An approach to the development of collaborative environmental networks in Colombia

i. Coordination with other organizations is often difficult because individual interests prevail over the collective wellbeing (Interviewee 20, personal interview, July 29, 2022). Corporate efforts are predominantly carried out in isolation (Interviewee 4, personal interview, July 26, 2022; Interviewee 11, personal interview, July 12, 2022; Interviewee 22, personal interview, 1 de July, 2022).

ii. Some of the limitations to exchanging waste or byproducts include the organizations’ lack of knowledge of the waste products they can provide or receive (Interviewee 7, personal interview, July 21, 2022) and how such waste can be actually processed (Interviewee 9, personal interview, June 22, 2022). This is due to the low level of capacity to acquire technology and the lack of research and development teams (Interviewee 18, personal interview, July 27, 2022), and that the economic benefits from exchanging waste are not perceived, which implies that no one is willing to take on certain costs, such as transportation (Interviewee 1, personal interview, June 13, 2022). Additionally, promoting the use of materials of this type may be difficult when their price or visual appearance are not better than traditional materials (Interviewee 1, personal interview, June 13, 2022), or having to assume that the product is of lower quality, which implies that its price should be lower (Interviewee 8, personal interview, July 12, 2022).

iii. The relationship between CENs and local administrations is perceived as being weak, because they believe that political interests prevail over the collective benefit (Interviewee 19, personal interview, July 25, 2022) and companies often quickly cut off the relationship if they are not assigned top priority in fulfilling their needs (Interviewee 31, personal interview, June 29, 2022). Local administrations often focus solely on providing environmental consulting or training (Interviewee 8, personal interview, July 12, 2022; Interviewee 13, personal interview, June 29, 2022; Interviewee 14, personal interview, July 26, 2022), mainly with an approach that focuses on economic growth (Interviewee 5, personal interview, June 28, 2022; Interviewee 18, personal interview, July 27, 2022).

iv. At the company level, they perceive economic difficulties because of lack of awareness of the economic benefits offered by the local administrations (Interviewee 3, personal interview, July 26, 2022; Interviewee 4, personal interview, July 26, 2022; Interviewee 14, personal interview, July 26, 2022; Interviewee 24, personal interview, July 25, 2022). They also claim that investment costs are generally high (Interviewee 4, personal interview, July 26, 2022; Interviewee 11, personal interview, July 12, 2022; Interviewee 22, personal interview, July 1, 2022), including the fees for participating in the networks (Interviewee 17, personal interview, August 22, 2022; Interviewee 23, personal interview, August 22, 2022; Interviewee 29, personal interview, July 12, 2022).

5. Results analysis

5.1. Appropriation of the concept for the implementation of Collaborative Environmental Networks

One of the main elements for the implementation of a CEN is the appropriation of the concept by the actors involved in the network. Regarding the CEN, they suggest that the local population needs to understand the concepts of clean production, industrial ecology and circular economy (Liu et al., 2015), as well as the concept of (Park et al., 2018). It was found that the interviewees could identify the terms, but only one interviewee defined IS as a collaboration network between organizations (M. Chertow & Ehrenfeld, 2012; Herczeg et al., 2018; Jato-Espino & Ruiz-Puente, 2021; Lucchetti & Arcese, 2014; Park et al., 2018; Patala et al., 2014).

The understanding of the concepts associated with CENs is a key starting point, because it enables each actor that decides to participate in the network to understand the ultimate objective of applying each concept. Without such understanding, it is highly likely that adequate action will not be taken, because of the ambiguous and unfounded knowledge base. It may also be the case that production processes may be outdated, that irrelevant information is used, that efforts will be made in aspects that are not key priorities, and that a snowball effect of errors in the network can occur.

5.2. The development of Collaborative Environmental Networks

A key element for the development of a CEN is the willingness to establish close working relationships based on trust, openness, a spirit of cooperation, codes of conduct and confidentiality, to enable addressing the environmental challenges (Zaoual & Lecocq, 2018). Based on such agreements, it is possible to set the network’s objectives, even when the participants have different interests (see Figure 4).

