Exploring evolution of industry’s responses to high- grade recycling from an Industrial Ecology perspective

ness of cycle closure advantage may constitute a conceptual barrier. The work has helped underline that a fundamental difficulty of instigating changes such as material cycle closure lies in the abstractness of the concept to general audiences. As Connelly and Koshland (1997) argue, when referring to IE practitioners, the understanding of loop closure versus open loop cycling, is a key issue for seeking significant ecological benefit via loop closure and dematerialisation. Since there are various levels or degrees of cycle closure, and apparently a deal of confusion between open and closed loops (alternatively downcycling and recycling), even in the IE field, then the communication of a clear message by cycle closure proponents to a wider audience is challenging. If broader public pressure is required to instigate policy measures supporting loop closure, then higher awareness of the varying levels of recycling that are available is required. The general looseness of loop closure terminology usage in the Aluminium sector, and the manner in which the lack of awareness of cycle closure implications help perpetuate one-way material flows is proffered as a marked example of this. Motivation for cycle closure can rapidly dissipate. This research observed that hard won progress towards material cycle closure could be rapidly reversed. While important management changes observed in the two polymer organisations led to the most marked retreats, there was also evidence that more subtle factors related to knowledge could instigate withdrawal. It appeared that motivation could dissipate markedly, when the actors all along the material chain learned more about the pressures that initially instigated a degree of panic in their chain. As a first example, realisation of the far-reaching types of systemic change that might be required to achieve viable cycle closure solutions was seen to initiate a cooling of interest in the PU business pilot scale foam recycling. As a second, interest was seen to wane when polymer makers learnt that proposed changes to policy frameworks as a result of the ELV directive, might not be as profound as they are initially interpreted to be, or that they might be markedly “watered down”. A third example was observed in an “evaporation of urgency” surrounding ELV legislation, when carmakers discovered the very long timelines for change that would actually eventuate once a broad and relatively uniform, industry opposition to change had picked up momentum. Social imperative is still unclear. Despite evidence that the general public and policymakers consider the disposal of waste with residual value undesirable, the degree of social imperative for material cycle closure is still unclear for materials of the types addressed in this research. While the motivation for policy measures promoting cycle closure for materials of known well-known and publicised toxicity, such as lead and Philip Peck, IIIEE, Lund University 282 cadmium, are clearly communicable, the same cannot be said for these materials. Indeed, a strong contributory reason for multiple disposal pathways open for these materials (in particular PMMA) is their essential non-toxicity. At the present time, aluminium is an example of a material where dissipative uses and/or non-recycling, attract some negative attention for the apparent reason that “it is a ‘wrong’ to throw such material away”. An insight of this research is that more explicit communication of externalities related to non-closure of cycles for high quality, high exergy, materials is required, if regulators and the general public are to engage. Cycle closure systems cannot be engineered at will. This research indicated that the systems observed could not be “reengineered” simply by provision of adequate information to show industrial actors that private benefit, or both private and social benefit, will result from material cycle closure. The rationality of actors appeared to be significantly bounded. Trickle down effects of environmental policies are observable but not profound. Evidence was found that environmental policies such as EPR, where products containing materials addressed in the cases were targeted, did have trickle down effects to the primary material producers. The effect of multiple policies (e.g. legislation affecting vehicle scrapping, plus landfill disposal of waste, plus incineration of waste) also appeared to compound the degree to which firms were influenced. However, these effects were not profound, and appeared insufficient to stimulate action towards cycle closure, or shift market prices for the (polymer) materials addressed.275 The inference is drawn, that more policy measures that are specifically targeted at material groups or classes, will be required to achieve meaningful levels of cycle closure for such materials. The burden of proof is placed upon knowledge poor actors. The work indicates that the current status quo requires that generally actors such as policymakers, who have limited knowledge, are required to prove that it is feasible to close material cycles rather than “knowledge-rich” actors being required to prove that it is NOT feasible to close such cycles. While this situation remains, many promising material cycles are likely to remain open. 8.3.3 Contributions of this research The cases, conceptual framework, and analysis presented within this work have attempted to contribute a new view of how the precepts and approaches of the industrial ecology field can be reinforced, when applied in the examination of material cycle closure dynamics. Further, the application of the conceptual framework upon the three cases has sought to provide understanding of likely outcomes for different cycle closure scenarios. 275 Aluminium does, however, appear to have entered a category where cycle closure will increasingly be sought as a priority. It is still held however, that policy effects have not been profound except in the case of aluminium cans. Interest in Material Cycle Closure? 