Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 1639e1653

www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

What has modern ecosystem theory to offer to cleaner production,

industrial ecology and society? The views of an ecologist
Søren Nors Nielsen*
Danish University of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Department of Pharmaceutics and Analytical Chemistry,
Physical Chemistry Section, Universitetsparken 2, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark
Accepted 4 August 2006
Available online 24 October 2006

Abstract

Ecosystem theory has been developed during recent decades, thereby a series of concepts are hypothesized to describe principles inherent to
the ‘‘natural’’ function of biological systems at various levels of hierarchy. It seems that a universal trend exists, through evolutionary time and
space that allows us to establish indicators that may be used to observe patterns in evolution, even at high levels of hierarchy such as the eco-
system level. The functional principles of ecosystems have evolved over a period of time corresponding to the existence of life on earth say 3e4
billion years. The obvious question immediately arises whether we could learn something from observing these principles. Could we possibly
improve our existence by living in accordance with these principles practiced in nature, as exemplified by ecosystems? In this paper, a compar-
ison between natural systems on the one side and industrialesocietal systems on the other side is made using 10 target areas as entrance points. It
turns out that even though industrial ecologists are aware of and are practicing some points in ecosystem theory, far from all principles, have
been exploited. It is suggested that society should increase attention to some of the features where natural systems and societal systems differ
greatly. It is hypothesized that industry and society, both in terms of economy and sustainability, would benefit from exploiting these natural
principles, even more. This would lead to an intended and deliberate development of the industrial sectors and society in general accordance
with the natural ecosystem principles. This led the author to propose the eco-mimetic development of our society.
Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Industrial ecology; Cleaner production; Exergy; Sustainability; Eco-mimetic development

1. Introduction The awareness that ecosystem principles could be impor-

The question raised in the title of this paper might also have
been formulated in the following manner. Does modern eco-
system theory carry any important messages for industrial
ecology? Meanwhile, both the formulations immediately re-
sult in new questions to be raised. If so e i.e. the answer
is ‘‘yes’’ e what would be the consequences of this offer? e
and/or e what would the message(s) be? But let us start
with some even more basic questions.
* Tel.: þ45 35306455; fax: þ45 35306013.
E-mail address: snn@dfuni.dk
tant to study or that industry should use knowledge from eco-
system behavior has been demonstrated and suggested by
several authors [1e4]. So, why raise questions about this issue
at all? Hasn’t enough been done already? Are ecological prin-
ciples not sufficiently implemented by the normal practices
carried out through cleaner production (CP) and industrial
ecology (IE)?
For more than 100 years statements have been made about
natural working principles for selection and evolution of bio-
logical systems such as Liebig’s law and Lotka’s statements
about competition for free energy [5].
Meanwhile, it was about 50 years ago that the results from
early phenomenological studies in ecology were synthesized
by Odum [6] in his ‘‘Fundamentals of Ecology’’ through his

0959-6526/$ - see front matter Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.08.008
1640 S.N. Nielsen / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 1639e1653
statement of 24 principles observed during succession towards
a climax society. His brother, Odum [7], took a starting point
in Lotka’s hypothesis referenced above, stating that ecosys-
tems strive to maximum power a concept that was later ex-
panded through the concept of embodied energy (emergy)
that was subsequently used in the analyses of many types of
systems [8].
Other directions for the analysis of biological systems took
an entrance point in thermodynamics. It then became possible
to describe and discuss biological systems as negentropy
feeders [9] and dissipative structures [10]. Since the late
1970s, several authors independently concluded that ecosys-
tems optimize their function in terms of thermodynamics
[11,12].
In addition to this, it became clear that ecosystems not only
consist of linear trophic chains, but also that they should be
perceived as networks. Therefore, it was necessary to use
the more sophisticated techniques such as network analysis
and information theory to understand how the network would
[13e16] evolve. For an overview of the relevant theories see
Ref. [17]. In this paper, the statements of Patten [18] of 20 re-
markable properties are presented, although it is clear that the
ascendancy concept of Ulanowicz [16,19] is too important. An
overview of many of the above concepts is presented in Müller
and Leupelt [20].
The core idea or the hypothesis behind this paper may be
stated in a very simple manner. Evolution of ecosystem’s
structure and function on earth has taken place over 3.5 billion
years. During this time, organisms and ecosystems have been
subjected to adaptational and selectional pressures from the
environment. The ecosystems existing today are the ones
that have survived this process. Ecosystems are assumed to
be selected for the more efficient overall functionality, i.e.
their ability to meet changes in their environment with only lit-
tle or almost no internal change. As they were selected over
long periods of time, their functionality must represent good,
robust strategies. In other words, existing ecosystems are the
ones that are most fitted in terms of functionality. As a conse-
quence, it may be that valuable knowledge can be deduced
from studying the patterns they follow. Suggestions for quan-
tification of the behavior are given by the authors as above. In
turn, we may consider integrating this knowledge in our man-
agement policies [2] by ‘‘implementing nature’s lesson’’
[11,21].
There are two points to this suggestion. The first is, that
some patterns, so-called emergent properties, are ‘‘unavoidable’’,
i.e. intrinsic in the sense they are inherent in the properties of
systems’ elements, flows, and feedbacks. These ‘‘unavoid-
able’’ patterns are what we are up against when we practice
coexistence with nature since ecosystems always attempt to re-
turn to their optimal functional state. We often violate those
working principles through poor management that is a result
of insufficient knowledge of the functional principles. We sim-
ply violate some, for the time being, invisible, hidden or un-
known rules.
The second point is a consequence of the statement above.
As evolution proceeded, selection and adaptation acted
together to produce functional elements with properties as
well as that led to more ‘‘robust’’ elements and systems.
Therefore, it is argued that following the evolution of
a man-made system that imitates or mimics the functional
principles of ecosystems would be a sensible strategy to follow
for industrial and societal systems, i.e. they would lead in the
direction of more sustainable development. This paper pres-
ents the first investigation into the possibilities of what is
called an eco-mimetic development of society.
It is true that some ecological principles are already implic-
itly applied through the practices carried out in CP and IE. The
latter, by its name indicates a connection between ecology and
industry, and carries the connotation that industrial systems
may be viewed as ecosystems [22,23]. Theoretical ecology
and ecological insights must be important to industry and so-
ciety and to the evolution of their systems. This is the idea
practiced hitherto [2]. CP and IE should lead to a sustainable
society [24] and be of benefit to both environment and econ-
omy [25]. Several authors have published papers on industrial
ecology and adjacent areas along this line; these include pa-
pers where the authors acknowledge their debt to ecology
and ecosystem science [26e35]. Implementation of strategies
such as ‘‘The Natural Step’’ proposed by Upham [36,37] is sen-
sible but implementation occurs on an almost intuitive basis. CP
and IE should not stay at the level of metaphors but use real anal-
ogies to improve their efficiency of function. The real question is
whether the above-mentioned strategies could be improved, by
raising the awareness of ecosystem properties recently discov-
ered, as proposed by Schwarz and Steininger [21].
The way concepts are used is stated in a very general man-
ner and usually only builds on traditional ecosystem science
[38], for instance as presented by the two pioneers Odum
[6] and Odum [7]. This leaves the possible role of contribu-
tions in modern ecosystem theory presented in recent publica-
tions, wholly open and untouched.
The purpose of this paper is to raise the question whether
the development already taken in IE is sufficient or whether
implementation may be taken further than demonstrated by
applications, thus far? This would be designed to explore the
basic ideas further within the realm of modern ecosystem
theory.
A comprehensive treatment of all topics in ecosystem the-
ory in this paper is impossible, so the reader searching for de-
tails should consult the literature referenced in the foregoing
paragraphs. It is believed that, when further investigated,
some of the points treated in the following sections will be im-
portant in achieving sustainability or at least for developing
our society in a more sustainable direction.
2. Selected target areas and system’s
features e comparison of nature and
ecosystems vs. industry and society
Essential measures for studying ecosystem phenomenology
and possibly causal, internal mechanisms related to their be-
havior, have been proposed by several authors. Unfortunately
 S.N. Nielsen / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 1639e1653
the classical 24 principles of Odum [6] are usually not in-
cluded in the basic ecology textbooks. The points raised by
the 24 principles clearly relate to the early ecological studies
made on the behavior of ecosystems. Less is probably known
about the ‘‘20 remarkable properties’’ laid out by Patten [18]
as a result of the study by him and his coworkers. The con-
clusive statements about ecosystem behavior made in their
paper are the results of the application of network theory to
ecological systems [17]. Other important features to be ob-
served and taken into account when implementing Ecological
Engineering or Ecotechnology as defined in Mitsch and
Jørgensen [39] have been made by Jørgensen and Mitsch
[40] and Straskraba [41]. An overview of these features is
given in Table 1.
The issue of integrating ecotechnological perspectives in
CP and IE initiatives is interesting because it could strengthen
their foundations, especially for CP. It is this author’s observa-
tion that much of CP is going in the direction of and increas-
ingly favoring high-technological solutions to problems
instead of low-tech solutions that are considered primitive,
but have been found to be very cost-efficient. In other words,
when reviewing early work-papers and grey literature in the
area and comparing early CP intentions with the present state
as deduced from the contents of JCP, CP workers seem to be
moving away from CP’s origins where logical and low-tech
solutions were also valid approaches. Ecotechnology deviates
from normal technology in several areas as illustrated by the
comparison in Table 2, especially in areas that relate to our
chances of achieving sustainable production and society. The
rapid increases in consumption registered as well as forecasted
[42e44] underscore the importance and need to (re)introduce
the ecotechnological approaches within CP and IE [45].
