Shared Dynamic Capabilities in Industrial Symbiosis Networks: how do
physical and social exchanges increase joint competitiveness and
adaptability?
Jasper de Lange1, Alison Jenkins, Aglaia Fischer, Stefano Pascucci and Kris van Koppen
Wageningen University
Abstract
In industrial symbiosis networks, firms are engaged in exchange of material and energy byproducts, with the aim of jointly achieving both economic and environmental gains. In order
for industrial symbiosis networks to become successful, they must be adequately socially
embedded; in other words, they must develop forms of social exchange: mutual trust, finegrained information transfer, joint problem solving and multiplexity. These characteristics
allow the network to be more flexible, more adaptable and thus more competitive, because
they enable the development of dynamic capabilities shared within the network. This is
illustrated by describing and analyzing the case of INES Rotterdam.
Keywords
Dynamic capabilities approach, eco-industrial parks, industrial ecology, industrial symbiosis,
social embeddedness
1. Introduction
Resource based- and dynamic capability perspectives are often put forward, when
discussing differences in firm performance and competitive advantage. The resources and
dynamic capabilities of a company encompass the explicit and implicit strategic and tactical
knowledge that distinguish the company from its competitors (Barney, 1991). There exists a
comprehensive body of scientific literature on these perspectives, which has led to divergent
results. What is clear though, is that scientists have always conceived of resources and
dynamic capabilities as belonging to a single company i.e. being firm specific or on a firmlevel. In this paper however, we argue that dynamic capabilities can also emerge as a shared
asset in a network of closely cooperating companies.
In this paper we explore what role dynamic capabilities play in industrial symbiosis.
Industrial symbiosis is a concept that originates from industrial ecology, a theoretical field
that looks at industries as ecosystems with their own metabolisms of resources, outputs and
wastes. When companies take part in industrial symbiosis networks they collectively strive for
a competitive advantage, involving the physical exchange of resources, water, energy and byproducts (Chertow, 2007). This exchange of physical resources cannot take place without
some sort of information exchange. During the process of building the network, building trust,
1
Corresponding author: jasper.delange@wur.nl
sharing information and solving problems together, we believe that shared dynamic
capabilities are developed. Therefore the following question will be answered in this paper.
Can dynamic capabilities be developed and shared by several companies in an industrial
symbiosis network?
To find the answer we will apply the dynamic capabilities perspective on the case of
INES, an eco-industrial park in the Rotterdam harbor (The Netherlands). In this eco-industrial
park several companies have joined forces in an industrial symbiosis with the aim of making
better use of resources and at the same time reducing waste and emissions.
The next section elaborates on the concepts of dynamic capabilities, industrial ecology
and industrial symbiosis. In section three the INES case is described. In the discussion section
the INES case is further analyzed and a comparison is made between the findings in the case
and the concept of dynamic capabilities. In this section the research question will be
answered. The last section comprises a short conclusion and recommendations for future
research.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1 The dynamic capabilities approach
The dynamic capabilities approach draws upon the resource based view (RBV, also
referred to as resource based theory). The resource based view states that every organization
needs its own firm specific capabilities and resources in order to create a sustainable
competitive advantage (Penrose, 1959; Teece, 1984). Resources are defined as “all assets,
capabilities, organizational processes, firm attributes, information, knowledge etcetera
controlled by a firm that enable the firm to conceive of and implement strategies that improve
its efficiency and effectiveness” (Daft, 1983 in Barney, 1991). In order to create and sustain
this competitive advantage the resources need to be valuable, rare, inimitable and nonsubstitutable (also called VRIN- attributes) (Barney, 1991). In other words, this means that
the strategic resources of a firm should be valuable for the firm, different from the resources
of competitors, immobile across firms and impossible to substitute with other resources.
This resource based perspective triggered other authors to further elaborate on resource
based theory. Whereas the resource based perspective stresses an isolating mechanism that
occurs because of the specific resources each firm preserves, changes in the environment are
not taken into account. For this reason Teece et al. (1997) developed another component of
resource based theory, called ‘dynamic capabilities’. In dynamic capability theory the
dimension of changing environments is added. Dynamic capabilities relate to the company’s
ability to create, integrate and reconfigure the combination of internal and external
competences and resources that can address changing environments (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen,
1997). This way, dynamic capabilities can help a company by creating competitive advantage
in increasingly demanding global markets.