The construction of mutual trust is the basis for fulfilling the agreements established in a CEN. It must also be accompanied by a culture of empathy, in which the benefit of the territory prevails over the organization’s self-interest. Even though the interviewees indicated several reasons that would motivate them to participate in a CEN (see Figures 4 and 5), a low level of trust is also perceived (Interviewee 1, personal interview, June 13, 2022; Interviewee 4, personal interview, July 26, 2022; Interviewee 20, personal interview, July 29, 2022). This represents a key deficiency according to several authors (Farel et al., 2016; Herczeg et al., 2018; Neves, Godina, Azevedo, Pimentel, et al., 2019; Zaoual & Lecocq, 2018).

On the other hand, if such a culture is actually created and it permeates all the actors of a CEN, the active and committed participation of each member would be achieved, which would undoubtedly produce significant benefits on several fronts (business, ecological, social and territorial, among others).

5.3. Main actors that configure the Collaborative Environmental Networks

In previous points, important elements for the development of a CEN were mentioned, such as the appropriation of the basic concepts associated with a CEN, the importance of the actors’ declaring their intention to participate based on values such as trust, and the need to agree on the objectives of the CEN, taking into consideration the participants’ interests.

The participating actors of a CEN can be (Boons et al., 2017): industrial actors, intermediaries (Tolstykh et al., 2020; Zaoual & Lecocq, 2018), and government actors (Park et al., 2018). It would be reductionist to assume that only companies should comprise a CEN, because there is room in them for different actors, whose roles within the network depend on their objectives and their level of responsibility. However, it is essential that they all benefit in order to ensure ongoing participation. The development of a CEN implies creating growth opportunities and benefits in different areas, such as the transfer of knowledge (Bellantuono et al., 2017; Tolstykh et al., 2020; Zaoual & Lecocq, 2018), technology (Bolaños Vidal, 2020; Neves, Godina, Azevedo, Pimentel, et al., 2019; Patala et al., 2014; Tolstykh et al., 2020) and the exchange of waste (Yedla & Park, 2017; Zaoual & Lecocq, 2018), among others.

Regarding participation by the government, Mulrow et al. (2017) hold that government support is an important factor for the success of an IS, as in enables formulating strategies, and developing and implementing action plans based on learning from such experiences (Boons et al., 2017). This promotes the development of national policies that provide incentives for industries to participate in CENs (Herczeg et al., 2018; Neves, Godina, Azevedo, Ao, et al., 2020; Neves, Godina, Azevedo, Pimentel, et al., 2019; Yedla & Park, 2017). Even though academic experts acknowledge the importance of governments as players that drive and promote the relationships of an industrial symbiosis, the actions of the local governments are not aligned with this approach. The municipal administrations have focused on the creation of small spaces to promote water and solid waste management, but they do not promote environmental management instruments such as certification, ecolabel, environmental programs or plans, and tax incentives to promote sustainable production through CENs.

Additionally, if organizations are not willing to create CENs, it becomes essential to have an intermediary to coordinate, manage interests and ensure alignment between the actors (Zaoual & Lecocq, 2018). However, the interviewees have differing opinions on who should take on this role. If the intermediation is taken on by a government agency, it can contribute by launching educational programs, building adequate infrastructure and creating incentives for these activities (Bellantuono et al., 2017); whereas if it is taken on by a private or public third party, it can promote a transparent market to exchange resources, transfer tactical knowledge, share experiences, and fulfill the role of communicator of the lessons learned from symbiosis activities carried out elsewhere to replicate them locally (Boons et al., 2017).

For this reason, it is considered that an intermediary would facilitate the development of a CEN, by focusing solely on carrying out activities that enable the creation of a culture of support, organizing the various actors, and ensuring that good relations prevail in terms of transparency and the wellbeing of all the participants.

Ideally, the intermediary should be a government entity, because it would always act in a neutral manner, as long as external economic interests do not influence its political interests. However, if this is not possible, it should be an organization that, even though it is paid for its work, looks out for the benefit of its clients, which are the network participants. It should also be responsible for carrying out diagnoses to enable the identification of the environmental activities to be implemented jointly by the organizations, to subsequently lead and materialize possible partnerships.