Ecotechnological approaches accentuates the value of less
energy consumption but highly efficient technologies as op-
posed to bio-technological solutions that are connected to
high-energy consumption and dissipation.
This is especially crucial to the implementation of CP in
third world countries (e.g. Ref. [46] and more papers in the
same issue), where the availability of energy and resources of-
ten poses major problems. The more ecological, environmen-
talist oriented among CP-people claim that it is important to
address this issue also in industrialized countries, since the ex-
haustion of fossil fuels and virgin materials [47] is taking us to
the situation where alternative, sustainable approaches will be
essential. As stated by Suganthi and Samuel [48] only renew-
able energy will meet our growing needs for energy increasing
global human populations, consuming increasing amounts of
energy and materials.
Of these proposed end points, 10 key target areas have been
chosen, partly because they seem to be the areas where CP and
IE might be able to benefit from increased knowledge and fol-
lowing implementation, and partly because it represents a nec-
essary aggregation, since treating all the points in the lists
would be redundant. Furthermore, the experience from mod-
ern ecosystem theory shows that it is not sensible to operate
with one index only. Rather, in order to fully understand a com-
plex system, it is necessary to use several complementary
1641
indices. Therefore, as industrial and societal systems share
this property with real, natural ecosystems of being complex
systems too (see Section 2.1 below), a single index, e.g. as
the holistic index (LinX) proposed for industrial systems by
Khan et al. [49], is not sufficient. More likely, several indices
will be necessary to fully analyse and understand industrial
ecosystems.
The choice of target points is considered to be enough to
emphasize the crucial issues highlighted thus far.
The target points selected include the following:
1. Complexity e components and interconnectedness;
2. Evolution e adaptation and selection;
3. Compartmentalisation e quantity and quality;
4. Flows and processes e quantity and quality;
5. Feedbacks and controls;
6. Cycling e cycles, cycling, and recycling;
7. Network properties e synergism and utility;
8. Organisation and hierarchy;
9. Diversity; and
10. Open Systems and dissipation.
In the following paragraphs, each of these target areas is
presented and discussed with emphasis on the major differ-
ences that exist between (1) ecosystems on one side and (2)
cultural systems, industrial and societal systems on the other
side. From this examination it is possible to point out areas
of similarities and major differences. One common problem
is expected already at this point. That is, in some areas, the ex-
amination will simply show that not enough knowledge about
a given feature exists in order to reveal and understand func-
tional differences. Such areas will be of essential importance
for studies in the future.
2.1. Complexity e components and interconnectedness
The perception of nature as represented by ecosystems and
society as complex systems is widely accepted [50]. State-
ments following this idea may be found throughout the litera-
ture, although in both areas, the term is usually used in a very
vague, poorly, defined manner. Some authors have proposed
complexity of systems, as an issue to be studied [28,33].
Meanwhile, ecosystems are extremely complex. They
posses many compartments (see also Section 2.3), with
many material connections or flows interlinking the compart-
ments (Section 2.4), and many controls, feedbacks (Section
2.5) (terminology of the three Cs of systems as indicated by
italics is taken from Patten, pers. comm.). This in turn pro-
vides the possibility of a high interconnectedness (connectiv-
ity) to exist, although, almost as a rule, not all possible,
direct connections are actually realized. The saying that in
ecosystems ‘‘everything is linked to everything’’ is therefore,
rather referring to the fact that even though the connectance
is below the possible maximum, the network structure (cf.
Section 2.7) has the consequence that any direct impact on
one component of the ecosystem will have an indirect effect

Table 1
Various strategies for ecosystem development or natural working principles that are believed to be followed by nature during evolution, according to various authors
Odum [6,89]
1 P/R-ratio approaches 1
2 P/B-ratio from high to low
3 B/E-ratio from low to high
4 Net community production from high to
low
5 Food chains e from linear, grazing
dominated to detritus-based webs
6 Total Organic matter from small to large
7 Inorganic nutrients from extrabiotic to
intrabiotic
8 Species diversity, variety component from
low to high
9 Species diversity, equitability component
from low to high
10 Biochemical diversity from low to high
11 Stratification, spatial heterogeneity from
poor to well organized
12 Niche specialization from broad to narrow
13 Size of organisms from small to large
14 Life cycles from short and simple to long
and complex
15 Mineral cycles from open to closed
16 Nutrient exchanges between organism and
environment from rapid to slow
17 Role of detritus in nutrient regeneration
from unimportant to important
18 Growth from rapid, uncontrolled to slow,
feedback controlled
19 Production from quantity to quality
20 Internal symbiosis from undeveloped to
developed
21 Nutrient conservation form poor to good
22 Stability from poor to good
23 Entropy from high to low
24 Information from low to high
The principles should be taken into account and must be obeyed when working with nature and the environment in order to help to ensure sustainable societal development.
Patten [15,18]
Ecosystems are networks of interacting agents
Ecosystems are hierarchically organized
Ecosystems are collections of environments
Ecosystems contain a large number of
interactive pathways
Ecosystems pathways are complex and
intricate
Ecosystem pathways partition constitute
environs
Ecosystem agents interact by direct and
indirect pathways
Ecosystems tend to equalize energyematter
flows between constituents
Ecosystems derive more than face value from
their inputs
Ecosystems increase distance from
thermodynamic ground
Ecosystem agents are quantitatively
dominated by indirect interactions
Ecosystems qualitatively transform their agent
interactions
Ecosystem determination is predominantly
holistic
Ecosystems provide positive utility to their
biota
Ecosystems are model-making complex
adaptive systems
Ecosystems create and proliferate new niches
Ecosystems are inheritance systems
Ecosystems are cybernetic systems with
distributed control
Ecosystems are units of co-evolution
Ecosystems expand their inner space of reality
Jørgensen and Mitsch [40]
Ecosystem structure and function are
determined by forcing functions
Ecosystems are self-designing systems
Elements are recycled in ecosystems
Homeostasis of ecosystems requires
accordance between biological function and
chemical composition
Processes in ecosystems have characteristic
time scales that may vary over several orders
of magnitude
Ecosystem components have characteristic
space scales
Chemical and biological diversities contribute
to the buffering capacities of ecosystems
Ecosystems are most vulnerable at their
geographical edges
Ecotones are formed at the transition zones
between ecosystems
Ecosystems are coupled with other ecosystems
Ecosystems with pulsing patterns are often
highly productive
Everything is linked to everything else in the
ecosystem
Ecosystems have feedback mechanisms,
resilience and buffer capacity in accordance
with their preceding evolution
1642
Straskraba [41]
Minimize energy waste
Recycle
Retain all kinds of structures
Consider long-term horizons
Do not neglect that mankind is dependent on
many organisms and that their loss may lessen
our ability to survive in the changing
environment
S.N. Nielsen / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 1639e1653
Consider ecosystem dynamics
Understand that nature is a teaching ground for
handling complex systems.
Understand that people as part of the
ecosystem are dependent on solar energy
directly.
Understand that people are sensitive to
external inputs
Manage the environment as an interconnected
system, not as isolated subsystems
Evaluate available management options
simultaneously
Include secondary effects elsewhere
Do not exceed the ecosystem homeostatic
(assimilation) capacity
Consider ecosystem self-adaptation to
management strategies
Evaluated the socio-economic environment
Evaluated all possible human uses of the
environment
Base measures on ecosystem principles
 S.N. Nielsen / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 1639e1653
Table 2
Major differences between the approach of ecological engineering and bio-
technology according to Mitsch and Jørgensen [39]
Characteristic Ecotechnology Biotechnology
Basic unit Ecosystem Cell
Basic principles Ecology Genetics, cell biology
Control Forcing functions, Genetic structure
organisms
Design Self-design with Human design
some human help
Biotic diversity Protected Changed
Maintenance and Reasonable Enormous
development costs
Energy basis Solar based Fossil fuel based
A clear difference in the demands for energy input is seen.
elsewhere. Society, at a macroscopic level, may share many of
the features of complex systems, but the issue of propagation
of indirect effects has seldom been investigated on societal
systems. The words ‘‘direct’’ and ‘‘indirect’’ about effects
are used as defined by Patten, i.e. in a very strict and quantifi-
able sense. The meanings are not equivalent to the way that is
used by for instance Korhonen [50] and Robert et al. [51].
Agricultural production systems, when compared to eco-
systems, are relatively simple. They usually possess fewer
compartments and flows. The flows are almost all directly
one-way [52] from extraction of resources to waste disposal
(‘‘from cradle to grave’’). The issue of productivity and the
related problems of trade and market(s) seems, to a certain
extent, to take a totally opposite direction than ecosystems.
The ‘‘goal’’ seems to be to simplify the flows and regulatory
mechanisms (not considering bureaucracy). Our view of the
economic mechanisms is strictly limited to a view where
money flows are merely a negative of the flow of materials
(or energies). Money used for paying is simply moving in
the opposite direction as goods. Money and material flows
are interchangeable and ‘‘environmental performance’’ may,
therefore, be expressed as flows in economy [53].
All in all, production systems, in general, are less complex
than natural systems in terms of number of physical compo-
nents and connections. Normally, ecosystems are considered
to contain a number of components in the order of magnitude
of millionsebillions, where industrial systems are in the order
of 10e100. Meanwhile, it should be remembered that only
a small amount of complexity is needed to create a complex,
hard to understand, behavior of a system. On one hand, this
could mean that industry and society are complex enough
since we often find the interactions difficult to understand or
predict because of socio-economic and socio-psychological in-
teractions. As illustrative, think of the present, limited predic-
tive value of models for future economic development of
society. On the other hand the higher levels of complexity of
ecosystems seem to result in unforeseen advantages to all par-
ticipants of the systems. If it is true that benefits to higher sys-
tem levels emerge when flows are structured in a way that
mimic ecosystems, this issue is worth studying with special
reference to implementation in society.
