5th Assignment

NETWORKS

1.Identify a regional network of production (drawing on own experience, literature, the news).
2.Analyze this network using at least two of the concepts presented, paying particular attention to the linkages of the regional network with ‘non-local’ actors.3.Make clear how the network you identify constrains and/or enables actors to work towards closing material loops.

Last class was all about networks, what they are, how they are structured and their utility for Industrial Ecology. For this week's assignment we were asked to think of a particular regional network, regional networks can be defined as networks that are delimited and formed due to location, they are bounded by region and activity is spatially concentrated in certain locations. The network structures we can find in such clusters can be categorized into three different forms: agglomeration, industrial complex or social networks. 

One of my favorite examples of an industrial complex is the Wissington facility of UK's main beet sugar producer, British Sugar [BS]. British sugar is owner of the biggest beet sugar refinery in the world, located in the industrial complex of Wissington Norfolk, UK. For over 25 years, a cluster of different industries has grown and developed in the area, forming what I would classify as an industrial complex, but as specified by Gordon and McCann, more than only one type of network can be observed at the complex.

Some examples of how this self organized network interacts are as follow:

-       The site contains most of the farmland where the beets are grown, therefore increasing interaction between local farmers and reducing costs of transportation from de field to the refinery.This interaction has renderd beneficial for both BS and the farmers, BS has taken advantage of the closer relationship with the farmers, developing trust between them and allowing them to actively colabotare to increase the crop yield of the sugar beet by means of scientific research that has given them information that farmers can apply directly at the field . This network goes both ways, and the dependency relation between both parties is pretty much equilibrated, since farmers need BS to sell their goods and to help with research on beet sugar growth and BS needs the farmers since they provide the raw material for their core production of sugar, also their relationship is well developed and trust is a main factor, since beet is regarded as a difficult crop and farmers could choose to grow other crops, but the security of having a buyer that is also concerned in crop yield and quality, helps tighten this relationship.

-       CO2 rich flue gas has been used at green houses built on site for the horticulture of tomatoes. BS partnered with a local distributor for the retail of tomatoes, British Sugar controls the production, but has decided to bring an external player that has expertise in the horticulture market. This form of network allows the exchange of knowledge, generating dependency between BS and its retailer, which has the expertise in horticulture BS lacks, since it's main production consists of sugars and syrups. 

-       The sight has an installation to produce bioethanol out of sugar molasses, this instalation constitutes a JV between BS, Dupont and BP, this type of network fits more in the Social network definition, having been developed through mutual cooperation and trust between these companies.
BP actually approached BS and now they are sharing capacity and expertice to develope this Bioethanol plant, which is profitable for all participants since they enjoy a subsidy from the british government.  This kinds of interactions help close material loops by utilizing surplus sugar and waste bagasse as raw material for bio fuels, these materials would otherwise be thrown to landfill but are now used to produce fuels that to some extent are used in lorries for the famring of sugar beet.

-       Apart from the British Sugar, companies like Air Liquide (experts in liquefaction) have collocated in the Wissington site, where they receive the CO2 waste stream from the sugar fermentation to bioethanol liquefy it and sell it for the gasification of soft drinks, a good example of how this network is helping close material loops by repurposing waste streams.

-       BS uses byproducts from the sugar refining process as materials for pharmaceutical process, animal feed, topsoil and so on, involving different players in this resource network where different material are exchanged and BS has a central role.

 The interest of British Sugar to develop these links within their industrial cluster came about as a consequence of external business pressures.

Changes in the European Union (EU) Common Agricultural Policy coupled with increasingly open global trade agreements would progressively open the UK market up to competition. This, combined with the expanded production of low-cost sugar derived not from beets, but from sugar cane in developing nations, represented a significant threat to the future of British Sugar. [1]

As a response to this pressure, BS developed a series of strategies that brought about the formation of this network, in order to give value to waste and increase profit to the actors in the cluster. (Specially BS) Then, non-local actors such as sugar cane producers and policy makers, have served in this case to make this network more tightly coupled and to develop strategies to close material loops in order to increase profit for BS.

