John Ehrenfeld - 2004 - Industrial ecology A new ﬁeld or only a metaphor

� Present address: International Society f

Percy Road, Lexington, MA 02421, U

Tel.: +1-781-861-0363; fax: +1-781-861-953

E-mail address: [email protected]

0959-6526/$ - see front matter # 2004 Else

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.02.003

or Industrial Ecology, 24

SA. http://www.is4ie.org

1.

it.edu (J. Ehrenfeld).

vier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 825–831
www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro
Industrial ecology: a new field or only a metaphor?

John Ehrenfeld �

School of Forestry and Environmental Sciences, Yale University, 205 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511, USA

Abstract

In the 10 years since industrial ecology first became a topic of academic interest, it has grown as a field of inquiry and has pro-duced a community of practice in several sectors including academia, business, and government. Even as the shape of industrialecology becomes clearer, questions remain as to its lasting power beyond the metaphor that gave it its distinctiveness. This paperexamines the development of industrial ecology and assesses its progress towards becoming a field of academic inquiry. And, in arelated analysis, I look at the progress industrial ecology has made in establishing itself as an institutional (cultural) basis foraction in the above sectors. Ideas like industrial ecology must become institutionalized if they are to have much effect on thereality of everyday activities.# 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Industrial ecology; Metaphor; Field; Institutionalization

1. Introduction

Following its start about a decade ago, industrial

ecology has entered the world of academia, ecodesign,

environmental policy, industrial development, and

business strategy. This special issue on industrial ecol-

ogy is evidence of its continuing evolution. In the first

special issue on industrial ecology in the Journal of

Cleaner Production in 1977, I argued that the then

quite new set of ideas under the rubric of industrial

ecology could serve as a new paradigm for process and

product design [1]. In the larger sense of technological

systems, the new framework could also serve as a tem-

plate for the design of the institutional structures in

which these technological artifacts that impact the

environment arise and are applied. The basis of the

argument was that industrial ecology had features

unlike those underpinning the dominant social para-

digm shaping the culture in most industrial economies,

particularly those of the West. The important concepts

were those taken by analogy from stable ecosystems

and included, among others, new forms of cooperation,

material recycling (loop-closing), interdependence, and

holistic communities. That these concepts, embedded ina broad systems orientation, can produce, in specificcases, artifacts and technological systems with lessimpact on ecological systems is not questioned [2].

The appropriateness and pragmatic value of thebroad metaphorical sense of industrial ecology has not,however, achieved a consensus even among its usersand advocates. Johansson questions ‘‘. . .whether thisparticular metaphor actually can be helpful in definingnew strategies for industrial development’’ [3]. I willnot attempt to respond directly to Johansson’s chal-lenge in this paper, but he clearly sets out a critical taskfor those who now work in the field (if it is indeed afield)—to establish the utility of the metaphor in prac-tice or perhaps more precisely to determine the boundsof its usefulness. Rather, I will address the evolution ofindustrial ecology as a field as evidence that the meta-phor and underlying concepts and tools are becomingaccepted and used by an increasing number of scholarsand practitioners. Even Johansson points to the con-nection between metaphor and creativity. He states,‘‘. . .the extension of the imagination beyond what isknown as truth is their [metaphors’] very reason forexistence, it [sic] is a tool for bringing creative imagin-ation into science, and occasionally to a greater pub-lic.’’ [3]. It seems that industrial ecology is at a criticalstage in its evolution. Many others who also maintainthe importance of keeping the metaphor within limits

826 J. Ehrenfeld / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 825–831

echo the concerns that Johansson raises. On the otherhand, the ideas are spreading into practice through avariety of avenues, some squarely within the ‘recog-nized’ boundaries of what goes for ‘industrial ecology’,and some that fall outside these borders. This paperis a progress report on the current state of industrialecology.

