both general and
accurate (Weick, 1979). More so, generalization is a common way of
theorizing in organizational research (Jackson et al., 2019), which
means moving away from context (Tsang, 2013). Our search for phases
of EIP evolution and their critical factors entailed a degree of decon-
textualization, which holds the danger that boundary conditions of the
theory remain unexplored and that it becomes less useful in addressing
practical challenges (Jackson et al., 2019). This issue is currently faced
by EIP practitioners when considering how to apply learnings from EIP
literature to their specic circumstances. While several general re-
ections on EIP evolution have been developed, they often lack an
explanation of how far these learnings are applicable to different con-
texts. Consequently, in the last step of our analysis, we discuss the im-
plications of the identied phases of EIP evolution for EIP coordinators.
4. Evolution of eco-industrial parks
4.1. Phases of EIP evolution
The literature review identied that it is common to describe the
development of EIPs through different evolutionary phases. Fig. 4 shows
seven representative and inuential papers on the subject.
The papers represent a type of process model, in which the framing of
the process does not “include […] everything and where elements are [less]
intertwined, enmeshed and joined together” (Cloutier and Langley, 2020 p.
19). This means that the frame offered is not a very complex and rich
theory but that these are useful models due to their parsimony and
elegance, which can be represented through “traditional conceptual tools
such as boxes and arrows” (ibid.). Furthermore, research applying the
models acknowledges the complexity and nonlinearity of EIP evolution,
e.g., as seen in Chertow and Ehrenfeld (2012, p. 19), who state that “the
boundaries between stages may be fuzzy in practice” and that “the stages are
discontinuous, the progress across them is nonlinear and cannot be pre-
dicted”. Processes appear as iterative, often represented by loops as in
Mortensen and Kørnøv (2019) and Belaud et al. (2019).
Furthermore, some research either focuses on the high level of
abstraction and distinguish between various phases of industrial sus-
tainable development or focus on identifying the development phases of
a single, specic case. For example, Korhonen (2004) presents a
ve-level model for regional sustainable development through EIP
development that applies industrial ecology principles. At the rst level,
Korhonen (2004) proposes to distinguish between economic, social, and
the ecological subsystems and to pay attention to the physical principles
in the construction of the entire EIP system. At the second level, there is
the emergence of linkages among the actors in an industrial system
which will follow nature’s model. Learning form nature can inspire more
linkages, and hence more development, which characterize level three.
At this point the locality, diversity, and cooperation seem to be impor-
tant drivers. The fourth level is achieved when a number of considerable
linkages connect the actors in the industrial ecosystem into a web of
relations that utilize waste materials and energy. The development can
then be measured and monitored using various tools, metrics, and in-
struments to also assess the economic, social and ecological performance
of the industrial system at the fth level. Behera et al. (2012) on the
other hand is focusing on the specic case of the development of Ulsan
Fig. 4. Phases of EIP evolution according to literature. See Appendix Bfor more detailed analysis.
L. Schlüter et al.
Journal of Cleaner Production 429 (2023) 139499
7
EIP in Korea, distinguishing between three phases: one characterized by
pilot studies to understand the material ows, second where the con-
ceptual ideas were provided and the knowledge was disseminated, and
third when a performance analysis was conducted, successes and fail-
ures where examined and strategy was revised.
Most of the models focus on actions taken to develop EIP, generally
in terms of social interactions that lead to expansion of the symbiosis,
increase in the diversity of actors, and cause new connections to be
formed as the EIP evolves, as described by e.g., Pakarinen et al. (2010).
However, the models show some differences in terms of the kind of
development process to which they refer. While planned processes are
described in terms such as “Selection” (Baas and Boons, 2004) or
“Design” and “Layout” (Belaud et al., 2019), other models emphasize
characteristics of self-emerging systems described in terms such as
“Sprouting” (Chertow and Ehrenfeld, 2012) and “Regional efciency”
(Baas and Boons, 2004). Costa and Ferr˜
ao (2010) transcend this di-
chotomy and argue for a middle-out approach where planned and
designed processes are combined with bottom-up self-organized
initiatives.
In this study, we map the characteristics of EIP development across
these approaches, as focus is on facilitated EIPs, irrespective of who is
facilitating. In effect, the study represents a synthesis of current EIP
approaches. We distinguish between four phases of EIP evolution, each
having its own characteristics and dynamics. As presented in Fig. 5,
these phases are pre-emergence, emergence, probation, and
development.
4.2. Process model for EIP evolution
Each phase has outcomes, some of which represent required condi-
tions for entering the next phase. These are often referred to as drivers
and enablers that appear as critical factors or contextual conditions
(Faria et al., 2021; Gibbs and Deutz, 2005). In the following, we dene
each phase and present critical factors identied in the literature. Fig. 6
visualizes the phases and their main critical factors.
4.2.1. Phase 1: pre-emergence and its critical factors
The pre-emergence phase is the initial phase before any symbiotic
relations emerge, where fruitful conditions are present or are built
through various interactions among a multitude of private and public
actors to foster EIP evolution. The dynamics may vary from case to case,
depending on various factors such as the historical, cultural, and
geographical location of the EIP.
At this point in time, the industrial system is undeveloped charac-
terized by linear processes and the absence of symbiotic relations. This is
what Pakarinen et al. (2010) refer to as a “Type 1 system.” However,
“initial conditions and antecedents” (Mortensen and Kørnøv, 2019, p. 62)
that can foster symbiotic relations (Costa and Ferr˜
ao, 2010) exist, which
encourage rms to self-organize, often created as outcomes of cooper-
ation between various actors. Mortensen and Kørnøv (2019) identify
economic, environmental, technical, cultural, nancial, political, his-
torical, and infrastructural factors, geographical proximity, and the
existing pool of knowledge as important antecedents. Domenech and
Davies (2009) point to interactions between actors within regulatory
frameworks, to some extent focused on innovative approaches to
waste-ow exchanges, and Costa and Ferr˜
ao (2010) argue that the
regulatory framework may even occur through the interaction alongside
cooperation on economic and environmental landscape, emission per-
mits, and infrastructure development. During this process, symbiotic
relations emerge, which include a “selection” of core actors of the future
EIP (Baas and Boons, 2004, p. 1077).
At this stage of EIP evolution, our literature review indicates that
seven factors are critical. First, the economic environment must stimulate
EIP emergence. Here, public sector interventions and access to nance
are crucial (Mileva-Boshkoska et al., 2018; Gibbs and Deutz, 2005), and
there is a need for dedicated economic and environmental institutions
(Noori et al., 2020). Second, geographical location matters because
co-location is a driver for symbiotic relations (Gibbs and Deutz, 2005;
Taddeo et al., 2012, 2017), especially if the geographical location is
characterized by favorable conditions for economic and political resources
(Morales and Diemer, 2019, p. 5). Third, the pool of resources is a driver
for symbiotic relations, either because waste resources that can become
valuable input elsewhere are available, or because resources are scarce
and thus create an impetus for cooperation between rms and across
value chains. For instance, Faria et al. (2021) show how scarcity of fresh
water stimulates cooperation across rms. Fourth, spatial planning is
essential, because the emergence of EIPs often requires that space is
reorganized, especially in cases where there are competing demands on
space for different types of use, or where space needs to be dedicated to
the co-location of rms or as a framework for a specic pool of re-
sources. Here, encouraging public participation is important for easing
the coordination between various stakeholders (Behera et al., 2012).
Verguts et al. (2016) provide a convincing example of how the in-
terventions and spatial planning of the Flemish government stimulated
the emergence of the Koekhoven greenhouse park. Furthermore, Roberts
(2004) provides a planning agenda for EIPs, comprising the holistic
system approach integrating planning, research, and implementation,
creation of strategies, examination of material and energy ows to
re-design industrial activities and make them circular.
All of this is, however, non-essential if rms do not come together
and populate the space available for EIPs. So, fth, for the individual
actor, the potential of engaging in symbiotic relations is sensitive to the
presence of other rms. Symbiotic relations often start with bilateral
cooperation that eventually leads to agreements and mutual un-
derstandings (Faria et al., 2021; Taddeo et al., 2017). The presence of
large rms is in some cases important, because large rms possess the
resources for driving the process of EIP evolution, capitalize on public
investments, and provide a stable economic environment for the sharing
of resources, infrastructure, and facilities, thus becoming “economic
anchors” of the industrial park (Costa and Ferr˜
ao, 2010, p. 991). Of
course, while the presence of other relevant rms is often guaranteed in
cases where EIP emerges through transformation of an existing indus-
trial park, i.e., as a browneld development, this is not the case when
EIPs emerge from a bare eld, i.e., as a greeneld development. The
potentials for symbiotic relations differ between browneld and green-
eld approaches (Lambert and Boons, 2002), and greeneld develop-
ment is not always the obvious choice (Conticelli and Tondelli, 2014).
However, greeneld development may entail promising opportunities,
Fig. 5. Analytical framework showing EIP evolution based on current literature.
L. Schlüter et al.
Journal of Cleaner Production 429 (2023) 139499
8
Fig. 6. Process model for EIP evolution: Phases and critical factors.
L. Schlüter et al.
Journal of Cleaner Production 429 (2023) 139499
9
because when a critical mass of rms exists, facilitated and “self--
organized symbiotic processes” (Conticelli and Tondelli, 2014, p. 338)
among rms can be born and progressively developed. Regardless of the
brown- or greeneld developments the businesses must be involved
from the beginning, and the process of involving and coordinating
partners and stakeholders must be business-oriented (Behera et al.,
2012).
The local community involvement (sixth factor) may be important to
avoid public resistance caused by ‘not-in-my-backyard’ effects. Emer-
gence of EIPs, both in the case of browneld and greeneld develop-
ment, is hampered if lack of involvement causes resistance from
inuential local political or activist forces (Taddeo et al., 2017; Costa
and Ferr˜
ao, 2010).
The last critical factor identied relates as well to the working of the
social fabric. The policy and regulation may stimulate or hamper EIP
development. The best way forward is to create an integrated set of
policy instruments that can serve as enablers (Costa et al., 2010; Gibbs
and Deutz, 2005; Sakr et al., 2011), and which are “consistent with pol-
icies for sustainable industrial development and integrated at national,
regional, and local levels” (Faria et al., 2021, p. 19f). Policy schemes may
be decentralized, as in the case of Denmark and Switzerland, or
centralized as in UK and Portugal (Costa et al., 2010), but whatever the
case, policy schemes need to reect market conditions in order not to
become ineffective (Wang et al., 2022).
