lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 815–822

Contents lists avai

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jc lepro

Waste management policies for industrial symbiosis development:case studies in European countries

Ines Costa a,*, Guillaume Massard b, Abhishek Agarwal c

a INþ Center for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research, Instituto Superior Tecnico, Technical University of Lisbon, Avenida Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugalb Industrial Ecology Group, Faculty of Geosciences and Environment, University of Lausanne, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerlandc Aberdeen Business School, The Robert Gordon University, Garthdee Road, Aberdeen AB10 7QE, Scotland, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 27 July 2009Received in revised form5 November 2009Accepted 23 December 2009Available online 11 January 2010

Keywords:Industrial symbiosisWaste managementPolicyLegislationEurope

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ351 21 841 7893; faxE-mail address: icosta@dem.ist.utl.pt (I. Costa).

0959-6526/$ – see front matter � 2010 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.12.019

a b s t r a c t

Industrial symbiosis (IS) emerged as a self-organizing business strategy among firms that are willing tocooperate to improve their economic and environmental performance. The adoption of such cooperativestrategies relates to increasing costs of waste management, most of which are driven by policy andlegislative requirements.

Development of IS depends on an enabling context of social, informational, technological, economicaland political factors. The power to influence this context varies among the agents involved such as thegovernment, businesses or coordinating entities. Governmental intervention, as manifested throughpolicies, could influence a wider range of factors; and we believe this is an area which is under-researched.

This paper aims to critically appraise the waste policy interventions from supra-national tosub-national levels of government. A case study methodology has been applied to four Europeancountries i.e. Denmark, the UK, Portugal and Switzerland, in which IS emerged or is being fostered.

The findings suggest that there are commonalities in policy instruments that may have led to an ISenabling context. The paper concludes with lessons learnt and recommendations on shaping the policycontext for IS development.

� 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Human development has been coupled with the evolution of theextraction, use and disposal of natural resources. The altering patternof human growth improved life style conditions in regions such asEurope, but not without compromising resource availability. Thiscontext led to a change in development strategies, towards a vision ofsustainability. Stakeholders are called to act responsibly in theequitable sharing of ecological resources, satisfying the needs andaspirations of today and tomorrow’s generations (Ehrenfeld, 2000).

As discussed by Ehrenfeld (2000), ecosystems provide the bestavailable example of sustainability: energy and materials areextracted, metabolized and transferred by organisms and acrosstheir communities, in a cyclical manner. If anthropogenic systemsare driven in a way to emulate ecosystems, it may be possible tolearn lessons to progress towards sustainability. This forms thereasoning of Industrial Ecology (IE) (Frosch and Gallopoulos, 1989;Graedel, 1996; Ehrenfeld, 2007; Erkman, 1997), in which industrialsystems are described, analyzed and configured as if they werenatural, sustainable and mature end of succession (eco)systems.

: þ351 21 849 6156.

All rights reserved.

One important measure relates to the systematic reuse of wasteand by-products, which minimizes the need to extract naturalresources and the depletion of environmental services (Erkman,1997). Industrial Symbiosis (IS) can contribute to this objective,since it represents an engagement of traditionally separate indus-tries in a collective approach to competitive advantage, involvingthe physical exchange of materials, energy, water and/or by-prod-ucts (Chertow, 2000).

A consistent body of IS research suggests how these synergiesemerge and can be fostered (e.g. Chertow, 2000; Lowe, 1997;Chertow, 2007; Desrochers, 2004; Jacobsen and Anderberg, 2004;Mirata and Emtairah, 2005; Gibbs and Deutz, 2007; Hewes andLyons, 2008; Mirata, 2005). Overall, as Mirata (2005) observed, ISemerges primarily from the private sector as a self-organizingbusiness strategy, driven by economic advantages offered bymarket dynamics and/or policy requirements. In this context, theauthors agree with Boons and Baas (2006) that ‘‘IS activities areshaped by the context in which they occur, described in terms ofcognitive, structural, cultural, political, spatial and temporalembeddedness’’.

Although self-organisation is considered a more feasiblestrategy, some form of coordination can assist further IS develop-ment (Chertow, 2007; Gibbs and Deutz, 2007; Schwarz and

Coordinating Institution (e.g. UN)

State or country Central government

State and local gov.

Citizens

Central government

State State

State State

Citizens

Coordinating Institution (e.g. EU)

Unitary system (e.g. PT, UK, DK)

Federal system (e.g. CH)

Supra-national level

National level

Sub National level

Fig. 1. General schematics of policy and legislative systems. (Source: Authors generated, based on Howe, 1996).

I. Costa et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 815–822816

Steininger, 1997; Mirata, 2004). For example, Gibbs and Deutz(2007) mention the catalytic role of the Centre for AlternativeTechnology in Wales in enabling relationships between businesses,leading to potential eco-industrial developments. However, coor-dinating bodies are only able to influence some factors within thecontext, namely informational, organisational and human related,in a fairly localized manner. As Baas (2008) stated, ‘‘actors are notequally able to influence each other’s actions and system outcomes,which needs to be taken into account much more fully within ISdevelopment’’.

Governmental policies are also regarded as being able to influ-ence a wider range of factors (Gibbs and Deutz, 2007; Mirata, 2005;Baas, 2008). For example, in the Rotterdam region, after a period ofstrong environmental regulations, the national and sub-nationalgovernments facilitated programmes to strengthen economic andenvironmental performance in industry, including the partialfunding of IS projects (Baas, 2008; Baas and Boons, 2004). However,policies can also pose barriers to IS (e.g. (Chertow, 2007; Des-rochers, 2004; Desrochers, 2000)). For example, Desrochers (2000)mentioned if Danish regulation were to be similar to U.S. regulationIS development at Kalundborg ‘‘would be a very difficult if notimpossible task’’. In the Rotterdam case, Baas (2008) observed thatalthough the regulator engaged with the companies to adjust rules,the policy environment still perceived synergies as handling wasterather than reusing resources.