I first present the state of industrial ecology as a fieldof theory and practice, and then assess the degree towhich the field has become institutionalized. By this, Imean to ask, how far has industrial ecology come increating structures that produce routine action in selec-ted domains, such as the academic or policy worlds?To the extent that industrial ecology has taken on thecharacteristics of a field, it is arguable that its meta-phorical origins are becoming translated into moreconventional scientific, technological and social truths.Beyond constituting a new field, questions about thepractical relevance of industrial ecology require thatone examine the nature of institutionalization going onaround the field. The emergence of a new field recog-nized within the scientific community is evidence of theemergence of a new paradigm in Kuhn’s sense and ofthe development of a new set of normal practices [4].But if industrial ecology is to penetrate beyond thescientific establishment into the everyday culture andinfluence the policy and strategy world to any appreci-able extent, there must be evidence of institutionaliza-tion beyond the academy. Based on my ownobservations as a worker in the field for the past 10years and especially drawing on my more recent experi-ence as executive director of the International Societyfor Industrial Ecology, I examine these two questionsin turn. And at the end I return to Johansson’squestion.

2. Is industrial ecology a field?

The first item following this brief introduction is thequestion of whether industrial ecology is a field at all.Alternatively, it might merely be a new set of ideas andmethods that are at home within and expand the bodyof knowledge of some already established field.Another possibility is that industrial ecology con-stitutes an interdisciplinary field, drawing on ideas andtechnology from other fields. As a new field, as Iargued in the introduction, it expands the minds (touse another metaphor) of its practitioners. New prac-tices unconstrained by what is considered normal inestablished fields would be expected to emerge. To beconsidered a field, one might argue that there must bea set of constitutive attributes, including:

1. A set of foundational beliefs that lend a commonmeaning to all players in the field and allow

communication across the boundaries of the field or,otherwise stated, a cohesive set of concepts thatguide practitioners in their everyday, normalactivities.

2. Practical resources or sets of standard tools andpractical guides like textbooks.

3. An authoritative structure maintaining quality andconceptual coherence.

4. A community of actors playing within the first threecategories above.

Let me examine each of these categories in turn.

2.1. Beliefs and concepts

First, let me ask whether industrial ecology is basedon a well-rooted foundational idea. I think so,although many would not agree. The ideas that haveshaped industrial ecology began to emerge in the 1970sand even earlier in the work of one of the pioneers ofthe field, Robert Ayres. Ayres and his colleagues beganto examine the flows of materials (and energy to a les-ser extent) in systems ranging from river basins towhole economies under the rubric ‘industrial metab-olism’, suggestive of the flows of energy and foodwithin an ecological system [5,6]. About the same time,studies aimed at directing the Japanese economytowards less dependence on materials were initiatedusing the name ‘industrial ecology’ in the official titleof the research/planning group doing the work [7].And in a little known but significant book by a smallgroup of Belgians published in 1983, industrial ecologywas used to describe a view of the Belgian economy interms of material and energy flows, instead of the usualeconomic monetary flows [8]. But none of these inde-pendent works caught the attention of academics orothers interested in pursuing the ideas in any organizedway. The situation changed in 1989 when RobertFrosch and Nicholas Gallopoulos published an articlein a special issue of Scientific American in which theycalled for the restructuring of industry in the form ofan ecosystem with materials (including those com-monly held to be ‘wastes’) flowing through a myriad ofinterconnected production processes [9]. Wastes wouldbe drastically reduced and demand for virgin materialswould be similarly lowered. The publication of thisarticle came at a time in the US when concerns aboutthe long-term sustainability of the Earth were on therise. Industrial ecology conveyed a powerful meta-phoric alternative to the ways modern industrial socie-ties had evolved—one that could rise above theprofligate ways of the past.

In terms of a single overriding theme based on thesehistorical writings, industrial ecology springs fromwhat has come to be called ‘the biological or ecologicalmetaphor’ [10]. Whether present in an objective idea