4.2.2. Phase 2: emergence and its critical factors
The emergence phase is the phase where initial ow connections
come about through various interactions among actors that become
aware of the synergetic benets, reach out to each other, and sit together
to explore possible connections. It is the phase where the rst knowledge
and learning from own processes are created, establishing a growing
shared culture.
The emergence phase is characterized by sprouting of resource ows
connecting rms. This can occur as the outcome of rms reaching out for
each other to achieve resource optimization and efciency (Baas and
Boons, 2004; Chertow and Ehrenfeld, 2012), or it can be stimulated by
an outside actor that engages in supporting, selecting, and/or uncov-
ering symbiotic relations (Pakarinen et al., 2010). Pakarinen et al.
(2010) describe this state of affairs as a “type 2 system”, and it is similar
to the “commercialization phase” described by Belaud et al. (2019),
“sprouting” as presented by Chertow and Ehrenfeld (2012), the “emer-
gence phase” as coined by Mortensen and Kørnøv (2019) and Dom´
enech
and Davies (2011), and the “covering” phase that Dai et al. (2022) use to
denominate the transformation of existing industrial areas into EIPs.
The central dynamic of the emergence phase is the development of
ties linking rms (Dom´
enech and Davies, 2011). Ties develop as po-
tentials for symbiotic relations are discovered and realized through in-
teractions among actors. These may start as simple and straightforward
opportunities for cooperation that lead to the discovery of more op-
portunities, often resulting in cooperation that gradually increases
mutual commitment across actors, which may turn into symbiotic
business models and the creation of a shared culture (Mortensen and
Kørnøv, 2019; Pakarinen et al., 2010; Dom´
enech and Davies, 2011;
Chertow and Ehrenfeld, 2012).
As the emergence phase unfolds and the EIP becomes populated by
actors that develop more complex forms of cooperation, the nature of
existing critical factors gradually changes, and new critical factors are
added. Obviously, policy and regulation remain important as creators of
stimuli for EIP development, but as actors discover more potential for
symbiotic relations, they become more sensitive to the effect of policy
and regulations. A possible “lack of legislative incentive” can inhibit the
emergence of symbiotic relations (Wahrlich and Simioni, 2019, p.
1476). Similarly, as the EIP develops, the development becomes more
sensitive to “urban policy and leadership” as a creator of space and
framework for further development (Belaud et al., 2019, p. 983). Plan-
ning for the EIP during the emergence phase becomes focused on striking
a balance “between industrial development and the quality of urban life”
(Tellier et al., 2019, p. 130), where different zones are dedicated to
different types of industrial and urban use. Finally, the availability of
skilled labor is an important constraint to EIP emergence (Wahrlich and
Simioni, 2019, p. 1477), and local employment policy schemes may be
needed in order to support EIP development during the emergence
phase.
Regarding the presence of other rms, the diversity of rms involved
in the EIP becomes increasingly important, also when designing a pro-
cess for revitalizing existing industrial areas (Cot´
e and Cohen-Rosenthal,
1998). A high degree of diversity creates more opportunities for sym-
biotic relations (Taddeo et al., 2012), and examples show that “symbiotic
exchanges are more likely to occur in an industrial park with several in-
dustries” (Faria et al., 2021, p. 18). If there are plenty of rms, more
opportunities for supplying and reusing waste and by-products come
about, provided that the rms know of each other’s operations and
understand how these t into the operation of the entire EIP (Wahrlich
and Simioni, 2019). Diversity may increase due to the presence and
activities of large rms, which attract smaller rms in the same indus-
trial region (Maynard et al., 2020), thus stimulating the demand for
symbiotic relations.
The role of geographical location gradually changes as the EIP de-
velops and more rms are included in the pool of symbiotic relations, or
existing symbiotic relations become more elaborate and complex. Co-
location facilitates the ow of information between co-located rms,
enables business interactions, and thus provides an impetus for the
development of trust. The development of trust can be amplied by the
availability of various platforms where members can share information,
knowledge, and experience. These can take the form of social and pro-
fessional hubs, councils, forums, etc. (Faria et al., 2021, p. 19).
Furthermore, the ties between rms become stronger as “energy cogen-
eration, cascading use of resources, and shared services” unfold during EIP
emergence (Faria et al., 2021, p. 19f).
The governance by which the EIP emerges is important to how robust
the EIP is and how it develops. According to Cˆ
ot´
e and Cohen-Rosenthal
(1998), EIPs are mainly engineered systems or self-organized systems.
Both types may appear in actual EIPs, but one or the other is normally
the prime driver of the development process. Across the literature, it is
often argued that the most robust EIPs are self-organized systems
because they are driven by market dynamics, and that EIP failure can be
attributed to top-down approaches lacking incentives for individuals
and distorting the price mechanism (Costa et al., 2010; Tao et al., 2019).
Cˆ
ote and Cohen-Rosenthal (1998), Verguts et al. (2016) and Gibbs
(2009) highlight the success of self-organized systems as opposed to
planned systems, although little empirical evidence is presented. How-
ever, Bellantuono et al. (2017) show that EIPs developed through
top-down initiatives with a high degree of heterogeneity, characterized
by the presence of collaborative networks among rms and with
governmental agencies, anchor tenants, and shared services, are more
likely to adopt a wider range of sustainability practices. Contrarily, EIPs
developed through a bottom-up process with a low degree of hetero-
geneity and characterized by weak support and cooperation with gov-
ernment agencies, are less prone to extensively adopt sustainability
practices. Furthermore, a planning-oriented approach to EIP develop-
ment seems to create robustness to the extent that the EIP development
is stimulated by public planning and policy measures that create a
coordinating structure (Farel et al., 2016) and set clear objectives sup-
porting eco-efciency (Tao et al., 2019). Adopting a more exible
approach, Verguts et al. (2016, p. 27), based on the ndings from their
study of Koekhoven, argue that planned and self-organized EIPs “cannot
easily be separated from each other, because elements of both types of IS
development can be identied”. In the case of Koekhoven, what started out
as a planned initiative was taken over by the rms themselves and
driven further. In consequence, Verguts et al. (2016, p. 20) advocate that
facilitated, middle-out processes are a “continuum between planned and
emergent change.”
L. Schlüter et al.
Journal of Cleaner Production 429 (2023) 139499
10
What we may infer from this is that what is probably important is not
the origin of the governance itself, but “to create a cooperative environ-
ment” (Faria et al., 2021, p. 19f) that can foster a range of initiatives
driving EIP development. Costa and Ferr˜
ao (2010, p. 985) suggest that
“a favorable context for IS development can be shaped through an interactive
process wherein government, industries, and other institutions are guided
towards aligning their strategies in support of collaborative strategies in
resource management.” This involves a community-based planning
approach (Conticelli and Tondelli, 2014), including engaging the local
community in designing and developing the EIP (Cˆ
ot´
e and
Cohen-Rosenthal, 1998; Taddeo et al., 2017).
4.2.3. Phase 3: probation and its critical factors
The probation phase is the phase where the rst signs of an EIP
appear, based on the increasing diversity of rms, and the established
and emergent ows. The previously emergent ows are physically
established, learning accumulates and spreads out to other actors in the
system, and actors continue to interact to foster a fruitful context for new
emergent symbioses. Benets and impacts of established ows are
analyzed, collaboration and interaction are maintained, and new ows
emerge.
The phase of probation is characterized by an increasing awareness
among rms regarding the benets of symbiotic relations, where the
benets are assessed and evaluated along with environmental impacts.
This leads to further development of the same or new ows, where in-
formation is exchanged to support the maintenance of interactions
(Belaud et al., 2019). Mortensen and Kørnøv (2019) describe this situ-
ation as a “post-emergence” phase, while Belaud et al. (2019) and Dai
et al. (2022), respectively, talk about an “operation phase” and an
“organizing” phase. The main characteristic is that the EIP evolves from
a small portfolio of symbiotic ows to a network of ows, transforming
an industrial site into an eco-industrial site where more and more rms
are established, and more and more symbiotic linkages appear (Costa
and Ferr˜
ao, 2010). This implies that the diversity of actors and the
complexity of the industrial system increase (Pakarinen et al., 2010),
coordinated by an external facilitator or by decisions made by cooper-
ating rms, where middle-out processes seem especially conducive to
EIP development (Costa and Ferr˜
ao, 2010). As argued by Dom´
enech and
Davies (2011, p. 290), the probation phase “constitutes a rst step in the
development of embeddedness for a selected group of actors among which
exchange ties have taken place. The experience of cooperation generates trust
and ‘learning by doing’, decreasing the risk associated with further
exchanges.”
Regarding diversity, the number of rms increases during the pro-
bation phase, and so does the heterogeneity and pool of resources
available in the local context. Relationships between public and private
actors proliferate, as public and private actors utilize their assets to
arouse interests among each other, promoting business opportunities
(for private rms) and regional development (for public organizations).
Cross-organizational contacts and know-how are especially important
during this process (Uusikartano et al., 2022). The proliferation of
symbiotic relations is positively inuenced by successful collaboration.
This often involves a long-term relationship based on information ex-
change and the formulation of a shared strategic vision (Noori et al.,
2020) that is situated in a context of networking and collaboration,
presenting the EIP as “a community and not just co-located businesses”
(Gibbs and Deutz, 2005, p. 463). Cooperative relationships that optimize
resources may occur as clustering along a whole value chain, or one or
more rms may function as an anchor tenant attracting more rms, thus
expanding the set of denable possible interconnections (Schlarb,
2001). Attracting rms may intentionally target rms that exhibit
“certain desirable characteristics […] to ensure that companies t with the
aims of the development prior to location” (Gibbs and Deutz, 2005, p. 460).
Symbiotic relations within an EIP depend on trust and social ties to a
higher extent than ordinary supply chain relations (Ashton, 2008). The
proliferation of symbiotic relations does “not develop from random
occasions” (Zhu and Ruth, 2014, p. 42) or only from policy intervention
(Gibbs and Deutz, 2005, p. 463), but seem to arise from increased social
contact, e.g., “in forums, clubs, councils, and associations” (Zhu and Ruth,
2014, p. 19f). While this leads to an increase in the number of symbiotic
relations with “no clear, linear order in which the actors developed symbiotic
relationships” (Faria et al., 2021, p. 18), it also leads to the development
of trust and social ties, because participation and interaction in social
events, networks, clubs, etc. encourages communication and informa-
tion sharing, which in turn “reinforce relationships of trust and coopera-
tion” (Faria et al., 2021, p. 19f).