Since ‘‘the role of power is hardly discussed systematically in theIS field’’ (Baas, 2008), our contribution to this discussion resides onthe analysis of governmental influences in the IS developmentcontexts of four European-based case studies. Using a common setof descriptors, cases are analyzed and contrasted in order to iden-tify characteristics of particular governmental jurisdictions that areconducive to IS.

The paper is structured as follows. This section establishes thetheoretical reasoning of the paper. Section 2 outlines the struc-tures that support policy development for the European context,and Section 3 introduces the research framework. The case studiesare presented in Section 4, followed by the discussion of theresults (Section 5). The paper ends with the conclusions, inSection 6.

2. Policy and legislation in Europe

Policy is the course of action of a governmental body, whichtranslates into strategies, tools, or other public decision (Helfandand Loomis, 2001). It commonly involves: 1) setting goals, objec-tives, and 2) developing instruments of regulatory (e.g. hazardouschemical bans), economic (e.g. landfill taxes) and informational/voluntary (e.g. eco labels) nature.

This paper analyses policy development at three levels: 1)Supra-national policies, based on conventions, protocols or pro-grammes, (e.g. the Basel Convention), laying down a conjunctresponse to transnational challenges; 2) National policies, whichtranslate national government objectives, according to its social,economic and environmental context. They can incorporateobjectives defined by supra-national policies, or even present moreambitious goals; 3) Sub-national policies which are developed atthe level of the region, state or municipality. In general, sub-national policies are kept aligned with national objectives;however, they can also be implemented differently in order toaddress local context factors.

Policy objectives and instruments commonly reflect or areenabled by legislation. Likewise, there may be different levels oflegislative authority. In federal and decentralized unitary govern-ments, regions and/or localities may possess some legislativeautonomy whereas in unitary systems, this autonomy usuallyremains with central government (see Fig. 1).

Within the European context, the European Union (EU), asa supra-national institution, has been able to affect policies withinthe majority of its member countries. In the field of wastemanagement, The Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recyclingof Waste includes the main policies, general objectives and actionprinciples. These principles include firstly the obligation to handlewaste without posing a negative impact on the environment orhuman health and secondly the hierarchy of the best overallenvironmental options in waste management, from prevention todisposal (EC-European Commission, 2008; 1999).

In terms of legislation, the EU influences member countriesthrough regulations (laws applied in full throughout the Commu-nity), directives (binds members to achieve objectives; however,

Table 1Case study descriptors. (Source: Authors generated).

Descriptor Characteristics

QuantitativeAverage population To determine total waste generated per capita.Total waste generation Status on waste management performance.Waste treatment

QualitativeInstitutional frameworkType of government Characterization of the governmental structure in the country, to understand where the policy

and legislative powers are centred.Waste legislation levelWaste policy level

Economic instrumentsLandfill tax Taxes help shaping the market in which companies operate, pushing companies to look into

waste management strategies which could be more beneficial.Incineration tax

Regulatory instrumentsLandfill bans Regulation that controls the disposal of wastes can lead to its diversion to other alternatives (e.g. recovery).End-of-waste/By-product A by-product classification indicates that there can be materials exempt of being classified as

wastes, and therefore can be exchanged as products.Voluntary instrumentsCoordination programmes for

collaboration in resource efficiencyVoluntary instruments design to motivate cooperation between companies on resource efficiency issues.

I. Costa et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 815–822 817

they are free to address their local distinctiveness while incorpo-rating the objectives into their legal system) and decisions (bindsparticular individuals, firms or member states, to perform or refrainfrom an action, confer rights or impose obligations).

The Waste Directive – part of the waste framework legislation –allows a better uniformity of EU law application, keeping the sameobjectives throughout its members. It also provides an incentive todevelop policies and legislation to achieve more ambitious goalsthan those already implemented at national level. The latestversion of this directive was introduced in November 2008 andmember countries are expected to create the laws, regulations andadministrative provisions by December 2010 (EC-EuropeanCommission, 2008).

The Landfill Directive – part of the waste management legisla-tion – is also equally important. It establishes the conditions for thedisposal of waste in landfills to minimize negative impacts on theenvironment and human health. It also introduces bans for certaintypes of waste (e.g. used tires) and sets targets to progressivelyreduce the amount of biodegradable waste sent to landfills (EC-European Commission, 1999).

In summary, implementation of EU directives is approacheddifferently by the member states to suit their contextual distinc-tiveness. This explains the reason for different policies and legis-lations across the EU members and the swift development of IS insome European countries as well.

3. Research framework

The research presented in this paper is mainly of an inductivenature, in which a case study methodology is used. The case study isa research strategy, focusing on understanding the dynamicswithin single settings (Eisenhardt, 1989). Since the focus is on thepolicy and legislative contexts, case studies present informationmainly of a qualitative nature.

The research is set in the European policy and legislativecontext, focusing on supra-national, national and sub-nationalwaste policies and legislation influencing the development of IS.The selection of case studies considered the background of theauthors, each conducting IS research in their country – UnitedKingdom (UK), Portugal (PT) and Switzerland (CH). The case of

Denmark (DK) is an exception, justified by its historical relevanceto IS research. The selected countries i.e. DK, UK, PT and CH, alsoprovide a heterogeneous sample in terms of 1) governmentalstructure; 2) supra-national influences (EU members and non EUmembers), and; 3) type of relationships and coordinationbetween the companies involved in IS (spontaneous or coordi-nated organisation).