J. Ehrenfeld / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 825–831 827

like ‘industrial metabolism’ [11], ‘closed industrial eco-

system’ [6], technological food webs [12] or industrial

symbiosis [13], industrial ecology draws on some vision

of an ecological network of interconnected actors

exchanging matter and energy. Some see the metaphor

as ontological—a way of extending the bounds of

thinking [14]; others see the metaphor as normative,

providing prescriptive guides for designing a more

sustainable world [15].As an objective guide for scientific inquiry, the eco-

logical metaphor leads to such practices as: material

flow accounting (MFA), substances flow analysis

(SFA), life cycle analysis (LCA), studies of industrial

symbioses, and more. Entropic and exergy-based

analyses can be tied to thermodynamic properties of

the steady-state behavior of stable ecosystems. These

tools are being used in a societal scope, for example, to

examine policy frameworks, resource management

schemes, and economic performance in both current

and historical contexts. At a finer scale, they are being

used to look at industry and technology, for example,

to compare alternative industrial forms of organization

or product designs. These basic analytic notions, in

turn, point to practical ideas such as dematerialization,

product life extension, servicizing, industrial symbiosis,

design for environment, green chemistry, and much

more.Related to the normative perspective, some, includ-

ing myself, have argued that industrial ecology is a new

paradigm that can offer a conceptual base for finding

solutions to what have been intractable problems

[16,17]. As paradigms, objective notions like the eco-

logical metaphor take on prescriptive or normative

clothing as they become pragmatic responses to sol-

ution-seeking actors. In its prescriptive mode, the eco-

logical metaphor can be found in the principles of the

Natural Step [18] and Natural Capitalism [19], design

for environment, and even in policies such as extended

producer responsibility.The other half of the metaphor refers to industry.

The field is focused on understanding the industrial

basis of production, a characteristic of modern socie-

ties. Understanding the industrial systems of modern

societies is held to be critical to designing new forms of

production that are more sustainable. One of the con-

cepts of Frosch and Gallopoulos was that of an indus-

trial food web in which some firms used as feedstocks

the wastes and by-products of others [6]. Instead of the

common way of viewing an industrial economy as a

collection of individual actors loosely coordinated by

the price signals in a market, their paper established a

systems orientation analogous to a natural ecosystem.

2.2. Practical resources

Regarding the resources that have become part ofthe practices of industrial ecology, one can point to avariety of analytical software packages and severalstandards for LCAs. While not so well developed asLCA, MFA methods have converged and one can findexamples of national accounts following a consistentmethodology [20]. Within industry, industrial ecologyis applied through design for environment (DfE) prac-tices. Most DfE schemes involve some form of LCA.Standardized DfE methods have been widely applied inall industrialized regions of the globe [21].

A handful of texts have been written (for example,the groundbreaking text by Graedel and Allenby [22])and are being used in the teaching programs at univer-sity level courses. Following early work in structuraleconomics by Duchin and Lange [23], a few scholarsare now using input/output modeling taken fromeconomics and are applying it to material flow systems.A comprehensive Handbook of Industrial Ecology waspublished in 2002 [2].

2.3. Authority

The Journal of Industrial Ecology, now entering itssixth year, has attained a reputation ascribed to peer-reviewed journals in well-established fields. The Journaland the peer review process lend disciplinary legitimacyto industrial ecology. The prestigious US NationalAcademy of Engineering took the idea under its wingsin its early days and provided financial support and anauthoritative umbrella.

Activities that began under the auspices of theNational Academy of Engineering in the early 1990sspawned many of the first publications and texts in thefield. Their early convening role in the US has shiftedto the Gordon Research Conferences. Unlike the typi-cal Gordon conferences with a narrow focus on a spe-cific sub-discipline or research topic of particularcurrent relevance, the first industrial ecology GordonConference in 1998 was part of an experiment tobroaden the series to include interdisciplinary and ‘pol-icy’ themes. In spite of some rocky moments and ques-tions about the rigor of the industrial ecology sessions,this topic seems to have become a regular player andwas included again in the 2002 series.

2.4. The industrial ecology community

At the 1998 Gordon Conference on industrial ecol-ogy, many of the attendees started to talk about form-ing some sort of society for industrial ecology. Theidea was pursued further by a small group of Japanese,European, and US workers who developed whitepapers about the possible shape of a new society. At


the June 2000 Gordon Conference, participants dis-cussed the subject of forming a new society for indus-trial ecology. With virtually unanimous support, asteering committee was formed to take positive steps toget organized.