2
Literature on dynamic capabilities has always emphasized the importance of protecting
firm specific resources against competitors. As stated above, successful resources are VRIN,
meaning that they are well embedded in the firm’s often tacit knowledge. In the case of
industrial symbiosis, companies work together by sharing material and energy flows
(Ehrenfeld & Gertler, 1997). However, not only these technical material flows are important
in an industrial symbiosis network, but also intangible assets like information, trust,
interaction and motivation. The next sections will elaborate on industrial symbiosis theory. It
will become clear how industrial symbiosis theory indicates the existence of dynamic
capabilities that are shared within entire industrial symbiosis networks.
2.2 Industrial ecology and industrial symbiosis
The concept of ‘industrial symbiosis’ originates from the wider scientific field of
industrial ecology. Using the analogy of the food web in natural ecosystems, industrial
ecology views industry as an interactive system, studying the input and output flows of
industrial processes and trying to find ways to close cycles of nutrients (raw materials,
products and waste) and energy (Frosch, 1992). The idea is that following this and similar
analogies with ecology will enable industry to create ‘win-win-win’ outcomes in terms of
economy, environment and society. In recent years, industrial ecology has increasingly
become a field of interest that encompasses many other concepts and approaches. At the level
of the individual firm, it now includes eco-efficiency, design for environment, pollution
prevention and green accounting. Life cycle management, industrial symbiosis and industrial
sector initiatives are involved on an inter-firm level. On a regional level, it includes studies of
industrial metabolism (material flow analysis), dematerialization and decarbonization (Gibbs
& Deutz, 2007).
Industrial symbiosis takes a central place in industrial ecology research, because it directly
involves linking businesses in ‘nutrient exchanges’ to form industrial ecosystems. “Industrial
symbiosis has been defined as engaging traditionally separate industries in a collective
approach to competitive advantage involving physical exchange of materials, energy, water
and by-products. The keys to industrial symbiosis are collaboration and the synergistic
possibilities offered by geographic proximity” (Chertow, 2007). According to Chertow, there
are three primary ways to implement resource exchange in industrial symbiosis: by-product
reuse (for example through the cascading use of energy), utility or infrastructure sharing (such
as sharing waste treatment facilities), and joint provision of services (for example through a
shared cantina).
The concept of industrial symbiosis is closely linked to that of ‘eco-industrial parks’
(EIPs). An eco-industrial park is defined as “a community of manufacturing and service
businesses seeking enhanced environmental and economic performance through collaboration
in managing environmental and resource issues including energy, water, and materials. […]
The community of businesses seeks a collective benefit that is greater than the sum of the
individual benefits each company would realize if it optimized its individual performance”
(Gibbs & Deutz, 2005). How these two concepts – industrial symbiosis and eco-industrial
parks – relate exactly is still a matter of debate. It is unclear whether by-product exchange
3
should be seen as a defining feature of eco-industrial parks (Gibbs & Deutz, 2005), and this
results in ambiguous and sometimes inconsistent use of both terms by different authors. Some
authors see eco-industrial parks as one possible way of creating industrial symbiosis; in this
case industrial symbiosis could also be reached in other ways, for instance by a product chain
approach, where firms are not necessarily located in each others’ proximity (Chertow, 2007).
Others see industrial symbiosis as one possible configuration of eco-industrial parks; here
‘eco-industrial park’ is interpreted more broadly as an industrial park where companies work
together to achieve sustainability goals, not necessarily involving by-product exchange (Van
Koppen & Mol, 2002). Solving this ambiguity is not within the scope of this article. However,
it is important to note that, because of the strong interconnected (and sometimes directly
interchangeable) nature of the two concepts, we consider many of the observations made in
literature about eco-industrial parks to be relevant for our current investigation of industrial
symbiosis.
2.3 The social embeddedness of industrial symbiosis
There are two key ingredients for the success of industrial symbiosis (Gibbs & Deutz,
2005; Tudor, Adam, & Bates, 2007): firstly the exchange of material by-products and energy;
secondly some form social exchange, in other words, inter-firm networking, trust and
collaboration. In this section we will take a closer look at the latter ingredient: what role do
social exchanges play in networks that are already engaged in physical exchanges?