5.4. Benefits of participating in Collaborative Environmental Networks

Both academics and the interviewees identify several benefits derived from networks of this type. In economic terms, the benefits of CENs are the revenues derived from the sale of the waste produced by the organization (Neves, Godina, Azevedo, Pimentel, et al., 2019; Paquin et al., 2015; Patala et al., 2014; Yedla & Park, 2017), the substitution of raw materials and their lower transportation costs (Yu et al., 2014), and lower waste disposal costs (Neves, Godina, Azevedo, Ao, et al., 2020). According to the interviewees, additional benefits are related to tax credits, capital or fixed asset investments, discounts on services offered by network members, the commercial value of the waste produced, and opportunities to engage in business relationships between the actors, among others. Both academics and the interviewees agree agree that the lower costs of raw materials produced from waste is an economic benefit. CENs promote sharing of information and knowledge (Tolstykh et al., 2020; Yedla & Park, 2017) and of experiences (Neves, Godina, Azevedo, Pimentel, et al., 2019), which help promote sustainable practices (Yedla & Park, 2017).

In non-economic terms, these three elements were not frequently mentioned by the interviewees, but they are significant benefits of CENs: obtaining environmental certifications (Li et al., 2015), improving the organization’s reputation (Patala et al., 2014; Yu et al., 2014) and the creation of networks and distribution markets (Walker et al., 2021). Consequently, we may conclude that the interviewees mainly focus on the economic aspects (see Figure 5), but are not aware of the impacts of the labor and energy markets (Beames et al., 2021; Herczeg et al., 2018; Kara et al., 2022).

5.5. Challenges in the development of Collaborative Environmental Networks

Some of the challenges for implementing CENs include: not knowing the potential value of the creation of a collaborative network; non-existence of a formula to achieve IE, because the exchanges that take place in one context cannot be automatically implemented in another; the absence of records of the economic, social and ecological benefits of IE; negative perceptions on the use of waste as inputs; and the low level of trust between the organizations (Zaoual & Lecocq, 2018). Other challenges include differences in the interests and objectives of the various actors (Patala et al., 2014), lack of knowledge by suppliers and clients of the properties of the waste, and the high costs of transportation, equipment and infrastructure (Neves, Godina, Azevedo, Pimentel, et al., 2019).

The interviewees in fact agree with the academics in pointing out the challenge of the differing interests among the actors, the ultimate goal of developing environmental networks, and the lack of knowledge of the properties and characteristics of the waste to enable its commercialization. However, the biggest concern is the high investment costs that the production transformation implies in order to implement a CEN. Consequently, it is necessary, in each territorial and cultural context, to identify the challenges and benefits of developing a CEN, in order to define effective strategies to support the various actors.

6. Conclusions, limitations and future research

The construction of CENs is in an early stage of development in Colombia, as is the case of many leading-edge environmental topics. Given that their benefits and requirements are widely unknown, this study was aimed at identifying the key elements for the creation of CENs, as the basis for the consolidation of synergies between different actors.

The findings suggest that it is necessary to develop business skills for the appropriation of knowledge on the various concepts involved in CENs, and even though this article only focuses on three (3) of these concepts (industrial ecology, industrial ecosystems and industrial symbiosis), many more may arise depending on a CEN’s objectives. It is also necessary to communicate the possible sustainability impacts from participating in a CEN, such as its impact on the labor market by creating job opportunities, or its contribution to the energy mix from the use of waste for energy generation by the industries (Beames et al., 2021; Kara et al., 2022; Morales et al., 2019).

Some of the key elements for the creation of CENs are the development of common objectives for its participants, acknowledging and agreeing on each participant’s role in the network, and creating interactions and synergies depending on each member’s capabilities and interests. It was found that companies are the main actors in the network because they are responsible for the production transactions; however, they should not ignore or exclude the possibility of other participants such as the academic sector, the municipal government and coordination associations, among others, as facilitators for the creation of CENs. The findings indicate the creation of networks of this type is uncommon due to distrust between the actors, which implies that most of them engage in environmental efforts individually, which limits the scope of their objectives and the achievement of territorial goals.

Some limitations are the scare studies in Colombia on the application of the links between industrial ecology, industrial ecosystems and industrial symbiosis; besides, there is no centralized information available on the activities that are being performed by the territories, especially by local governments, which implies that there is no context in this regard. This study was carried out in a specific territorial context, which implies that no generalizations can be made from its results. Another limitation was that fieldwork reflected the organizations’ distrust in handling information; they did not share specific information on their processes, such as the inputs and outputs of each link of their value chain, or the actors that participate in this chain. Consequently, the analysis was limited to opinions rather than to facts or potential cooperation partnerships, which accentuates any biases in the opinions of the interviewees, who may not be aware of all the organization’s processes. However, strategies may be developed to achieve the participation of different members of the organizations, in order to promote possible CENs that involve all the levels of the organizational structures.