Cases are compared using a range of quantitative and qualitativedescriptors, to organize data and identify patterns (Eisenhardt,1989). The selected descriptors consider IS literature and insightsfrom the research itself. Quantitative descriptors are used to verifythe countries’ performance in waste management, while qualita-tive descriptors characterize the governmental structure, legislativeinfluence, and the type of economic, regulatory and voluntaryinstruments available. Due to the complexities associated withdifferent governmental structures, only a limited number ofinstruments are selected as descriptors.

Analyzing each case study according to the set of descriptors inTable 1, and comparing them, provides an opportunity to identifyparticularities within, as well as commonalities between thecontexts of each case.

4. Case studies

4.1. Denmark

Denmark is known for its progressiveness in waste policy. Forexample, it was among the first countries to ban organic andcombustible wastes from landfill (EEA, 2007). Still, as a member,Denmark has to implement the European Directives on Waste.

Two main documents set the legislative framework for wastemanagement: 1) Environmental Protection Act, Consolidated ActNo. 753: states that each Danish municipality is responsible forestablishing capacity for waste management and provide infor-mation on how to dispose all waste produced within itsgeographical area, independent of origin; 2) Statutory Order No.619 (2000): sets the obligations in waste use, transportation,recovery and disposal.

A national waste strategy plan is made every four years,detailing actions to achieve EU targets and setting sub-national

I. Costa et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 815–822818

targets. In this context, national government makes use of stricteconomic and regulatory instruments. For example, taxes onlandfill and incineration were introduced in 1987 and have beenescalating since then. However, currently there are no waste relatedprogrammes directed at supporting IS (Brackhahn, 2008).

At sub-national level, municipalities develop waste manage-ment plans for short term (4 years) and long term (12 years)periods. Local councils establish schemes to ensure that waste ismanaged in compliance with the waste hierarchy. For industrialwaste, assignment schemes are used: the municipality developsregulations attributing a certain form of treatment to a particulartype of waste. The waste producer, which is responsible for itsmanagement, must comply accordingly (Danish Government,2004). Furthermore, each municipality can make decisions con-cerning classification of waste; notification of orders and prohibi-tions; issue permits for waste management operations andsupervise compliance of regulations.

The IS network at Kalundborg emerged from the existing socialinteractions among local industrialists. Notwithstanding this,Danish policy and legislative context also worked in favouring someof the exchanges (Jacobsen and Anderberg, 2004) by means ofstricter regulation and higher taxes while allowing local govern-ment to work with the companies and support the exchanges asa waste management option.

4.2. United Kingdom

The EU Waste Framework Directive and associated directives onspecific waste streams have become the basis for UK wastemanagement legislation and policy. Key legislative documentsinclude: 1) Environmental Protection Act (1990), which introducesthe definition of waste and the duty of care on producers/operatorsfor the collection, treatment and disposal of waste; 2) Environ-mental Act (1995) which outlines the need for a national wastestrategy, the need for enhanced legal and institutional setting forwaste management, and sets the producers’ responsibility in rela-tion to reuse, recover and recycle of waste.

Waste policy development and enforcement lie with central aswell as devolved administrations; but since devolution in the UK isasymmetric, these powers among devolved administrations differto some degree. UK’s waste policy is reflected in the Waste Strategyfor England 2007 (Department for Environment Food and RuralAffairs, 2007). It proposes instruments and targets for reducing theimpact of waste generation and management. Waste policy indevolved administrations is developed along the same lines, albeitadjusted to their own context.

Under this framework, the UK government introduced a mix ofeconomic, regulatory and voluntary instruments which appear tohave shaped the policy context for IS development. The Landfill Tax(LT), the Waste Protocols Project (WPP) and the National IndustrialSymbiosis Programme (NISP) are among that mix.

The Landfill Tax is implemented throughout the UK and itsrevenues are partly used to support programmes to improveresource efficiency.

The WPP, a regulatory instrument, aims to deal with uncer-tainties regarding the EU’s waste definition, by which some mate-rials were going to landfill despite their reuse potential(Environment Agency UK). The protocols are quality statementsconcerning a particular material flow (e.g. flat glass). The infor-mation it contains is designed to inform producers, and safeguardsconsumers, on what technical aspects the material must fulfil inorder to be exempt from being considered a waste.

Finally, NISP, a voluntary instrument, assists businesses inredirecting their waste from landfill by helping them to findpartners to utilize their wastes as raw material, thereby realizing

environmental and economic gains (Agarwal and Strachan, 2007).It evolved from private collaborative efforts, to an England wideprogramme funded by the Business Resource Efficiency andWaste Programme. It began being funded by devolved adminis-trations in later years, thus expanding to the entire UK territory inthe year 2007.

4.3. Portugal

Portugal is among the first European countries to make envi-ronmental protection as a fundamental task of Government, underthe Constitution. Despite being proactive in certain areas (e.g. usedoils), EU directives and regulations make up the base of Portuguesewaste legislation.

Portugal centralizes waste legislation development at thenational level only. There are two main documents setting thisframework: 1) Law 11/87 – National Environmental Act (TheEnvironmental Framework Act, 1987): establishes the overallprinciples of environmental protection. Article 24 focuses on wasteand its reuse/recycling as raw materials and energy, provided theapplication of preventive measures, cleaner technologies andeconomic and regulatory incentives; 2) Law Decree No 178/2006(2006): sets the provisions for all the activities related to wastehandling, processing, transport, storage and disposal.

In policy terms, there is one national waste plan and four plansfor specific waste flows (e.g. urban, industrial, medical, agricul-tural), covering targets and instruments. For urban waste, regionalplans are also developed. National recycling networks also exist,each dedicated to one of eight types of waste materials. Eachsystem is managed by a not-for-profit entity, formed by represen-tatives of producers and recyclers.