The importance of the social dimension of industrial symbiosis is very commonly
acknowledged in literature. A certain level of trust and willingness to cooperate are seen as
requirements for ‘industrial symbiosis proper’ (exchange of materials and energy) to take
place (Ehrenfeld & Gertler, 1997; Gibbs, 2009; Gibbs & Deutz, 2005, 2007; Hewes & Lyons,
2008; Tudor et al., 2007). The importance of these factors is exemplified by many failed
attempts to intentionally plan and design eco-industrial parks from scratch and through policy
intervention (Chertow, 2007; Gibbs, 2003; Gibbs & Deutz, 2005, 2007). The reason many of
these projects failed is that it is hard to find companies willing to co-locate and link their
processes with other companies they do not yet know or trust. This is perceived as simply too
great a risk to take. Trust is needed before interdependencies through by-products exchange
can be set up, because certainty and continuity of supply are extremely important to industrial
companies (Tudor et al., 2007). Also, trust is needed in exploring the possibilities for byproducts exchange, because companies need to share (possibly sensitive) information about
their inputs and outputs (Ehrenfeld & Gertler, 1997).
Although many authors stress the importance of these social mechanisms for industrial
symbiosis, only a few attempts are known where the issue is actually analyzed in a social
scientific way. The social aspects of industrial symbiosis are still very much ‘undertheorized’
(Doménech & Davies, 2011; Gibbs, 2003; Van Koppen & Mol, 2002). The most recent and
comprehensive attempt to address this knowledge gap is an article by Doménech & Davies
(2011), in which they try to explain the emergence and evolution of industrial symbiosis in
pre-existing industrial networks, including the social mechanisms involved.
4
Central in Doménech & Davies’ analysis is the concept of ‘embeddedness’, which refers
to “the mechanisms through which social structure, cognitive processes, institutional
arrangements and cultural context determine the action of economic and social agents”
(Doménech & Davies, 2011). They view successful industrial symbiosis networks as
‘embedded networks’, in which long-term, close and cooperative ties between firms play a
crucial role. These embedded networks have four main characteristics: 1) trust, 2) finegrained information transfer, 3) joint problem-solving, and 4) multiplexity of personal
relations. Table 1 gives an overview of these characteristics, together with the conditions in
which they arise, as well as their resulting benefits. The build-up of these characteristics in the
embedded industrial symbiosis network enables the emergence of new capabilities that are not
specific for individual firms, but are shared by the network as a whole. In other words, these
capabilities enable the participating companies to develop a collective competitive advantage
(Baas & Boons, 2004). They “allow companies to be more flexible and adapt more quickly in
environments characterized by complexity and continuous change” (Doménech & Davies,
2011). Here we see a strong parallel with the concept of dynamic capabilities that is worth
exploring further. In this article, we will provisionally call these emergent features of
embedded networks “shared dynamic capabilities”.
Trust






Fine-grained
information
transfer


Joint problem
solving


Multiplexity


Mechanisms/conditions
Size of the network
Past-history and shared
experience
Common goals and values
General reciprocity
Emotional contractual ties
Frequent interaction
Learning by doing and close
interaction facilitates deep
understanding of the
organizations dynamics
Generation of tacit
knowledge
Routines of negotiation and
communication
Development of a ‘common
language’
Diversity of roles that a pair
of network actors can
represent
Embedded ties are a
combination of business
relation, friendship and other
social/cultural attachments










Outcomes
Reduces the risk associated
with transactions, by
preventing opportunistic
behavior
Reduces access barriers and
learning costs
Promotes willingness to
collaborate
Flexibility and rapid response
and adaptability
Reduces the risks and costs,
and increases the
effectiveness of coordination
Rapid identification of
problems, due to implicit
feedback mechanisms
Cooperative approach
Multiplexity promotes trust
and willingness to cooperate
Minimizes opportunistic
behavior
It confers stability and
flexibility to the connections
Table 1. Main features of embedded ties and networks. (Adapted from Doménech & Davies, 2011.)
5
Doménech & Davies identify three phases of cooperation through which industrial
symbiosis networks evolve, to become increasingly more embedded: 1) emergence, 2)
probation, and 3) development and expansion. In the progression of these phases, the four
characteristics that facilitate this embeddedness – and thus the build-up of shared dynamic
capabilities – also become increasingly manifest.