283 The changes to the body of knowledge created by this research shall be listed in the ensuing text. These contributions are generally targeted at, or focused upon, areas relevant to the “client group” identified in Chapter 2; namely, industrial IE practitioners interested in material cycle closure, the broader IE community, and other proponents of material cycle closure. A conceptual framework that provides for assessment and prediction. The research has resulted in the articulation of a conceptual framework that facilitates ex ante prediction, and/or ex post assessment of probable (and/or expressed) behaviour, for organisations when presented with a material cycle innovation. The process of documentation required in order to utilise the framework also enhances understanding of organisational barriers. Decision and strategy support has been developed for cycle closure proponents. The assessment process provides information for change proponents such academics; policymakers, and industrial managers, that may wish to assess drivers and barriers that surround a cycle closure innovation. The sub-components of the framework (in checklist form) provide a tool for the assessment of the relative technical performance of a material cycle closure innovation, and the general degree that a firm conforms to IE norms. As examples of such: policymakers are presented with a tool that can allow for prediction or rationalisation of corporate responses to proposed, or enacted, policy initiatives; industrial managers can more thoroughly assess the likelihood of internal venturing success, and likely forms of opposition, (e.g. for prioritising innovation efforts); and IE academics can better pinpoint projects more likely to be implemented (e.g. for analysis). Not least, this represents a contribution for change proponents, if they can utilise this research, to rationalise their frustration or perplexity at lukewarm responses to initiatives that they may perceive to be of significant strategic potential! Point of cognitive departure for cycle closure has been clarified/redefined. The work has, by the application of an institutionally grounded analysis, to some extent redefined the point of organisational departure for cycle closure initiatives. The analysis helps strengthen understanding of how traditional business forms can be quite at odds with environmentally (or IE) related views. The application of a conduct analysis, underlines how a superior waste management approach (i.e. entropy-production and exergy-loss minimising) such as cycle closure, an option highly placed on environmental waste hierarchies, can constitute a low priority pathway for the existing management structures of an organisation. The implications of this arose repeatedly throughout the research, as it became apparent that organisational goal alignment (business and production) with IE conformant goals, is critical to the progression of material cycle closure initiatives. Philip Peck, IIIEE, Lund University 284 Empirical basis for IE has been enriched. The research has added three detail rich case studies to the body of knowledge enfolding material cycling. These cases add significant empirical data to subjects often dealt with in general or hypothetical terms. IE literature has been extended. This work has shown that the infusion of knowledge (and theory) of a sociological and broader management nature, can be used to extend and strengthen work in the IE field. The analysis indicates that if proponents of material cycle closure (and/or other resource efficiency seeking approaches) wish to utilise IE analysis approaches in order to address questions about “what we can expect and how to achieve (or avoid) that which we expected”, then it must be extended to include the role of social institutions, structural inertia, resource dependency considerations, and so forth. 8.4 Implications for theory As a starting point for examining the theoretical implications of this research for the IE field and related disciplines, the existing theory base – and the manner in which it can, or should, be applied – should be revisited very briefly. Here, IE has been put forward as a concept276 that can offer a base for finding solutions to what have been intractable problems of ecological destruction, associated with industrial economic activity. In this instance, the biological-ecological metaphor applied to an industrial setting is used to provide an objective guide for scientific enquiry (Ehrenfeld, 2001). The theory input to industrial ecology is essentially drawn from three fields: firstly from that of biology and ecology, secondly from thermodynamics, and thirdly from economics.277 It is argued that IE should inform the environmental policy (and) decision-making system between political decision-makers, academic and other experts who provide information, bureaucratic or other planners who implement decisions, and industrial decision-makers (Solem & Brattebo, 1999). At a primary level, IE is applied in understanding the flow of materials and energy in industrial society, and at a second level it is utilised in the introduction and implementation of new solutions to improve the system. This second step is part of a change process in socio-economic structures where products are sold, and utilised in the market. These research conclusions are focused upon this second phase of IE application. This research has several implications for theory considerations – both the theoretical underpinning of the IE field, and to the disciplines that were linked and related to IE throughout the execution of this work. Firstly, the research reveals that the concepts that 276 Many, if not most, authors in the field refer to IE as a concept (c.f. Boons & Baas, 1997; Ehrenfeld, 2001; Frosch & Gallopoulos, 1992; Tibbs, 1992). 277 The third stream is not as explicitly stated as the first two. Economic principles interwoven with the work of in the field, generally revolve around the rationality of actors that will search for benefits and profits associated with IE (entropy or exergy reducing) measures, and will react in a manner likely to improve environmental performance when external costs are internalised by policy interventions such as environmental taxes. Interest in Material Cycle Closure? 