1643
2.1.1. Subconclusion 1
In case of complexity, we are forced to conclude that all
types of systems, ecosystems, industrial or societal systems
share the property of being complex. The key to understanding
the differences is probably not to be found in the number of
compartments and flows but rather in the controls of the sys-
tems. This is not the best entrance point for actions since con-
trol mechanisms are poorly studied and understood. Thus, this
conclusion is forced by the fact that we really still do not un-
derstand complex systems very well. However, with our cur-
rent state of knowledge, it is hard to tell the exact difference
between the types of systems.
2.2. Evolution e variability, adaptation and selection
Both types of systems are described as being highly evolu-
tive, i.e. capable of showing changes over both short and long
time scales. Variability, adaptation, and selection, as described
by physiology and genetics, are important mechanisms behind
this evolution. The concepts are also integrated into our at-
tempts to describe systems performing the process of evolu-
tion in societal systems.
Natural systems present high variability. That is, reflected
by the genetic material and organisms that have developed
over the past billions of years of evolution. This is usually
referred to as (bio)diversity. This natural variability acts as
a ‘‘library’’ for ecosystems allowing them, after disturbances,
to return to a previous state or to develop rapidly to the more
advantageous solution to the problems they meet as a conse-
quence of changes in the environment. Adaptation takes place
very rapidly on both microscopic and macroscopic levels in
accordance with the high selective pressure put on the system
by its environment. In addition, this evolution, in the sense of
adaptational responses, takes place by selecting the ‘‘right’’
material, not only geno- or phenotypic, but also functional ma-
terial [54] from numerous possibilities in accordance with the
conditions in the environment. Thus, evolution of natural sys-
tems seems to be goal oriented. Several of the hypothesized
ideas from the literature are presented in Müller and Leupelt
[18]. Usually, it is proposed that natural systems move towards
some extreme value, through either maximisation or minimisa-
tion, of a specific expression or function. This type of function
is usually referred to as a goal function which can lead to the
accusation of a teleological understanding of ecosystems due
to the semantic connotation of these concepts. Meanwhile,
this is not the case, neither is it the intention of any of the re-
cent authors to propose such mechanisms; it is also not
‘‘meaning of nature’’. The use of the term ‘goal function,’ is
determined by mathematical terminology alone and the system
processes are taking place in accordance with objective and
materialist criteria, i.e. obeying fundamental physical laws
such as mass balance, the first and second laws of thermody-
namics, etc.
Compared to this we are faced with society and industrial
systems that also exhibit evolution, variability, adaptability
and selection. But whereas, ecosystems have to evolve
promptly, in accordance with objective criteria, society very
1644 S.N. Nielsen / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 1639e1653
often reacts in a slow manner, sometimes exhibiting a tremen-
dous conservatism and inertia. An ecosystem that reacts with
the same time scale as society would likely be a dead ecosys-
tem, i.e. selected against. At the same time, society rarely re-
acts in accordance with what we would call ‘objective criteria.’
It rather evolves as a consequence of subjective criteria, like
market mechanisms, consumer patterns and preferences [55],
politics, legislation, etc. In many cases, there seems to be an
independent development of trade and environmental policies
[56] e in many cases the lack of coordination has the effect
that initiatives taken often counteract each other. The conse-
quence is a negative impact of society on nature and environ-
ment [57].
In addition, evolutionary solutions that represent sub-
optimal development, i.e. behavior that chooses and offers in-
ferior technical solutions to the consumers, at least for a time,
is often observed. One typical example used to illustrate this is
the VHS system winning over the technologically superior
Betamax system due to interfering market mechanisms from
the related video-tape industry, namely through the amount
of titles offered. This is but one example of many.
Evolution of society is usually considered to be equivalent
to mere development and that this unavoidable trend is set
equal to growth and vice versa which may cause confusion
in the context of environment. The word development usually
carries a semantic connotation of a direction. Evolution of
natural systems, with a few exceptions, such as systems with
Holling cycling, is normally progressive in accordance with
ecological principles such as the 24 principles of E.P. Odum.
Regressive evolution of ecosystems with a few exceptions,
like natural catastrophes, usually happens as a result of human
interferences.
2.2.1. Subconclusion 2
Industry and Society may have something to learn from
nature and ecosystems in terms of adaptation and principles
of selection in particular in terms of rate. But this is one of
the points where we would need more studies to understand
the real importance of the differences in behavior between the
systems. Studies of rates, inertia and evaluation of optimal
solutions are suggested as topics to use as entry points. This is
a prerequisite to implementation of any of the principles. The
exploitation of the issues that will be an outcome of this explo-
ration process is foreseen to be very important in very heavily
regulated societies, or at least with other types of regulation
than the ones used presently.
2.3. Compartmentalisation e quantity and quality
That system which consists of units or compartments is
a part of a system’s analysis view and common to both type
of systems. Compartments are an important part of the issue
of complexity as addressed under Section 2.1 but will be ad-
dressed here from other angles, in order to pursue the underly-
ing reason for differences in the character of the complexity in
the two types of systems.
Nature (cf. Section 2.1) contains numerous compartments.
One ecosystem may be composed of millions of compartments
that are the quantity perspective, per se. At a particular mo-
ment, as a consequence of short-term evolution, for instance
during a yearly cycle, it may consist of a lower number of
compartments and at other times more. Furthermore, a particu-
lar system has more possibilities to evolve over longer time
scales. That is to evolve into a totally new species, usually
in addition to the existing ones, or to import species from
the surroundings.
Society and production systems are usually viewed in an
‘‘isolated’’ manner, competitors isolate themselves, and only
look at the other competitors to ‘‘spy’’ or mimic, rarely do
they seek to avoid the competition by seeking another niche
of production.
Society and industry are less numerous in terms of com-
partments (see Section 2.1). In fact, they seem to be systems
that move towards reduction in number of compartments
that are more and more isolated until ‘‘perfect’’ monopolies
are achieved. This, for instance, becomes clear when the point
of isolationism is addressed. Often production is described for
a single, company or production of a particular product. The
more holistic presentation of this, like LCAs and MFAs, in-
cludes all the elements of a production chain of a product, go-
ing into detail of its every phase from extraction to the final
deposit of the used product (‘‘from cradle to grave’’). But
only the more advanced systemic presentations of societal or
productive systems come close to the level of simple ecosys-
tem models. Production processes are predominantly viewed
as separated and disconnected processes and production lines
consist of relatively few compartments.
Another point is the general tendency towards condensa-
tion and centralisation of various companies. This happens
by ‘‘extinction,’’ due to competition or assimilation of one
company into another. It seems almost a universal trend
that more and more capital and labor are concentrated, in
fewer companies and products. So industrial systems seem
to show a general trend towards exclusion and reduction of
compartments. Some compartments may be redundant only
if in parallel systems, like producing items such as radios, ce-
reals, soft drinks, frozen pizzas, computers, all determined by
consumer preferences [55]. Moreover, redundancy too is
avoided in natural systems, but only to a certain limit. Pro-
duction systems are rarely interlinked, i.e. coupled or shared.
Again a few exceptions exist when, for instance, some com-
puters use the same processors, i.e. companies have identical
subcontractors.
At this point, a major difference seems to exist. But is it
a real difference or a result of research efforts, subjectivity
and the way we like to view nature? At present it is hard to
answer this question. Even though flows are studied inten-
sively and used in CP and IE (cf. Section 2.4), the issue of
compartments are not and fewer compartments are seen as
good. The only examples of increasing numbers include the
development of niche-related factories (a reversion to earlier
stages of development) and products like the occurrence of
parallel system of organic products, micro-breweries, etc.
 S.N. Nielsen / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 1639e1653
2.3.1. Subconclusion 3
Comparison of the characteristic number of compartments
in the systems will probably lead to a result similar to those
under Sections 2.1 and 2.2. Even though the two types of sys-
tems differ greatly in quantity of compartments, much of the
understanding of system function, and therefore of our possi-
bilities of exploitation, will lie in an improved understanding
of the interrelations between them, this is closer to issues
raised under Sections 2.4e2.6.
2.4. Flows and processes e quantity and quality
It is clear that both types of systems have processes and
flows of matter and energy between compartments. To de-
scribe and understand these connections, their quantity and
quality are important in characterizing the systems [58]. It ap-
pears implicitly that this characterization is simpler for society
and industrial systems in comparison with ecosystems. Mean-
while, industry and society add one extra layer with a qualita-
tive impact in terms of regulatory effects (cf. Sections 2.1 and
2.5) e that is economy e with its market mechanisms, money
flows, and more. Thus, the flows deviate not only in quantity
but also in quality, e.g. direction (cf. Section 2.1).
The ecosystem compartments are connected with numerous
pathways, corresponding to a connectivity of approx. 20e40%
out of the possible connection being realized. Connectivity is
a comparable expression but not equal to connectance as cal-
culated by Hardy and Graedel [59]. The total quantity that
flows through a system together with the distribution of the
inter-compartmental flows is important in calculating the ascen-
dancy of the system [16,19]. The systems flows, together, form
an intricate pattern so that compartments are linked both di-
rectly and indirectly, and the indirect flows become dominant
in comparison to the direct flows [18]. This is the quantitative
perspective of the utility, following Patten and coworkers
[17,18]. The intricate interactions of the flows seem to have
qualitative perspectives. In addition, it seems that ecosystems
are able to change the quality of interactions. Ecosystems
seem to be able to convert e what we see as negative interac-
tion mechanisms e such as predation and competition e and
turn them into interaction types that are, overall, positive and
thus beneficial to the system as a whole. This is called (posi-
tive) qualitative utility.