In the emergence phase, the first relations between actors are developed and some
straightforward opportunities for collaboration are explored. Generally, these first steps do not
require large structural changes in processes or technology, but they do form a basis for trust
and further cooperation. What follows is the probation phase. After some time, actors get a
general idea of the dynamics of the network and of the opportunities for exchanges. This will
lead to more exploratory collaborative projects. Once there is enough trust to experiment, and
more successful linkages are achieved, this in turn creates more trust: “it is the positive
experience of interacting over time that achieves trust between [...] actors and leads to the
potential for more complex embedded networks over time” (Hewes & Lyons, 2008). The
probation phase takes time and can gradually result in more integrated, shared decisionmaking routines between actors. If the second phase is successful, what could potentially
follow is a phase of development and expansion. “Continuous interaction and accumulation of
experiences of cooperation allow the thriving of embedded ties, governed by trust, tacit
knowledge and joint problem-solving, and generate routines of cooperation that significantly
reduce the transaction costs associated with it” (Doménech & Davies, 2011).
These phases can arise and progress spontaneously, but in many cases the process can also
be initiated, encouraged and speeded up by a third party, such as governmental body or a
business association. Such a policy actor can have an important role in strengthening network
ties and deepening the embeddedness of the network (Chertow, 2007; Doménech & Davies,
2011; Ehrenfeld & Gertler, 1997; Gibbs, 2003).
2.4 Comparison to other theoretical approaches
To illustrate the differences and similarities between the approach proposed in this paper
and existing theoretical approaches, a brief comparison is made here. Concepts that bear
resemblance to our approach include knowledge spillovers and coopetition. These concepts
are introduced below, while table 2 gives an overview of the main differences. It should be
made clear from the start that these approaches – although they are distinct – do not exclude
each other; it may well be possible for the processes described by each to coexist in a given
situation.
Coopetition can be seen as a hybrid between competition and cooperation amongst firms,
which results in a complex relationship with contradictory logics of interaction. Examples are
strategic alliances between multinational firms, or multiunit organizations where different
brands opting for the same market belong to a mother company (Bengtsson & Kock, 2000;
Tsai, 2002). Due to the competitive element, the playing field to evolve relationships and
develop trust amongst actors is limited, because competing companies take a cautious
6
standpoint. This is a clear difference with industrial symbiosis networks, which are generally
characterized by the absence of competitive threat due to the different industries in which
firms are operating. However, when firms in similar industries are part of a larger industrial
symbiosis network, interactions between those firms could take the form of coopetition. A
precondition of effective coopetition is either a clear internal separation of competition and
coordination activities, or facilitation of cooperative aspect by an external actor such as a
collective association (Bengtsson & Kock, 2000) – the latter being common within industrial
symbiosis networks.
Shared dynamic
capabilities in
industrial symbiosis
networks
Knowledge spillovers
in industrials districts
/ clusters
Coopetition
Participants
Firms in different
industry sectors (with
differing input and byproduct flows)
Firms in the same
industry sector
Firms in the same
industry sector, or parts
within a multi-unit
organization
Scale of
interaction
District
District / region
Up to global
Driving
forces
Driven by an
unplanned
accumulation of
bilateral agreements
between firms, that
encourage further
cooperation
Shared competences
arise as an
unintentional sideeffect of co-location,
which can then be
supported deliberately
by local institutions
Driven by specific and
purposefully
determined common
mission/goals
Outcomes
Emergence of routines
of collaborative
problem-solving and
joint learning,
characterized by trust
and tacit knowledge
transfer
Accumulation of
sector-specific
knowledge as an
intangible shared
competence that is not
accessible to outsider
firms
Accumulation and
creation of resources
for joint problemsolving on
predetermined
activities of interest
with set boundaries
Source of
competitive
advantage
Increased flexibility
and adaptability, in
addition to increased
resource base
Increased resource base
(knowledge)
Increased resource base
(knowledge) and/or
improved market
position
Table 2. Comparison between shared dynamic capabilities in industrial symbiosis networks, knowledge
spillovers in industrial districts/clusters and coopetition.