Some policy instruments are already contributing to shape thecontext for IS development in Portugal. These include the manda-tory electronic information reporting on waste, landfill and incin-eration taxes and the principle of free trade of waste. The laterimplied the creation of a voluntary instrument named OrganizedWaste Market (OWM) (Maotdr, 2008), managed and coordinatedby a private entity and backed by public institutions. It is aimed atpromoting the offer of and demand for waste materials, facilitatethe transactions and promote the use of recycled products in themarket.

The use of wastes substitutes for raw materials is considered anoption under the Portuguese waste management regulation (e.g.cement producers receive ash from power plants). However, suchefforts are scattered, uncoordinated and are somewhat confined tolarge industries. The reason is partly related to the bureaucracies toobtain the necessary permits.

As a collaborative strategy among different stakeholders forclosing material loops, the project of Relvao Eco-Industrial Park iscurrently the only explicit example of IS at national level (Costa andFerrao, 2008).

4.4. Switzerland

Despite being situated in central continental Europe,Switzerland is not an EU member. However, it keeps bilateralagreements with the EU. As a confederation, the canton (state) levelhas an increased power of decision.

At supra-national level, the Basel Convention (UNEP, 2009) isthe most influential treaty on Swiss waste policy and legislation. Atthe national level, the Federal Act on the Protection of the Envi-ronment (Swiss Confederation, 1983) defines the concept of wasteand the legal prosecutions in relation to non-compliance. Twofederal ordinances describe the types of waste, the principles forits treatment (Technical Ordinance on Waste (TVA) n� 814.600

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

DK PT UK CH

Tota

l was

te g

ener

ated

(ton

ne) p

er c

apita

Total waste generated calculated using Eurostat data for EWC_Total (total waste generated) for all NACE branches plus households, and for Total

Population at January 1st

for the corresponding year (including CH).

For a complete list of included waste categories and NACE branches, please consult

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_SDDS/EN/env_wasr_esms.htm

For CH, data for waste generated includes construction, dangerous and urban waste.

a a,c a b

Fig. 2. Total waste generated per capita. (Source: Authors generated). a – DK, UK andPT data for 2006 collected from Eurostat, 2008; b – CH data for 2007 collected fromSwiss Federal Office for the Environment; c – Calculation made using a estimated valuefor total waste generated, from Eurostat, 2008.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

DK PT UK CH

Recovery Incineration (includes energy recovery) Disposal

Perc

enta

ge in

rela

tion

to to

tal w

aste

treat

ed in

the

coun

try

a a,c a b

Fig. 3. Waste management performance. (Source: Authors generated). a – Data for2006, collected from Eurostat, 2008; b – Data for 2007, collected from Swiss FederalOffice for the Environment; c – Estimated provisional values for PT.

I. Costa et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 815–822 819

(Swiss Confederation, 1990) and the control rules for wastemovements (Ordinance on the Handling of Wastes (VeVA)n� 814.610 (Swiss Confederation, 2005). Several types of wastehave dedicated laws and ordinances. In general, reuse and recy-cling is mandatory, if technically possible, without any specifictechnological standard.

At sub-national level, the 26 cantons develop and apply theirown policies and legislation, but keep an alignment with nationalorientations. For example, the cantons can fix their own landfillprice but are responsible for enforcing the national landfill tax.Since there are no special requirements for by-productexchanges, IS could, in principle, be regarded as a potentialstrategy, provided it does not lead to pollutant diffusion andrespects the legislation on hazardous waste handling andmovements.

In the particular sub-national case of Geneva, the Geneva Law onwaste management L120 (State of Geneva, 1999), defines wasteelimination principles, waste handling authorization proceduresand recovery incentives. Under the polluter paying principle,businesses are responsible for the management of their urban andspecial waste. A private recycling market controls waste transferand recovery. Efficient recycling technologies are favoured througha legal authorization process as well as dialogue and collaborationwith interested parties (State of Geneva, 2009).

Geneva also introduced IE as a legal basis in the Agenda 21 law(State of Geneva, 2001). Its article 12, called ECOSITE, stipulates‘‘.the State facilitates possible synergies between economicactivities in order to minimize their environmental impacts’’. An IEstrategy was established in 2002, set up by an Advisory Board for IEand IS Implementation. This programme involved several stake-holders, including government agencies, universities and localindustry. Its approach and application includes physical accounting,material flow analysis and an IS coordination and facilitationproject (Gedec, 2005; Massard and Erkman, 2007).

4.5. Cross case comparison

Comparison between case studies uses the collected quantita-tive and qualitative data to identify patterns across the sample.Fig. 2 depicts the quantitative characterization of the cases in termsof waste generation and Fig. 3 presents the waste managementperformance for the years with the latest available data.

As noted, the sample is divided into two groups: DK/CHpresent higher recovery rates combined with the lowest genera-tion of wastes per capita. In contrast, PT/UK present higher landfillrates and waste generation per capita. By looking at the

qualitative descriptors (Table 2), it is possible to suggest that theseperformances are a result of a different evolution within eachcontext, particularly with respect to economic and regulatoryinstruments.

Denmark has been shaping its context since 1987, with anincreasing incineration and landfill tax coupled with a stronglandfill ban in 1997. Switzerland introduced taxes and a ban on allcombustible wastes in 2001 and 2002 but, by this time, wasteincineration with energy recovery and a solid recycling networkwere already rooted in the country. Although the UK introduceda landfill tax in 1996, this only became effective in 1999, after theintroduction of an increasing yearly rate (tax escalator). Furtherlandfill restrictions were introduced in 2006 for liquid wastes andtires. Finally, Portugal also has landfill bans for certain waste flows,albeit introduced earlier than in the UK. However, landfill andincineration taxes only came into effect in 2006, and therefore theirimpact on waste management is still to be felt.

