Grant (1995) explores the concept of industrial symbiosis in which industries from different segments work to create an environment in which by-products and waste products are exchanged for mutual benefit. The author suggests that industrial symbiosis is the phenomenon of “industrial networks that have the capacity to self organize and optimize resource flows.” It is the student’s view that while such communities do exists in some cases, the majority of the industrial segments are caught in a struggle to get a competitive advantage over others. Altruism is difficult to come by in the industry, and its various manifestations should be seen as a work and earn reward system.
Citing examples of the Toyota manufacturing company, the author suggests that the Toyota Production System (TPS) is a good example of industrial symbiosis. According to the author, in the TPS network, a number of vendors interact as per the system set up by Toyota. The vendors share information and knowledge, and there is a healthy interaction of knowledge exchange. The author asserts that such a process creates a much more efficient production system and has a lesser impact on the environment since there is nothing called waste. This model has succeeded in some areas, while in others, it has not.
It can be seen from the arguments put forth by the author, TPS is a competitive advantage that Toyota has earned over other car manufacturers such as GE, Ford, and other companies. It can be argued that the benefits of the industrial symbiosis, in this case, are restricted to the vendors of Toyota and the company itself. Industries that are not a part of the community do not get any benefits but are faced with a very competitive player. The student points out that industrial symbiosis fosters self-improvement and that it is not passive but active and forces members to improve. Those that do not adapt and improve miss out on opportunities. The observation is supported by the authors’ comments on the industrial revolution that forced industries to use machines to be competitive.
A few key areas are suggested for further research, and these include developing different models of industrial symbiosis that lay a framework for the structure, different players, and the economic cycles of such communities. As in any community, there are the producers, the consumers, and the processors. The structure needs to be examined with reference to different industrial segments such as infrastructure, manufacturing, and others. A manufacturing network would include manufacturers of steel and iron ores, foundries, shipping and logistics, raw material processing, assemblers, recycling plants, and so on.
The model should attempt to define a framework for how such networks could be structured, at what distances apart, how such communities affect the general economy, and so on, and more importantly, how knowledge exchange would help to increase efficiency.
Giving examples of successful industrial symbiosis, the authors have pointed out the case of Kalundborg in Denmark that evolved gradually over a long time. As a counterargument, the authors have pointed out that many attempts to set up eco-industrial parks have failed and argue that market practices and central authorities have failed in solving the problem. What the efforts lacked were changes in social, industrial, governmental, and academic policies. Research is recommended in understanding critical factors that help to make industrial symbiosis successful.
References
Grant Gabriel B, Seager Thomas, 1995. A Tacit Knowledge-Based Understanding of Industrial Symbiosis.