7
Knowledge spillovers refer to the existence or emergence of shared competences between
firms in the same industry, located within the same industrial cluster or district. These shared
competences consist of knowledge flows (both explicit and tacit) concerning products,
processes, technologies, consumers and markets, that are accessible only to firms within a
district (Camisón & Forés, 2011). They are intangible assets that are hard for outsider firms to
imitate, appropriate or substitute, because they are “largely district-specific, idiosyncratic and
based on tacit knowledge, […] unique institutions and multiple links between actors”
(Camisón & Forés, 2011). Knowledge spillovers emerge as a result of multiple factors: local
availability of highly qualified, specialized and experienced human capital; local mobility of
labor; local spin-off companies; informal social links between local employees of intra-district
firms; and the existence of a community with commonly agreed-upon standards of behavior,
embedded in local traditions (Camisón & Forés, 2011). Commonalities with embedded
industrial symbiosis networks are the existence of tacit knowledge transfer and multiplexity of
relations, but other aspects crucial to the emergence of shared dynamic capabilities in these
networks – trust and joint problem-solving – are not at all emphasized in the literature.
3. The case of INES Rotterdam
The Rotterdam Harbor and Industrial Complex (HIC) is an area that takes up over 10.000
acres and has thousands of companies that concern themselves with petrochemicals, logistics
and wholesale. According to research done by Erasmus University, it is of high strategic and
economic importance for the Netherlands (Bosch, Hollen, Volberda, & Baaij, 2011). In the
mid and late nineties, the concepts of industrial ecology and industrial symbiosis were
introduced and several companies started to realize that their handling of energy and resources
could be more sustainable, efficient and cost beneficial (Baas & Korevaar, 2010). On the one
hand, the large scale of the HIC - economically and geographically - makes it difficult to
transform to more sustainable use of energy and resources. Yet, at the same time,
transforming such an area is of high importance precisely because of its scale and impact. We
will evaluate how such a large area with many different companies and interests is trying to
transform to a more sustainable way of doing business, and how shared dynamic capabilities
emerge as a result of this. In this section, there is a short case description of the phased efforts
to establish industrial ecology systems between companies within HIC. In the subsequent
discussion section, the case will be analyzed using the features and phases of embedded
networks proposed by Doménech and Davies (2011). Finally, a closer look is taken into the
aspects that stimulate the features of embeddedness and therefore help to realize it.
3.1 Case description
The HIC area consists of many different companies. Most are members of an industrial
association called Deltalinqs (Deltalinqs, 2011) that represents their joint interests. Deltalinqs
initiated a project in 1994 called INES, an industrial ecosystem, in the Rotterdam Harbor and
Industrial Complex (HIC), The Netherlands. It was meant to give attention to environmental
issues. Deltalinqs sought advice on creating such a system and established contact with the
Erasmus University and the University of Delft. The concept of industrial ecology was to be
8
adopted, because this concept had already been proven successful in the real life example of
Kalundborg, Denmark (Kalundborg, 2011).
Throughout the years several initiatives where implemented in INES, each new initiative
building upon the experience of former ones. The different initiatives differed regarding their
goals, emphasis, insights, and when they were implemented. The INES project can be clearly
separated into three phases (Baas & Korevaar, 2010).
Phase I: 1994-1997
A total of 69 member companies initially participated in the INES project and an
appointed environmental coordinator represented each company. The most important
statements and goals were formulated in the ‘INES Declaration’ (Baas & Huisingh, 2008;
Baas & Korevaar, 2010). After feasibility studies were conducted by the partner universities,
three projects (out of an initial fifteen), were selected because of their economic,
environmental and collaborative potential.
In this first phase no real innovations were made. It was mainly about assessing the
current state and formulating and researching feasible ideas. Awareness was raised amongst
the companies for the opportunity and need of efficiency improvements.
Phase II: 1999-2002 (INES Mainport Rotterdam project)
The findings and insights gathered in the first phase gave the incentive for a second
program. In this phase waste heat utilization was identified as a considerable opportunity to
explore and exploit within the area (Baas & Korevaar, 2010). In addition, some plans
resulting from earlier feasibility studies were implemented. These new plans concerned water
management, CO2 emissions, utility sharing and waste management. Deltalinqs broadened
the scope by also including governmental stakeholders (local as well as national) and
environmental organizations into the process (Baas, 2008; Baas & Huisingh, 2008). A
strategic decision making platform was implemented to involve these different societal actors.