285 guide IE practitioners, in their consideration of change in socio-economic structures, require extension and reinforcement to account for the manner in which organisations may behave when faced with material cycle closure. Since other IE related opportunities also involve change of varying degrees to existing structures, this conclusion is likely to be valid for the activities of IE in general. The research, in particular that portion documented in the latter part of Chapter 3, has identified theoretical streams that can strengthen IE. Further, the work checked a number of them in an exploratory fashion within a conceptual framework, and hence has also identified parameters that should be followed up in future work. 8.4.1 The role of institutions The influence of the taken for granted quality of certain practices and ways of doing things in organisations were seen to be directly valid to the IE field in the cases. A strong institutional theme was applied in the generation of the conduct axis of the conceptual framework – indeed, assessment essentially addressed the degree of institutionalisation of IE norms. Further, two key isomorphic institutional forces in particular were observed to play an important role in change. Coercive forces, predominantly in the form of formal pressures exerted on organisations by actors such as regulatory bodies, were seen as a dominant form of pressure in the cases. However, the analysis revealed a number of pathways by which informal pressures exerted on organisations, by other organisations upon which they are dependent, and by cultural expectations of society could also play an important role in the closure of material cycles. As an example, activities by actors responding to the ELV directive encompassed both of these aspects. The influence of normative forces, in particular from environmental professionals as they influenced each other and other chain actors, and as they affected control on their organisations were also important. The building (and shedding) of environmental resources, was seen to result in changes in the definition of roles and methods of work for actors falling in this category. Thus, general strengthening of environmentally cognisant resources were seen to result in amplification of normative institutional forces driving IE related conduct evolution. While explicit examples of the third type of institutional forces commonly discussed – mimetic isomorphic forces – were not extracted from the research, deeper examination would surely reveal examples (particularly in the Aluminium case). On the basis of the comments above, it is proposed that IE field requires the important theoretical input from institutionalism. While this study has focused upon the effects of intraorganisational institutional forces, the role of such forces in inter-organisational relationships throughout the organisational field must also be better understood if IE is to achieve the “fundamental paradigm shift in thinking concerning industrial ecology relations” that was discussed in Chapter 3. Philip Peck, IIIEE, Lund University 286 8.4.2 Aspects of resource dependence and alliance formation As was discussed in Chapter 3, the dependence of a focus organisation on other organisations for key resources, is seen as a major motivation for action in resource dependence theory. Further, the political considerations related to such resource dependence, the forces of external environmental variables that organisations must routinely face, and rational choice in the face of such considerations are emphasised. Throughout this IE focused research, examples of the need for the physical trade and exchange of materials and resources;278 increased cooperation, and/or alliances between firms; increased reliance upon external organisations; and increased transfer of knowledge between firms,279 were found as precursors of successful IE initiatives. The importance of political considerations related to such activities – and the role of institutions in defining the political economy of such, were found to be central. Based on the observations of tensions related to resource dependency considerations within the cases, and the potential of this theory stream to explain the form and function of alliances in IE initiatives, it is suggested that the IE field can also draw upon RDT for much needed theoretical input when seeking to understand barriers (and drivers) surrounding IE work. 8.4.3 Strategic advantage via the building of special resources When applying a resource based perspective, rare and difficult to imitate internal firm resources are considered vital to the achievement and maintenance of sustainable competitive advantage. While resource dependence theory discussed above focuses on those resources that must be obtained from external sources for an organisation to perform its activities, the “Resource Based View” of the firm (or RBV) generally addresses internal organisational components (although there is recognition that important internal resources can be sourced from external actors). Based upon the evidence gathered within the research regarding the role of internal resources, cognisance, and skills in making a firm “able” to work with material cycle closure, it is proposed that useful insights can be found within this field for rationalising the manner in which IE capabilities (both in the form of management skills and technical innovation systems) could, or can, offer business advantage. While only touching upon the role of such resources as a parameter of strategic advantage, this research found that the sorts of tests that the RBV would place upon IE innovation packages, might help explain and/or overcome, some of the internal political barriers apparently blocking material cycle 278 Note that in management texts, the discussions are often focused upon the internal, often intangible resources of the firm such as personnel, information systems, special technologies and so forth. Within an IE context, these categories are still important, but there is a significant focus on the physical goods and materials that a firms may exchange as well. 279 Participation in inter-organisational relationships is one way for an organisation to acquire control over critical resources in an effort to decrease dependence on other organisations, and/or acquire control over resources that increase the dependence of organisations upon itself (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). Interest in Material Cycle Closure? 