The linkages between human production lines are much
less than those of ecosystems. At least, many fewer connec-
tions out of all the possible ones are realized. Furthermore,
the movement of matter and energy via the flows seems
to be in one direction. That is, they are in general linear,
non-network types, in their characteristics or at maximum
they may be very simple nets.
Even though CP and in particular IE are addressing this is-
sue of flows both in the sense of quantity, connectedness, and
cycling (cf. Section 2.6), it plays a relatively small part when
considering quality and it is definitely not at a sufficient level
of importance in our perception of everyday production sys-
tems. This is peculiar since many methodologies like MFA,
LCA, MIPS have been developed to study flows in production
1645
and societal systems [58,60,61]. It should be noted that
methods have been developed from a technological point of
view rather than on the basis of ecosystem studies [62,63]. It
is suggested that this type of studies may further be improved
[64] and that they may also be implemented on the societal
level [53]. In one literature example, it was proposed to use
the concept of ascendancy and apply it to the economy [65].
It is not only a question of competition between companies,
trying to ‘‘eradicate’’ each other. It is also a question of im-
proved management [66] and administration at higher political
levels, for instance in legislation. As in the case of DK and
probably in most other western countries, planning of indus-
trial areas is performed in accordance with certain criteria de-
scribing the activities of a given factory. Normally, special
rules or laws apply that place industries together in certain
geographical areas on the basis of accidental measures such
as companies over a given number of workers, special pollut-
ing potential of wastes, etc. Rarely is the development of in-
dustrial areas planned, based in accordance with possible,
useful linkages between components of the company’s flows
of energy and materials, e.g. Refs. [23,66]. Rather, subjectivity
and accidental decisions seem to play important roles. But
planning, for instance with the purpose of improved or optimal
exploitation by IE [67] could and should be implemented in
accordance with objective criteria, for instance based on in-
creased overall thermodynamic efficiency of the system (cf.
Sections 2.8 and 2.10).
2.4.1. Subconclusion 4
Flows and processes are important in all systems, in shap-
ing them and determining their functionality. Especially, the
flows that result in cycles and cycling to occur are important
in natural systems (see Section 2.6). This seems to be at the
heart of both CP and IE, since both systems work at establish-
ing and closing of cycles. This approach might be strength-
ened by combining with the ISO 9000 standards, an increase
of the importance of reuse for instance by increasing possibil-
ities of remantling [68,69]. The only thing is, that in the case
of implementation of IE, the possibility to establish cycles will
be determined by rather accidental mechanisms. Meanwhile,
this often results in wide geographic ranges for transport of
used materials to be reused in a new system. The energy con-
sumption of the transport related to a certain product varies
highly with transport mode [70] and may play an important
role in the evaluation of the sustainability of a product,
throughout its life cycles.
2.5. Feedbacks and controls
Both types of systems possess feedbacks and controls, but
the character of the feedbacks and controls differs signifi-
cantly. Both systems share some objective controls and feed-
backs emerging from the flows of material and energies in
the system.
As stated earlier, human society and industries have added
an extra layer on top of this. A major part of the layer is caused
by controls and feedbacks exerted through economic relations.
1646 S.N. Nielsen / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 1639e1653
A second part of the layer is of a totally different type of con-
trol is exerted more or less directly through legislation and
laws like implementation of management systems like
EMAS [68] or the ISO 14000 series certifications [71]. This
type of controls eventually becomes deeply rooted in politics
and may influence production, economy and environment.
Meanwhile, the impact of implementation of management
or certification systems is often found to be limited but not
small [72].
In nature, almost all elements participate in feedback and
control of the system. Therefore, it is often difficult to tell ex-
actly what is controlling what. In other words, control, as op-
posed to society, is highly decentralized. This makes nature
look like anarchy in an objective sense. Ecologists who
work with ecosystems on a macroscopic scale know how dif-
ficult it is to tell exactly where the system is controlled and
what part of the system exerts control. Control and feedback
are of dialectic character. The control and feedback between
parts of the ecosystems always have two sides. We tend to
think of prey being controlled by predators, but the predators,
in turn, are controlled by the availability of prey. This has been
clearly demonstrated by debates like bottom-up vs. top-down
control of ecosystems. The complexity issue alone explains
why such simple explanations are inadequate.
In society, control by the mechanisms described above has
been taken out of the materialeenergetic context, as we do not
(yet) tend to see resources, neither material nor energetic, as
limiting. As a consequence, fewer elements are directly par-
ticipating in their controls and feedbacks. Rather, control or
feedback is coupled to the economy via pricing. Pricing
does not reflect availability alone, but rather also to the polit-
ical context, e.g. the current situation of oil. When taking an
overview over these additional layers of control, society and
industry seem to be strictly top-down controlled systems.
This may change when resource limitations take over.
Another issue is that many of these controls are time dis-
crete in character. Controls and feedbacks may happen on
small scale, e.g. daily basis, but rarely do when it comes to
major issues where, for instance, broad decisions or political,
legislative decisions are necessary. In politics the turn over rate
and 4-year cycle of politicians in accordance with elections
and its importance to environmental issues are almost a world
famous curse. As a consequence political actions, if taken at
all, are usually inadequate or insufficient.
Other regulatory mechanisms may eventually be just as im-
portant as legislation. Consumption is, on user side, deter-
mined by conscience and ethics, ‘‘taste and preference’’ [55]
of individual consumers, or within the family, which according
to Ribeyre [73] may be viewed as a fundamental ecological
unit. Its role may be illustrated by a recently announced phe-
nomenon e the ‘‘politically conscientious consumer’’. On the
other side the business society plays an important role too [74]
when the conscience and moral attitude of the producer and
merchandisers come into play. The ethical issues arising
from this situation are probably even more complicated than
those arising from politics, but may be an important regulating
mechanism in the future.
2.5.1. Subconclusion 5
The area of feedback and control needs much further anal-
ysis in the future. Is there a ‘‘rationale’’ behind the way these
mechanisms are working in nature that we may learn from and
implement in our society? Or are the two types of systems so
qualitatively different that it will be absolutely impossible to
exploit this area? In the end, the issue of regulations might
be a question of whether we regulate ourselves or are we reg-
ulated by nature as demonstrated by Hillary and Thorsen [75].
Most probably it will be a mixture of both, but it should be
a balanced strategy that respects both the ecological and the
socialeeconomicetechnological dimensions at the same
time. Obtaining such consistency in the controls of our society
will help in achieving sustainable societies.
2.6. Cycling e cycles, cycling, and recycling
This issue is probably the one that has been most widely re-
searched within the area of CP and IE. It is recognized that re-
cycling and reuse are essential measures to take in order to
achieve sustainability. Cycling of either kind is accepted as
good practice. Through CP and IE it has also been demon-
strated that (re)cycling, in most cases, not only reduces the
burden upon the environment, but also improves economic ef-
ficiency at the system level. Therefore, only a few areas where
nature and ecosystems do differ a lot from society are high-
lighted in the following paragraphs.
In nature almost all matter that is cycled to a level close to
100% provided that systems become mature and are left undis-
turbed (e.g. rain forests). Furthermore, cycles tend to be closed
locally, i.e. on relatively small geographic scales. So in princi-
ple, nothing is wasted, as all waste from one compartment is
an important resource for another.
It is clear that society and industry do not perform effi-
ciently at this level and in particular the economic system re-
cycles less than nature [76]. Since the creation and existence
of waste are mandatory as dictated by the second law of ther-
modynamics, it means that we will not have human activities
without wastes. The levels of waste are partly determined by
technologies implemented and by the availability of energy
and energy forms involved. It seems essential to (re)cycle as
much as possible [77]. It is possible to improve on this issue
by integrating our systems more fully at higher levels for in-
stance through IE [21] which poses an even higher challenge
to the coordination of initiatives [66] as well as in the product
design, process optimization and logistical levels [30].
Wastes are unavoidable and can have negative impacts on
the environment [78]; however, the quantity and quality of
wastes that can be tolerated by our environment are not only
dependent on intrinsic properties of the material wasted (e.g.
acute toxicity, sub-lethal toxic effects, radiation, etc.), but
also are dependent upon the political and ethical dimensions
in relation for the short- and long-term health of ecosystems
and for society. For this to be optimized, improved planning
and management are needed and pose a challenge for CP and
IE [79].
 S.N. Nielsen / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 1639e1653
2.6.1. Subconclusion 6
It is concluded that cycling is an essentiality in nature
where matter is cycled nearly 100%. Then the question arises,
how can our societies emulate nature more effectively?
We observe that some of the activities of CP and IE focus
upon increases in material’s use efficiency within and among
manufacturing facilities. Further, more broadly societies are
implementing various mechanisms to increase material’s
cycling.
As a part of the cycling process, we may delay cycling of
materials by introducing reuse, a possibility not exploitable
by nature. The thermodynamic perspective of this is deter-
mined as in Section 2.10. To ensure improvements at these
levels, improved societal planning and management are
essential.