In future studies, it would be important to further assess how each of the presented concepts can be applied in the country, and how CENs are linked to the new environmental dynamics in the framework of the circular economy and its associated public policies. Similarly, due to the scarce development of the theme, the delimitation of the CEN concept is ambiguous, and even though the participants identified some of the key elements for developing CENs, it is important to work further on the criteria that define them, for example, their characteristics, functions and the impact of the actors in the framework of a CEN, possible types of relationships and measurement and performance indicators. It is important to define the elements that would enable rating an implemented CEN as successful in a given territorial context.

7. Acknowledgments

This research is financially supported by the Vicerrectoría de Investigaciones from Universidad Militar Nueva Granada and the Universidad EAFIT. It is a result from project INV-DIS-3446 validity 2021. The authors also gratefully acknowledge Professor Juan Gregorio Arrieta Posada for his helpful collaboration.

References

ASHTON, W. S., HURTADO-MARTIN, M., ANID, N. M., KHALILI, N. R., PANERO, M. A., & MCPHERSON, S. (2017). «Pathways to cleaner production in the Americas I: bridging industry-academia gaps in the transition to sustainability». Journal of Cleaner Production, 142(1, SI), 432–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.116

AYRES, R. (2002). On industrial ecosystems. In R. AYRES & L. AYRES (Eds.), A handbook of industrial ecology (Primera ed, p. 680). Edward Elger.

BEAMES, A., CLAASSEN, G. D. H., & AKKERMAN, R. (2021). Logistics in the Circular Economy: Challenges and Opportunities. In Greening of Industry Networks Studies (Vol. 8, pp. 1–14). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55385-2_1

BELLANTUONO, N., CARBONARA, N., & PONTRANDOLFO, P. (2017). «The organization of eco-industrial parks and their sustainable practices». Journal of Cleaner Production, 161(September 2015), 362–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.082

BOLAÑOS VIDAL, A. L. (2020). Ecología Industrial Calidad Ambiental en el Ambiente Operativo y en el entorno inmediato de los centros industriales (Primera ed). Programa editorial Universidad del Valle.

BOONS, F., CHERTOW, M., PARK, J., SPEKKINK, W., & SHI, H. (2017). «Industrial Symbiosis Dynamics and the Problem of Equivalence: Proposal for a Comparative Framework». Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(4), 938–952. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12468

CHERTOW, M., & EHRENFELD, J. (2012). «Organizing Self-Organizing Systems: Toward a Theory of Industrial Symbiosis». Journal of Industrial Ecology, 16(1), 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00450.x

CHERTOW, M., GORDON, M., HIRSCH, P., & RAMASWAMI, A. (2019). «Industrial symbiosis potential and urban infrastructure capacity in Mysuru, India». Environmental Research Letters, 14(7). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab20ed

CHERTOW, M. R. (2000). «Industrial Symbiosis: Literature and Taxonomy». Annu. Rev. Energy Environ., 25, 313–337. https://doi.org/1056-3466/00/1129-0313

CHERTOW, M. R., KANAOKA, K. S., & PARK, J. (2021). Tracking the diffusion of industrial symbiosis scholarship using bibliometrics: Comparing across Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 25(4), 913–931. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13099

DE PINO CASADO, R., & MARTÍNEZ-RIERA, J. R. (2022). Manual para la elaboración y defensa del trabajo de fin de grado en ciencias de la salud (Elsevier (ed.), 2da edició).

DONG, L., TAKA, G. N., LEE, D., PARK, Y., & PARK, H. S. (2022). «Tracking industrial symbiosis performance with ecological network approach integrating economic and environmental benefits analysis». Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 185(August 2021), 106454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106454

ERKMAN, S. (2002). The recent history of industrial ecology. In R. AYRES & L. AYRES (Eds.), A handbook of industrial ecology (Primera Ed, p. 680). Edward Elger.

FAREL, R., CHARRIÈRE, B., THEVENET, C., & YUNE, J. H. (2016). «Sustainable manufacturing through creation and governance of eco-industrial parks». Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, Transactions of the ASME, 138(10). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4034438

FEHRER, J. A., & WIELAND, H. (2021). «A systemic logic for circular business models». Journal of Business Research, 125, 609–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.02.010

FROSCH, R., & GALLOPOULOS, N. (1989). «Strategies for manufacturing». Scientific American, 261, 144–152.