Facilitators can play an important role in the probation phase
regarding inter-rm networking by using a variety of methods to acti-
vate rms. This may include networking, park-wide environmental
management systems and environmental management schemes (Gibbs
and Deutz, 2005), and initiatives that address the challenge of identi-
fying opportunities (Mileva-Boshkoska et al., 2018). How rms create
value through symbiotic relations is sensitive to the need of coordination
(Fraccascia et al., 2017), and for that reason facilitators are often
required to engage in the entire process, including implementation (Park
et al., 2018). To facilitate the proliferation and further development of
symbiotic relations, the facilitator needs to possess a variety of skills,
including social skills that are necessary to connect with rms and
matchmake them (Patala et al., 2020).
4.2.4. Phase 4: development and its critical factors
The development phase is the phase where the EIP either extends
based on the previous probation phase, or where development stagnates
or even terminates.
During the development phase, actors such as public organizations
and rms still shape the EIP context, e.g., by modifying relevant policy
schemes, or by adjusting their actions based on the outcome of EIP op-
erations. The development phase resembles the “adjusting” phase
described by Dai et al. (2022) for the transformation of industrial areas
into EIPs, and the “operating” and “renewal phase” suggested by Belaud
et al. (2019) where increased collaboration and information exchange
take place. This “enables the participating businesses to discuss the syn-
ergies’ performance and inherent risks, […] circulate information”, creating
“a trust context between stakeholders and mobilizes the involvement of new
actors” (Belaud et al., 2019, p. 976). This is in line with the “regional
learning” phase proposed by Baas and Boons (2004, p. 1077), where
“based on mutual recognition and trust, rms and other partners exchange
knowledge, and broaden the denition of sustainability on which they act.”
As emphasized by Baas and Boons (2004, ibid.), other stakeholders, like
grass root movements, may become involved in the EIP with the effect
that “both goal and range of membership broaden.”
In this phase, the industrial system reaches the type 3 system
described by Pakarinen et al. (2010), where “material ows are almost
cyclical: waste is used as a resource for other system components, therefore
little waste leaves the system” (ibid., p. 1394). However, not all EIPs follow
the same development path. EIP development may lead to “expansion”
through renovation of existing connections (Belaud et al., 2019),
embeddedness and institutionalization (Chertow and Ehrenfeld, 2012),
and forming sustainable industrial districts (Baas and Boons, 2004) as
mentioned above. EIP development may also lead to “stagnation” and/or
“termination” (Dom´
enech and Davies, 2011), “abandonment” by which
rms and other actors leave the system (Castiglione and Aleri, 2019),
or even experience a “collapse of industrial ecosystems” (Chertow and
Ehrenfeld, 2012), e.g. when a central actor leaves the EIP (Wang et al.,
2018). Which of these scenarios occurs depends on the critical factors
that characterize the development phase.
The future development of an EIP depends on the ties between actors
and is affected by “changes in the processes and relationships among com-
panies. Therefore, it is necessary to plan or redesign industrial symbiosis
complexes to mitigate the risks created by these changes” (Zhang et al.,
2015, p. 99). However, doing this is a double-edged sword. While Wang
et al. (2022) and Zhang et al. (2015) suggest that new rms should be
L. Schlüter et al.
Journal of Cleaner Production 429 (2023) 139499
11
included in the EIP with the purpose of strengthening relationships
among incumbent rms, Dom´
enech and Davies (2011) call for caution,
because adjustments or changes in processes, use of materials, and
management procedures etc. affect the existing and new symbiotic re-
lations. So, the introduction of new rms into the EIP requires that the
new rms t in with both existing and new networks within the EIP.
Coordination and facilitation are still crucial to the EIP evolution. Zhu
and Ruth (2014, p. 38) emphasize the role of facilitating institutions that
can mitigate market risk and increase the resilience of the system by
distributing “IS activities among rms, which are less likely to lose the whole
function of resource efciency under market disruption” (ibid., p. 43).
Tessitore et al. (2015) call for an EIP management body that can
represent the interests of the EIP during consultations with stakeholders,
manage EIP infrastructure and processes, and organize the socioeco-
nomic activities such as training, public events, and marketing. While
there is a consensus on the importance of facilitation, there is less clarity
concerning who or what the facilitating body is. Faria et al. (2021, p.19f)
suggest that the ideal governance structure “should involve local gov-
ernment, companies, R&D institutions, and a coordinating entity or cham-
pion.” Tessitore et al. (2015) refer to the municipality, while Heeres
et al. (2004) emphasize the role of private business. Uusikartano et al.
(2022) reject the dichotomy between private and public agencies and
advocate that EIP development always relies on an interplay between a
variety of actors.
Whether or not an EIP will continue to exist and ourish, or will
stagnate or even terminate, depends on how resilient the EIP is to
changes and disruption. This has led researchers to propose that
continuous monitoring of the EIP network development is essential.
Mileva-Boshkova et al. (2018) develop an elaborated model to be used
by decision makers and comprising a variety of environmental, tech-
nological, organizational, economic, and social factors. Wahrlich and
Simioni (2019) advocate an industrial symbiosis indicator tool, while
Pakarinen et al. (2010) propose several sustainability indicators to be
used for measuring EIP sustainability. Tellier et al. (2019) adopt a more
qualitative approach, suggesting that EIP sustainability can be improved
through sustainable urban planning and architecture, shared services for
employees (such as restaurants, childcare, and car-sharing platforms),
and collaboration between rms focusing on joint logistics, joint
research, ofce renting, and energy substitution synergies.
5. Implications for EIP replication and reproduction
To answer this study’s research question—How should phases of EIP
evolution and their critical factors be considered when replicating or
reproducing existing EIP successes to new contexts?—it is necessary to
discuss the ndings in section 4 through the lens of EIP replication and
reproduction. What has been learned from the phases of EIP evolution
that can enrich the replication and reproduction process of an EIP?
Which recommendations can be given to relevant actors and interested
in (i) sharing their successful EIP evolution experiences (replicator
perspective) and those interested in (ii) designing and implementing
new EIPs through replication and reproduction of an existing one
(replicatee perspective)? These are some questions that are addressed in
the following discussion.
EIP evolution is found to arise from the emergence and accumulation
of several symbiotic relations, which is in line with Dom´
enech and
Davies (2011) and seems to follow some of the same developmental
phases as the emergence of symbiotic linkages (Mortensen and Kørnøv,
2019) connecting at a higher level of complexity to create a symbiotic
network or an EIP. Some of the same critical factors mentioned by
Mortensen and Kørnøv (2019) are found to play a role in the EIP
evolution.
The ndings of this study invite one to think that fostering critical
factors is the key to successful EIP development, and that these should be
replicated in the new context. However, what is to be replicated and
reproduced? What is the knowledge, information, experiences, business
models, collaboration models among the local actors, the organization
of the EIP coordination body, or the industrial fabric of the area?
Mapping the evolutionary process of an EIP and connecting it to its
diffusion to a new context, a modular approach to replication (Tsvet-
kova et al., 2015), seems to be necessary. Within this, the critical factors
may function as the various modules that need to be examined and
addressed in the new context. Initiatives targeting specic ‘system
modules’, or critical factors can be set in place for the EIP to emerge and
develop. Some of these may be replicable without changes from one
context to another, but most of the critical factors are expected to be
adjusted to the new context.
When replicating or reproducing an EIP pre-emergence in other
contexts the following appears to be of great importance. First, the
characteristics and specicities of the new context. The geographical, his-
torical, and institutional environment present some specic opportunities,
whilst also presenting challenges for symbiotic relation and EIP
emergence.
Each EIP has its own specic history, origin, and geographical and
institutional characteristics, which determine the start and continuation
of the evolutionary process: its pre-emergence point of time, its emer-
gence pace, its probation characteristics, and its further development.
This can also inuence its replication process. When reproducing an EIP
development into a new context, the new EIP emerging and developing
starts to show its own specic characteristics that may be different from
the initial EIP. The development of the new EIP disconnects from the
replicator EIP, following its own evolutionary path. Within this, a need
for modifying and adjusting the institutional environment to match and
respond to the changes in society may appear, as this is part of the VUCA
(volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous) environment within
which industrial developments take place (Millar et al., 2018).
As the (geographical and institutional) contexts of the initial and the
new EIP are different, actors differ as well, they present different skills
and have different resources. Thus, the symbiotic network is expected to
present local characteristics from an early phase of evolution. A focus on
these, and thus adaptation of the critical factors’ characteristics from the
EIP of origin in a diffusion process is necessary. Sakr et al. (2011) argues
that there is a need for balancing the local (economic, technical, polit-
ical, etc.) resources, skills and capabilities if EIP coming about should
succeed. This conrms the fact that an EIP cannot be replicated without
adaptation, but merely reproduced through adaption to the local
characteristics.
When designing a new EIP through reproduction, several aspects
need to be analyzed: what is to be found in the new context, is the new
EIP to be designed from scratch from a greeneld area or is it to emerge
from an existing industrial park from which new symbiotic relations can
emerge? Are there any industry, rms, and local business in the neigh-
borhood? Who are these and how many? What relations are there
already between these? What types and how much (input/output) re-
sources do these have/need? Neighboring to other companies, industrial
parks, or even cities among which symbiotic relations can emerge in
time, presents a pool of resources that can be the foundation for the rst
emergent symbiotic relations from which EIP can emerge and develop.
A thorough analysis and mapping of the strengths and weaknesses of
the local geographical, historical, and institutional context regarding e.
g., economic, environmental, technical, cultural, nancial, political, and
history of collaboration present the rst inputs to the EIP development.
Special attention to be given to the existing (or the need for adjusting)
policy and regulation, and the economic incentives to secure eco-
industrial development. If shortcomings in these contextual factors are
present, EIP development is challenged, and initiatives to create a
fostering environment should be set in place.
However, should the characteristics of the new context be compared
with the original context? And should one make anything possible to
replicate the original context into the new or should the EIP of origin
only inspire the new EIP development? An adaptation approach to
reproduction implies inspiration and know-how transferring from one
L. Schlüter et al.
Journal of Cleaner Production 429 (2023) 139499
12
context (of origin) to the new one, seeking empowering of the local
actors involved in the process.