Table 2 demonstrates that in terms of political framework, withthe exception of PT, some decentralization in waste managementpolicy and legislation exists.

Regarding economic instruments, current landfill taxes areabove 10V/tonne for the majority of the cases. DK stands out withthe heaviest taxes for both landfill and incineration, although theUK is expected to increase up to 83V/tonne in 2013.

In terms of regulation, DK and CH impose landfill bans on allcombustible wastes, while UK and PT only ban singular flows andadopted phasing out targets instead (e.g. organics). However, whenit comes to declassification of materials from waste regulations, theUK is the only country in the sample currently developing regula-tions for that purpose.

DK and CH are able to use its sub-national legislative influenceto work closely with economic actors (e.g. manufacturers, recy-clers) interested in using wastes or by-products as raw materials.Therefore, they are able to evaluate each case and establish thenecessary rules to be applied.

Voluntary instruments based on collaborative efforts forresource efficiency are also common in the sample. In UK and CH,government funded programmes are implemented to identify andsupport the emergence of collaborative business networks. In UK,programmes are directed at improving the waste managementprofile of the country, while CH aims at optimizing an alreadyimplemented recycling network. PT is also seeking to optimize itsrecycling networks, by requesting companies to set up a manage-ment entity for the OWM. This programme aims to support thereuse of waste materials among companies, and to improve marketacceptance of the manufactured products.

Tab

le2

By-

pro

du

ctan

den

d-o

f-w

aste

con

dit

ion

s.

DK

UK

PTC

H

Poli

tica

lfr

amew

ork

Typ

eof

gove

rnm

ent

Un

itar

ysy

stem

Un

itar

ysy

stem

Un

itar

ysy

stem

Fed

erat

ion

Was

tele

gisl

atio

nle

vel

Nat

ion

alþ

Sub

-nat

ion

alN

atio

nalþ

Sub

-nat

ion

alN

atio

nal

Sub

-nat

ion

alW

aste

pol

icy

leve

lN

atio

nalþ

Sub

-nat

ion

alSu

b-n

atio

nal

Nat

ion

alN

atio

nalþ

Sub

-nat

ion

alEc

onom

icin

stru

men

tsY

ear

ofin

trod

uct

ion

Lan

dfi

llta

xa (2

00

9)

[V/t

onn

e]1

98

75

0.7þ

25

%V

AT

19

96

46.2

32

00

65

20

01

11

.21

b

20

.8cþ

25

%V

AT

2.8

9d

9.8

9e

Inci

ner

atio

nta

x(2

00

9)

[V/t

onn

e]1

98

74

4.4þ

25

%V

AT

–2

00

61

–

Reg

ula

tory

inst

rum

ents

Yea

rof

intr

odu

ctio

nLa

nd

fill

ban

s1

99

7C

omb

ust

ible

was

te2

00

6U

sed

tire

sLi

qu

idw

aste

20

02

Use

dti

res

Liq

uid

was

te2

00

2C

omb

ust

ible

was

teEn

d-o

f-w

aste

/By-

pro

du

ctu

seM

un

icip

alp

roto

cols

that

favo

ur

dis

cuss

ing

was

tem

anag

emen

top

tion

sw

ith

ind

ust

ry(s

ub

-nat

ion

al)

Was

tepr

otoc

ols:

tech

nic

alp

aram

eter

ses

tab

lish

ing

wh

ena

trea

ted

mat

eria

lis

no

lon

ger

con

sid

ered

aw

aste

(su

b-n

atio

nal

,En

glan

don

ly)

Com

pan

ies

nee

dto

be

regi

ster

edas

was

tem

anag

emen

top

erat

ors

–co

mp

lyw

ith

Bes

tA

vail

able

Tech

niq

ues

for

was

tetr

eatm

ent

(nat

ion

al)

Was

tean

db

y-p

rod

uct

exch

ange

sar

eal

low

edb

etw

een

com

pan

ies,

pro

vid

edth

eyar

eli

cen

sed

for

han

dli

ng

was

te(s

ub

-nat

ion

al,G

enev

aca

nto

n)

Vol

un

tary

inst

rum

ents

Coo

rdin

atio

np

rogr

amm

esfo

rco

llab

orat

ion

inre

sou

rce

effi

cien

cy–

NIS

P(s

ub

-nat

ion

alto

nat

ion

al)

Org

aniz

edW

aste

Mar

ket

(nat

ion

al)

ECO

SITE

(su

b-n

atio

nal

)

aFo

rn

on-h

azar

dou

sin

du

stri

alw

aste

sd

isp

osal

inla

nd

fill

.b

For

stab

iliz

edre

sid

ues

.c

For

lan

dfi

llof

resi

du

alw

aste

–sl

agan

dfl

yas

h.

dFo

rin

ert

was

tes.

eFo

rre

acto

rla

nd

fill

s(e

.g.s

lag)

.

I. Costa et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 815–822820

5. Discussion

5.1. Policy and legislative levels of influence

The cases provide some evidence of decentralization regardingindustrial waste management policy and legislation. This evidenceis aligned with the views of researchers who support the involve-ment of local government in driving and assisting collaborationbetween companies and providing ‘‘tailored’’ instruments tosupport synergies (e.g. (Mirata, 2004; Korhonen et al., 2004)). Evenin PT, local government is motivating collaboration between publicinstitutions, university, industry and the community for ISdevelopment (Costa and Ferrao, 2008). Still, it is important toguarantee national objectives and targets, and avoid dissensionwith local businesses’ interests. For example, Flynn (2000) statesthat in DK control and inspection duties were given back tocounties for fear that some municipalities might be influenced byspecific industries and conflict with national interests. Therefore, itis important that sub-national governments have the capabilities todevelop, regulate and monitor options made under the ‘‘umbrella’’of concepts such as IS.