The outcome of this exploratory work was a newprofessional society, the International Society forIndustrial Ecology, that serves to build a communityand to legitimize the activities of its practitioners. Inmid-2001, having raised some seed money to get going,the International Society for Industrial Ecology waslaunched formally and began to accept members.About 450 joined in the first year of operation. Mem-bership numbers have remained level even after renew-als were required for the first time. Although open toall communities of practice, the members, so far, havecome largely from academia. The Society has beendesigned to provide many venues and media for dia-logue and communication. The Journal of IndustrialEcology was adopted as the ‘official’ journal of theSociety and is packaged with membership. The Societyheld its first International Meeting in late-2001 inNordwijkerhout, The Netherlands. By all accounts, itwas a very successful launch, with almost 300 presentfrom all quarters of the globe. A second InternationalMeeting was held in June 29–July 2, 2003, in AnnArbor, MI.

3. The institutionalization of industrial ecology

Given that in its first 10 years, ‘industrial ecology’has not become a ‘household word’, it seems appropri-ate to check into its status as an institution. The dis-cussion so far indicates that industrial ecology is nowor is on the way to becoming a field, but the questionremains as to whether this process is likely to last. In arelated question, one must ask whether industrial ecol-ogy has much power to influence activities outside avery narrow sphere. While the theories that now consti-tute industrial ecology make academic sense to many,it is the promise of new practices arising from theconcepts that has brought many into the field.

The importance of examining the institutionalizationprocess springs from the aspirations of many who havebeen involved in the development of the field. Thisgroup believes that industrial ecology should or canbecome a force in producing a sustainable world.Graedel and Allenby have called industrial ecology ‘thescience of sustainability’ [18]. Ehrenfeld has arguedthat industrial ecology is a new paradigm with thepotential to break through the stalemate in the game ofsustainability [13].

What I mean by an institution is a set of rules orstructures that governs routine actions in some domainor domains, for example, academic research, design of

artifacts, policy making, housekeeping, and so on. Theinclusion of ‘routine’ is essential since the idea of aninstitution is always associated with activities that fol-low a recognizable pattern over time and space. If onelooks at models of institutionalization for broad socialactivities, one will hear reference to structuration, cul-ture, habitus, rationality, and many other ways of talk-ing about the constitutive bases of action [16]. All haveseveral features in common. One way of analyticallycategorizing institutional structures includes the follow-ing:

1. A system of beliefs about how the world works,2. Strategies and norms governing what one should do

when addressing a particular domain of action,3. A common set of tools and technologies to be used

towards meeting one’s objectives in that domain,and

4. A set of legitimating authorities.

The point of this rather academic discussion is tonote that one can observe the position of constellationsof ideas, norms, and tools in domains of action andassess the degree to which the always-changing institu-tionalization process has incorporated them. With thisintroduction, let me look at a few domains and com-ment on the progress of industrial ecology or, moreaccurately, the lack of progress in many. I will look atacademia, industrial strategy, and government policy.

3.1. Academia

The best example of the penetration of industrialecology into the academic world is the program at theNTNU in Trondheim, Norway. This program hasbecome accepted as a ‘normal’ academic activity, witha faculty, a degree program at both the undergraduateprofessional and Ph.D. research levels, and a researchportfolio. The normal character is evidence of institu-tionalization. The NTNU program takes students fromtraditional engineering and other technical disciplinesafter two years in the home department, and providesspecial courses and practicums in industrial ecologyalong with continuing work in the home over the nextthree years. The students graduate with a degree in thehome discipline and a sub-specialization in industrialecology. The NTNU program straddles the boundarybetween the old academic structures and the new fieldof industrial ecology, reflecting the practical realities ofintroducing a new program into a well-established setof academic and professional distinctions. If one looksat other places, there is scant evidence of such normal-ization of industrial ecology in academia. A few otheruniversities are building programs centered or based onindustrial ecology, for example the Yale School ofForestry and Environmental Management and the


University of Troyes in France. The Mount Royal Col-lege in Alberta, Canada, initiated a degree program in2001. Although these programs signal some smalldegree of institutionalization, progress here is slow,with little or no presence of industrial ecology at mostuniversities.