Empowerment, agency of and commitment from the local community
and actors are found to be of critical importance. While it is the repli-
cator EIP that can provide inspiration and know-how, it is the actors in
the replicatee context that are expected to have the responsibility of
driving their own development. A relation of empowerment, going from
the existing, mature EIP towards the new context is to be established and
exchanges of information, know-how, and experience must take place.
IS literature refers to capacity building (Spekkink, 2013) and this must
take place in the replicatee context including the mobilization and
activation of the existing capacity, building it further into curated ini-
tiatives towards EIP formation. Furthermore, various collaborative ini-
tiatives ensure these can be set in place. Initiatives must also target both
(i) increasing the number and diversity of the companies in the planned
EIP, as these create more symbiotic opportunities; and (ii) securing the
planning frameworks for the EIP. A community-based planning and
infrastructure development that can accommodate existing and future
symbiotic developments is necessary.
While these learnings from the EIP evolutionary process are evident,
who is to analyze and map the characteristics of the new environment?
Who is to identify and monitor the critical factors’ adjustment and set
initiatives in place to secure a fruitful environment for EIP development
in the new context? A general consideration of who is to be involved
from the replicator side in the EIP development, and who is to be the
driver of the process, must be made. Also, consideration of the roles of
the different actors, and the collaboration among these to create a
shared facilitation function must be given. The human resource aspects
are mentioned in the organizational and management literature as being
of importance when replicating business models to a new context
(Winter and Szulanski, 2001). The ndings of these studies conrm this
and raise the question of the skills of the existing human resources in the
new context and the need to secure the necessary skilled labor for the
companies, besides strengthening e.g., the economic and policy and
regulation environment.
As found through this study, to secure the emergence of initial and
new symbiotic relations in the new context, there is a need for a strong
presence of a governance (collaborative) entity. This may not simply be one
actor, but instead a collaboration among various relevant actors with the
aim of facilitating the symbiotic relations among companies. Together,
through collaboration, these can improve the institutional context
creating a more fruitful environment for the initial symbiotic ties. The
presence of a governance entity or a coordination body, who will initiate a
focused process, activate relevant actors, and highlight the existing ca-
pacity in the context is crucial. A middle-out approach is found to be the
most relevant approach to governance, through which (spatial,
resource, etc.) planning, curated facilitation, and rm initiatives inte-
grate into a common evolution. Relevant actors must be involved in the
process, including the (civil) community around the industrial area in
development, to secure a common vision and development plan.
What is probably most important in EIP development is that the
governance entity takes a strategic approach to development, and designs
relations through clustering along a value chain or/and ones that
revolve around an existing or new rm as the anchor tenant in new
symbiotic exchanges. Focus should be on how to create diversity that
creates resilience in the new EIP, by increasing the number and diversity
of rms in and around the EIP area, so that the pool of resources and
symbiotic exchanges can increase. The governance entity should initiate
measures to attract companies to the newly developed area, and orga-
nize collaborative platforms where various private and public actors can
interact to maintain and secure the fruitful context for further symbiotic
network development. Such platforms should accommodate initiatives
to exchange information and formulate and revise the shared strategic
vision.
A community view on the symbiotic network in the EIP should be
applied. Initiatives for inter-rm networking and ones that contribute to
developing and maintaining trust and social ties should be organized
regularly. Regularly measuring the effects and benets of symbiotic
relations in specic and the network in general, learning from existing
cases and network development should encourage the governance entity
to share and increase the EIP community members’ awareness of them
being part of the network and building on the benets of shared sym-
biotic ties. Evidence exists that increased awareness of benets breed
more symbiotic relations (Schlüter et al., 2020).
To organize platforms that can foster various initiatives with variate
focuses demands diverse skills from a facilitator (Schlüter et al., 2022).
Therefore, while focusing on the symbiotic network and community
development, the governance entity in the replicate context must also
turn the view on its own development, paying attention to the necessary
and missing skills, and reach out to relevant partners for collaboration to
ll skill gaps for the benet of the entire EIP.
Later in the EIP development process the facilitation entity can
become a formalized EIP management body to represent EIPs interests in
negotiations, consultations, etc.; manage EIP infrastructure develop-
ment; organize socioeconomic activities, such as trainings, public and
private events, marketing, etc.; and provide continuous monitoring of
the EIP network to secure system resilience. The governance entity must
secure organization of platforms fostering trust, information and expe-
rience exchanges, and provide regular sustainability checks of the sys-
tem (with well-dened indicators), to secure the long-term development
of the symbiotic network and its sustainability in time.
Furthermore, if challenges appear, then initiatives with inspiration
from the previous EIP must be put in place in the new EIP through actor
collaboration and managed by a central governance and facilitation
body to address and solve these challenges. However, should these be
replicated and reproduced without regard to the cost, and instead with a
focus on the ‘health’ of the symbiosis in the EIP? Or is there a nancial
cut off point for the actors involved where the benets of the replication
or reproduction of an EIP are no longer desirable? For example, human
resources are more difcult to replicate than technical solutions. Thus,
some critical factors might be idiosyncratic and impossible or very costly
to replicate. Some factors might be replicable, but detrimental or un-
related to success in the new EIP, e.g. because of differing cultural and
legislative factors in the new context. Therefore, the adaptive and ex-
ible approach to reproduction should not only include an investigation
of which factors (i) are benecial to replicate and critical also in the EIP
replicatee’s context, but also (ii) how possible these are to replicate and
how costly reproduction is compared to its benets. A strong collabo-
ration between the replicator and replicatee, where empowering takes
place, might be the key here.
6. Conclusion and avenues for future research
The occurrence and evolution of EIPs is a phenomenon that seems to
proliferate across the world and, as a consequence, is becoming a topic
of increasing scholarly and managerial interest. The reason for the
establishment of EIPs is that rms, public organizations, and to some
extent also various actors shaping local communities realize the benets
of creating local productive ecosystems that contribute to green transi-
tion by sharing, optimizing, and creating new sources for the use of
resources through collaboration.
Because EIPs are becoming increasingly important, they also become
a source of inspiration and learning across communities and nations.
Therefore, as indicated by the title of our paper, we set out by asking:
Can we replicate eco-industrial parks? The answer to this question is that
we can replicate EIPs in some cases, but in other cases the creation of
EIPs requires adaption to contextual circumstances. The global scholarly
interest into how and when these different situations occur points to
various phases of evolution characterized by different types of dy-
namics. Our paper aimed at synthesizing current knowledge by
answering the research question: How should phases of EIP evolution
and their critical factors be considered when replicating or reproducing
L. Schlüter et al.
Journal of Cleaner Production 429 (2023) 139499
13
existing EIP successes to new contexts?
By systematically reviewing EIP research focusing on process
models, the present paper nds that a multitude of empirical EIP ex-
amples are present in the world and described in a rich body of litera-
ture. This conrms the statement of Ehrenfeld (2004) and show that
with the emergence and development of EIPs around the world, the
industrial ecology research eld and community of practice continue to
evolve and being institutionalized.
Through the systematic literature review it was found that EIPs
evolve through four main phases: Pre-emergence, emergence, proba-
tion, and development. It is possible to show that each of these phases
has its own characteristics and dynamics. Even though phases can be
identied, the process of evolution is not linear; it is instead an iterative
one, where critical factors are key in forming a fruitful context for EIP
evolution. The critical factors comprise the local historical, geograph-
ical, and institutional context; the presence of governance or a coordi-
nating body; collaborative interactions among actors and various types
of agency; and commitment activated through mobilized capacities.
While critical factors persist throughout the phases, they undergo
qualitative changes as EIPs grow and evolve. This is caused by an
increasing degree of diversity and complexity of the EIP, where actors
and agency become embedded as interactions and ties multiply and
intensify. As the studies analyzed in this literature review rely on real-
life cases to different extents and few of them are analyzing EIPs in-
depth across their development phases, a systematic comparison of
these critical factors across EIP cases requires further collection of
empirical data, which might represent an ambition for future research to
verify and further elaborate our developed framework of EIP evolution.
So, when embarking on creating an EIP, either through greeneld
establishment or browneld transformation, the involved actors need to
reect on the characteristics of local context as compared to the context
from which the creation of EIP is inspired. The replicator of an EIP must
be aware of the differentiating character of its own development process
to make sure that knowledge is properly diffused and activated in the
new context. This must be based on a willingness to share know-how and
to empower the actors in the new context for their own EIP develop-
ment. The replicatee must be aware of the local historical, geographical,
and institutional context, and how the context frames opportunities for
evolution. Acting on this awareness requires a governance or coordi-
nation body that takes a strategic and community approach to EIP
development, and which becomes gradually formalized as the EIP
travels through its phases of evolution. Governance and coordination
must provide collaborative platforms to involve and align local actors in
collaborative initiatives, the purpose being to foster commitment to
symbiotic relationships that can proliferate and become increasingly
diverse.
These reections on replicator and replicatee roles and behavior
leads us to suggest three avenues for future research.
First, as the study of replication is scarce in the EIP literature, it
might provide value to connect EIP research with research elds on
knowledge transfer, capacity building, etc. Literature and theories
within these elds can provide strong insights on the aspects of repli-
cation that can then be studied in the context of EIP evolution.
Second, research should be directed towards unfolding the span of
reproduction and replication. This includes conceptualization of e.g.,
types such as technical, organizational, spatial, and sectoral diffusion,
and the distinction between routine versus non-routine diffusion. Also,
transferring knowledge, expertise, and best practices from one existing
EIP to a new context requires an effective diffusion mechanism and
capacity-building initiatives. Because there are different diffusion
channels through which replication and reproduction can take place,
future studies should attempt to explore the potentials of channels such
as promoting awareness, supporting research, and training—and the
signicance of whether it is facilitated diffusion or not.
This paper discussed replication as one strategy of developing EIPs,
based on a model of EIP evolution outlining critical factors of the pro-
cess. Zooming out, there could be value in comparing a replication
strategy with other strategies for EIP development (e.g. those charac-
terized by strong policy incentives or complete top-down planning) and
to contrast how they differ in terms of effectiveness or how they might
complement each other for the development of successful EIPs.