Phase III: 2003-2010 (ROM-Rijnmond program)
In the third phase, all industrial ecology programs were clustered in the ROM-Rijnmond
program. This program focused on improving living conditions in the Rijnmond region and
aimed at strengthening the HIC area. A new network platform was established to ensure
participation of all relevant stakeholders, which stimulated the sustainability conscience of
actors involved. In this most recent phase the collaboration between internal actors (other
companies) and external actors (government and universities) is very strong, thanks to built
up relations of trust (Baas & Korevaar, 2010).
Besides strong relations of trust, knowledge established in earlier phases also contributed
to the improvement if INES. By using this knowledge, reduction in CO2 was identified as a
viable option for strengthening the HIC area. Because of its involvement in petrochemical
processing which exudes CO2, the mission was formulated to become a leader in
economically feasible reductions of CO2. Partly, this was initiated to ensure the transition
9
towards more sustainable and renewable options in the face of climate change and limited
resources. Yet paradoxically, this mission is also important for maintaining a strategic and
strong position of place in handling petrochemicals (Baas, 2008).
3.2 Case evaluation: features of embeddedness
In this section, the presence of the first three features of embedded networks, trust, finegrained information transfer and joined problem solving (as formulated by Doménech and
Davies, 2011), is evaluated for each development phase of the Rotterdam Harbor and Industry
Complex . The fourth feature, multiplexity in personal relation, will be elaborated on in the
case discussion.
Phase I: 1994-1997
The formulation of the ‘INES Declaration’ exemplifies the objective of creating common
goals and values to establish trust. Formulating and subsequently working towards realizing a
common goal foster this feeling of trust. The cooperation also represents the start of ‘joint
problem solving’ through developing a common language.
Phase II: 1999-2002 (INES Mainport Rotterdam project)
As stated above, the findings of the initial feasibility studies lead to the implementation of
new plans. The joint compressed-air system that was fully operational by 2000 (Baas &
Korevaar, 2010) is a good example of such a plan. Firstly, it is stressed that trust was needed
for the company Hoek-Loos (supplier of compressed-air) to realize such a shared compressed
air system. The trust ensured exchange of information between the companies as well as
reduced investment costs. Next to trust, learning by doing is exemplified in this case. Through
experimenting and eventually implementing this system, Hoek-Loos was able to design a
utility infrastructure for compressed air and nitrogen. This system was also implemented
within other companies in The Netherlands (Baas & Korevaar, 2010).
Another interesting aspect is the formation of a strategic decision making platform
initiated by Deltalinqs. As we have seen in the case description, the platform ensures the
involvement of many different actors that can formulate shared goals and values: An aspect
that enhances trust. In addition, the platform creates an opportunity for frequent interaction
amongst the different actors (Baas & Huisingh, 2008). This in turn fosters continuous
negotiation and communication that will ensure joint problem solving.
Phase III: 2003-2010 (ROM-Rijnmond program)
A striking element within the third phase is the formation of another network platform,
this time with internal and external actors. Identical arguments can be made about how this
network platform fosters the elements of trust as well as joint problem solving.
It is stressed in the case description that the collaboration has increased between the
different actors within the network platform, because they could make use of earlier built up
relations of trust. This exemplifies that the ties become more embedded, because there has
10
been a personal familiarity created amongst the actors. A final aspect that can be recognized,
is the (re)use of established knowledge. Knowledge that is gained through learning by doing
turns out to be valuable knowledge, which is used to further experiment. An interesting
example of this is the Happy Shrimp Farm. Two entrepreneurs got excited about the
possibilities of using waste heat and CO2 that was identified in earlier phases. They made use
of this fine-grained information transfer and further experimented and implemented these
ideas into a company that now produces fresh king size shrimps (Baas, 2008; Baas &
Huisingh, 2008; Baas & Korevaar, 2010).
3.3 Case evaluation: phases of cooperation
From the above we can conclude that the features of trust, fine-grained knowledge transfer
and joint problem-solving can be found and accumulated in each phase of the INES project.
We also want to examine in which phase of cooperation INES can be currently placed
(Doménech & Davies, 2011). By identifying the phase of cooperation we can establish how
far the INES project is in building cooperation. The face of cooperation also says something
about the depth of the influence of the three conditions.