2.7. Network properties e synergism and utility
Examination of network properties in nature and ecosys-
tems is mainly an eccentric and philosophical issue (cf. Sec-
tion 2.4). Meanwhile, the behavior of network properties, as
stated in the ‘‘20 remarkable properties’’ of Patten, is one
among the more important facets and ought to receive much
more attention. This is the area where knowledge about the be-
havior of societal systems is lowest because it has seldom been
investigated. The results of such urgently needed research in
this area are likely to reveal how the principles of natural net-
works could be applied to industrial and societal systems and
will help societies to establish strategies for the implementa-
tion of IE in ways that are far more sustainable than those
that are currently in operation. Suggestions of ways to make
improvements in this area have been presented by some au-
thors [80,81].
Described briefly, rewriting and interpreting the findings
above [18], the ecosystem network that evolves over time de-
velops in a manner where more and more parts benefit from it.
Furthermore, the benefits are distributed more and more
equally among the compartments of the network. This process
is natural in all evolving ecosystem networks: it evolves in
a manner that brings positive utility, both in a quantitative
and qualitative sense, to the network. The process also tends
to homogenize and equalize the utility among the compart-
ments [18].
No such inherent homogenizing and equalizing features of
human society are known to exist. Some claim that political
directions like liberalism and communism aim exactly at
that goal. But they are political ideas that are not based
upon objective criteria like mattereenergy but are part of
the subjective way that human society is controlled.
Societal networks do not tend to homogenize or develop
positive utilities, neither in quantitative nor in qualitative
sense. In other words, where nature seems to evolve into in-
creased numbers of components, and at the same time tends
to provide more equal and improved distribution of benefits
[18], society reduces components and moves towards a more
skewed distribution. Society seems to perform so as to radical-
ize resource distribution, both in terms of energy, matter and
1647
money. Industry tends to centralize production in as few pro-
duction plants as possible and develops monopolies, at least,
within a certain specific market.
2.7.1. Subconclusion 7
The ecological network properties as addressed by Patten,
Ulanowicz and related researchers are, at present, almost im-
possible to understand in the context of industry and society.
We know very little about the network properties the human
system possesses and how it may be more effectively related
to natural systems.
A few results that exist indicate that it makes sense to mon-
itor such network properties. In a study where holistic eco-
system indicators were applied to farming systems in the
Philippines, it was clearly illustrated that the degree of integra-
tion in farming systems was clearly reflected in the network
parameters [82]. Thus, in order to better understand the co-
evolution of natural and human network properties and how
they change as a consequence of human interactions, obvious
areas in which to implement this type of studies would be in
areas such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries and landscape
ecology [38,83,84], since they involve close links between na-
ture and society. Clearly, more intensive investigations of these
properties are needed.
2.8. Organisation and hierarchy
Both types of systems are hierarchically organized. But
again there are huge qualitative and quantitative differences
between the ways they are organized and therefore, there are
huge differences in the character of the hierarchies. Stated in
a very simple manner, natural hierarchies tend to be dominated
by a scalar component, whereas society and industry are more
of a control hierarchy type.
With respect to quantity, natural hierarchies consist of
levels in number of around 10. Furthermore, natural and bio-
logical systems consist of hierarchies that are predominantly
self-organized. The functionalities of natural hierarchies range
from atoms and molecules to organisms and to communities of
organisms in scalar, inclusive and thermodynamically embed-
ded systems [85,86].
The number of hierarchical levels, in industry and society,
is much lower than that for natural systems. At the extreme
end, in dictatorships or certain companies there is a one-person
leadership. Furthermore, the systems are not self-organising.
The hierarchy differs in quality since such systems tend to
be non-embedded and non-inclusive, but rather tend to be ex-
clusive. This appears to be a logical consequence of the char-
acter of the network structure’s simplicity.
2.8.1. Subconclusion 8
At a first glance, the differences in hierarchical organiza-
tions seem to be of little significance, although a hierarchical
approach is necessary for understanding both [87]. Ring [88]
highlights several differences between the economic and the
ecological systems. In this author’s opinion the biggest differ-
ences are in the way organizations control their systems.
1648 S.N. Nielsen / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 1639e1653
The ways these differences impact the system properties
and further the possibilities of optimum conditions between
the two types of systems should be investigated. When and
where should the natural hierarchy be dominated and deter-
mined by society? Should it always be that way? Should nat-
ural ways of organization take over? Does the approach of
embedded organization offer a way to make improvements,
even though such changes of individual companies or entire
sectors will be difficult to implement. Such an integrative ap-
proach to management is likely to yield many societal and
economic benefits if utilized more extensively within CP and
IE, because embeddedness improves possibilities of increased
cycling and improved efficiency.
2.9. Diversity
Diversity is, like hierarchy, used in its widest sense. This is
necessary, since there are few parallel studies comparing nat-
ural systems with society and industry. For ecosystems, we
have an established and fixed terminology, e.g. through sys-
tematics, although it is not always adequate for measuring
and expressing differences in diversity and sometimes there
are contradictions in the semantics used to assess and quantify
bio-diversity (compare for instance E.P. Odum’s principles 8
and 9). As a consequence, a discussion of diversity in the so-
cietal and industrial contexts will have to be done, at least at
first, in an intuitive manner.
During evolution nature developed a wide variety of ap-
proaches for survival. As new species or even new systems
emerged, frequently old niches were retained as new ones
were formed. This general trend, together with niche construc-
tion [54], is one of the functional mechanisms behind closing
cycles, exploiting wastes as resources, etc. as discussed under
Section 2.6. By turning negative relations into positive ones
and gaining benefits from competition, this forms the basis
of network synergism as previously described.
This is one of the cardinal points where society and indus-
try in general take the opposite direction, possibly as a conse-
quence of several other issues as previously addressed. Even
though a few market analysts emphasised the importance of
competition to the evolution of products, the general attitude
in business is that ‘‘the best competitor is a dead competitor’’.
So, the goal is simplification of the systems by ‘‘eradicating’’
your competitors (in a few cases armed neutrality seems to ex-
ist) until, at the extreme end, a full multinational monopoly is
realized. A few international laws and agreements exist that
aim to prevent this scenario to be fully realized. In other
words, society and industry seem to strive at reducing diver-
sity. Every industrialized country, capable of showing statistics
of such things as numbers of farms, dairies, breweries, or gro-
cery chains, the number of varieties of apples and related data,
clearly demonstrates that evolution in the direction of simpli-
fication and monopoly has occurred with an accelerated pace
during the last 2e3 decades. The numbers tell the story in
a sad, silent, but clear manner.
The evolution of society does exhibit some parallels to the
long-term evolution of ecosystems, like for instance evolution
in ‘‘jumps’’, almost like punctuated equilibria, every time
a new ‘‘revolutionary’’ technique or technology is invented.
Meanwhile, societal and industrial systems do not seem to
be able to achieve the same state of maturity as natural sys-
tems as the time scales of evolution of new techniques and
technologies are shorter than the time it takes to establish a sta-
bilized situation. Also, market mechanisms within different
economies, as previously described, allow inferior technical
solutions to exist and win competitions in so-called lock-in sit-
uations. Similar cases are unlikely to exist in nature.
2.9.1. Subconclusion 9
Diversity is a point where the two types of systems tend to
move in exactly opposite directions. Part of the discussion on
this point is caused by some fundamental and non-trivial def-
initional problems that are widespread in the literature (see
Sections 2.8 and 2.9 Odum’s principles [89] for ecosystems
and Templet [90] on production and society).
The problem is that we are used to seeing quantity, in the
size of industries and not in numbers of types of industries,
as of greater importance than any qualitative perspective.
From this vantage point, some would state, the bigger the
company and the fewer of your type the better. There are
indications though that decreasing diversity may be one expla-
nation behind the high unemployment figures observed in
many industrialized countries (Nielsen, pub. only in Danish).
In a few places, mainly in the third world countries, farmers
recognize the value of integrated systems that have high diver-
sity. This is probably not only a result of the benefits to
production by introducing cycling, but also due to the recogni-
tion that a system built on production of several goods is less
vulnerable to economic fluctuations and natural instabilities. Is
this conclusion also valid to the industrial sector in western
world countries? This issue contains some problems of defini-
tion that must be settled before the necessary studies in this
area can be properly conducted.
2.10. Open Systems and dissipation
Both natural and societal systems may be characterized as
thermodynamically open systems, filled with dissipative struc-
tures [91,92]. This becomes clear when one compares ecosys-
tems with the economic systems [76] when addressing issues
like, the driving powers, structure and organization (cf. Sec-
tion 2.8) and when looking at ‘‘dissipative’’ flows.
The ecosystems are driven by high exergy, low entropy re-
sources and work with almost no waste, other than dissipation.
Since these systems are based on the input of solar radiation,
we may view the systems as driven solely on the basis of sus-
tainable resources. At the same time, the self-organized, dissi-
pative structures that evolve follow rules like the minimum
dissipation principle of Prigogine and Wiame [10] and other
principles of thermodynamic optimization, like maximum ex-
ergy storage [11] or maximum exergy degradation [12], the
latter corresponding to as efficient a degradation of the im-
posed exergy gradient as possible. Accepting the earth as a fi-
nite, closed system, such principles deliver the ultimate
 S.N. Nielsen / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 1639e1653
materialistic explanation behind holistic, global theories such
as the GAIA theory of Lovelock [93].
In contrast, industrial and societal systems are driven by in-
termediate and low exergy resources (derived from the first
type) and produce and accumulate a wide diversity of material
wastes, and are not only dissipative. When viewed as dissipa-
tive structures, they share the features of early, immature eco-
systems, since they tend to burn off energy as quickly as
possible at increasing rates [94]. Optimisation of efficiency
usage is important to industries [95], but the drivers for such
improvements seem to play a minor role in our societies. Cal-
culations on industrial and societal systems, based on establi-
shment of energy and entropy balances [96], and introduction
of additional thermodynamic views have been proposed
[91,92], by application of the so-called thermoeconomics
[97] which preferably should be carried out on the basis of ex-
ergy calculations through the so-called exergo-economics or
exergonomics [98e101] has not been done.