Finally, an existing EIP seems to engage in several important activ-
ities when replicating its concept to a new context, such as providing
knowledge, offering technical assistance, building capacity and training,
fostering networking and partnership, and serving as a learning platform
for the recipient. Future research should tackle the question of which
roles a replicator can play in relation to the recipient of knowledge and
learning (the replicatee), and what it entails to become an active facil-
itator of their own EIP replication.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing nancial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to inuence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments
This study is part of the “Design and replication principles for
curated eco-industrial parks” project, which is supported by Villum
Fonden, GreenLab, and Port of Aalborg. The study is also part of a PhD
research project, which is supported by the Port of Aalborg.
Appendix A. Selected articles and their use in this study
# Article Used for building
analytical framework
Sorted into EIP
evolution phases
Discarded in 2nd
iteration
1 The industrial symbiosis process as an interplay of public and private agency: Comparing two cases.
Uusikartano J., Saha P., Aarikka-Stenroos L. (2022).
x
2 A synthesised framework of eco-industrial park transformation and stakeholder interaction. Dai Y.,
Day S., Masi D., G¨
olgeci I. (2022).
x
3 Industrial Symbiosis at the Facility Scale. Mulrow J.S., Derrible S., Ashton W.S., Chopra S.S. (2017). x
4 Supply chain collaboration in industrial symbiosis networks. Herczeg G., Akkerman R., Hauschild
M.Z. (2018).
x
5 Business models for industrial symbiosis: A taxonomy focused on the form of governance.
Fraccascia L., Giannoccaro I., Albino V. (2019).
6 Sustainable manufacturing through creation and governance of eco-industrial parks. Farel R.,
Charri`
ere B., Thevenet C., Yune J.H. (2016).
x
(continued on next page)
L. Schlüter et al.
Journal of Cleaner Production 429 (2023) 139499
14
(continued)
# Article Used for building
analytical framework
Sorted into EIP
evolution phases
Discarded in 2nd
iteration
7 The organization of eco-industrial parks and their sustainable practices. Bellantuono N., Carbonara
N., Pontrandolfo P. (2017).
x
8 Eco-industrial parks development and integrated management challenges: Findings from Italy.
Tessitore S., Daddi T., Iraldo F. (2015).
9 Bi-level fuzzy optimization model of an algae-sugarcane-based Eco-industrial park. Aguilar K.D.T.,
Chiu G.M.K., Ubando A.T., Aviso K.B., Tan R.R., Chiu A.S.F. (2017).
x
10 Intermediation dilemmas in facilitated industrial symbiosis. Patala S., Salmi A., Bocken N. (2020). x
11 Facilitating business collaborations for industrial symbiosis: The pilot experience of the sustainable
industrial network program in Colombia. Park J., Duque-Hern´
andez J., Díaz-Posada N. (2018).
x
12 Eco-industrial park initiatives in the USA and the Netherlands: First lessons; Heeres R.R., Vermeulen
W.J.V., De Walle F.B. (2004).
x
13 Institutional lens upon industrial symbiosis dynamics: The case of Persian gulf mining and metal
industries special economic zone. Noori S., Korevaar G., Ramirez A.R. (2020).
x
14 Industrial Symbiosis: towards a design process for eco-industrial clusters by integrating Circular
Economy and Industrial Ecology perspectives. Baldassarre B., Schepers M., Bocken N., Cuppen E.,
Korevaar G., Calabretta G. (2019).
15 Industrial ecosystems? The use of tropes in the literature of industrial ecology and eco-industrial
parks. McManus P., Gibbs D. (2008).
16 Modeling and evaluation of the possibilities of forming a regional industrial symbiosis networks.
Mileva-Boshkoska B., Ronˇ
cevi´
c B., Urˇ
siˇ
c E.D. (2018).
x
17 The Development of Industrial Symbiosis in Existing Contexts. Experiences From Three Italian
Clusters. Taddeo R., Simboli A., Morgante A., Erkman S. (2017).
x
18 Energy-based industrial symbiosis: a literature review for circular energy transition. Fraccascia L.,
Yazdanpanah V., van Capelleveen G., Yazan D.M. (2021).
19 A critical review of symbiosis approaches in the context of Industry 4.0. Scaf`
a M., Marconi M.,
Germani M. (2020).
20 Towards sustainable business parks: A literature review and a systemic model. Le Tellier M., Berrah
L., Stutz B., Audy J.-F., Barnab´
e S. (2019).
x
21 Eco-industrial parks: Stimulating sustainable development in mixed industrial parks. Lambert A.J.
D., Boons F.A. (2002).
x
22 Designing eco-industrial parks: the US experience. Cohen-Rosenthal Edward (1996). Replaced with:
C¨
ot´
e, R.P. & Cohen-Rosenthal, E. (1998), “Designing eco-industrial parks: a synthesis of some
experiences”
x
23 Understanding the organization of industrial ecosystems: A social network approach. Ashton W.
(2008).
x
24 Implementing eco-industrial parks in existing clusters. Findings from a historical Italian chemical
site. Taddeo R., Simboli A., Morgante A. (2012).
x
25 Analysing the development of Industrial Symbiosis in a motorcycle local industrial network: The
role of contextual factors. Simboli A., Taddeo R., Morgante A. (2014).
x
26 Industrial symbiosis dynamics, a strategy to accomplish complex analysis: The Dunkirk case study.
Morales M.E., Diemer A. (2019).
x
27 Eco-industrial parks and sustainable spatial planning: A possible contradiction? Conticelli E. and
Tondelli S. (2014).
x
28 Effect of policy on industrial symbiosis: Simulation study from the perspective of enterprise
operation. Wang L., Zhang Q., Wang H. (2022).
x
29 The inuence of policy on industrial symbiosis from the Firm’s perspective: A framework. Tao Y.,
Evans S., Wen Z., Ma M. (2019).
x
30 Waste management policies for industrial symbiosis development: case studies in European
countries. Costa I., Massard G., Agarwal A. (2010).
x
31 Efcacy of landll tax and subsidy policies for the emergence of industrial symbiosis networks: An
agent-based simulation study. Fraccascia L., Giannoccaro I., Albino V. (2017).
x
32 The development of regional collaboration for resource efciency: A network perspective on
industrial symbiosis. Zhu J. and Ruth M. (2014).
x
33 A review of industrial symbiosis research: theory and methodology. Zhang Y., Zheng H., Chen B., Su
M., Liu G. (2015).
x
34 Industrial symbiosis in Taiwan: Case study on Linhai industrial park. Maynard N.J., Vaishnav Raj K.
S., Hua C.-Y., Lo S.-F. (2020).
x
35 Implementing industrial ecology? Planning for eco-industrial parks in the USA. Gibbs D. and Deutz
P. (2005).
x
36 Social, economic, and institutional congurations of the industrial symbiosis process: A
comparative analysis of the literature and a proposed theoretical and analytical framework. Faria
E., Caldeira-Pires A., Barreto C. (2021).
x
37 Industrial symbiosis as sustainable development strategy: Adding a change perspective. Verguts V.,
Dessein J., Dewulf A., Lauwers L., Werkman R., Termeer C.J.A.M. (2016).
x
38 Sustainability and industrial symbiosis-The evolution of a Finnish forest industry complex.
Pakarinen S., Mattila T., Melanen M., Nissinen A., Sokka L. (2010).
x x
39 A case study of industrial symbiosis development using a middle-out approach. Costa I. and Ferr˜
ao
P. (2010).
x x
40 Industrial symbiosis in the forestry sector: A case study in southern Brazil. Wahrlich J. and Simioni
F.J. (2019).
x
41 A circular economy and industrial ecology toolbox for developing an eco-industrial park:
perspectives from French policy. Belaud J.-P., Adoue C., Vialle C., Chorro A., Sablayrolles C. (2019).
x x
Backward snowballing: Additional articles referenced in the above articles and (partly) included
42 Schlarb, M. (2001). Eco-industrial development: A strategy for building sustainable communities.
CITED IN: Conticelli and Tondelli (2014), p. 337
(continued on next page)
L. Schlüter et al.
Journal of Cleaner Production 429 (2023) 139499
15
(continued)
# Article Used for building
analytical framework
Sorted into EIP
evolution phases
Discarded in 2nd
iteration
43 Chertow, M., and Ehrenfeld, J. (2012). Organizing Self-Organizing Systems. Journal of Industrial
Ecology, 16 (1), 13–27.
CITED IN: (Tao et al., 2019)
x x
44 Dom´
enech, T., and Davies, M. (2011). The role of Embeddedness in Industrial Symbiosis Networks:
Phases in the Evolution of Industrial Symbiosis Networks.
CITED IN: Zhu and Ruth, 2014
x x
45 Jelinski et al. (1992)
CITED IN: Pakarinen et al. (2010)
x
46 Mortensen, L., and Kørnøv, L. (2019). Critical factors for industrial symbiosis emergence process.
CITED IN: Dai et al. (2022)
x
47 Baas, L. W., and Boons, F. (2004). An industrial ecology project in practice: Exploring the
boundaries of decision-making levels in regional industrial systems.
CITED IN: Fraccascia et al. (2019).
x
Articles that were neither used for building the analytical framework, sorted into phases, nor discarded, were used as background knowledge and for writing the
introduction of this article.
Appendix B. Phases of EIP network development according to literature (Basis for analytical framework)
Source Context Basis for developing the phases Characteristics of the process
as a whole
# of
phases
Phases Characteristics of the phases
Baas and Boons
(2004)
regional
industrial
ecology/EIP
(browneld and
greeneld)
Draws on literature on
organizational change,
institutionalization, the lifecycle
concept, evolution of collective
good producing organizations,
Community development, and
Incrementalism to build the
phases and uses the framework
to analyze the case of the
Rotterdam harbour and industry
complex
3–4 0)
Selection
Only found in greeneld
development. This stage
“precedes these three phases. In
the selection phase, the actors
that will form the core of the
socio-technical system are
selected. This selection can
involve criteria related to the
process of sustainable
development.” (Baas and Boons,
2004, p. 1077,)
1)
Regional efciency
“autonomous decision-making
by rms; co-ordination with local
rms to decrease inefciencies (i.
e. ‘utility sharing’). Such
activities may be facilitated by
local government authorities,
existing co-operative
arrangements between
entrepreneurs, in short: local
social networks. This phase is
characterized by identifying and
make use of existing win–win
situations.” (Baas and Boons,
2004, p. 1077)
2)
Regional learning
“based on mutual recognition
and trust, rms and other
partners exchange knowledge,
and broaden the denition of
sustainability on which they act.