Local government can act as a bridge between nationalgovernment and local companies, but its influence is limited.Higher levels of influence (e.g. supra-national, national) can set theobjectives and targets to which sub-national level agents (e.g. localgovernment, companies, universities) are left to respond withsolutions. Christensen confirmed this position in Gertler (1995):‘‘Economics alone will bring you a certain amount of symbiosis. Togo further, you need political impetus to require pollution controltechnologies and/or to adjust prices to make symbiotic arrange-ments economically viable’’.

5.2. Policy instruments

The second point is related to how countries cope with potentialbarriers to waste/by-product reuse as raw materials. Researchers(e.g. (Malcolm and Clift, 2002; Pongracz and Pohjola, 2004))consider the EU waste definition as one of such barriers. Althoughconsidered a relevant issue, the cases analyzed show that theexchange of wastes for substitution purposes is possible, even withsuch a debatable definition.

The analysis demonstrates that technical barriers emerge inrelation to 1) market incentives to reuse waste, 2) technologicalstandards for waste management 3) expectations concerningmaterial quality and 4) information about alternative wastemanagement options.

The cases could provide insights on how government influencehelps mitigate these barriers. Strong economic and regulatoryinstruments (e.g. landfill taxes and bans) can contribute to makeoptions such as reuse or recycling economically viable. However,this can be insufficient in adding value to the material itself. In suchcases, government involvement with the industry in assessingalternative waste management options or in developing regulatedquality standards for recovered materials would be a way forward.

Another challenge relates to the requirement of technologicaltreatment standards for companies who wish to use wastes as rawmaterials. These standards aim to maximize efficiency with theleast environmental impact. Companies need to secure them inorder to receive the necessary permits. However, the potentialrecycling role of manufacturing technologies already in place isseldom evaluated. This means that, in order to reuse a waste,companies need to invest in additional equipment, which couldreduce the economic benefit of using a raw material substitute.

In some of the cases, government adopted a more flexibleapproach to these issues. Waste regulations in CH and DK focus

I. Costa et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 815–822 821

more on guaranteeing environmental standards, instead offocusing on the means to achieve them. This could provide a nicheto test alternative technological and collaborative solutions. As forUK and PT, by involving recyclers, which already have technologicalstandards in place due to their primary activities, this barrier issomehow mitigated.

As observed, government programmes directed at improvingresource efficiency among companies help fostering IS develop-ment. These voluntary instruments contribute to increase infor-mation availability, facilitation and assistance. This helpsbusinesses to perceive economic advantages in environmentaloutperformance even in cases where the social and economicalcontext does not favour going beyond compliance.

Government provides the objectives as well as economic andregulatory support, while the programme is developed andmanaged by private agents such as business associations anduniversities together with industry. However, it is important toprevent potential withdraw of governmental funding, the riskbeing that companies will no longer participate once the serviceceases to be supplied at zero cost. To prevent this situation, 1) theprogrammes should be implemented and managed in collaborationwith the companies, including the development of alternativefinancing strategies and 2) the programmes should rely on strongsocial networking to stimulate trust and interaction to a pointwhere the governmental scaffolding is no longer required.

In summary, a government contribution to shaping the contextfor IS development could take the form of an integrated set of policyinstruments that influence markets towards reuse and recycling, inwhich collaboration between companies is fostered. While policiesat the supra-national level set strong objectives, those at nationallevel could work towards strong economic and regulatory instru-ments to secure those objectives (e.g. taxes and bans), leavingenough flexibility at sub-national level to find the best economicand environmental responses with stakeholders such as companiesand research institutions. Moreover, voluntary instruments devel-oped in partnership with the industry could help direct companiestowards collaborative strategies in waste management and controlfly-tipping.

5.3. Future opportunities

In October 2008, the EU Parliament approved a new WasteFramework Directive (EC-European Commission, 2008). It intro-duced new approaches to dealing with the increasing generation ofwaste. One of these approaches is the definition of by-product andend-of-waste.

By-product is considered a substance or object, resulting froma production process, the primary aim of which is not theproduction of that item, may be regarded as not being waste, if theconditions set in article 5 of the Directive are met. The End-of-Waste status applies to materials that have undergone a recoveryoperation, including recycling, and that comply with specificcriteria to be developed in accordance to the conditions also set bythe Directive, in article 6.

Besides the definition and main principles, the EU also directsmember countries to develop their own End-of-Waste criteria andimplementation mechanisms to motivate market demand. Thecases presented demonstrate that some countries are alreadydeveloping proactive responses to such supra-national challenges,either by developing new regulatory instruments (e.g. wasteprotocols in UK) or voluntary ones (e.g. Organized Waste Market inPT). Such instruments can be used to identify, test and validatemarkets, economically and environmentally, for a diverse range ofby-products and residuals, with the additional benefit of this

improvement being based on the performance of networks ratherthan individual companies.

In this context, it is possible to suggest that shaping a policy andlegislative context to support IS can be seen as a strategy alignedwith the objectives of the EU. The new provisions set by theDirective can also, in turn, help shape the context to overcomesome of the barriers associated with IS.

This process can be greatly improved if all participating agents(e.g. government, universities and companies) align their actions tocommon objectives, at all levels. As current policy theory suggests(Flynn, 2000; Holmes and Clark, 2008), inter level collaborationshould be motivated, with mutually reinforced responsibilities.Furthermore, and most importantly, scientific evidences should beintegrated early in the policy development process.

