Assignment 9: A pressing research question

In this blog post a research plan is presented which is capable to provide insight in the effects of the ongoing financial crisis on Industrial Ecology initiatives. Boons’ general framework (depicted below) has been used to formulate the research plan. It would also be very interesting to include the effects of peak oil and rising oil prices on IE initiatives, as limited availability of oil has profound impacts on mainly the transportation, food and mining (and thus most B2B and B2C products) sectors. In addition, the financial crisis strongly influences the oil price. The oil part is not included in the research plan, neither is a hypothesis. Both are not deemed relevant for this assignment. The structure of the plan is as follows:

1)      Scope     

2)      Main question and sub-questions

3)      Method

Scope
The research will focus on the meso + macro level, because the financial crisis manifests itself globally (macro) and because IE initiatives are mostly the result of cooperation between actors in the meso level. These involve firms, government actors and NGOs. The time span covered by the research is key here. When did the financial crisis start and which phases are investigated? According to sociologist Manuel Castells the crisis can be broken down in five phases, starting with the real estate crisis in the U.S.A., in 2006. This will be taken as a starting point for the research. The research plan focuses thus on a five-year time span, from 2006 to 2011.

Next to that it is necessary to set the scope of IE initiatives that will be researched. Will the focus lie on IE initiatives taken globally, continent-wise, country-wise or regionally, and which sectors are included in the research? It is probably wisest to investigate IE initiatives per country, as the financial crisis has profound implications for national budgets. The Eurocrisis is a great example thereof.

The sector of choice for this research plan is the agricultural sector, which has experienced much turmoil over the past years. This has been partly due to the financial crisis (also higher oil prices) and speculation in the food sector. And in part it has been affected by climate change. It is then important to research this sector in a country that has suffered from the financial crisis and in a country that has been relatively unaffected by it. The latter country serves as verification; to assess if the financial crisis really did have an impact on IE initiatives. Both countries should resemble each other as much as possible, so they can be compared well. The U.S.A. and Norway are compared here because Norway does not have debt and it has enormous assets, contrary to the U.S.A. Both countries have a Western culture and have developed industries.   

Lastly, which initiatives are considered IE initiatives? Colby’s paradigms can be used to categorize the various initiatives, as it provides indicators for each category. Following this line of reasoning, a IE initiative involves materials cycling, renewable energy or steady-state economics, or a combination thereof.

Main question and sub-questions

The main question is already formulated: How does the financial crisis affect the possibilities for initiating and upscaling industrial ecology initiatives? In order to answer this question, the following sub-questions are deemed necessary:

1)      How did the financial crisis affect the U.S.A. and Norway from 2006 to 2011 onwards?

2)      How did the agricultural sectors in the U.S.A. and Norway perform from 2006 to 2011?

3)      What is number and size of the IE initiatives that were initiated and scaled up in the agricultural sectors of the U.S.A. and Norway from 2006 to 2011? How many were terminated?

4)      What actors were involved in initiating and upscaling (including funding) IE initiatives in the U.S.A. and Norway from 2006 to 2011?

5)      What was the influence of these actors in initiating and upscaling IE initiatives from 2006 to 2011?

6)      How do these actors relate to each other from 2006 to 2011?

The sub-questions start out from a holistic view of the consequences of the financial crisis on both government and industry actors. This is highly relevant, as the financial crisis probably affects allocation of funding, required to initiate and scale up IE initiatives. The third question is a quantitative assessment of the IE initiatives undertaken, possibly as a result of the findings of questions 1 and 2. To gain better insight in the coordination mechanisms and to see how the findings of questions 1 and 2 relate to the number of IE initiatives, questions 4, 5 and 6 are formulated. These assess how and why the IE initiatives were selected, transmitted and terminated during the examined period, as well as to identify (retained) routines. The findings of questions 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 combined should be adequate to explain the findings of question 3, and to answer the main research question.