In this phase, other stakeholders
(local citizens, grass roots
movements) may become
involved as well. Thus, both goal
and range of membership
broaden.” (Baas and Boons,
2004, p. 1077)
4)
Sustainable industrial
districts
“actors develop an—
evolving—strategic vision on
sustainability and base their
activities on this vision.” (Baas
and Boons, 2004, p. 1077)
Chertow and
Ehrenfeld
(2012) [which
was also cited
in (Zhu and
Ruth, 2014, p.
38)]
IS “drawing upon work by three
research teams. Schwarz and
Steininger (1997)[…]
Baas and Boons, […] Chertow
and Ehrenfeld” (Chertow and
Ehrenfeld, 2012, p. 19)
“the boundaries between the
stages may be fuzzy in
practice” (Chertow and
Ehrenfeld, 2012, p. 19)
“the stages are
discontinuous, the progress
across them is nonlinear and
cannot
be predicted” (Chertow and
Ehrenfeld, 2012, p. 19)
3 1)
Sprouting
“Firms begin to exchange
resources on a random basis for a
variety of reasons. A limited
network of interlinked ows
takes shape (Schwarz and
Steininger, 1997). Chertow
(2007). refers to the initial
exchanges as “kernels” of
industrial symbiosis that face a
market test and, even when
(continued on next page)
L. Schlüter et al.
Journal of Cleaner Production 429 (2023) 139499
16
(continued)
Source Context Basis for developing the phases Characteristics of the process
as a whole
# of
phases
Phases Characteristics of the phases
successful, may or may not lead
to further exchange activity.
Schwartz and Steininger add the
argument that the positive
network externalities created
may change decision analysis in
rms such that new exchanges
become desirable. Up to this
stage, standard market-driven
industrial organizational theories
apply.“ (Chertow and Ehrenfeld,
2012, p. 19)
2)
Uncovering
“The realization that some
networks have created positive
environmental externalities
becomes consciously revealed or
“uncovered,” typically through
the observations of an actor
whose focus is beyond the private
transactional network (Chertow,
2007). Baas and Boons (2004)
associate this stage with regional
learning where both goals and
range of membership broaden”
(Chertow and Ehrenfeld, 2012, p.
19)
3)
Embeddedness and
institutionalization
“[…] later stages having more
intentional and institutional
realization of positive
environmental externality” (Zhu
and Ruth, 2014, p. 38)
“In addition to self-organization,
further expansion of the network
becomes intentionally driven by
an institutional entity created at
an earlier stage that becomes
more deeply established during
this stage. As for how long this
might last, we have evidence that
industrial symbioses can persist
over many decades, as is the case
of Kalundborg, Denmark, and
Kwinana, Australia, but still little
information about the collapse of
industrial ecosystems.” (Chertow
and Ehrenfeld, 2012, p. 19)
Dom´
enech and
Davies (2011)
EIP Based on analysis of three cases:
NISP, Kalundborg, Sagunto
3 1)
Emergence
“A rst phase in the development
of IS networks is the emergence
of the network. Some main
conditions seem to characterize
the contexts where IS emerge
(Domenech and Davies, 2009).
The conditions are the following.
(I) Stringent and rapidly evolving
regulatory frameworks. (II)
Waste-ow exchanges require
customized, non-standard,
applications or involve an
innovative component or
approach, and, therefore, imply
uncertainties with regards to the
outcomes and process. (III) As a
result of the need for customized
solutions, high coordination is
required, which implies frequent
interaction between companies,
favouring the transfer of tacit
knowledge, ‘learning by doing’
and the creation of a shared
culture or ‘macroculture’ (Jones
et al., 1997). In this rst phase,
initial ties are developed and
some straightforward
cooperation opportunities
explored. Generally, these rst
(continued on next page)
L. Schlüter et al.
Journal of Cleaner Production 429 (2023) 139499
17
(continued)
Source Context Basis for developing the phases Characteristics of the process
as a whole
# of
phases
Phases Characteristics of the phases
ties do not require complex
transformation processes,
technological upgrades or
innovation, but they set the basis
of the dynamics of cooperation.
The formation of the network
may be the result of a
spontaneous process, like the
network in Kalundborg and
Sagunto, or be initiated by a
policy actor, as in the case of
NISP.” (Dom´
enech and Davies,
2011, p. 288)
2)
Probation
“The next phase in the
development of IS networks is
the probation phase [...]. At this
stage, network members have a
general knowledge of the
dynamics of the network and the
opportunities of potential
exchanges and cooperation. First
experiences of exchanges have
generated and feedback from
them permeates the network,
through more or less informal
channels that might vary from
comments from members in
informal meetings to more
formalized accounts of the
experiences such as publication
of case studies. This phase is
crucial, as failure in the
realization of the opportunities
may lead to the early collapse of
the initiative. The probation
phase constitutes a rst step in
the development of
embeddedness for a selected
group of actors among which
exchange ties have taken place.
The experience of the
cooperation generates trust and
‘learning by doing’, decreasing
the risk associated with further
exchanges.” (Dom´
enech and
Davies, 2011, p. 290)
3)
Development
“Building on the experiences of
the probation period, the
network enters a phase of
development and expansion (see
igure 7) by the building of new
linkages and/or the deepening of
the existing relationships.
Continuous interaction and
accumulation of experiences of
cooperation allow the thriving of
embedded ties, governed by
trust, tacit knowledge and joint
problem-solving, and generate
routines of cooperation that
signicantly reduce the
transaction costs associated with
it. More experiences of
interaction increases the
possibilities of further potential
exchanges (a) by widening the
material and knowledge basis of
the system and (b) through the
mechanisms of referral and
transitivity (assuming that the
referred parties will behave
cooperatively), which favour the
identication of other potential
linkages and actors, deepening
the level of embeddedness of the
(continued on next page)
L. Schlüter et al.
Journal of Cleaner Production 429 (2023) 139499
18
(continued)
Source Context Basis for developing the phases Characteristics of the process
as a whole
# of
phases
Phases Characteristics of the phases
network as a whole.” (Dom´
enech
and Davies, 2011, p. 291)
Pakarinen et al.
(2010) refers
to Jelinski
et al. (1992)
EIPs evolution Case: The framework is based on
Jelenski et al. (1992) and it is
used to analyze an ISN around a
pulp and paper mill in South-
Eastern Finland
While Jelinski and
colleagues “just” describe
these systems as different
types, Pakarinen refers to
them as stages of a system,
indicating a process towards
type 3 system. In their case
they observe a process from
type 1 to type 3.
3 1)
Type 1 system
A system in which “the
potentially useable resources
[are] so large and the amount of
life so small that the existence of
life forms ha [s] essentially no
impact on available resources.
This individual component
process might be described as
linear-that is, as one in which the
ow of material from one stage to
the next is independent of all
other ows.” (Jelinski et al.,
1992, p. 793)
“Type I is an undeveloped system
in which processes are linear”
(Pakarinen et al., 2010, p. 1394)
2)
Type 2 system
a “contrasting picture [to a type 1
system] is an ecosystem in which
proximal
resources are limited. In such a
system, the resulting life forms
become strongly interlinked and
form the complex networks we
know today as biological
communities. In this system, the
ows of material within the
proximal domain may be quite
large, but the ows into and out
of that domain (i.e., from
resources and to waste) are quite
small.” (Jelinski et al., 1992, p.
793)
“much more efcient than the
previous one, but it clearly is not
sustainable over the long term
because the ows are all in one
direction, that is, the system is
“running down."” Jelenski, p.
793
“In Type II a few [cyclical] ows
exist but the degree of exchange
is still limited.” (Pakarinen et al.,
2010, p. 1394)
3)
Type III system
“To be ultimately sustainable,
biological ecosystems have
evolved over the long term to be
almost completely cyclical in
nature, with “resources” and
“waste” being undened, since
waste to one component of the
system represents resources to
another.” (Jelinski et al., 1992, p.
793)
This is a type 3 system.
“In Type III material ows are
almost cyclical: waste is used as a
resource for other system
components, therefore little
waste leaves the system.”
(Pakarinen et al., 2010, p. 1394
“ […] where new actors in the
symbiosis utilized wastes from
previous actors and produced
useful by-products thus
increasing the connectivity and
complexity of the system”
(Pakarinen et al., 2010, p.1396)
Dai et al. (2022) Ageing
industrial areas
repurposed to
EIPs
Literature review, drawling
heavily on Mortensen and
Kørnøv (2019)
1)
Covering
‘Stakeholders spontaneously
carry out cooperative activities
without deliberate long-term
planning or an agreed end-goal;
the background of EIP
development is created ’ (p.6)
(continued on next page)
L. Schlüter et al.
Journal of Cleaner Production 429 (2023) 139499
19
(continued)
Source Context Basis for developing the phases Characteristics of the process
as a whole
# of
phases
Phases Characteristics of the phases
2) Awareness ‘Driven by the actions of external
stakeholders like governments
and research institutions, rms
become aware of the benets of
participating in an EIP
transformation project’ (p.6)
3)
Connecting
‘Potential partners share
information and improve
understanding; prepare for the
decision of joining the project
and rst goals are set’ (p.6)
4)
Organizing
‘Exchange linkages and
symbiosis networks are planned,
and the decision by rms is
made; these linkages and
networks are then established’
(p. 6)
5)
Adjusting
‘Governments modify the
relevant policy, and rms, adjust
their actions based on outcomes
of EIP operations’ (p. 6)
Mortensen and
Kørnøv (2019)
IS Literature review 1)
Awareness and
interest
where “the collaborative, co-
creational processes, also
described by Spekkink and Boons
(2016) as preceding the
collaborative process, can create
an awareness of and interest in
the economic and environmental
benets generated through IS
relations” (Mortensen and
Kørnøv, 2019, p. 61).
2)
Reaching out and
exploration of
connections
the development of trust,
bridging actors, and facilitators
are in focus
3)
Organizing
the role of funding, policy, and
infrastructure is more
pronounced, to implement the
symbiotic linkages (Mortensen
and Kørnøv, 2019)
Belaud et al.
(2019)
They show the process as a
cycle, indicating that it is not
a linear process.
5 1)
Design phase
integration of EIP into the design
of the industrial area. The
existing infrastructure as e.g.
