A sociomaterial conceptualization of flows in industrial ecology

Abstract

A major starting point in industrial ecology (IE) is that reaching ecological sustainability requires understanding relations between human actions and material (tangible) flows. IE studies have enabled assessments of different technical and sociotechnical configurations but only to a limited degree provided concepts that support the design of interventions for industrial ecologies. We contribute by proposing a sociomaterial flow approach, here applied to life cycle thinking. After problematizing some common concepts in IE, the key concepts, a procedure, and some applied variants of the proposed sociomaterial approach are presented. The approach is theoretically grounded in related sociomaterial research. This body of theories underpins our conceptualization of how flows in, for example, a product life cycle can be related to nets of human actions within one rather than several analytical frames. The sociomaterial interaction point (SMIP) is a key concept in our approach for the sociomaterial connection between material flows and actor networks. A SMIP can be described as the interactions where humans come closest to the flows. The conceptualization of the methodology provides a framework for exploring actor and action networks shaping material flows and a basis for a relational analysis of governance, organization, and management of the flows in industrial ecologies. A sociomaterial approach to flow studies can therefore help in designing more concrete sustainability interventions in industrial ecologies.

Business model life cycle assessment: A method for analysing the environmental performance of business

“…The first is the need to (re)contextualise product-centred LCA into a business setting. The second is to base it in a socio-material understanding of the materials and energy flows modelled in LCA (Baumann and Lindkvist, 2021). Such a socio-material view supports the identification of actors along the product chain and business operations interacting with the physical life cycle and allows for connecting the monetary streams of the business model to the material and energy flows of the product system.…”

Social science climate research through the lens of actor-network theory: A proposition for organization studies

“…In the following, I explain why an ANT approach would be fruitful for climate research in organization studies, and suggest further insights that should be included from other strands of social science research. These suggestions are based on a cross-reading of approaches in organization studies (e.g., Böhm et al, 2012;Nyberg et al, 2020;Banerjee & Arjaliès, 2021), and of further approaches in the social sciences that point to ways in which climate change and social science can be made more relevant to each other, and from which an ANT approach could readily draw: Marxist ecology (e.g., Foster, 2000;Malm, 2016), and industrial ecology (e.g., Fischer-Kowalski & Steinberger, 2011;Baumann & Lindkvist, 2022).…”

“…Therefore, methodological approaches do not have to be developed from scratch. Second, ANT is based on an ontology that understands biophysical reality and the social realm as concurrent facets of human-dominated or human-modified ecosystems (Baumann & Lindkvist, 2022;Latour, 1996). It avoids the dichotomy between humans and the biosphere, between culture/society/economy and nature, which has become widely recognized as untenable in the Anthropocene (cf.…”

“…Anything and anybody contributing to how interactions take place is conceptualized as an actant. Such a focus on flows between manifold actants is directly relevant to understanding anthropogenic climate change (see Baumann & Lindkvist, 2022), as it illuminates causes of greenhouse gas flows. Typically, such flows are coproduced by many actants, not just organizations but also individuals, algorithms, built structures (pipelines), animals, plants, etc.…”

Environmental principles for modern sustainable economic frameworks including the circular economy

“…I argue that efficiency principles are not sufficient for environmental sustainability because, in some cases, they generate greater environmental impacts (e.g. higher emissions, chemical pollution) than simple use-and-disposal (see for instance, Vivanco and van der Voet 2014;Zink and Geyer 2017;Niero et al 2021;Baumann and Lindkvist 2021). Market distortions, opportunity costs, rebound effects or profit-driven choices can explain why an activity may apply the efficiency principles but be detrimental to the environment (see also Reinhardt 1999;Agrawal et al 2012;Ekins and Zenghelis 2021;Castro et al 2022).…”