Past support from the US National Academy ofEngineering and its equivalent in Norway, the NTVA,indicates recognition from the research community thatindustrial ecology represents a legitimate sphere ofactivity. Adding to this evidence are the three pastsummer industrial ecology research meetings under theaegis of the Gordon Research Conferences (GRC) inthe US. The GRC is a well-established and highlyregarded venue for members of the scientific researchcommunity. Another positive sign is the success of theJournal of Industrial Ecology. No field can become suc-cessfully accepted as a bona fide academic field withouta high-grade journal or two. Readership has approachedalmost 1000 in 2002.

The systems orientation of industrial ecologyempowers it to be able to address questions beyond thescope of many other, more narrowly circumscribed dis-ciplines. This characteristic of industrial ecologyanswers, in part, calls for the establishment of inter-disciplinarity with sufficient power and breadth to copewith today’s complex socio-technical problems. Theinstitutionalization process of industrial ecology hasbeen helped along by the presence of researchers frommany other established fields. In a sense, industrialecology is a ‘melting pot’ for these immigrants fromother fields.

3.2. Industry

The application of industrial ecology in industry isgrowing more and more rooted. AT&T, and laterLucent, one of the successor firms left after AT&Tbroke itself into several pieces, supported industrialecology through the appointment of research fellows atboth large and small universities. Each appointmentcarried a small stipend for research. Lucent joined withthe National Science Foundations to continue theresearch grant program but eventually stopped desig-nating fellows.

Although not universally accepted, the use of LCA isfound in most well-established consumer productscompanies. The ISO 14000 environmental managementstandard contains a standard for LCA (ISO 14040–43).The Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemis-try (SETAC) has developed another, also widelyaccepted, framework. Supply chain protocols, now inplace for many large products-oriented companies, fre-quently require that suppliers to these companies carryout LCAs. One can purchase a variety of software

packages for LCAs. A new LCA coordination centerhas been started in the US.

At a more strategic level, one can find several ‘pro-prietary’ systems in place. These include The NaturalStep [14], Natural Capitalism [15], the McDonoughand Braungart Scheme (‘‘Waste equals food’’) [24], andothers. One of the four pillars of Natural Capitalism is‘the flow economy’, a direct analog to an ecologicalnetwork. This book has become one of the best sellingvolumes ever in the field of environment and sustain-ability. The Natural Step is based on a set of principlesrelated to the ecological metaphor. The fundamentalprescriptive basis of The Natural Step is the exhor-tation that human societies must close material cyclesand prevent the accumulation of natural and man-made substances in the biosphere—the ecological sys-tem that supports all life. While none of these approa-ches come from activities strictly or historically locatedwithin industrial ecology (IE), all are based on orincorporate a set of strategic or design principles trace-able to the ecological metaphor.

In private conversations, I have been asked whetherthere is any difference between industrial ecology andprograms like The Natural Step or parts of NaturalCapitalism. These programs share the same ecologicalmetaphor and focus on industrial production as part oftheir conceptual bases. They also incorporate prescrip-tive norms (for example, closed material loops), butoffer different tools and structures of legitimacy. Indus-trial ecology comes from more academic roots, with itsfocus on analysis, for example, LCA or MFA. TheNatural Step directs its prescriptions to the strategiclevel in firms and other organizations following a com-pass metaphor. Industrial ecology draws its legitimacylargely from academic sources. The Natural Step hasattempted to become legitimated through a quasi-aca-demic process in Sweden as well as popular supportincluding that of the King of Sweden.

Industrial ecology must expand its legitimacy beyondthe academic world if it is to gain a foothold in otherdomains. From what little evidence can be found, itwould appear that this key aspect of the institutionali-zation process has not occurred or is happening at avery slow pace. Most of the members of the newSociety and almost all the papers submitted for presen-tation at the Inaugural Meeting have come from acade-mia, with only a smattering from industry,government, or other sectors.

3.3. Government

IE has also moved slowly in the government sector.But there are signs of embedding, especially in Europe,where a few of its basic concepts have been used as abasis of policy design. Extended producer responsibility(EPR) has become a part of EU policy as a framework


for moving towards a closed-loop society. While alsorecognized as important in the US, EPR has not,however, made it into formal government policy.Chain management remains a facet of the emergentIntegrated Product Policy in the EU.

