Click here to download

Non-technical barriers to (and drivers for) the circular economy through industrial symbiosis: A practical input
Author/s: Rachel Lombardi 
Year:  2017 Issue: 1-2 Language: English 
Pages:  19 Pg. 171-189 FullText PDF:  1053 KB
DOI:  10.3280/EFE2017-001009
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 

Industrial symbiosis is the use by one company or sector of resources (materials, energy, water, logistics, capacity) from another, thus reducing waste generation while delivering economic, environmental and social benefits. At all levels in Europe - local, regional, national, and the EU itself - industrial symbiosis is increasingly seen as a strategic tool to help deliver the circular economy. At least 20 Member States since 2009 have held awareness raising and implementation activities. Facilitated programs in 15 EU countries are engaging over 20,000 organisations in industrial symbiosis, and others have self-directing activity. Nevertheless, less than 0.1% of the 26 million active enterprises in Europe are known to be active in industrial symbiosis. Facilitator and company surveys and interviews on industrial symbiosis opportunities have identified non-technical barriers to industrial symbiosis: the lack of information is clearly identified as a barrier by companies, and addressing this is a large part of a facilitator role. Both companies and facilitators identify regulation, organisational and governance issues as potential barriers, usually addressed through facilitator support. Companies typically do not need help establishing the commercial viability of industrial symbiosis opportunities.
Keywords: Industrial symbiosis, barriers, innovation, circular economy.
Jel Code: 030, L23, L14

  1. Branson R. (2011). Bilateral Industrial Symbiosis, an Assessment of its Potential in New South Wales to Deal with Manufacturing Waste, University of Sydney, School of Geosciences.
  2. Chertow M., Lombardi D.R. (2005). Quantifying economic and environmental benefits of co-located firms. Environmental Science and Technology, 39(17): 6535-6541. DOI 10.1021/es050050+.
  3. Cordis G.D., Golev A., Fyfe J., King S. (2014). The Status of Industrial Ecology in Australia: Barriers and Enablers. Resources, 3: 340-361.
  4. Daddi T., Nucci B., Iraldo F. (2017). Using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to measure the environmental benefits of industrial symbiosis in an industrial cluster of SMEs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 147: 157-164. DOI 10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.09.001.
  5. DG Enterprise & Industry (2011). Sustainable Industry: Going for Growth, European Commission.
  6. DG GROW (2018). Cooperation fostering industrial symbiosis: market potential, good practice and policy actions, European Commission.
  7. DG Regions (2012). Connecting Smart and Sustainable Growth, European Commission.
  8. Dhanorkar S., Donohue K., Linderman K. (2015). Repurposing Materials & Waste Through Online Exchanges. Production and Operations Management, 24(9): 1473-1493. DOI 10.1111/poms.12345.
  9. Dobbs R., Oppenheim J., Thompson F., Brinkman M., Zornes M. (2011). Resource Revolution: Meeting the world’s energy, materials, food and water needs. McKinsey Global Institute and McKinsey Sustainability & Resource Productivity Practice. November.
  10. Doyle W., Pearce J.M. (2009). Utilization of virtual globes for open source industrial symbiosis. Open Environmental Sciences, 3: 88-96. DOI 10.2174/1876325100903010088.
  11. Ecorys (2011). Study on the Competitiveness of the European Companies and Resource Efficiency, ECORYS for DG Enterprise & Industry.
  12. Ehrenfeld J., Gertler N. (1997). Industrial Ecology in Practice: The Evolution of Interde-pendence at Kalundborg. Journal Industrial Ecology, 1(1): 67-79. DOI 10.1162/jiec.1997.1.1.67.
  13. European Commission (2014). “Towards a circular economy: a zero waste programme for Europe” (COM/2014/0398), Brussels.
  14. European Commission (2015). “'Closing the loop – An EU action plan for the Circular Economy” (COM/2015/0614) Brussels.
  15. Eurostat Business Demography. -- accessed January 2017.
  16. Fichtner W., Tietze-Stöckinger I., Frank M., Rentz O. (2005). Barriers of interorganisational environmental management: two case studies on industrial symbiosis. Progress in Industrial Ecology – An International Journal, 2(1): 73-88.
  17. FOX News (2007). Australian Companies Selling Sand to Saudi Arabia. -- Accessed January 2017.
  18. Frosch R.A., Gallopoulos N.E. (1989). Strategies for Manufacturing. Scientific American, 261(Sept): 144-152.
  19. Global Green Growth Forum. -- Accessed 31 January 2017.
  20. Golev A., Corder G.D., Giurco D.P. (2014). Barriers to Industrial Symbiosis. Journal of Industrial Ecology. Article first published online: 14 JUL 2014.
  21. Golev, A., Corder, G. D. and Giurco, D. P. (2015), Barriers to Industrial Symbiosis: Insights from the Use of a Maturity Grid. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 19: 141-153.
  22. Grant G.B., Seager T., Massard G., Nies L. (2010). Information and Communication Technology for Industrial Symbiosis. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 14(5): 740-753.
  23. Iacondini A., Vassura I., Mencherini U., Passarini F. (2015). Industrial Symbiosis Development in Italy: How the Regulatory Framework Affects the Feasibility of Processes. 18th International Trade Fair of Material & Energy Recovery and Sustainable Development, ECOMONDO, 5th-8th November, 2014, Rimini, Italy.
  24. La Region de Acton. No date. Business Opportunity: Eggshell Processing. --
  25. Lacy P., Keeble J., McNamara R., Rutqvist J., Haglund T. (2014). Circular Advantage: Innovative Business Models and Technologies to Create Value in a World without Limits to Growth. Accenture. Chicago, IL, USA.
  26. Laybourn P., Morrissey M. (2009). The Pathway to a Low-Carbon Sustainable Economy.
  27. Lombardi D.R., Laybourn P.T. (2007). Industrial Symbiosis in Action: Report on the 3rd Annual Industrial Symbiosis Research Symposium. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  28. Lombardi D.R., Laybourn P.T. (2012). Redefining Industrial Symbiosis: Crossing Academic-Practitioner Boundaries. Journal Industrial Ecology, 16(1): 28-37. DOI 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00444.x.
  29. Tödtling F., Kaufmann A. (2001). The Role of the Region for Innovation Activities of SMEs. European Urban and Regional Studies, 8(3): 203-215.
  30. van Berkel R. (2006). Regional Resource Synergies for Sustainable Development in Heavy Industrial Areas: an Overview of Opportunities and Experiences. Perth (WA), Australia: Curtin University of Technology. -- Available online at

Rachel Lombardi, in "ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT" 1-2/2017, pp. 171-189, DOI:10.3280/EFE2017-001009


FrancoAngeli is a member of Publishers International Linking Association a not for profit orgasnization wich runs the CrossRef service, enabing links to and from online scholarly content