Methodology

Both questions 1 and 2 can be partly answered using Hollings cycle. The active capital or ‘potential’ in monetary terms can be assessed by looking at money input and output of the U.S.A. and Norway, as well as lending of (national) banks versus their reserves. It is well-known that banks are reluctant to lend in times of economic crisis, as happened in the current crisis. This system can then be understood by identifying different stages in larger and smaller Hollings cycles. Money flows between banks, the government (subsidies and tax-cuts) and the agricultural sector provide further insight for answering question 2, as well as national and global food prices and turnover  + profit per company between 2006 and 2011 in the agricultural sector.

                Question 3 is best assessed by a quantitative analysis of the number of IE initiatives started, completed and terminated, ranked by the amount of investment required. To what extend this information is publicly available is unknown, it might be necessary to engage the actors of IE initiatives. These initiatives should be analyzed through time to gain a better understanding of the influences of the surrounding systems.

                When initiated, scaled up and terminated IE initiatives are identified, more in-depth research can be performed to provide answers for questions 4-6. Interviews probably provide most insight. Through interviews the actors under question 4 can be identified, and these can be subsequently interviewed. As interviewing takes a lot of time and preparation, the interviewees should be selected with care. It is probably most useful to include actors that had a stake in initiated and up-scaled IE initiatives, as well as terminated ones. This way the research question is investigated from different angles. As individual actors explain why and by whom the IE initiative was initiated, scaled-up and/or terminated, question 5 can be answered. When enough actors are interviewed question 6 can be answered by performing a (polycentric) network analysis, to identify the various strong and weak actors in the system.

                These above findings can then be compared between the U.S.A. and Norway to verify that the financial crisis indeed influences the initiating and scaling-up of IE initiatives. 

Literature
Manuel Castells '33ste Globaliseringslezing' (2011) url: http://tegenlicht.vpro.nl/nieuws/2011/november/globaliseringslezing-castells.html
C.S. Holling 'Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems (2001)
Michael E. Colby 'Environmental management in development: the evolution of paradigms (1991)

Assignment 7: Interview

This weeks’ portfolio assignment is to develop an operationalization of the concept Industrial Ecology that can be used in a research for interviewing policy makers. In other words, the assignment is to set up interview questions that make Industrial Ecology measurable.

                Next to that would it also be interesting to see to what extend the policy maker is applying Industrial Ecology. For this purpose Colby’s society-nature paradigms are very useful, because these provide means to categorize environmental management. Five paradigms are distinguished, basically ranging from anthropocentrism to biocentrism: 

Frontier Economics; nature provides endless resources for society and is able to absorb all wastes, nature’s limits are not taken into account. Keywords: fossil energy, monocultures, free markets. 

Environmental Protection; the government imposes regulations to address waste and pollution. Keywords: clean-up, end-of-pipe solutions, pollution.

Resource Management; growth based on efficient resource use. Keywords: conservation, efficiency, impact assessment. 

Eco-Development; efforts are made to cycle technological and biological flows in society. Keywords: Industrial Ecology, closed loop, renewable energy. 

Deep Ecology; nature has an inherent value, people live based on sufficiency and locality. Keywords: intrinsic values, grassroots, diversity, autonomy.

The questions                                             

(1)    Could you give an example of policy you recently formulated? Which aspects were emphasized?

An introductory question to get things started. The answer may already contain indicators for paradigms, including Industrial Ecology.

(2)    To what extend do you involve different stakeholders or parties in formulating policy?

As cooperation is an important aspect in Industrial Ecology, asking the policy maker about involving stakeholders is paramount. The types and amounts of stakeholders (government, firm, NGO, locals) can be compared with different policy makers.

(3)    What are your reasons for involving stakeholders?

Also this question gives an indication to whether the policy maker involves Industrial Ecology in formulating policy. A reason such as ‘to optimally use energy flows and to cycle material flows’ would give a clear indication for Industrial Ecology practices.

(4)    What indicators do you use/do you find important to assess if a policy or strategy is socially and environmentally responsible?