In summary, the use of thermodynamic approaches to hu-
man production systems has increased in popularity during re-
cent years as it has been realized that thermodynamics is the
most important constraint to industrial and biological produc-
tions [102]. This is happening in addition to traditional imple-
mentation of optimization of thermodynamic efficiency, often
expressed through exergy, in particular processes. Thus, ex-
ergy seems to act as a common denominator for quantification
[103e105] of problems connected with extraction of resources
[106], problems connected to processing [107], outputs, such
as pollution and waste disposal [108e110]. According to
Rosen [111] the concept of exergy may be used at all levels
from engineering to policy making. Although the use of en-
tropy formation has been proposed [112] it is argued that ex-
ergy consumption reflects real costs to society and should be
related to the pricing system [113] which is another possible
way of regulation [114]. This could be applied through an
exergy-based taxation system [115,116]. Implementing an
exergy view to environmental costs and combining them
within the economy in the extraction of resources [117], con-
struction, production and design processes [118e121] would
force the systems to move in a direction beneficial to the econ-
omy and the ecosystems [122]. The whole system may be
evaluated by basing the LCA of products on exergy [123] in
a so-called ELCA and use this to combine with economic
issues.
It may be argued that industry and society too are built upon
sustainable resources, such as fossil fuels, coal, oil, gases, all
of which originated from solar radiation. In order to determine
the issue of sustainability, it must be demonstrated that we do
not use energy at a rate faster than that at which resources such
as these fossil fuels are regenerated. Thus, far, it is clear that
we are using up resources at a rate that far exceeds the rate
of regeneration. This is the reason behind the distinction
between renewable and non-renewable resources. Recently, it
was hypothesized that we may approach a point of exhaustion
of fossil fuels faster than expected [124]. In case of some
elemental resources that we need for production, we may not
need to view resources as finite, because they are, in principle,
1649
recyclable since they are not dissipated during the use to the
same extent as energy. However, there is always some dissipa-
tion during usage and recovery of some lower quality elemen-
tal resources which will be achievable only at greater and
greater energy costs.
The question is whether we can develop sustainable tech-
nologies that allow us to recover matter at any cost of energy
or rather exergy destruction. In cases of both energy and/or
matter, we are extremely constrained by the fact that we, as in-
habitants of the earth, are living in a quasi-closed system. We
are living in a finite world.
2.10.1. Subconclusion 10
From the statements above, it is clear that a thermodynamic
interpretation is possible for both types of systems and that
some major differences exist. Whereas, thermodynamic opti-
mization of production systems at the process, product, plant
level, multi-plant and societal levels is increasingly recognized
and implemented through CP and cleaner production activities
it seems to be receiving reduced attention in IE.
When it comes to societal systems, although such interpre-
tations are allowed [91,92], very few activities designed to find
the optimal thermodynamic solutions have been observed.
This is critical as an increased thermodynamic understanding
of our societal activities and the consequences thereof are fun-
damental in our attempt to achieve a sustainable evolution of
society. In a few cases it is claimed that the establishment of
exergetic balances, for instance of countries, is important in
order to achieve sustainability [98].
The major differences are that natural systems are open sys-
tems as opposed to the fact that our global system is an almost
closed system. So nature and ecosystems may produce sys-
tems that globally move away from equilibrium. The society,
regions, countries or the global system may evolve in this di-
rection only within the limitations given by the available re-
sources of energy and materials and at the expense of other
regions or countries. It is thus tempting to put a thermodynam-
ically obvious criterion on sustainability like dEx/dt  0. This
is probably the only objective criterion to sustainability on
a global level. This is referring directly to the criterion of
strong sustainability as compared to weaker forms. Sugges-
tions along this line are clearly in need of more support and
implementation via political initiatives and actions [125,126].
Any initiatives in the area of applying thermodynamics at
the industrial and societal levels need to begin with a clarifica-
tion of terminology and other problems of definitions as those
are domains far from the conditions where thermodynamic
views are normally discussed and applied.
3. State of the art
First of all, as stated earlier, the term industrial ecology by
its semantic connotation indicates a strong relationship with
ecology. Thus, the possibility of interpreting industrial systems
in the same way as ecological systems is clearly included in
this view. Meanwhile, using ecologically based metaphors
[127] to describe industrial systems may often confuse
1650 S.N. Nielsen / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 1639e1653

communication since they are often too vaguely defined and
tend to be normative [128]. Furthermore, they are not suffi-
cient to ensure that proper actions are taken. To really under-
stand the systems and to implement ecological understanding,
studies must be based on real analogies between various types
of systems. The big question is how far can these analogies be
taken? (See for instance Ref. [76].) As a consequence, both
types of systems must be studied intensively with the purpose
of revealing sound analogies.
Although an overall examination of IE examples will reveal
that the integration of general ecological understanding is oc-
curring but only in a few cases a clear strategy has been artic-
ulated. Thus, while some ecosystem principles have been
incorporated into IE, they seem to have been implemented
only in an intuitive and almost ‘‘sub-conscious’’ manner. Re-
cently, Korhonen [1] pointed out some differences between
the principles of system development by performing a compar-
ison between four principles: roundput, diversity, locality and
gradual change, but this was also done with no references to
ecological research.
When it comes to the establishment of IE parks, the same
pattern is often repeated. In most cases, the cooperative pat-
terns of connections established through IE seem to emerge
at random. This has to be understood in an objective and pos-
itive manner since the activities undertaken are, in most cases,
sensible and in the end have a positive result. The existing pos-
sibilities of coupling production plants are limited by the qual-
ity and quantity of the plant’s wastes that may be utilized by
the other company. This is a factor mainly determined by leg-
islation. The geographic position of production plants in Dan-
ish society is determined by the fact that plants of a certain
character must be established in certain areas dedicated to
this purpose (see Section 2.4). They are not placed there in
an organized/planned manner, determined by objective criteria
such as these types of production plants will be placed to-
gether because they will provide maximum mutual benefit to
each other. Rather, their position is chosen based upon geo-
graphic considerations.
The conclusion from these assessments is that CP, IE and
society will benefit from further studies and an integration
of principles from modern ecosystem theory. Some
suggestions are provided in the foregoing evaluation of the
10 points.
4. Discussion
This examination reveals that some ecological principles
have been implemented in societal systems, although these
have been done in a very casual manner. A summary of the
findings of this paper is presented in Table 3. It reflects the
division in three parts stated in the beginning of this paper.
Although some authors claim that it is nearly impossible to
derive any guidelines for IE based on the behavior of ecolog-
ical systems [129] so many new methods for ecosystem anal-
ysis have been developed, that we need to ascertain if
industrial production systems and societal systems, more
broadly, share some of the features of natural systems.
Roughly, the results may be divided into three categories.
The first group suggests that although some of the possibilities
provide obvious measures that society and industry should
take, to date, far more of these options must be utilized.
The second group reveals possibilities for exploitation that,
even if they seem reasonable to implement, society has not yet
tried them or does not have the techniques needed for imple-
mentation. For instance, how do we improve on cycling so as
to approach nearly perfect cycling that occurs in nature, when
this is done at the expense of non-renewable energy.
The third group contains options that we do not know the
exact importance of the findings, although, we have some ob-
servations on natural systems that help to provide some direc-
tions. We do not even know to what extent the system shares
the characteristics described. In this case, more research is def-
initely needed.
5. Conclusions
An overall conclusion is that even if implemented, far from
all properties possessed by ‘‘natural’’ ecosystem, has been in-
vestigated or exploited in societal systems. In addition, many
problems of communication exist that originate in poor or
vaguely defined definitions. This indicates that much potential
exists, although some of the issues are far from being

Table 3
A comparison of the 10 chosen target areas and their importance in the natural and societal systems
Property Degree of development at present Used Potential Remarks
Natural or eco-systems Industry or society
1 Complexity ***** ** e ? Consequences not fully
understood
2 Evolution ***** ** e *** How to remover inertia?
3 Compartments ***** ** e ***
4 Flows and processes ***** ** *** *** MFA, LCA
5 Feedbacks and controls ***** ** e ***** Different in kind
6 Cycling, etc. ***** *** **** *** Still further potentials
7 Network issues ***** ** e ? ?
8 Organization form ***** ** e ? ?
9 Diversity ***** ** e ***** Decreasing and opposite trend
10 Thermodynamics ***** ** *** ***** ??
In addition, the present level of implementation of strategies for the achievement of a sustainable society together with their potential importance is presented.
 S.N. Nielsen / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 1639e1653
adequately understood. It is suggested that it is important to
study these system properties more fully, at best in interdisci-
plinary teams, in order to better understand the underlying
causalities. This should be done with the purpose of future im-
plementation of the natural system principles in the manage-
ment of industrial and societal systems. The implementation
of a strategy that is the application of the functional principles
of nature to society is proposed to be called ‘‘an eco-mimetic
development of society.’’
References
[1] Korhonen J. Four ecosystem principles for an industrial ecosystem.
Journal of Cleaner Production 2001;9:253e9.
[2] Hall D. Industrial harm to an ecological dream. Corporate Environmen-
tal Strategy 2000;7:379e87.
[3] Coté R, Hall J. Industrial parks as ecosystems. Journal of Cleaner Pro-
duction 1995;3(1e2):41e6.