287 closure (and, by extension IE related innovation).280 While work in the two theory areas mentioned previously, has potential to provide knowledge about why things are happening to hinder IE work – work on the strategic front utilising the RBV might be a useful tool to provide management actors with the insights they need to be convinced. 8.4.4 Bounded rationality when assessing utility A fourth area where this research has identified clear theoretical implications for the IE field in an external theory stream, is in the area of Rational Choice Theory. Turner (1991, p354) indicates that humans are: purposeful and goal oriented; they have sets of hierarchically ordered preferences, or utilities; they make rational calculations when choosing lines of behaviour, which compare utility, costs, and the best way to maximise utility. Further, he argues that emergent social phenomena are ultimately the result of rational choice; and that emergent social phenomena that arise from rational choices constitute a set of parameters for subsequent rational choices by individuals. This research has posed questions about the rationality of varying actors. It has shown that actors within the same firm can calculate utility and costs, for the same activity, in such ways, that different views result regarding the utility of pursuing courses of action such as material cycle closure, (or other IE related initiatives). It has suggested that the rationality of actors is bounded, and that bounds upon rationality may be more profound than anticipated by external analysts and observers. Further, the cases indicate that when interorganisational factors are considered, bounded rationality effects may be compounded. As the pursuit of actions that industrial actors deem to be rational, has proven central to the material cycle closure phenomena observed in this research, it is proposed that this represents a subsidiary theory area, that can be utilised to help understand the parameters that support calculations actors make, when choosing a position to take regarding an IE related activity. 8.4.5 The difficulties of changing course A final area of theory considerations to be addressed for the IE field has been dubbed organisational inertia within this work. This discussion seeks to address the challenges of doing of something new in an organisation, and/or changing the standard practice of an organisation. Rather than identifying a specific theory field, this closing text will provide a précis of two strands of work encountered during the research that highlighted the importance of inertial factors standing in the way of organisational evolution. The first of these is structural inertia, involving examination of the potentially considerable inertia inherent in existing organisational structures. The second area is that addressing aspects of internal 280 The RBV would demand tests of resource inimitability, durability, appropriability of value, substitutability, and competitive superiority. Philip Peck, IIIEE, Lund University 288 corporate resource allocation, as taken up in texts addressing internal corporate venturing and disruptive technologies (internal technology competition).281 This final category also draws upon aspects of the four theory streams already addressed. While there are strong resource dependency overtones in research commentary addressing inertia (Christensen & Bower, 1996), they also draw in aspects of institutionalism, the RBV, and rational choice. As such, structural inertia discussions provide delineation to an IE focus area within such theory spheres. These areas of work further inform us of both internal structural, and external (business) environmental constraints to change. Further, the IE field may offer a rich laboratory for theory work enfolding these topics. In short, there are implications for the field of IE in the manner in which these works approach the issues of: sunk costs – the implications arising because an organisation’s investment in plant, equipment, and specialised personnel, constitute assets that are not always transferable; internal informational constraints – the limited basis for decision-making resulting from the likelihood that organisational decision makers do not obtain anything close to full information on activities within the organisation, and/or upon business environment contingencies facing sub-units; internal political constraints – how some sub-units in organisations will often resist alterations to structure that disturb political equilibrium; long term benefits – the implications for firm behaviour of the potentially long period before the benefits of structural change, or innovation implementation pay off; historical constraints or path-dependence – the manner in which the costs and difficulty of change increase when standards, and the allocation of tasks and authority, have become normatively agreed. These areas of work also have implications for the IE field in the manner in which they approach external barriers to change such as legal and fiscal barriers to market entry, external constraints on information from other chain actors, and collective rationality problems. 