The final and probably the most important question to measure Industrial Ecology and/or Colby’s paradigms. The question could also be split in two, to first ask about social aspects and later about environmental aspects, or vice versa. The different indicators can be used in research to compare the policy makers, and give valuable information about to what extend Industrial Ecology is applied. Various indicators are mentioned as keywords in describing Colby’s paradigms.

Assignment 5: Networks

This week’s assignment is to analyze two social networks of which I am currently a member. Emphasis will be put on the structure of the network, dependency relationships and what coordinative mechanisms are used.

First network: Studium Generale sessions

Studium Generale (SG) is an organization that aims to broaden the knowledge of TU Delft students, in addition to their specific field of study. SG mainly does this by inviting guest speakers to talk about various subjects like plastic waste, Iran, etcetera. The lectures are aimed at students, but they are open to the public as well. During the last years the percentage of students attending has decreased dramatically, resulting in an audience consisting of mainly non-students. This affects the legitimacy of SG and therefore monthly sessions are organized with various actors to discuss ideas to attract more students.

The boundaries of the network are set to the actors attending the sessions. These include several members of SG, members of VOX (a recently founded student association affiliated to SG) and several TU Delft students (not representing any organization). The sessions were initiated by SG, and in particular their leader Els. She maintains contact between all actors and also has the role of facilitator during the meetings. The structure of the network is resembled by the figure shown below, in an idealized form. Els is the central actor here, shown as the red dot. She forms the main node between SG, VOX and the remaining students. SG and VOX both form mini networks themselves, these are enclosed with a circle. The remaining students are shown as individual dots, only connected to the central actor.

Els coordinates the sessions and forms the main node between all actors. This makes her the most powerful actor within the network. She also delivers the necessary coordinative mechanism for the network; she e-mails every actor and reserves a room at which the sessions can be held. As mentioned, she also facilitates the sessions.

During the first session the figure resembled the network most. But as more sessions were organized the different actors formed more and more tight connections with each other. This made the network less dependent on Els, although she is still the most powerful actor. But the structure of the network would be less damaged if she were to leave, as every actor has made linkages with each other in time. As the structure of the network has strengthened, the single actors have also become more dependent on the network. This is best explained by the goal of the sessions: to give input to SG, but also indirectly to the other actors. Now the network is established SG depends on the network for feedback, while they would have turned to other people for this in the past. VOX, in turn, depends on student members for their association to exist. In part, they gain these from the students attending the sessions. These students will then make advertisement for VOX by word-of-mouth, allowing VOX to grow and to help them with advise. The individual students do not have clear advantages in attending the sessions, but it can be argued that they derive friendships and useful connections from the sessions and become more dependent that way.  

Second network: Lifeguard organization SSW

The last three years I worked as a lifeguard during the Summer. The beach I worked at is located in Oost-Kapelle, in Zeeland. The organization (SSW) supervises this beach, along with five other beaches. Each beach has its own post, with its own commander and a 2^nd commander. The rest of the lifeguards are all pupils and students (lifeguards) who work there only during the Summer.

The figure below resembles the network structure of the SSW. The blue oval represents the office, from which directions are given to the commanders (red dots). The commanders give leadership to the lifeguards (orange dots). The commanders and office-staff form the core of the organization. These people work full-time. The organization is rather small (about 25 full-timers) and the commanders and office-staff visit each other regularly for discussion. This has resulted in tight linkages between the full-time personnel. The lifeguards, on the contrary, mainly work on the same beaches for a few years. They rarely interact with office-staff and lifeguards and commanders from other beaches, except for the yearly barbeque. This results in weak linkages between these actors. From this can be concluded that the commanders have the most powerful position within the network. They interact with the other commanders, office-staff and their lifeguards. The teams of lifeguards have the weakest position in the network because they mainly interact with their own commanders.