Material flow accounting is beginning to show up inthe national statistical accounting practices of a fewcountries. A conference devoted to this subject washeld in Sweden in the spring of 2001. An earlier OECDworking group special session noted that ‘there are sev-eral uses of MFA that are relevant for decision-makers’[25]. This set of practices, although not yet widelyinfluencing the policy process, is being moved along bythe formation of an international group of industrialecology practitioners and economists from nationalbureaus that has convened several meetings and gath-ered around some common research themes.

The USEPA convened a workshop in 2000 to exam-ine the potential for industrial ecology in the US regu-latory and environmental policy world. They maintaina small task force to track this subject. A set of strate-gies based on industrial ecology was included in thefinal report of President Clinton’s Commission for Sus-tainable Development [26]. The US National ScienceFoundation, as noted earlier, co-sponsored an indus-trial ecology research grants program for several years.

4. Conclusion

The predominant work within industrial ecology todate has been based on the flow aspects of the ecologi-cal metaphor—LCA, MFA, exergy analysis, forexample. Less has been done to explicate its structuralor systems aspects such as interdependence, closed-loop, community, or locality [27]. Studies of industrialcomplexes and of symbiosis (another ecological systemsarrangement) are as yet at an early stage and have yetto receive the same scale of attention that the flowaspects have. One of the persistent unanswered ques-tions about industrial ecology is whether these systemscharacteristics are normatively desirable. Another vari-ant of Johansson’s question is, ‘‘Is it always a goodidea to close loops or create an industrial symbiosis?’’Much more research is needed to establish this aspectof the basic metaphor as paradigmatic, or, in a lesssweeping claim, to delineate the bounds where the pre-scriptions derivable from industrial ecology hold true.If this does not happen, industrial ecology may becomestrongly criticized as mere ‘wishful thinking’, or per-haps in even stronger terms as intellectual dishonesty,for going beyond the scientific justification of ametaphor-in-use [3].

In a recent book, Consilience, E.O. Wilson argues fora coalescing of all of human knowledge into a unifiedwhole [28]. Consilience is a rarely used word meaning a

jumping together. The idea suggests one potential goal

for industrial ecology—to continue to draw in theorists

and practitioners from many disciplines or fields that

have become separated by the inexorable processes of

modernist epistemology. In the sense of consilience, it

will be very important to refine the language of indus-

trial ecology and find a vocabulary in common with

those working in other related ‘fields’ and practices

that share all or parts of the metaphor.Whereas academic fields seem to proliferate unend-

ingly, grounding new paradigms or routines in indus-

trial practice is much more difficult. The relative pace

of institutionalization between these two sectors bears

this out. More work is demanded to demonstrate the

benefits of bringing industrial ecology into the every-

day world of business than is needed to support the

creation of a new academic field. Business schools have

been slow to pick up environment or sustainability as a

legitimate area for research and teaching, and we can

expect little attention to be paid to industrial ecology

in the near term. The economics cultural base of most

business schools produces blindness to the real links

between business activities and the natural system of

the Earth. The interdependent, community, systems-

view of industrial ecology is more likely to be taken up

by scholars nipping at the boundaries that now consti-

tute business school curricula (and other fields as well).My own assessment of the near future for industrial

ecology is positive. Evidence of unsustainability con-

tinues to grow in spite of efforts arising in every sector

to turn the tide. Technological innovation still holds

the high ground as the most promising potential path

towards sustainability. But it is becoming evident that

innovative processes for a sustainable future must

depart from those of the past. It seems that eco-

efficiency, the ubiquitous slogan of global industry, has

a dark side. The so-called rebound effect, in which

efficiency produces more consumer surplus, which then

creates more consumption, may counterbalance much

of the potential benefits of eco-efficiency. Perhaps the

concepts of industrial ecology can guide innovation in

a direction where the demands on the ecosystem con-

tinue to decline or are stabilized as more and more

people on the Earth have their needs satisfied. As I

noted earlier, while there is current criticism (which

criticism is likely to continue into the future) about the

scientific basis of the ecological metaphor, there is little

or no argument that the industrial ecology metaphor

can serve as a powerful tool to get the creative process

going. And there is also little or no argument that such

creativity is sorely needed to address the daunting pro-

blems facing both rich and poor, or industrialized and

developing countries alike.