8.5 Implications for policy and practice In this penultimate section, practical implications of this research for policymakers and industrial actors are outlined. As the dominant part of this research has addressed intraorganisational factors, the implications for industry are focused upon actors within 281 The internal corporate venturing, intra-organisational strategy making, and corporate innovation work of Burgelman; and the literature on disruptive technologies, can be largely combined in the context of this work, due to th fact that the seminal work on disruptive technologies undertaken by Bower and Christensen (1995; 1996) draws significantly upon the former areas, particularly in areas surrounding resource allocation processes taken up by this research. Interest in Material Cycle Closure? 289 material producing firms. While the target audience of this work has been “material cycle closure proponents” in general, the major implications for this work appear to be those in the policy realm. 8.5.1 Public sector policy analysts and managers The major implication of this work for public sector policy analysts and managers is that it has shown that the primary material sector cannot, for reasons of internal and external constraints, pursue, or support, many forms of structural change either rapidly or proactively. The work also indicates that such actors probably should not be allowed to overly influence processes surrounding the closure of material cycles, due to very real risks of them subverting the process. While such actors are undoubtedly the best placed, from a technical knowledge and capacity viewpoint, to support material cycle closure initiatives, the research reveals situations where very few industry actors would be likely to give a realistic picture of what “could be in the future”. They are only likely to give a somewhat conservative picture of what “can be now”. In general, policy-makers should expect opposition to most of their initiatives that target cycle closure. The smaller the portion of the benefit associated with cycle closure that accrues to the actor, or the larger the disruption to an existing industry, the more vehement, and better organised the opposition may be. Where policy analysts identify materials where clear social, economic, and environmental reasons for cycle closure are apparent, then increased levels of unilateral policy action may be required. In many respects, the need for unilateral action is unfortunate because it means that in the short to medium-term at least, policymakers may be unable to take advantage of the knowledge and technical capacity of the material industry actors. This implies that policymakers will have to rely upon their own assessments of benefit, or those that they have commissioned by independent parties, and then proceed largely without the help of the material producers. Further, policymakers may have to ignore most information from industry regarding the negative implications of their interference, and will need to be increasingly aware of how industry may exploit its relative knowledge advantage. However, the frameworks provided by this research provide policymakers with a means of better understanding likely corporate responses to policy initiatives – this in itself providing a stronger basis for negotiation, and perhaps increased confidence in the sense of their chosen actions. This work suggests that an important period of conduct evolution must take place in coming years. Further, it exposes a significant over-simplification – the view that welldefined opportunities for closure of anthropogenic material cycles remain unexploited because regulation insufficiently internalises external costs, is a significant simplification. Rather, cycle closure options will only be exploited when the general nature of organisations evolve. While internalisation of external costs may drive behaviour towards cycle closure, industrial rationality appears to be bounded to such an extent, that this alone will not be sufficient. In order to initiate the broad conduct evolution required for Philip Peck, IIIEE, Lund University 290 cycle closure opportunities to be capitalised upon, deliberate escalation of environmentally related policy pressures on a number of fronts appears necessary. Only when materials producers are challenged, and/or forced to perform, can the true talent and innovation capacity of industry actors emerge. While consideration of the specific types of measures that need to be directed at material flows to achieve cycle closure lie beyond the scope of this research, general comments can be made. The first point, one that has been raised a number of times throughout these closing chapters, is that measures aimed at closing off disposal pathways,282 appear to offer promise. Effective progress in the promotion of material cycle closure, is likely to be aided by the timed/successive closure of other pathways for disposal combined with concrete demands for clean material collection. Whether this should be targeted at specific material classes (e.g. “flexible foams”, “transparent plastics”, “light metals”, and so forth) or is best combined with product focused EPR type regulations is not clear. While the former perhaps offers advantage in that it directs focus to specific material streams, it also may run the risk of perverse outcomes where alternative (perhaps environmentally less desirable) materials not affected by disposal restrictions are substituted. The latter option may remove this concern, but then the situation remains, as observed in this research, where materials apparently suitable for cycle closure slip through the “legislative net”, or that pressures are too dilute to spur action by the time they have trickled down to the primary material sector. A second approach that is at times discussed, is where demands for recycled content in products, or in materials, are made. This approach however, appears to place unrealistic knowledge demands upon policymakers, and as a result, may also be difficult to extend beyond a limited number of material types. Moreover, unless targeted at products it may again encourage undesirable material substitution. Such approaches are also limited by political ability to drive through changes (Kemp, 1997; Keohane, Revesz, & Stavins, 1998; Lindhqvist, 2000). This is not to say that there is not a place for recycled content approaches. Indeed, this work addressed materials that apparently face a relatively low risk of substitution, or belong to material classes with a low number of alternative material choices. For such materials, legislated recycled content could represent a significant driver for material cycle closure without posing a significant risk to the market of the material in general. 