Even though the lifeguards have the weakest linkages, they do carry out the main tasks for the organization. During the high season they patrol the beach, empty garbage bins, nurse wounded tourists, etcetera. This makes the office-staff and commanders highly dependent on the lifeguards, as a collective. The SSW is responsible for the quality of the work of the lifeguards, as they hire them and receive subsidies on basis of the quality of the work done. On the individual level, the lifeguards are more dependent on the office-staff and commanders, as these decide if the lifeguards get to work or not. So the individual lifeguards are very dependent on office-staff and commanders whereas the latter are barely dependent on the individual lifeguards.

                The dependency between the commanders and the office-staff is more mutual. The commanders are hired by the office, and also the office decides which beaches have priority in dividing resources such as boats. But the commanders have a more central position in the network. They are the node between the lifeguards and the office, making it hard to replace them.

                From this analyses can be derived what coordinative mechanisms are used; the office (director) determines the strategy and allocates resources. These are channeled to the commanders, which then instruct the lifeguards. The lifeguards, in turn, give feedback to the commander, to be reported to the office-staff.

Assignment 4: Nokia

In the video we saw a representative of Nokia going to its phone supplier in China. During her trip she exposed the supplier’s violations of the Chinese law, like under-payment and too many working hours for the employees. At the end of the visit the people in charge of running the facility were confronted with these violations.

 1. Would this approach be an effective way of diffusing sustainability criteria as well?

Nokia is one of the largest cell-phone companies in the world. This implicates that they have multiple suppliers, also probably in China to cut costs. So Nokia will view the supplier as ‘one of many’. But the supplier will view Nokia as one of its major customers, and it will do (almost) anything to keep it that way. This and the fact that Nokia is one step up in the supply chain makes the position of Nokia very powerful. They can afford it to switch suppliers, but the supplier will see its turnover drop dramatically when they are dropped. So to my opinion this is the most effective way of diffusing sustainability criteria to the supply chain.

Companies like Nokia are also in a unique position to diffuse their criteria. They have the brand, the thing that the consumer knows and wants. In most cases the other companies in the supply chain like the distributor and the manufacturer do not have unique attributes. This makes it easy to replace them. Indirectly, there are also mining companies that supply Nokia. And so Nokia could go even further and tell their suppliers to impose sustainability criteria on their suppliers. And so on. In the case of a mining company the situation is rather different, however. Mining companies are generally huge companies; the investment required for exploiting a mine is significant. This makes it difficult to pressure them. Also, because materials (mostly metals) are getting scarce these companies will sell their products anyway.

2. How would another governance mechanism improve on this?

Another option for Nokia to make its supply chain sustainable is to manufacture and distribute their phones themselves. This makes it easier to implement sustainability measures, as the factory will do as the board tells them to. It also has economic benefits; the profit made by the supplier would go to Nokia instead. But this will prove very hard for Nokia, as they only have experience in designing the phones. Setting up their own factory will require big investments and will prove to be loss-making in the short term.

Another option to impose sustainability criteria
I found it rather surprising to see Nokia (being a company) striving for better social conditions at its supplier without external pressure, except the threat of being thrown out of the Dow Jones Sustainability Index. How to persuade other companies to do the same, and to speed up the transformation towards truly 'green' products?
Industrial ecologist Peter Tom Jones sees the civilians as the group to convince to strive for a ‘green’ future, as described in his book Terra Reversa. A distinction is made between government, companies and comsumers. This is visualized in the scheme (Stevenson and Keehn, 2006), arrows are added by Peter Tom Jones.

In his vision neither companies nor governments will to go on a sustainable path intrinsically. The objective of the companies is maximize profits, and by implementing (strong) sustainability measures profits are lost. Then the aim for governments is to get reelected. This makes them mainly think in terms of four years, instead of the required twenty, or even fifty years. And so governments will barely invest in a green future. A shift towards a truly sustainable society requires significant investment in, for example, smart grids and renewable energy technology. And on the other hand travel by plane, meat consumption and consumption in general should be reduced. This would require a lot of investment (taxes) and impopular (tax)measures, in the short term. It is likely then that the government will not be reelected. The civilians, in turn, have the power to persuade both the companies and the government. They have the option not to buy certain goods and to vote for other parties then the current government. And so the civilians are the group to seduce, to strive for a less materialistic 'green' future. But how?