6. Conclusions

This research sought to better understand legislative and policycontexts in cases where IS networks are developing and thepotential contribution that IS can make to the implementation ofthe EU Waste Directive.

As a general conclusion, it appears evident that governmentalinstitutions could greatly contribute to shape the context under-lying IS development. The case studies analyzed provide someinsights on potentially influential factors: flexible regulation inwaste management (mainly associated to sub-national levels)together with strong economic/regulatory instruments, deployednationally, that penalizes lower hierarchy waste managementoptions. Voluntary instruments, in the form of coordination pro-grammes, could provide information and facilitation assistance forcompanies to identify economically viable alternatives for theirwastes.

In this context, policy and legislation can positively influence ISdevelopment by setting clear objectives and supporting businesseco efficiency activities. This sends important signals to the marketthat guides businesses to IS related actions, without directgovernmental intervention in that process.

However, some difficulty persists in coordinating policies andactions across the supra-national, national and sub-national levelsof government. If there is enough flexibility to implement innova-tive, locally adaptable solutions and transfer their associatedknowledge across levels, it is possible to contribute to more effec-tive waste policies and shape the context for industrial symbiosis.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the interviewees, Pedro Carteiro(Quercus), Bernhard Brackhahn (Wasteinfo Denmark), Peter Lay-bourn (NISP-UK) and representatives of the UK policy and regu-lating officers; professors, Chris Coggins, Paulo Ferrao (IST), PeterStrachan (Aberdeen Business School) and Suren Erkman (UNIL);and two other anonymous reviewers for their support and valuableinputs.

References

Agarwal, A., Strachan, P., 2007. NISP: Towards Developing a New and IntegrativeMethodology to Evaluate Industrial Symbiosis Networks. Industrial Symbiosisin Action: Report on the Third International Industrial Symbiosis ResearchSymposium. Yale F&ES Publication Series, New Haven, pp. 21–24.

Baas, L., Boons, F., 2004. An industrial ecology project in practice: exploring theboundaries of decision-making levels in regional industrial systems. Journal ofCleaner Production 12 (8–10), 1073–1085.

Baas, L., 2008. Industrial symbiosis in the Rotterdam harbour and industry complex:reflections on the interconnection of the techno-sphere with the social system.Business Strategy and the Environment 17, 330–340.

I. Costa et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 815–822822

Boons, F., Baas, L. 2006. Industrial Symbiosis in a Social Science Perspective.Discussion proposal for the Third Industrial Symbiosis Research Symposium,Birmingham, UK.

Brackhahn, B., July 2008. Personal Communication. Waste Information Centre,Denmark.

Chertow, M., 2000. Industrial symbiosis: literature and taxonomy. Annual Review ofEnergy and the Environment 35, 313–337.

Chertow, M., 2007. ‘‘Uncovering’’ industrial symbiosis. Journal of Industrial Ecology11 (1), 11–30.

Consolidated act No 753 of August 25, 2001 Law on Environmental Protection.Available from (in Danish): https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id¼12503 (accessed 28.10.09.).

Costa, I., Ferrao, P., 2008. Developing a local approach to eco industrial parks: thecase of Chamusca EIP. In: Paper presented at the 14th Annual SustainableDevelopment Research Conference, New Delhi, India, 21–23 September 2008.

Danish Government, 2004. Waste Strategy 2005–2008. Danish Ministry of theEnvironment, Copenhagen.

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, 2007. Waste Strategy forEngland 2007. The Stationery Office, London, UK. Available from: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/strategy/index.htm (accessed 28.10.09.).

Desrochers, P., 2000. Market processes and the closing of industrial loops. Journal ofIndustrial Ecology 4 (1), 29–43.

Desrochers, P., 2004. Industrial symbiosis: the case for market coordination. Journalof Cleaner Production 12 (8–10), 1099–1110.

EC-European Commission, 16.7.1999. Directive 1999/31/EC of the European Parlia-ment and of the council of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste. Official Journalof the European Union L 182.

EC-European Commission, 22.11.2008. Directive 2008/98/EC of the EuropeanParliament and of the council of 19 November 2008 on waste. Official Journal ofthe European Union L 312/13.

EEA–European Environment Agency, 2007. The Road from Landfilling to Recycling:Common Destination, Different Routes. Office for Official Publications of theEuropean Communities, Luxembourg.

Ehrenfeld, J., 2000. Industrial ecology: paradigm shift or normal science? AmericanBehavioral Scientist 44 (2), 229–244.

Ehrenfeld, J., 2007. Would industrial ecology exist without sustainability in thebackground? Journal of Industrial Ecology 11 (1), 73–84.

Eisenhardt, K., 1989. Building theories from case study research. The Academy ofManagement Review 14 (4), 532–550.

Environment Act (chapter 25), 1995. Available from: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/Ukpga_19950025_en_1 (accessed 18.10.09.).

Environment Agency UK. Waste Protocols Project. Available at: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/waste/32154.aspx (accessed 15.01.09.).

Environmental Protection Act (chapter 43), 1990. Available from: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1990/Ukpga_19900043_en_1.htm (accessed 18.10.09.).

Erkman, S., 1997. Industrial ecology: an historical review. Journal of CleanerProduction 5 (1–2), 1–10.

Eurostat – European Statistical Office. Waste Statistics Regulation Database.Available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/extraction/evalight/EVAlight.jsp?A¼1&language¼en&root¼/theme8/env/env_wasgen (accessed 13.11.08.).

Flynn, B., 2000. Is local truly better? Some reflections on sharing environmental policybetween local governments and the EU. European Environment 10, 75–84.