When applying these phases of cooperation to the INES case, we can state that INES has
passed a certain probation phase, because the members have realized the opportunities of
potential exchanges. In addition, the industrial symbiosis has become more embedded in the
mindset of the companies. They continue their cooperation and communication through
platforms and they discover and implement new opportunities. The industrial symbiosis has
been integrated in most of the decision-making routines. We classify INES in the start of the
development and expansion phase, because new relationships are built and existing ones are
deepened. First the stakeholders increasingly became involved (Doménech & Davies, 2011).
In addition, during the ROM-Rijnmond program, the existing linkages of trust are used and
deepened resulting in further developing and implementing the sustainability goals of this
program (Baas, 2008).
3.4 Case discussion
In the INES case is has become clear that the presence of the three above-mentioned
features can be found within each phase. Also, these features seem to be strengthened and
further accumulated throughout the different phases of the INES project. Reaching the phase
of development and expansion in the ROM-Rijnmond program (in which the three features
have been accumulated much more than in the first phases) strengthens the assumption that
there is an accumulation of trust, joint problem solving and fine-grained information transfer
during the different phases of cooperation. This means that the social embeddedness of these
three features in INES is strengthened. Social embeddedness results in more flexibility and
adaptive power towards changing environments (Doménech & Davies, 2011), in other words,
a shared pool of dynamic capabilities in the network.
It is observed that Deltalinqs is a key player within industrial symbiosis, that ensures the
three features. This emphasizes the importance of such a coordinator in continuously
11
facilitating opportunities to build trust (Doménech & Davies, 2011). It is important that
Deltalinqs facilitates the educational services and interaction amongst the actors that lead to
the building of trust and the development of local investment schemes, because these
elements create a certain ‘collective competitive good’ for the companies involved (Baas &
Boons, 2004). At the same time, it ensures certain ‘social glue’ that gives companies the
opportunity to tap into valuable assets of each other, such as information and resources. Both
this collective competitive good and the possibility to tap into each other’s resources and
information are signs of dynamic capabilities being shared among these companies. The
collective competitive good stands for gradually (during the different phases) developing
information and strategies that are made up of the knowledge of several companies. Because
these companies get to know each other during the development of the industrial symbiosis
system, they will grow to trust and understand each other better, exchange fine-grained
information more effectively and get used to tackling problems together. They are not afraid
to share their VRIN resources anymore because they feel committed to each other and to the
competitiveness of the industrial symbiosis network as a whole.
4. Conclusion
The framework proposed and illustrated in this paper may not fit well with the reigning
paradigm in management theory, which assumes companies must create their own dynamic
capabilities and protect them from being copied by other companies. However, this paper
means to demonstrate that dynamic capabilities could be even more valuable on the group
level of an industrial symbiosis network than on the level of the individual company. The
possibility of creating and sharing this collective competitive good amongst the members of
the industrial symbiosis network attracts new companies to the network, resulting in an even
more versatile network. By creating shared dynamic capabilities these capabilities can never
be copied by a single company, because the fundamental strength lies in the interplay of
knowledge that has been built over an extended period of time and can be maximally applied
because of the trust and experience these companies have within the network.
It has become clear in this paper that the dynamic capabilities framework can also be used
in a broader context than the single company. Comparing the dynamic capabilities approach
with the INES case provided the evidence of the existence of (industrial symbiosis) network
wide dynamic capabilities that are developed between companies, instead of within
companies. Moreover this sharing of dynamic capabilities opposes the original goal of
dynamic capabilities, namely creating a sustainable competitive advantage for the company in
an environment of competition. Instead, shared dynamic capabilities offer a way of
collaborating with other companies in order to create a collective competitive advantage. This
shared competitive advantage can be seen as taking place on a higher level, namely the
competition between networks of companies.
A major recommendation that follows from these findings, is a need for business
management theorists to study the development and theoretical implications of shared
dynamic capabilities in embedded networks, industrial symbiosis networks offering a
12
particularly clear case in which this development can be observed. The field of business
management could benefit a lot from new insights into the emergence and functioning of
dynamic capabilities and the possibilities for creating collective competitive advantage in this
fashion. In the long run, the field of industrial ecology could in turn use insights from such
studies for improving the understanding and development of industrial symbiosis networks
even further.