Assignment 3

Question: Think up a SES in which you are an active part and which has a public good character. Describe the different elements as defined by Ostrom. Also define the stage of the adaptive cycle in which the SES currently is in.

I have chosen the internet as a SES to examine. Whether the internet is a public good is debatable. When one wishes to have an internet connection at home, one needs to pay for this. But at some places the internet is offered as a free service, such is the case in some NS trains and in some restaurants for example.  The internet phenomenon is so widespread nowadays, especially in the Western world. People are expected to have access to the internet, that’s what makes its public good character. Also, the Belastingsdienst expects people to fill in their forms online. This latter argument made D66 plea for making the internet a basic right for Dutch citizens. So in the future the internet could be truly a public good.

Framework SES 

So, what are the different actors for this SES? In the framework of Ostrom the actors Resource Units, Resource System, Users and Governance System are distinguished. In the case of the internet the Resource Units would be packages of (digital) information, either sent of received. This can be measured kilobytes, megabytes, gigabytes, etcetera. Inherently connected with the amount of data is the speed at which the data is sent. So also the speed of the connection is a Resource Unit here. The Users are the people actually surfing on the internet. It is hard to estimate how many people use it, but it is probably more than half of the global population. People in the West most likely have their own connection, and most people in developing countries use internet café’s to go online. The Resource System is the infrastructure of the internet itself. This is a vast network of cables, servers, routers and even satellites.

To determine the Governance System of the internet is a harder task. The beauty of the internet is that no one really owns it. Governments and private parties do own parts of the pathways, but never the whole. If a pathway, or cable, were to be removed then the information stream would simple follow a different path over the network. So no government or company can claim the internet. Apart from the physical parts of the internet, there are parties that function as ‘watchdogs’ over the internet. In Holland the foundation BREIN is an example of this, the task of this foundation is to prevent Users from using ‘illegal’ software or data. Furthermore, in some countries the freedom to use the internet is more limited than in the West. It is well-known that in China the ‘Great Firewall’ exists, filtering all politically-sensitive information. So in these countries the Governance System is more prominent then in the West.  

Adaptive Cycle 

Looking at the Adaptive Cycle, I believe that the internet is still in the Growth phase. Every day, more people from all over the world are being connected to the internet. Furthermore, the people that already were connected use it every more intensive. Files are being sent and received faster than ever, and the files themselves are getting bigger in data. The smartphone is a good example of a more intense relation with the internet, people are online every part of the day nowadays.

                A move towards the Conservation phase is still far away. The next big trend is already upon us; the cloud. Instead of storing data in the computer, the data would be accessible via the internet. In fact, TU Delft computers are already using this service. If there is no internet, one cannot work on these computers.

Taking the Adaptive Cycle into account, the future holds two outcomes for the internet. One is that it reaches the Conservation phase. Theoretically, one requirement for the internet to be in this phase is that every individual in the world would have a permanent connection. Looking at resource scarcity, I don't see this happen quite yet. Another outcome could be that the internet skips the Conservation phase and enters the Release phase right away. This would be the case when the energy demand for keeping servers online cannot be met anymore. The degree of Release is determined then by the shortage of energy, probably. But for now we can still enjoy the internet, as this blog proves.

Assignment 2

1.       My newsitem is about the failed rescue attempt of three persons stuck in Libia, by the Dutch military. The article is stated below.

De diplomatieke vertegenwoordiging van Libië in Den Haag wilde donderdag niet reageren op de aanhouding van drie militairen in het Noord-Afrikaanse land. De ambassade heeft nog niets gehoord uit Libië over de kwestie en wil daarom geen commentaar geven.

De militairen probeerden zondag bij Sirte twee mensen te evacueren onder wie een Nederlander. Voor de actie was geen toestemming gegeven door de Libische autoriteiten. De militairen vlogen met een helikopter vanaf het marine-fregat Hr. Ms. Tromp naar Sirte waar ze gevangen werden genomen door een gewapende groep regeringsgezinde Libiërs.