282 Within this, it is possible that strict controls upon the export of “scrap” and “second-grade” materials needs to be carefully addressed. As an example, the potential for export of “second grade material” (an industry delineation separating scrap from “reject” product) to countries where less strict guidelines, and lower labour costs apply was observed in the PMMA case. While the potential does exist for this to be exergetically beneficial where such material can be substantially “reused” as a result of lower labour costs, it generally seems safe to class scrap, or reject, export as a loophole, which is exploited by industry to the detriment of material cycle closure. Interest in Material Cycle Closure? 291 Finally, a number of points are made to round off, and close this public sector related discussion. Firstly if policy intervention forces society to collect material in substantially unadulterated forms, then a material stream is created that entrepreneurs may seek to develop viable business around. Depending on the technical and economic barriers to market entry, these entrepreneurs may be incumbent industrial actors, or new start-ups. Secondly, the generation of material streams – even if moderate to poor in recycling functionality – may result in flow-on effects such as the uptake of targeted “design for recycling functionality” measures by primary material producers. The presence of large volumes of difficult to handle material can also provide a significant motivation for reformulation of materials – and of production activities focused on improving the potential “end of life value” of the stream. A third point, is that such measures, if undertaken, should consider the “cycle closure fitness” of material types. While a need for policy measures that aim for a “playing field levelling” effect for high recycling functionality materials was found, this research did not encounter reasons that motivate the protection of less fit materials. Adoption of such an approach would represent a shift from “fit for purpose”, to “fit for lifecycle purpose”, a form of practice where there would no doubt be winners and losers. The retardation, or even extinction, of some material classes could eventuate, and perhaps needs to be accepted. It appears logical, that with application of such approaches, the cost profile of some high functionality materials would change as their “lower external costs” become recognised on the market. Less functional materials would likely see their market shares, and applicability areas shrink. If managed carefully, pursuit of such “industrial survival of the ecologically fittest”, would appear to represent a positive system-evolutionary development, as well as a new metaphor for industrial ecology application in policy development. 8.5.2 Private sector managers Findings for private sector industrial actors are provided in two separate categories. Firstly, implications for actors initiating or supportive of material cycle closure, and secondly, comments for those actors ambivalent to, or even against material cycle closure are passed.283 Proponents of material cycle closure. It is suggested that the application of the conceptual framework developed in this research provides industrial change proponents with a useful tool for use in formulation of their firm internal strategies, and indeed for performing a self-assessment of the relative value of an innovation to the business as it is situated in its industrial context. An assessment based upon this research, would provide better knowledge of the odds of success for a specific innovation in their firm; increased sensitivity to political economy, or timing issues; improved planning for implementation at times when material cycle closure is (briefly) a management priority; identification of pathways for proactive policy related lobbying; generation of more creative organisational 283 It is recognised that it may be unlikely that readers in such categories would have reached this far into the concluding section of this thesis! Philip Peck, IIIEE, Lund University 292 solutions (e.g. early spin-off); and not least, a more thorough assessment of the strength of their innovation. Such ex ante assessment of the prospects of an innovation within the firm, conceivably raise the prospects of project success. Similarly, better assessment of pathways to internal venturing success, and the likely forms of opposition can conceivably allow for prioritisation of innovation efforts. Reluctant starters. While an industrial actor may not desire to participate in material cycle closure initiatives, this research has shown that it is reasonable to assume that such actors may one day have to. Should this be the case, then this research provides insights into where the changes may not prove to be entirely unpalatable – at least if the organisation is involved with production of a material that has a high cycle closure functionality. The research indicates that traditional business success measures (such as increased shareholder value) can be achieved with material cycle closure, particularly if policymakers make moves to force internalisation of external costs. The research points towards possibilities for strategic competitive advantage over both competitors, and over competing materials, if timely moves are made. Examples of such moves could include: the cultivation of customer demand; the cementation of new resource dependence relationships with product chain actors; achievement of first mover advantage over competitors in the same material branch, and the tying up (or “reservation”) of relationships with cycle closure actors (e.g. material collection networks); and even the creation of entry barriers for international opposition