“water, energy and support
services” (p. 974) is a
requirement. “Therefore, the EIP
project plan has integrated the
decision of the installation of
energy and industrial water
networks.” (p. 974)
2)
Layout phase
the authors refer to the actual
development of the
infrastructure, where excavation
and soil removement was done.
‘The programming of public
works contracts has integrated
land movements so that the
generated soil ows can be stored
within the park area before their
total reuse.’ (p.975)
3)
Commercialization
phase
during this phase exploration of
possibilities and data
management for new symbiosis
were performed. Activities such
as: ‘process analysis was
performed to determine the
necessary project
improvements.’
‘industrial ow data
management to identify and
create potential synergies.’ (p.
975)
Data management and shared
info on waste ows available was
performed 1) by a third party: 2)
(continued on next page)
L. Schlüter et al.
Journal of Cleaner Production 429 (2023) 139499
20
(continued)
Source Context Basis for developing the phases Characteristics of the process
as a whole
# of
phases
Phases Characteristics of the phases
information shared at the
common meetings/networking
meetings between companies.
4)
Operating phase
interconnected companies, ‘gain
benets from the new efcient
services created throughout
industrial synergies and waste
management’ (p. 976), ‘ow
assessment and the evaluation of
synergies’ impacts’, ‘companies’
collaboration and their
information exchange should be
continuously maintained’,
environmental risk assessment is
detected’ (p. 976)
‘The collaboration in the EIP
initiative makes the exchange of
information between involved
companies possible. It enables
the participating businesses to
discuss the synergies’
performance and inherent risks.
This approach ensures a trust
context between stakeholders
and mobilizes the involvement of
new actors. The settled strategy is
to monitor the environmental
performances during the
operating phase and to largely
circulate the information.’ (p.
976)
5)
Renewal phase
‘The renewal phase aims to
anticipate the main
modications within the system
functioning. Therefore, it enables
updating of the project
scheduling according to each
case specicities and planning of
the associated refurbishment
works.’ (p. 976)
- ‘involves the opportunities of
the infrastructures
deconstruction, their recycling,
the articialization of soils, etc.
The associated method for this
phase is ongoing Development.’
(p. 976)
The authors present the tools for
commercialization phase. ‘This
model [...] reorganizes many
activities and gathers them in
three main activities, namely
market research, application
analysis and nally decision-
making.’ (p. 978)
References
Aguilar, K.D.T., Chiu, G.M.K., Ubando, A.T., Aviso, K.B., Tan, R.R., Chiu, S.F., 2017. Bi-
level fuzzy optimization model of an algae-sugarcane-based eco-industrial park.
Chem. Eng. Trans. 61, 877–882. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1761144.
Ashton, W., 2008. Understanding the organization of industrial ecosystems. J. Ind. Ecol.
12 (1), 34–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00002.x.
Ayres, R.U., Ayres, L.W., 2002. A Handbook of Industrial Ecology. edward Elgar
Publishing Limited, Glos.
Baas, L.W., Boons, F., 2004. An industrial ecology project in practice: exploring the
boundaries of decision-making levels in regional industrial systems. J. Clean. Prod.
12 (8–10), 1073–1085. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2004.02.005.
Baldassarre, B., Schepers, M., Bocken, N., Cuppen, E., Korevaar, G., Calabretta, G., 2019.
Industrial Symbiosis: Towards a design process for eco-industrial clusters by
integrating Circular Economy and Industrial Ecology perspectives. J. Clean. Prod.
216, 446–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.091.
Behera, S.K., Kim, J.-H., Lee, S.-Y., Suh, S., Park, H.-S., 2012. Evolution of ‘designed’
industrial symbiosis networks in the Ulsan Eco-industrial Park: ‘research and
development into business’ as the enabling framework. J. Clean. Prod. 29–30,
103–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.02.009.
Belaud, J.-P., Adoue, C., Vialle, C., Chorro, A., Sablayrolles, C., 2019. A circular economy
and industrial ecology toolbox for developing an eco-industrial park: perspectives
from French policy. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 21, 967–985. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10098-019-01677-1.
Bellantuono, N., Carbonara, N., Pontrandolfo, P., 2017. The organization of eco-
industrial parks and their sustainable practices. J. Clean. Prod. 161, 362–375.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.082.
Butturi, M.A., Lolli, F., Sellitto, M.A., Balugani, E., Gamberini, R., Rimini, B., 2019.
Renewable energy in eco-industrial parks and urban-industrial symbiosis: a
literature review and a conceptual synthesis. Appl. Energy 255, 113825. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113825.
Cambridge Dictionary, 2023a. Replication. May 31. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/d
ictionary/english/replication.
L. Schlüter et al.
Journal of Cleaner Production 429 (2023) 139499
21
Cambridge Dictionary, 2023b. In: Reproduction. May 31. https://dictionary.cambridge.
org/dictionary/english/reproduction.
Castiglione, C., Aleri, A., 2019. Supply chain and eco-industrial park concurrent design.
IFAC-PapersOnLine 52 (13), 1313–1318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ifacol.2019.11.380.
Chertow, M.R., 2000. Industrial symbiosis: literature and taxonomy. Annu. Rev. Energy
Environ. 25 (1), 313–337. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.313.
Chertow, M.R., 2007. Uncovering” industrial symbiosis. J. Ind. Ecol. 11 (1), 11–30.
https://doi.org/10.1162/jiec.2007.1110.
Chertow, M., Ehrenfeld, J., 2012. Organizing self-organizing systems. J. Ind. Ecol. 16 (1),
13–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00450.x.
Cloutier, C., Langley, A., 2020. What makes a process theoretical contribution? Organ.
Theor. 1 (1), 2631787720902473 https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787720902473.
Conticelli, E., Tondelli, S., 2014. Eco-industrial parks and sustainable spatial planning: a
possible contradiction? Adm. Sci. 4 (3), 331–349. https://doi.org/10.3390/
admsci4030331.
Costa, I., Ferr˜
ao, P., 2010. A case study of industrial symbiosis development using a
middle-out approach. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 984–992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2010.03.007.
Costa, I., Guillaume, M., Abhishek, A., 2010. Waste management policies for industrial
symbiosis development: case studies in European countries. J. Clean. Prod. 18 (8),
815–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.12.019.
Cˆ
ot´
e, R.P., Cohen-Rosenthal, E., 1998. Designing eco-industrial parks: a synthesis of
some experiences. J. Clean. Prod. 6 (3), 181–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-
6526(98)00029-8.
Dai, Y., Day, S., Masi, D., G¨
olgeci, I., 2022. A Synthesised Framework of Eco-Industrial
Park Transformation and Stakeholder Interaction. Business Strategy and the
Environment, pp. 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3067. n/a(n/a.
Domenech, T., Davies, M., 2009. The social aspects of industrial symbiosis: The
application of social network analysis to industrial symbiosis networks. Prog. Ind.
Ecol. Int. J. 6 (1), 68. https://doi.org/10.1504/PIE.2009.026583.
Dom´
enech, T., Davies, M., 2011. The role of embeddedness in industrial symbiosis
networks: phases in the evolution of industrial symbiosis networks. Bus. Strat.
Environ. 20 (5), 281–296. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.695.
Ehrenfeld, J., 2004. Industrial Ecology: a new eld or only a metaphor? J. Clean. Prod.
12, 825–831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.02.003.
Farel, R., Charri`
ere, B., Thevenet, C., Yune, J.H., 2016. Sustainable manufacturing
through creation and governance of eco-industrial parks. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 138
(10) https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4034438.
Faria, E., Caldeira-Pires, A., Barreto, C., 2021. Social, economic, and institutional
congurations of the industrial symbiosis process: a comparative analysis of the
literature and a proposed theoretical and analytical framework. Sustainability 13
(13). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137123. Article 13.
Felicio, M., Amaral, D., Esposto, K., Gabarrell Durany, X., 2016. Industrial symbiosis
indicators to manage eco-industrial parks as dynamic systems. J. Clean. Prod. 118,
54–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.031.
Fraccascia, L., Giannoccaro, I., Albino, V., 2017. Efcacy of landll tax and subsidy
policies for the emergence of industrial symbiosis networks: an agent-based
simulation study. Sustainability 9 (4), 521.
Fraccascia, L., Giannoccaro, I., Albino, V.. 2019. Business models for industrial symbiosis: A
taxonomy focused on the form of governance. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.20
19.03.016.
Fraccascia, L., Yazdanpanah, V., van Capelleveen, G., Yazan, D.M., 2021. Energy-based
industrial symbiosis: A literature review for circular energy transition. Environ.
Develop. Sustain. 23 (4), 4791–4825. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00840.
Gibbs, D., 2009. Eco-industrial parks and industrial ecology: strategic niche or
mainstream development? In: Boons, F., Howard-Grenville, J. (Eds.), The Social
Embeddedness of Industrial Ecology. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
Gibbs, D., Deutz, P., 2005. Implementing industrial ecology? Planning for eco-industrial
parks in the USA. Geoforum 36, 452–464.
Gibbs, D., Deutz, P., 2007. Reections on implementing industrial ecology through eco-
industrial park development. J. Clean. Prod. 15 (17), 1683–1695. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.02.003.
Graedel, T.E., Allenby, B.R., 1993. Industrial Ecology, second ed. Pearson Education Inc,
New Jersey.
Heeres, R.R., Vermeulen, W.J.V., de Walle, F.B., 2004. Eco-industrial park initiatives in
the USA and The Netherlands: rst lessons. J. Clean. Prod. 12 (8–10), 985–995.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.02.014.
Iceland Ocean Cluster, n.d Do You Want to Set up an Ocean Cluster? Create Your Own
Ocean Cluster | ´
Islenski Sj´
avarklasinn (sjavarklasinn.Is).
Herczeg, G., Akkerman, R., Hauschild, M.Z., 2018. Supply chain collaboration in
industrial symbiosis networks. J. Clean. Prod. 171, 1058–1067. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.046.
Jabareen, Y., 2009. Building a conceptual framework: philosophy, denitions, and
procedure. Int. J. Qual. Methods 8 (4), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/
160940690900800406.
Jackson, G., Helfen, M., Kaplan, R., Kirsch, A., Lohmeyer, N., 2019. The problem of de-
contextualization in organization and management research. In: Zilber, T.B., Amis, J.
M., Mair, J. (Eds.), The Production of Managerial Knowledge and Organizational
Theory: New Approaches to Writing, Producing and Consuming Theory, vol. 59.
Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 21–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-
558X20190000059001.
Jelinski, L.W., Graedel, T.E., Laudise, R.A., McCall, D.W., Patel, C.K., 1992. Industrial
ecology: Concepts and approaches. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
89 (3), 793–797. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.89.3.793.
Jones, C., Hesterly, W.S., Borgatti, S.P., 1997. A general theory of network governance:
Exchange conditions and social mechanisms. Acad. Manag. Rev. 22 (4), 911–945.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1997.9711022109.
Jonsson, A., Foss, N.J., 2011. International expansion through exible replication:
learning from the internationalization experience of IKEA. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 42 (9),
1079–1102. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2011.32.
Kastner, C.A., Lau, R., Kraft, M., 2015. Quantitative tools for cultivating symbiosis in
industrial parks; a literature review. Appl. Energy 155, 599–612. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.05.037.
Korhonen, J., 2004. Industrial ecology in the strategic sustainable development model:
strategic applications of industrial ecology. J. Clean. Prod. 12, 809–823. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.02.026.
Lambert, A.J.D., Boons, F.A., 2002. Eco-industrial parks: Stimulating sustainable
development in mixed industrial parks. Technovation 22 (8), 471–484. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0166-4972(01)00040-2.
Mallawaarachchi, H., Sandanayake, Y., Karunasena, G., Liu, C., 2020. Unveiling the
conceptual development of industrial symbiosis: bibliometric analysis. J. Clean.
Prod. 258, 120618 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2020.120618.
Maynard, N.J., Subramanian, V.R.K., Hua, C.-Y., Lo, S.-F., 2020. Industrial symbiosis in
taiwan: case study on Linhai industrial park. Sustainability 12 (11), 4564. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su12114564.
McManus, P., Gibbs, D., 2008. Industrial ecosystems? The use of tropes in the literature
of industrial ecology and eco-industrial parks. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 32 (4), 525–540.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132507088118.
Mileva-Boshkoska, B., Ronˇ
cevi´
c, B., Urˇ
siˇ
c, E.D., 2018. Modeling and evaluation of the
possibilities of forming a regional industrial symbiosis networks. Soc. Sci. 7 (1)
https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7010013. Article 1.
Millar, C.C., Groth, O., Mahon, J.F., 2018. Management innovation in a VUCA world:
challenges and recommendations. Calif. Manag. Rev. 61 (1), 5–14.
Morales, M., Diemer, A., 2019. Industrial symbiosis dynamics, a strategy to accomplish
complex analysis: the Dunkirk case study. Sustainability 11 (7), 1971. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su11071971.
Mortensen, L., Kørnøv, L., 2019. Critical factors for industrial symbiosis emergence
process. J. Clean. Prod. 212, 56–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
JCLEPRO.2018.11.222.
Mulrow, J.S., Derrible, S., Ashton, W.S., Chopra, S.S., 2017. Industrial symbiosis at the
facility scale. J. Industr. Ecol. 21 (3), 559–571. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12592.
Noori, S., Korevaar, G., Ramirez, A., 2020. Institutional lens upon industrial symbiosis
dynamics: the case of Persiangulf mining and metal industries special economic
zone. Sustainability 12 (15), 6192. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156192.
Nuhu, S.K., Manan, Z.A., Wan Alwi, S.R., Md Reba, M.N., 2021. Roles of geospatial
technology in eco-industrial park site selection: state–of–the-art review. J. Clean.
Prod. 309, 127361 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127361.
Pakarinen, S., Mattila, T., Melanen, M., Nissinen, A., Sokka, L., 2010. Sustainability and
industrial symbiosis—the evolution of a Finnish forest industry complex. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 54 (12), 1393–1404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2010.05.015.
Park, J., Duque-Hern´
andez, J., Días-Posada, N., 2018. Facilitating business
collaborations for industrial symbiosis: the pilot experience of the sustainable
industrial network program in Colombia. Sustainability 10 (10), 3637. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su10103637.
Patala, S., Salmi, A., Bocken, N., 2020. Intermediation Dilemmas in Facilitated Industrial
Symbiosis. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121093.
Pham, M.T., Raji´
c, A., Greig, J.D., Sargeant, J.M., Papadopoulos, A., McEwen, S.A., 2014.
A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the
consistency. Res. Synth. Methods 5 (4), 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jrsm.1123.
Roberts, B.H., 2004. The application of industrial ecology principles and planning
guidelines for the development of eco-industrial parks: an Australian case study.
J. Clean. Prod. 12, 997–1010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.02.037.
Sakr, D., Baas, L., El-Haggar, S., Huisingh, D., 2011. Critical success and limiting factors
for eco-industrial parks: global trends and Egyptian context. J. Clean. Prod. 19,
1158–1169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.01.001.
Scaf`
a, M., Marconi, M., Germani, M., 2020. A critical review of symbiosis approaches in
the context of Industry 4.0. J. Comp. Design Eng. 7 (3), 269–278. https://doi.org/
10.1093/jcde/qwaa022.
Schlarb, M., 2001. Eco-industrial development: a strategy for building sustainable
communities. Rev. Econ. Dev. Int. Prac. 8, 41–64.
Schlüter, L., & Bekamiri, H. (forthcoming). Plurality of research in sustainable industrial
areas: a scoping review based on Semantic Similarity. Working Paper.
Schlüter, L., Mortensen, L., Kørnøv, L., 2020. Industrial symbiosis emergence and
network development through reproduction. J. Clean. Prod. 252 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119631.
Schlüter, L., Mortensen, L., Drustrup, R., Gjerding, A.N., Kørnøv, L., Lyhne, I., 2022.
Uncovering the role of the industrial symbiosis facilitator in literature and practice in
Nordic countries: an action-skill framework. J. Clean. Prod. 379 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134652.
Schwarz, E.J., Steininger, K.W., 1997. Implementing nature’s lesson: The industrial
recycling network enhancing regional development. J. Clean. Prod. 5 (1–2), 47–56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(97)00009-7.
Simboli, A., Taddeo, R., Morgante, A., 2014. Analysing the development of Industrial
Symbiosis in a motorcycle local industrial network: The role of contextual factors.
Journal of Cleaner Production 66, 372–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.
11.045.
L. Schlüter et al.
Journal of Cleaner Production 429 (2023) 139499
22
Spekkink, W., 2013. Institutional capacity building for industrial symbiosis in the Canal
Zone of Zeeland in the Netherlands: A process analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 52, 342–355.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2013.02.025.
Spekkink, W., Boons, F.A.A., 2016. The Emergence of Collaborations. J. Pub. Administr.
Res. Theor. 26 (4), 613–630. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muv030.
Taddeo, R., Simboli, A., Morgante, A., 2012. Implementing eco-industrial parks in
existing clusters. Findings from a historical Italian chemical site. J. Clean. Prod. 33,
22–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2012.05.011.
Taddeo, R., Simboli, A., Morgante, A., Erkman, S., 2017. The Development of Industrial
Symbiosis in Existing Contexts. Experiences From Three Italian Clusters. Ecol. Econ.
139, 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.04.006.
Tao, Y., Evans, S., Wen, Z., Ma, M., 2019. The inuence of policy on industrial symbiosis
from the Firm’s perspective: a framework. J. Clean. Prod. 213, 1172–1187. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.176.
Tellier, M.L., Berrah, L., Stutz, B., Audy, J.-F., Barnab´
e, S., 2019. Towards sustainable
business parks: a literature review and a systemic model. J. Clean. Prod. 216,
129–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.145.
Tessitore, S., Daddi, T., Iraldo, F., 2015. Eco-industrial parks development and integrated
management challenges: ndings from Italy. Sustainability 7 (8), 10036–10051.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su70810036.
Tsang, E.W.K., 2013. Case study methodology: causal explanation, contextualization,
and theorizing. J. Int. Manag. 19 (2), 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
intman.2012.08.004.
Tsvetkova, A., Hellstr¨
om, M., Gustafsson, M., Sj¨
oblom, J., 2015. Replication of industrial
ecosystems: the case of a sustainable biogas-for-trafc solution. J. Clean. Prod. 98,
123–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.089.
Tudor, T., Adam, E., Bates, M., 2007. Drivers and limitations for the successful
development and functioning of EIPs (eco-industrial parks): a literature review. Ecol.
Econ. 61, 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.10.010.
Uusikartano, J., Saha, P., Aarikka-Stenroos, L., 2022. The industrial symbiosis process as
an interplay of public and private agency: comparing two cases. J. Clean. Prod. 344,
130996 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2022.130996.
Vahidzadeh, R., Bertanza, G., Sbaffoni, S., Vaccari, M., 2021. Regional industrial
symbiosis: a review based on social network analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 280, 124054
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2020.124054.
Verguts, V., Dessein, J., Dewulf, A., Lauwers, L., werkman, R., Termeer, C.J.A.M., 2016.
Industrial symbiosis as sustainable development strategy: adding a change
perspective. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 19 (1), 15–35.
Wahrlich, J., Simioni, F.J., 2019. Industrial symbiosis in the forestry sector: a case study
in southern Brazil. J. Ind. Ecol. 23 (6), 1470–1482. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jiec.12927.
Wang, Q., Tang, H., Qiu, S., Yuan, X., Zuo, J., 2018. Robustness of eco-industrial
symbiosis network: a case study of China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 25 (27),
27203–27213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2764-x.
Wang, L., Zhang, Q., Wang, H., 2022. Effect of policy on industrial symbiosis: simulation
study from the perspective of enterprise operation. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 30,
962–972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.01.014.
Weick, K.E., 1979. The social psychology of organizing. [Email protected]@gement 18
(Issue 2), 189–193. Association Internationale de Management Strat´
egique. https://
www.proquest.com/docview/1697028139/abstract/FF6607052AEE4EBCPQ/1.
Winter, S.G., Szulanski, G., 2001. Replication as strategy. Organ. Sci. 12 (6), 730–743.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.6.730.10084.
Zhang, Y., Zheng, H., Chen, B., Su, M., Liu, G., 2015. A review of industrial symbiosis
research: theory and methodology. Front. Earth Sci. 9 (1), 91–104. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11707-014-0445-8.
Zhu, J., Ruth, M., 2014. The development of regional collaboration for resource
efciency: a network perspective on industrial symbiosis. Comput. Environ. Urban
Syst. 44, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2013.11.001.
L. Schlüter et al.