[4] Allenby B, Cooper WE. Understanding industrial ecology from a bio-
logical systems perspective. Total Quality Environmental Management
1994;3(3):343e54.
[5] Lotka AJ. Natural selection as a physical principle. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 1922;8:151e4.
[6] Odum EP. Fundamentals of ecology. Saunders; 1971.
[7] Odum HT. Environment, power and society. New York: John Wiley and
Sons; 1971.
[8] Odum HT. Environmental accounting. Wiley; 1995.
[9] Schrödinger E. What is life? 1943.
[10] Prigogine I, Wiame JM. Biologie et Thermodynamique des phénomènes
irréversibles. Experimentia 1946;2:451e3.
[11] Jørgensen SE, Mejer H. Exergy as a key function in ecological models.
In: Mitsch WJ, et al., editors. Energy and ecological modelling. Amster-
dam: ISEM/Elsevier; 1981. p. 587e90.
[12] Schneider E, Kay JJ. Life as manifestation of the second law of thermo-
dynamics. Mathematical and Computational Modelling 1994;19(6e8):
25e48.
[13] Hannon B. Total energy costs in ecosystems. Journal of Theoretical
Biology 1979;80:271e93.
[14] Finn TJ. Flow analysis of models of the Hubbard Brook ecosystem.
Ecology 1980;6:562e71.
[15] Patten BC. Systems approach to the concept of environment. Ohio Jour-
nal of Science 1978;78:206e22.
[16] Ulanowicz RE. Growth and development: ecosystems phenomenology.
New York: Springer Verlag; 1986.
[17] Higashi M, Burns TP. Theoretical studies of ecosystems: the network
perspective. Cambridge University Press; 1991.
[18] Patten BC. Network orientors: steps towards a cosmography of ecosys-
tems: orientors for directional development, self-organization and au-
toevolution. In: Müller F, Leupelt M, editors. Ecotargets, goal
functions and orientors 1998. p. 137e60.
[19] Ulanowicz RE. Ecology, the ascendant perspective. Columbia Univer-
sity Press; 2004.
[20] Müller F, Leupelt M. Ecotargets, goal functions and orientors. Springer
Verlag; 1998.
[21] Schwarz EJ, Steininger KW. Implementing nature’s lesson: the indus-
trial recycling network enhancing regional development. Journal of
Cleaner Production 1997;5(1e2):47e56.
[22] Lowe EA, Evans LK. Industrial ecology and industrial ecosystems.
Journal of Cleaner Production 1995;3(1e2):47e53.
[23] Baas L. Cleaner production and industrial systems, a Dutch experience.
Journal of Cleaner Production 1998;6:189e97.
[24] Stevenson RS, Evans JW. Editorial to: cutting across interests: cleaner
production, the unified force of sustainable development. Journal of
Cleaner Production 2004;12:185e7.
1651
[25] Barbiroli G, Raggi A. A method for evaluating the overall technical and
economic performance of environmental innovations in production
cycles. Journal of Cleaner Production 2003;11:365e74.
[26] Erkman S. Industrial ecology: an historical review. Journal of Cleaner
Production 1997;5(1e2):1e10.
[27] Ehrenfeld JR. Industrial ecology: a framework for product and process
design. Journal of Cleaner Production 1997;5(1e2):87e95.
[28] Sagar AD, Frosch RA. A perspective on industrial ecology and its
applications to a metals-industry ecosystem. Journal of Cleaner Produc-
tion 1997;5(1e2):39e45.
[29] Anastas PT, Breen JJ. Design for the environment and green chemistry:
the heart and soul of industrial ecology. Journal of Cleaner Production
1997;5(1e2):97e102.
[30] Lowe EA. Creating by-product resource exchanges: strategies for eco-
industrial parks. Journal of Cleaner Production 1997;5(1e2):57e65.
[31] Carr AJP. Choctaw eco-industrial park: an ecological approach to indus-
trial land-use planning and design. Landscape and Urban Planning
1998;42:239e57.
[32] Grant J. Planning and designing industrial landscapes for eco-efficiency.
Journal of Cleaner Production 1997;5(1e2):75e8.
[33] Wallner HP. Towards sustainable development of industry: networking,
complexity and eco-clusters. Journal of Cleaner Production 1999;7:
49e58.
[34] Newman PWG. Sustainability and cities: extending the metabolism
model. Landscape and Urban Planning 1999;44:219e26.
[35] van Holderbeke M, Timmermans V. Integrated chain management by
applying substance flow analysis in the Flemish region of Belgium. Cor-
porate Environmental Strategy 2002;9(3):297e304.
[36] Upham P. An assessment of the natural step theory of sustainability.
Journal of Cleaner Production 2000;8:445e54.
[37] Upham P. LCA and post-hoc application of sustainability criteria: the
case of the natural step. International Journal of LCA 2000;5(2):
68e72.
[38] Korhonen J, Wihersaari M, Savolainen I. Industrial ecosystem in the
Finnish forest industry: using the material and energy flow model of
a forest ecosystem in a forest industry system. Ecological Economics
2001;39:145e61.
[39] Mitsch WJ, Jørgensen SE. Ecological engineering: an introduction to
ecotechnology. Wiley-Interscience; 1989.
[40] Jørgensen SE, Mitsch WJ. Ecological engineering principles. In:
Mitsch WJ, Jørgensen SE, editors. Ecological engineering: an introduc-
tion to ecotechnology 1989. p. 21e37.
[41] Straskraba M. Ecotechnology as a new means for environmental man-
agement. Ecological Engineering 1993;2:311e31.
[42] Geyer-Allély E, Zacarias-Farah A. Policies and instruments for promot-
ing sustainable household consumption. Journal of Cleaner Production
2003;11:923e6.
[43] Zacarias-Farah A, Geyer-Allély E. Household consumption patterns in
OECD countries: trends and figures. Journal of Cleaner Production
2003;11:819e27.
[44] Rood GA, Ros JPM, Drissen E, Vringer K. A structure of models for
future projections of environmental pressure due to consumption. Jour-
nal of Cleaner Production 2003;11:491e8.
[45] Giannetti BF, Bonilla SH, Almeida CMVB. Developing eco-technolo-
gies: a possibility to minimize environmental impact in Southern Brazil.
Journal of Cleaner Production 2004;12:361e8.
[46] Ciccozzi E, Checkenya R, Rodriguez AV. Recent experiences and chal-
lenges in promoting cleaner production investments in developing coun-
tries. Journal of Cleaner Production 2003;11:629e38.
[47] Inyang HI, de Brito Galvao TC, Hilger H. Waste recycling within the
context of industrial ecology. Resources, Conservation and Recycling
2003;39:1e2.
[48] Suganthi L, Samuel AA. Exergy based supply side energy management
for sustainable energy development. Renewable energy 2000;19:
285e90.
[49] Khan FI, Sadiq R, Veitch B. Life cycle iNdeX (LInX): a new indexing
procedure for process and product design in decision making. Journal of
Cleaner Production 2004;12:59e76.
1652 S.N. Nielsen / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 1639e1653
[50] Korhonen J. Industrial ecology in the strategic sustainable development
model: strategic applications of industrial ecology. Journal of Cleaner
Production 2004;12:809e23.
[51] Robèrt K-H, Schmidt-Bleek B, Aloisi de Larderel J, Basile G,
Jansen JL, Kuehr R, et al. Strategic sustainable development e selec-
tion, design and synergies of applied tools. Journal of Cleaner Produc-
tion 2002;10:197e214.
[52] Waldrop MM. Complexity: the emerging science at the edge of order
and chaos. Penguin Books; 1992.
[53] Wernick IK, Ausubel JH. National material metrics for industrial ecol-
ogy. Resources Policy 1995;21(3):189e98.
[54] Odling-Smee FJ, LaLand KN, Fledman MW. Niche construction: the
neglected process in evolution. Princeton University Press; 2003.
[55] Norton B, Costanza R, Bishop RC. The evolution of preferences: Why
‘sovereign’ preferences may not lead to sustainable policies and what to
do about it. Ecological Economics 1998;24:193e211.
[56] Duchin F, Lange G-M, Kell G. Technological change, trade and the en-
vironment. Ecological Economics 1995;14:185e93.
[57] Commoner B. The relation between industrial and ecological systems.
Journal of Cleaner Production 1997;5(1e2):125e9.
[58] Hertwich EG, Pease WS, Koshland CP. Evaluating the environmental
impact of products and production processes: a comparison of six
methods. The science of the total environment 1997;196:13e29.
[59] Hardy C, Graedel TE. Industrial ecosystems as food webs. Journal of
Industrial Ecology 2002;6(1):29e38.
[60] Robèrt K-H. Tools and concepts for sustainable development, how
do they relate to a general framework for sustainable development,
and to each other? Journal of Cleaner Production 2000;8:243e54.
[61] Ekvall T. Cleaner production tools: LCA and beyond. Journal of
Cleaner Production 2002;10:403e6.
[62] van Berkel R, Lafleur M. Development of an industrial ecology toolbox
for the introduction of industrial ecology in enterprises-II. Journal of
Cleaner Production 1997;5(1e2):27e37.
[63] van Berkel R, Willems E, Lafleur M. Application of an industrial ecol-
ogy toolbox for the introduction of industrial ecology in enterprises-I.
Journal of Cleaner Production 1997;5(1e2):11e25.
[64] Narayanaswamy V, Scott JA, Ness JN, Lochhead M. Resource flow and
product chain analysis as practical tools to promote cleaner production
initiatives. Journal of Cleaner Production 2003;11:375e87.
[65] Matutinovicz I. Organizational patterns of economies: an ecological
perspective. Ecological Economics 2002;40:421e40.