through the exploitation of policy pressures and organisational advances. However, as food for thought for change proponents, and as consolation for industrial actors that hold the view that material cycle closure activities are not their area of business, this research shows that in today’s business and policy environment, reluctant starters still have little to fear from material cycle change initiatives. The slow rate of development of IE conformant behaviour in base material industries, globalisation trends for trade, the effectiveness of industrial “anti-change” lobbying, and so forth, indicate that the status quo is likely to be maintained for some time yet. If an organisation does not wish to indulge in these sorts of activities, then they will be able to do more or less as they please in the foreseeable future. This analysis notest that policy and practice frameworks are not changing rapidly, and even when they do, the changes are still often incremental and not particularly coercive. 8.6 Further research This empirical research has sought to reinforce mainstream industrial ecology ideas with theoretical input from the management and sociological field so as to provide an improved basis for closing material cycles. It has study showed that there are suites of materials with matched technologies that constitute viable systems to close material cycles but that intra-organisational barriers exist that can prevent the implementation of such technology driven environmental improvements. Further, it has been found, that while a Interest in Material Cycle Closure? 293 wide range of external forces acting upon systems could influence industrial evolution towards cycle closure, the most effective appeared to be policy related coercive pressures. However, the study demonstrated that existing policy measures acting upon materials producers and upon material chain actors are generally insufficient to drive advancement. A number of areas where the factors driving phenomena are unclear, or where more empirical knowledge would be beneficial, are briefly discussed here. 8.6.1 Extending and improving this exploratory work The conceptual framework developed in this research is of an exploratory nature, and it represents only a first iteration. In its current form, it requires that judgement be made on a large number of parameters, some which are very close to each other in form, in order to yield insights into likely behaviour patterns. Further, as was discussed in Chapter 7, parameters of assessment within the framework are unweighted, and rely to some extent upon subjective judgement. Future research, particularly case study based efforts, could take this work forward in a number of ways. Firstly, a closer examination of parameters of assessment for both conduct, and technological performance, could be performed to advance, rationalise, and simplify the conceptual framework. Logically, this work would be combined with the use of the framework to analyse a range of materials that are potentially suitable for material cycle closure. Secondly, ex post analyses could be performed upon material applications where cycle closure is being achieved to a significant extent, particularly where this occurs under the influence of some degree of policy intervention (e.g. lead, aluminium cans, PET bottles, are some potential analysis candidates). Such studies may provide valuable insights into the manner in which organisational or industrial conduct, and technological systems, advance when pushed. Finally, the framework could be tested in different countries and regulatory frameworks, with a particular focus upon the conduct axis. In this instance, the approach defined by this research could be utilised to supply knowledge of differing IE related conduct patterns in different societal contexts. 8.6.2 Documenting candidate materials for cycle closure Throughout this work reference has been made to “materials suitable for cycle closure”, to “suites of materials with matched technologies that constitute viable systems to close material cycles”, or similar words to that effect. Such references clearly bear with them the implication that such materials exist. The research has examined three such material systems, and has identified others, but has in no way compiled extensive lists of candidate materials. Further, reliable and easily understood methodologies with which to identify, and robustly justify materials that are strong candidates, are not well documented: the use of inherent energy as a proxy, as applied in this work, remains a crude measure; LCA or LCI work may not capture the necessary level of detail or system complexity; and exergy based studies are quite difficult to understand. Nor do such methods capture dynamic system effects. Unless a firm basis for material assessment is available to external change proponents, it will remain possible for primary material producers opposed to systemic Philip Peck, IIIEE, Lund University 294 change to effectively, and convincingly, argue against the closure of material cycles in technical terms with relative impunity. An inference drawn from these observations, is that valuable technically grounded research work remains to be performed in the identification and delineation of materials, and associated technical cycle closure systems, that offer clear ecological benefit to society if they are cycled in essentially closed loops. This of course, implies that development of sound and transparent assessment techniques also needs to be performed. Within this work, it would also be of value if “less fit for lifecycle purpose” materials are also identified. Materials that for reasons of “molecular fragility”, “oxidation propensity”, process complexity, or additive contamination (i.e. stabilisers, plasticisers, etc.), and so forth, are not amenable to cycle closure should also be identified. At this juncture, it would appear that the concomitant assessment of the economic benefit of the closure of such systems should be accorded secondary importance. As this research has shown, when such systems are not established, then the estimation of the economics of material cycling is of limited value. 