References
Baas, L. W. (2008). Cleaner Production and Industrial Ecology: A Dire Need for 21st Century
Manufacturing. In K. B. Misra (Ed.), Handbook of Performability Engineering (pp.
139-156). London: Springer-Verlag.
Baas, L. W., & Boons, F. A. (2004). An industrial ecology project in practice: exploring the
boundaries of decision-making levels in regional industrial systems. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 12, 1073-1085.
Baas, L. W., & Huisingh, D. (2008). The synergistic role of embeddedness and capabilities in
industrial symbiosis: illustration based upon 12 years of experience in the Rotterdam
Harbour and Industry Complex. Progress in Industrial Ecology, 5(5,6), 399-421.
Baas, L. W., & Korevaar, G. (2010). Eco-industrial parks in The Netherlands: The Rotterdam
Harbour and Industry Complex. In J. Harmsen & J. B. Powell (Eds.), Sustainable
Development in the Process Industries: Cases and Impact (pp. 59-79). Hoboken, New
Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of
Management, 17(1), 99-120.
Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2000). “Coopetition” in Business Networks – to Cooperate and
Compete simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management, 29, 411-426.
Bosch, A. J. v. d., Hollen, R., Volberda, H. W., & Baaij, M. G. (2011). Rotterdamse haven
van essentieel belang voor het internationale concurrentievermogen van Nederland.
Retrieved 07-10-11, from
http://www.rsm.nl/portal/page/portal/home/about/dutch_pressversion.pdf
Camisón, C., & Forés, B. (2011). Knowledge creation and absorptive capacity: The effect of
intra-district shared competences. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 27, 66-86.
Chertow, M. R. (2007). "Uncovering" Industrial Symbiosis. Journal of Industrial Ecology,
11(1), 11-30.
Deltalinqs. (2011). Retrieved 07-10-11, from www.deltalinqs.nl
Doménech, T., & Davies, M. (2011). The Role of Embeddedness in Industrial Symbiosis
Networks: Phases in the evolution of industrial symbiosis networks. Business Strategy
and the Environment, 20, 281-296.
Ehrenfeld, J., & Gertler, N. (1997). Industrial ecology in practice: the evolution of
interdependence at Kalundborg. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 1(1), 67-79.
Frosch, R. A. (1992). Industrial ecology: a philosophical introduction. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 89(3), 800-803.
Gibbs, D. (2003). Trust and networking in inter-firm relations: the case of eco-industrial
development. Local Economy, 18(3), 222-236.
Gibbs, D. (2009). Eco-industrial parks and industrial ecology: strategic niche or mainstream
development? In F. Boons & J. Howard-Grenville (Eds.), The Social Embeddedness of
Industrial Ecology (pp. 73-102). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
13
Gibbs, D., & Deutz, P. (2005). Implementing industrial ecology? Planning for eco-industrial
parks in the USA. Geoforum, 36(4), 452-464.
Gibbs, D., & Deutz, P. (2007). Reflections on implementing industrial ecology through ecoindustrial park development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(17), 1683-1695.
Hewes, A. K., & Lyons, D. I. (2008). The humanistic side of eco-industrial parks: champions
and the role of trust. Regional Studies, 42(10), 1329-1342.
Kalundborg. (2011). Retrieved 09-10-11, from www.kalundborg.dk
Penrose, E. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. London: Basil Blackwell.
Teece, D. J. (1984). Economic Analysis and Strategic Management. California Management
Review, 26(3), 87-110.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic
Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.
Tsai, W. (2002). Social structure of "coopetition" within a multiunit organization:
Coordination, Competition, and Intraorganizational Knowledge Sharing. Organization
Science, 13(2), 179-190.
Tudor, T., Adam, E., & Bates, M. (2007). Drivers and limitations for the successful
development and functioning of EIPs (eco-industrial parks): A literature review.
Ecological Economics, 61(2-3), 199-207.
Van Koppen, C. S. A., & Mol, A. P. J. (2002). Ecological modernization of industrial
ecosystems. In P. Lens, L. Hulshoff Pol, P. Wilderer & T. Asano (Eds.), Water
Recycling and Resource Recovery in Industry: Analysis, Technologies and
Implementation (pp. 132-158). London: IWA Publishing.
14