GIL-LAMATA, M., & LATORRE-MARTÍNEZ, M. P. (2022). «The Circular Economy and Sustainability: A Systematic Literature Review». Cuadernos de Gestion, 22(1), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.5295/CDG.211492MG

GÓRECKI, J. (2020). «Simulation-Based Positioning of Circular Economy Manager’s Skills in Construction Projects». Symmetry, 12(50), 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12010050

GÓRECKI, J., NÚÑEZ-CACHO, P., & RUTKOWSKA, M. (2022). Study on Circular Economy Implementation Propensity of Construction Companies in Context of Prevailing Management Styles. Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 12(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/app12083991

HERCZEG, G., AKKERMAN, R., & HAUSCHILD, M. Z. (2018). «Supply chain collaboration in industrial symbiosis networks». Journal of Cleaner Production, 171, 1058–1067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.046

JACKSON, T. (2002). Industrial ecology and cleaner production. In R. AYRES & L. AYRES (Eds.), A handbook of industrial ecology (Primera Ed, p. 680). Edward Elger.

JAHANGER, A., USMAN, M., MURSHED, M., MAHMOOD, H., & BALSALOBRE-LORENTE, D. (2022). «The linkages between natural resources, human capital, globalization, economic growth, financial development, and ecological footprint: The moderating role of technological innovations». Resources Policy, 76(January 2021), 102569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102569

JATO-ESPINO, D., & RUIZ-PUENTE, C. (2021). «Bringing Facilitated Industrial Symbiosis and Game Theory together to strengthen waste exchange in industrial parks». Science of the Total Environment, 771, 145400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145400

KARA, S., HAUSCHILD, M., SUTHERLAND, J., & MCALOONE, T. (2022). «Closed-loop systems to circular economy: A pathway to environmental sustainability?». CIRP Annals, 71(2), 505–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2022.05.008

KUMARI, S., & PATIL, Y. B. (2019). «Enablers of sustainable industrial ecosystem: framework and future research directions». Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 30(1), 61–86. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-02-2018-0044

LANGE, K. P. H., KOREVAAR, G., NIKOLIC, I., & HERDER, P. M. (2021). «Actor behaviour and robustness of industrial symbiosis networks: An agent-based modelling approach». Jasss, 24(3). https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.4635

LE TELLIER, M., BERRAH, L., STUTZ, B., AUDY, J. F., & BARNABÉ, S. (2019). «Towards sustainable business parks: A literature review and a systemic model». Journal of Cleaner Production, 216, 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.145

LI, J., PAN, S. Y., KIM, H., LINN, J. H., & CHIANG, P. C. (2015). «Building green supply chains in eco-industrial parks towards a green economy: Barriers and strategies». Journal of Environmental Management, 162, 158–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.07.030

LIU, C., COTE, R. P., & ZHANG, K. (2015). «Implementing a three-level approach in industrial symbiosis». Journal of Cleaner Production, 87(1), 318–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.067

LUCCHETTI, M. C., & ARCESE, G. (2014). «Tourism management and industrial ecology: A theoretical review». Sustainability (Switzerland), 6(8), 4900–4909. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6084900

MORALES, E. M., DIEMER, A., CERVANTES, G., & CARRILLO-GONZÁLEZ, G. (2019). «“By-product synergy” changes in the industrial symbiosis dynamics at the Altamira-Tampico industrial corridor: 20 Years of industrial ecology in Mexico». Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 140, 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.09.026

MULROW, J. S., DERRIBLE, S., ASHTON, W. S., & CHOPRA, S. S. (2017). «Industrial Symbiosis at the Facility Scale». Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(3), 559–571. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12592

NEVES, A., GODINA, R., AZEVEDO, S. G., PIMENTEL, C., & MATIAS, J. C. O. (2019). «The Potential of Industrial Symbiosis: Case Analysis and Main Drivers and Barriers to Its Implementation». Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(24), 1–68. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11247095

NEVES, A., GODINA, R., AZEVEDO, S. G., AO, J. ~, & MATIAS, C. O. (2020). A comprehensive review of industrial symbiosis. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119113

NUÑEZ-CACHO, P., GÓRECKI, J., MOLINA-MORENO, V., & CORPAS-IGLESIAS, F. A. (2018). «What gets measured, gets done: Development of a Circular Economy measurement scale for building industry». Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072340

PACKER, M. (2018). La ciencia de la investigación cualitativa (Ediciones Uniandes (ed.)).