[66] Boons FAA, Baas LW. Types of industrial ecology: the problem of co-
ordination. Journal of Cleaner Production 1997;5(1e2):79e86.
[67] Lambert AJD, Boons FA. Eco-industrial parks: stimulating sustainable
development in mixed industrial parks. Technovation 2002;22:
471e84.
[68] Jasch C. The use of environmental management accounting (EMA) for
identifying environmental costs. Journal of Cleaner Production 2003;
11:667e76.
[69] Spengler TH, Püchert H, Penkuhn T, Rentz O. Environmental integrated
production and recycling management. European Journal of Operational
Research 1997;97:308e26.
[70] Andersen O. Transport of fish from Norway: energy analysis using
industrial ecology as a framework. Journal of Cleaner Production
2002;10:581e8.
[71] Bahr BV, Hanssen OJ, Vold M, Pott G, Stoltenberg-Hansson E, Steen B.
Experiences of environmental performance evaluation in the cement in-
dustry. Data quality of environmental performance indicators as a limit-
ing factor for benchmarking and rating. Journal of Cleaner Production
2003;11:713e25.
[72] Kautto P, Melanen M. How does industry respond to waste policy instru-
ments e Finnish experiences. Journal of Cleaner Production 2004;12:1e11.
[73] Ribeyre F. Pour une écologie familiale. Fondements et finalités. Natures
Sciences Sociétés 2003;11:169e73.
[74] Michaelis L. The role of business in sustainable consumption. Journal
of Cleaner Production 2003;11:915e21.
[75] Hillary R, Thorsen N. Regulatory and self-regulatory measures as routes to
promote cleaner production. Journal of Cleaner Production 1999;7:1e11.
[76] Ayres RU. On the life cycle as a metaphor: where ecology and econom-
ics diverge. Ecological Economics 2004;48:425e38.
[77] van Bohemen H. Infrastructure, ecology and art. Landscape and Urban
Planning 2002;187e201.
[78] Huesemann MH. Can pollution problems be effectively solved by envi-
ronmental science and technology? An analysis of critical limitations.
Ecological Economics 2001;37:271e87.
[79] Ashford NA. Industrial safety: the neglected issue in industrial ecology.
Journal of Cleaner Production 1997;5(1e2):115e21.
[80] Luiten E, Blok K. The success of a simple network in developing and
innovative energy-efficient technology. Energy 2003;28:361e91.
[81] Dunn RF, Bush GE. Using process integration technology
for CLEANER production. Journal of Cleaner Production 2001;9:
1e23.
[82] Dalsgaard JPT. An ecological modelling approach towards the determi-
nation of sustainability in farming systems. PhD thesis. Royal Agricul-
tural and veterinary University; 1996.
[83] Reith C. Applying environmental management strategies to the agricul-
tural sector: Louisiana’s model sustainable agricultural complex. Corpo-
rate Environmental Strategy 2001;8(1):75e83.
[84] Naveh Z. Ten major premises for a holistic conception of
multifunctional landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 2001;57:
269e84.
[85] Günther F, Folke C. Characteristics of nested living systems. Journal of
Biological Systems 1993;1(3):257e74.
[86] Nielsen SN. Thermodynamics of an ecosystem interpreted as a hierarchy
of embedded systems. Ecological Modelling 2000;135:279e89.
[87] Weston RF, Ruth M. A dynamic, hierarchical approach to understanding
and managing natural economic systems. Ecological Economics 1997;21:
1e17.
[88] Ring I. Evolutionary strategies in environmental policy. Ecological Eco-
nomics 1997;23:237e49.
[89] Odum EP. The strategy of ecosystem development. Science 1969;164:
262e70.
[90] Templet PH. Energy, diversity and development in economic systems;
an empirical analysis. Ecological Economics 1999;30:223e33.
[91] Georgescu-Roegen N. The entropy law and the economic process. Har-
vard University Press; 1971.
[92] Rifkin J. Entropy e a new world view. New York: The Viking Press;
2004.
[93] Lovelock J. The ages of GAIA: a biography of our living earth. New
York: W.W. Norton; 1988.
[94] Rebane KK. Energy, entropy, environment: why is the protection of the
environment objectively difficult? Ecological Economics 1995;13:
89e92.
[95] Bakshi BR. A thermodynamic framework for ecologically conscious
process systems engineering. Computers and Chemical Engineering
2002;26:269e82.
[96] Lowenthal MD, Kastenberg WE. Industrial ecology and energy sys-
tems: a first step. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 1998;24:
51e63.
[97] González A, Sala JM, Flores I, López LM. Application of thermoeco-
nomics to allocation of environmental loads in the life cycle assessment
of cogeneration plants. Energy 2003;28:557e74.
[98] Wall G. Conditions and tools in the design of energy conversion and
management systems of a sustainable society. Energy Conversion and
Management 2002;43:1235e48.
[99] Connelly L, Koshland CP. Exergy and industrial ecology-Part 1: an
exergy-based definition of consumption and a thermodynamic interpre-
tation of ecosystem evolution. Exergy, an International Journal
2001;1(3):146e65.
[100] Connelly L, Koshland CP. Exergy and industrial ecology. Part 2: a non-
dimensional analysis of means to reduce resource depletion. Exergy, an
International Journal 2004;1(4):234e55.
[101] Yantovski E. Exergonomics in education. Energy 2000;25:1021e31.
[102] Sieniutycz S. Thermodynamics limits on production or consumption
of mechanical energy in practical and industrial systems. Progress in
Energy and Combustion Science 2003;29:193e246.
 S.N. Nielsen / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 1639e1653
[103] Dewulf J, van Langenhove H, Mulder J, van den Berg MMD, van der
Kooi HJ, de Swaan Arons J. Illustrations towards quantifying the sus-
tainability of technology. Green Chemistry 2000;2:108e14.
[104] Dewulf J, van Langenhove H. Quantitative assessment of solid waste
treatment systems in the industrial ecology perspective by exergy anal-
ysis. Environmental Science and Technology 2002;36:1130e5.
[105] Sciubba E. Extended exergy accounting applied to energy recovery fro
waste: the concept of total recycling. Energy 2003;28:1315e34.
[106] Szargut J, Ziebik A, Stanek W. Depletion of the non-renewable natural
exergy resources as a measure of the ecological cost. Energy Conver-
sion and Management 2002;43:1149e63.
[107] Rosen MA, Dincer I. Exergyecosteenergyemass analysis of thermal
systems and processes. Energy Conversion and Management 2003;
44(1633):1651.
[108] Seager TP, Theis TL. A uniform definition and quantitative basis for in-
dustrial ecology. Journal of Cleaner Production 2002;10:225e35.
[109] Seager TP, Theis TL. Exergetic pollution potential: estimating the rev-
ocability of chemical pollution. Exergy, an International Journal
2002;2:273e82.
[110] Fratscher W, Stephan K. Waste energy usage and entropy economy.
Energy 2003;28:1281e302.
[111] Rosen MA. Assessing energy technologies and environmental impacts
with the principles of thermodynamics. Applied Energy 2002;72:
427e41.
[112] Dung TH. Consumption, production and technological progress: a uni-
fied entropic approach. Ecological Economics 2004;6:195e210.
[113] Poredos A, Kitanovski A. Exergy loss as a basis for the prices of ther-
mal energy. Energy Conversion and Management 2002;43:2163e73.
[114] Reijnders L. Policies influencing cleaner production: the role of prices
and regulation. Journal of Cleaner Production 2003;11:333e8.
[115] Szargut J. Application of exergy for the determination of the pro-eco-
logical tax replacing the actual personal taxes. Energy 2002;27:379e89.
1653
[116] Santarelli MGL. Carbon exergy tax: a thermoeconomic method to increase
the efficient use of exergy resources. Energy Policy 2004;32:413e27.
[117] Koroneos C, Spachos T, Moussiopoulos N. Exergy analysis of renew-
able resources. Renewable Energy 2003;28:295e310.
[118] Frosch RA, Gallopoulos NE. Strategies for manufacturing. Scientific
American 1989;(September):94e102.
[119] El-Sayed YM. Application of exergy to design. Energy Conversion and
Management 2002;43:1165e85.
[120] Maxwell D, van der Vorst R. Developing sustainable products and ser-
vices. Journal of Cleaner Production 2003;11:883e95.
[121] Vezzoli C. A new generation of designers: perspectives for education
and training in the field of sustainable design. Experiences and projects
at the Politecnico di Milano University. Journal of Cleaner Production
2003;11:1e9.
[122] Tsatsaronis G, Park M-H. On avoidable and unavoidable exergy de-
structions and investments costs in thermal systems. Energy Conversion
and Management 2002;43:1259e70.
[123] Cornelissen RL, Hirs G. The value of the exegetic life cycle assessment
besides the LCA. Energy Conversion and Management 2002;43:
1417e24.
[124] Campbell CJ, Laherrere JH. The end of cheap oil. Scientific American
1998;(March):78e83.
[125] Hall J, Clark WW. Special issue: environmental innovation [introduc-
tion]. Journal of Cleaner Production 2003;11:343e6.
[126] Dincer I. The role of exergy in energy policy making. Energy Policy
2002;30:137e49.
[127] Herzfeld JR. Putting a spotlight on metaphors and analogies in indus-
trial ecology. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2003;7(1):1e4.
[128] Boons F, Rome N. Industrial ecology as a cultural phenomenon. Journal
of Industrial Ecology 2004;4(2):49e54.
[129] Coroner J. Theory of industrial ecology. Progress in Industrial Ecology
2004;1(1/2/3):61e88.