Frosch, R., Gallopoulos, N., 1989. Strategies for manufacturing. Scientific American189 (3), 144–152.

Gedec-Service Cantonal de Gestion de Dechets (Canton Service for WasteManagement). Ecologie industrielle a Geneve: Premiers resultats et perspec-tives (Industrial Ecology in Geneva: Principal results and perspectives), 2005.Departement of the Territoire - Republique et canton de Geneve, Geneve.

Gertler, N., 1995. Industrial Ecosystems: Developing Sustainable Industrial Struc-tures. Unpublished M.S. Thesis. Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Gibbs, D., Deutz, P., 2007. Reflections on implementing industrial ecology througheco-industrial park development. Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (17),1683–1695.

Graedel, T., 1996. On the concept of industrial ecology. Annual Review of Energy andthe Environment 21, 69–98.

Helfand, G., Loomis, J., 2001. Environmental Policy Analysis for Decision Making(The Economics of Non-Market Goods and Resources). Springer, New York.

Hewes, A., Lyons, D., 2008. The humanistic side of eco-industrial parks: championsand the role of trust. Regional Studies 42 (10), 1329–1342.

Holmes, J., Clark, R., 2008. Enhancing the use of science in environmental policy-making and regulation. Environmental Science and Policy 11, 702–711.

Howe, C., 1996. Making Environmental Policy in a Federation of States. In: Braden, J.,Folmer, H., Ulen, T. (Eds.), Environmental Policy with Political and EconomicIntegration. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 21–34.

Jacobsen, N., Anderberg, S., 2004. Understanding the Evolution of industrialsymbiotic networks: the case of Kalundborg. In: van den Bergh, J.,Janssen, M. (Eds.), Economics of Industrial Ecology. MIT Press, Cambridge,pp. 313–336.

Korhonen, J., von Malmborg, F., Strachan, P., Ehrenfeld, J., 2004. Management andpolicy aspects of industrial ecology: an emerging research agenda. BusinessStrategy and the Environment 13, 289–305.

Law Decree No 178/2006 of 5 September 2006 on the General Regime for WasteManagement. Available from (in Portuguese): http://dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2006/09/17100/65266545.pdf (accessed 29.10.09.).

Lowe, E., 1997. Creating by-product resource exchanges: strategies for eco-industrialparks. Journal of Cleaner Production 5 (1/2), 57–65.

Malcolm, R., Clift, R., 2002. Barriers to industrial ecology: the strange case of the‘‘Tombesi Bypass’’. Journal of Industrial Ecology 6 (1), 4–7.

MAOTDR, 2008. Ministerio do Ambiente, do Ordenamento do Territorio e Desen-volvimento Regional (Ministry for the Environment, Territory Ordenance andRegional Development). Mercado Organizado de Resıduos, Apelo a demon-straçao de interesse (Organized Waste Market: call for interest). MAOTDR,Lisbon.

Massard, G, Erkman, S, 2007. A regional industrial symbiosis methodology and itsimplementation in Geneva, Switzerland. In: Paper presented at the 3rd Inter-national Conference on Life Cycle Management, Irchel, University of Zurich,August 27–29, 2007.

Mirata, M., Emtairah, T., 2005. Industrial symbiosis networks and the contributionto environmental innovation: the case of the Landskrona industrial symbiosisprogramme. Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (10–11), 993–1002.

Mirata, M., 2004. Experiences from early stages of a national industrial symbiosisprogramme in the UK: determinants and coordination challenges. Journal ofCleaner Production 12 (8–10), 967–983.

Mirata, M., 2005. Industrial symbiosis: a tool for more sustainable regions? IIIEEELund University, Lund, Sweden.

OFEV – Office Federal de l’Environnement (Federal Office for the Environment).Statistiques des dechets (Waste statistics). Available at: http://www.bafu.admin.ch/abfall/01517/01519/index.html?lang¼fr (accessed 11.12.08.).

Pongracz, E., Pohjola, V., 2004. Re-defining waste, the concept of ownership and therole of waste management. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 40, 141–153.

Schwarz, E., Steininger, K., 1997. Implementing natures lesson: the industrialrecycling network enhancing regional development. Journal of CleanerProduction 5 (1–2), 47–56.

State of Geneva, 1999. Law on Waste Management, n � L 1 20.State of Geneva, 2001. Law on Public Action Toward Sustainable Development. n� A

2 60.State of Geneva. Plan de gestion des dechets du canton de Geneve 2009–2012

(Waste Management Plan for the Geneva Canton 2009–2012). Available at:http://etat.geneve.ch/dt/SilverpeasWebFileServer/PGD-09-basse-def.pdf?ComponentId¼kmelia104&SourceFile¼1236171797567.pdf&MimeType¼application/pdf&Directory¼Attachment/Images/ (accessed 29.07.09.).

Statutory Order No 619 of 27 June 2000 on Waste. Unofficial translation supplied bythe Waste Centre Denmark (By electronic request, July 2008).

Swiss Confederation, 1983. Environmental Protection Act (EPA). Status August 2008,n�814.01.

Swiss Confederation, 1990. Technical Ordinance on Waste (TVA). Status January2009, n�814.600.

Swiss Confederation, 2005. Ordinance on the Handling of Wastes (VeVA). StatusAugust 2005, n�814.610.

The Environmental Framework Act No. 11/87 of April 7, 1987. Available from (inPortuguese): http://dre.pt/pdf1sdip/1987/04/08100/13861397.pdf (accessed29.10.09.).

UNEP – United Nations Environment Programme. Website for the Basel Convention.Available at: http://www.basel.int/text/documents.html (accessed 24.07.09).