References

[1] Ehrenfeld JR. Journal of Cleaner Production 1997;5(1–2):87–95.

[2] Ayres RU, Ayres LW, editors. A handbook of industrial ecology.

Cheltenham (UK): Edward Elgar; 2002.

[3] Johansson A. In: Ayres RU, Ayres LW, editors. A handbook of

industrial ecology. Cheltenham (UK): Edward Elgar; 2002.

[4] Kuhn T. The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd ed., enlarged.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1970.

[5] Ayres RU, Kneese AV. Production, consumption, and externalities.

Washington (DC): Resources for the Future; 1969.

[6] Ayres RU. In: Ausubel JH, Sladovich HE, editors. Technology

and environment. Washington (DC): National Academy Press;

1989, p. 23–49.

[7] Watanabe C. Industrial-ecology: introduction of ecology into

industrial policy. Tokyo: Ministry of International Trade and

Industry (MITI); 1972.

[8] Billen G, Toussaint F, Peeters P, Sapir M, Steenhout A, Vander-

borght J-P. L’ecosysteme belgique. Essai d’ecologie industrielle.

Brussels: Centre de Recherche et d’Information socio-politique

(CRISP); 1983.

[9] Frosch R, Gallopoulos N. Scientific American 1989;Septem-

ber:142–55.

[10] Allenby BR, Cooper WE. Total Quality Environmental Manage-

ment 1994;3(3):343–54.

[11] Ayres RU, Simonis UE, editors. Industrial metabolism: restruc-

turing for sustainable development. Tokyo: United Nations Uni-

versity Press; 1994.

[12] Graedel T. Annual review of energy and the environment.

Palo Alto (CA): Annual Reviews, Inc.; 1996, p. 69–98.

[13] Ehrenfeld JR, Gertler N. Journal of Industrial Ecology

1997;1(1):67–79.

[14] Isenmann R. Industrial ecology: paradigmatic shift of under-

standing nature. The 2002 International Sustainable Develop-

ment Research Conference, Manchester, UK, April 8–9, 2002.

Shipley (UK): ERP Environment; 2002, p. 261–702002, p. 261–

70.

[15] Commoner B. The closing circle: nature, man and technology.

New York: Knopf; 1971.

[16] Ehrenfeld JR. Industrial ecology: a new framework for product

and process design. Journal of Cleaner Production 1997;5(1–2):

87–95.

[17] Ehrenfeld JR. American Behavioral Scientist 2000;22(2):

229–244.

[18] Robert K-H. The natural step: a framework for achieving sus-

tainability in our organizationsInnovations in management series.

Cambridge (MA): Pegasus Communications, Inc.; 1997.

[19] Hawken P, Lovins A, Lovins LH. Natural capitalism: creating

the next industrial revolution. Boston: Little, Brown and Com-

pany; 1999.

[20] Matthews E, et al. The weight of nations: material outflows from

industrial economies. Washington (DC): World Resources Insti-

tute; 2000.

[21] Guinee JB, editor. Handbook on life cycle assessment. Dor-

drecht (The Netherlands): Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002.

[22] Graedel TE, Allenby BR. Industrial ecology. Englewood Cliffs

(NJ): Prentice Hall; 1995 [now in its second edition].

[23] Duchin F, Lange G. The future of the environment: ecological

economics and technological change. New York: Oxford Univer-

sity Press; 1994.

[24] McDonough W, Braungart M. Atlantic Monthly. 1998.

[25] Anonymous. Special Session on Material Flow Accounting,

Chair’s Summary. OECD, Paris, October 24, 2000.

[26] Anonymous. Sustainable America: a new consensus. President’s

Council on Sustainable Development, Washington, DC, 1996.

[27] Korhonen J. Journal of Cleaner Production 2001;9:253–9.

[28] Wilson EO. Consilience: the unity of science. New York: Knopf;

1998.

John Ehrenfeld - 2004 - Industrial ecology A new ﬁeld or only a metaphor

Documents

Transcript of John Ehrenfeld - 2004 - Industrial ecology A new ﬁeld or only a metaphor