8.6.3 Extending knowledge of organisational phenomena These suggestions for further research are intended to relate to the deepening of the understanding of organisational phenomena, using the related sociological and management theory areas. The idea that research can now test outcomes arising from this work, upon material cycles where some degree of closure is already achieved is continued here, but with a difference in general approach to that applied in Section 8.6.1. The conceptual framework development work and analyses suggested there were focused upon improvement and streamlining of the framework, and then ex post mapping of conduct development. These proposals for further research, are associated with more traditional forms of management or sociological investigation. It is likely that the manner of work suggested here would be more suited to longitudinal studies of cycle closure initiatives – although it is recognised that systems in their absolute infancy might be difficult to find. As such, this type of work would likely need to involve a review of past progress, followed by a tracking of developments over a period of two or more years. Work in four areas is suggested to investigate key phenomena or themes uncovered in this research. The role of institutional isomorphism. The role of isomorphic institutional influences (particularly those of a normative nature) exerted by environmental actors within material producing organisations, has been portrayed as an important driver for change in this research. Further, it has been implied that external signals of change, and/or calls for change, strategic opportunities, the role of environmental legislation, and so forth, are perceived increasingly positively by organisations and industries as professional groups working in IE related areas become more established and enmeshed, within actor firms. Thus, a link between the institutionalism of IE norms and environmental proactivity, has been drawn. As such, the sections of organisations interacting with material cycle closure, and with other environmentally related areas, constitute a rich and rapidly evolving Interest in Material Cycle Closure? 295 “laboratory” for management researchers. This work suggests that research to examine how such divisions establish, evolve, wax and wane; particularly in forefront areas such as cycle closure, will have much to inform institutionalism, and indeed industrial ecology. Further, as a direct follow-on from this research, more positivistic investigation into the relational links between growth in “general environmental resources”, “resources for material closure”, the rise of normative isomorphism, and the forms of material cycle closure proposed in this thesis, is advocated. Such work would significantly extend the generalisability of this work and thus enhance both the IE field and institutional literature. Work in this sphere may also be of value to scholars and practitioners focused upon strategy and the resource based view of the firm. Strategic advantage through material cycling innovation. Firms and industries adopting material cycle closure, particularly those who are first movers, presumably had strategic reasons behind their shift. Work to examine the link between environmental resources and strategic choice has been suggested above. Here, it is implied that while the choice to move proactively – thus presumably “strategically seeking competitive advantage” – is one issue, the achievement of sustainable competitive advantage is another. Investigation into the manner in which sustained competitive advantage is (or is not) achieved via resource building in competence areas such as cycle closure, is again a rich area of work suggested by this research. Again, the weight attached to the relative strength of environmental resources within this work, suggests that a resource-based approach would be applicable. Lines of inquiry could involve the investigation of the critical triggers that prompted the strategic move into cycle closure activities, and then the parameters that are pursued to sustain advantage. The political economy of cycle closure innovation. The theme of material cycle closure innovation, and indeed other IE related activities, constituting a “niche activity”, a distraction, or even a potential disruptive threat, has been put forward throughout this work. Again by addressing material cycles where closure activities have recently been adopted, there is beneficial knowledge to be extracted from investigation of the political economy of material cycle closure innovation in the firm. Investigation could be directed at eventual progression from “distraction” to “core competence”, with particular focus upon the relationship and power balances between “production divisions” and “environmental innovation departments”. The work of academics such as Burgelman (1984), Bower, and Christiansen (1995; 1996), who (can loosely be said to have) addressed technology and organisational change, and the work of Hannan and Freeman (1977; 1984), where they examine organisational inertia, suggest that research grounded in resource dependency theory and institutional theory would have value here. Barriers to cycle closure in the product chain. The original expectations of this work was that research would be performed upon both intra and inter organisational barriers to material cycle closure. As the research unfolded, this work concentrated on exploration of aspects of the former. In the cases addressed, it was found that intra-organisational Philip Peck, IIIEE, Lund University 296 barriers were so profound, that IE related activities might never progress to the stage where inter-organisational barriers become a challenge. However, such barriers certainly do exist, and actors involving themselves in IE activities such as material cycle closure, undoubtedly require guidance in meeting the challenges associated with overcoming them. These factors remain to be researched. Interest in Material Cycle Closure?