PANGAVARE, V., MILETTO, M., & THUY, L. (2022). Herramientas 3 - Pautas para la recopilación de datos relativos a los recursos hídricos desglosados por sexo.

PAQUIN, R. L., BUSCH, T., & TILLEMAN, S. G. (2015). «Creating economic and environmental value through industrial symbiosis». Long Range Planning, 48(2), 95–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2013.11.002

PARK, J., DUQUE-HERNÁNDEZ, J., & DÍAZ-POSADA, N. (2018). «Facilitating Business Collaborations for Industrial Symbiosis: The Pilot Experience of the Sustainable Industrial Network Program in Colombia». Sustainability, 10(3637), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103637

PATALA, S., HÄMÄLÄINEN, S., JALKALA, A., & PESONEN, H.-L. L. (2014). «Towards a broader perspective on the forms of eco-industrial networks». Journal of Cleaner Production, 82, 166–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.059

PÉREZ PRAVIA, M. C., & VEGA DE LA CRUZ, L. O. (2021). «Gestión de riesgos en encadenamientos productivos sostenibles». Revista Venezolana de Gerencia, 26(96), 1396–1412. https://doi.org/10.52080/rvgluz.26.96.25

PINUER, F. V., VALENZUELA-FERNÁNDEZ, L., ANDREU, J. L., & BELBEZE, P. L. (2022). «Environmental sustainability and their factors in SMEs: A multiple case study of Spain and Chile». Cuadernos de Gestion, 22(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.5295/CDG.211370FV

RUIZ PUENTE, M. C., AROZAMENA, E. R., EVANS, S., ROMERO AROZAMENA, E., & EVANS, S. (2015). «Industrial symbiosis opportunities for small and medium sized enterprises: preliminary study in the Besaya region (Cantabria, Northern Spain)». Journal of Cleaner Production, 87(1), 357–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.046

SUBRAMANIAN, K., CHOPRA, S. S., & ASHTON, W. S. (2021). «Capital-based life cycle sustainability assessment: Evaluation of potential industrial symbiosis synergies». Journal of Industrial Ecology, 25(5), 1161–1176. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13135

TOLSTYKH, T., SHMELEVA, N., & GAMIDULLAEVA, L. (2020). «Evaluation of circular and integration potentials of innovation ecosystems for industrial sustainability». Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(11), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114574

TSUJIMOTO, M., KAJIKAWA, Y., TOMITA, J., & MATSUMOTO, Y. (2018). «A review of the ecosystem concept — Towards coherent ecosystem design». Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.06.032

VELENTURF, A. P. M., & JENSEN, P. D. (2016). «Promoting Industrial Symbiosis: Using the Concept of Proximity to Explore Social Network Development». Journal of Industrial Ecology, 20(4), 700–709. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12315

WALKER, A. M., VERMEULEN, W. J. V., SIMBOLI, A., & RAGGI, A. (2021). «Sustainability assessment in circular inter-firm networks: An integrated framework of industrial ecology and circular supply chain management approaches». Journal of Cleaner Production, 286, 125457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125457

YANG, T., LIU, C., CÔTÉ, R. P., YE, J., & LIU, W. (2022). «Evaluating the Barriers to Industrial Symbiosis Using a Group AHP-TOPSIS Model». Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(11), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116815

YEDLA, S., & PARK, H. S. (2017). «Eco-industrial networking for sustainable development: review of issues and development strategies». Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 19(2), 391–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-016-1224-x

YU, F., HAN, F., & CUI, Z. (2014). Evolution of industrial symbiosis in an eco-industrial park in China. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.058

ZAOUAL, A. R., & LECOCQ, X. (2018). «Orchestrating Circularity within Industrial Ecosystems: Lessons from Iconic Cases in Three Different Countries». California Management Review, 60(3), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125617752693

_______________________________

¹ Distance learning Faculty, Universidad Militar Nueva Granada, Colombia. Email: patricia.rodriguez@unimilitar.edu.co

² Distance learning Faculty, Universidad Militar Nueva Granada, Colombia. Email: david.gonzalez@unimilitar.edu.co

³ Distance learning Faculty, Universidad Militar Nueva Granada, Colombia. Email: luflatorreca@unal.edu.co