In Libië vecht het regime van Kaddafi voor zijn overleven. Het oosten van het land is in handen van opstandelingen.

(Source: DePers 03/03/2011)

Rational decision-making account

The rescuees were sought after by the Kadaffi regime, and therefore they were in grave danger. They would not be able to get out of the country except by help from outside. It was therefore decided by the Dutch government that the Dutch military would rescue them. The rescue operation could only be executed from the sea as the Libian military controls the land. Time was of the essence, and so the commanding officer of the Hr. Ms. Tromp ordered that the rescuees were to be picked up by a helicopter because this was the fastest option for overseas transportation possible.

Bounded decision-making account

The state of the rescuees was unknown, as well as the situation on-site. But there was a rumor that the rescuees were being pursued by the Kadaffi regime. Due to the hazardous situation no extra intelligence on the matter could be gathered in time. In such a situation the deployment of a helicopter is standard procedure.

2.       Learning experiences on EMS exercise

The EMS exercise got me thinking about who should be responsible for ensuring sustainability within the company. Traditionally, every department has its own role to play. As sustainability is an effort across a company, no department really carries a responsibility for it. If any department were to be responsible, it would be the management. They are the people who decide how the company operates and where investments go to. But they are also usually the people who have very limited (technical) knowledge on the products they produce, let alone how to change operations towards a more sustainable nature. The people with most technical knowledge are those working in production, they know the products and production facilities. But these are also the people only concerned with one task: keeping production going. Change is not incorporated here. The design department gives the production department designs, inspired on the output of the marketing department. These are in turn instructed by the management. So the ones with most technical knowledge are furthest away from actually being able to changing the system, and vice versa.

                It is therefore key that sustainability is addressed in an interdisciplinary manner. With all parties around the table change can happen in a responsible and correct way. Input and output must be aligned with one another, and the meetings should be held on a regular basis.

Assignment 1

1. What are your first impressions with the social science perspective on industrial ecology, and how do they relate to earlier experiences with the social sciences?

I believe that the social sciences play a major role within the field of industrial ecology. At this point in time nations run their economies on energy and products that pollute the environment and strengthen the greenhouse effect, while depleting valuable resources. This path towards development will lead to a dead end, sooner or later. The field of Industrial Ecology is concerned with getting the economy, or metabolism, of a nation on a sustainable path.

       But what is a nation? A nation without its society cannot be called a nation, a nation is its society. So in trying to get a nation on a sustainable path one should persuade the society to do so. This is where the social science has its massive role to play. All the tools to make a society sustainable are present, but if the tools aren’t used it just won’t happen.

       My background is in Industrial Design, where social sciences are used to market a certain product or service. Although this subject is only a small part of the program, I did learn how a certain group or society adopts a new product. And how this process can be speeded up. This could be used to make a society ‘adopt’ sustainability. Moreover I learned how products and/or services relate to the user, this knowledge can be used to think about ways to make a consumer consume in a more eco-friendly manner.

2. Choose your own industrial ecology-inspired puzzle and think up three alternative explanations for it.

An interesting industrial ecology puzzle for me is: Why do people keep eating loads of meat while they know it is bad for the environment?

Possible explanations:

1.      They don’t care.

2.       They find the taste of meat too good to give it up for the sake of the environment.

3.       They would like to switch to a more vegetarian diet but find it too expensive to eat meat-replacers. (Or: meat is simply too cheap)

4.       People derive their status from eating meat. Going vegetarian would make they seem like a softie or hippie.

5.       Individuals would like to switch to a vegetarian diet, but their environment refuses to do so. This could be a status issue, but could also be a practicality.

6.       People don’t see the consequences of their actions and so remain immune to arguments in favour of vegetarianism.

7.       People believe that eating meat is an essential part of their diet, and thus find their health more important than the environment.