The Wissington site can be considered a centralized Network, and British Sugar is positioned in the center of it all, having interactions with every actor in the network, but actors not having any real interaction with each other. In this way, BS is in a position of power as they have created a dependency for all their consumers on all their different byproducts.

In conclusion, Wissington sight is a mix of resource network and regional network with industrial complex and social network interaction, where the giant of sugar beat refining British Sugar has a role of centrality and is the only one interacting with the other actors in the network.

References:

[1] From Refining Sugar to Growing Tomatoes

Industrial Ecology and Business Model Evolution

Samuel W. Short, Nancy M.P. Bocken, Claire Y. Barlow, and Marian R. Chertow

[2] . Gordon, I. and McCann, P. 2000. Industrial Clusters: Complexes, Agglomeration and/or Social Networks? Urban Studies 37(3): 513–532.

Feedback

1. Feedback Week 1


Wybren Brouer
Hi Wybren,
Let me start by saying that I really enjoyed your blog, specially I think it was a good Idea to introduce it to the world by explaining the class assignment.
Your blog is very well written and I liked that for the IE puzzle you talked about personal experience, which made it more relatable.
For the second question, I feel that you could elaborate a little more on what your position is for this "business of business..." I feel you explained how both spectrums of the question but maybe could be more specific as to which of these two options you are more inclined to agree on.


Alice van Rixel

Hi Alice,
I have to say that I really enjoyed reading your blog, it is very concise and to the point and easy to read as well.
I particularly liked the bullet point format, that makes it easy to understand.
One observation I would make is that for point #1 you should maybe try to elaborate more in why do you think people who have more money would necessarily be more inclined to consume environmentally friendly or less polluting products, and maybe be a little more specific on why do you think environmental impact would decrease as in the curve and not take some other pattern, I think these aspects would help make your point stronger.


2. Feedback Week 2

Jochem deJong


Hi Jochem,
First I want to say that I really liked your blog! It is very well written and fun to read. I liked the introduction you gave on Freedman, didn’t know he was an advisor for Ronald Reagan.
I also liked how you incorporated aspects from the documentary as examples to back up your arguments. I would just like to suggest to go into a little more depth as to why you believe the change in economy and for conscious capitalism is needed, I feel you give a lot of liberty for the reader to assume your opinion for the need to change, and maybe it is better to be more clear about it.
Also, I did not fully understand what you meant with “government deregulation is possible in such an economy” maybe you can elaborate a bit on what you mean by saying this.


Note! The Blog Entry for my second feedback was not available this week.



3. Feedback Week 3


Florentine Brunner


Hi Florentine!
I have to say that I’m really impressed with your blog entry, I feel it is very well structured and uses the elements of Ostrom’s framework in a very clear way. The fact that you started with a very precise definition of your system boundaries, helps the reader follow your line of reasoning much more efficiently.
I had a little bit of trouble keeping up with the elements of the framework when you introduced the “second part of the story” and the exploitation of Fox fur for the fashion industry, the diagram you include helped me to understand your point, but maybe you can consider recapitulating the elements of the framework (including inuit/self governance and fashion industry) for the system that includes both users, that could help make it a little more clear (which in general you were!).
I would only like to make a small remark, on the Friedman part, when you say “Secondly it would be left to the individual consumer to decide whether the practices of fur framing are ethically justifiable or not, respectively whether to buy or not. This way the size of the fur market would regulate itself according to consumer´s values.” I may not be interpreting it correctly, but what I understand is that you say that, market size will be regulated by the values of the consumers and therefore will make this a more sustainable system because it will control itself in numbers? Maybe it would be a good idea to make a final remark on this paragraph, to help the reader fully understand the point you are trying to make.
Other than that, I really liked your entry and it gave some good ideas for my own!
Paulina,

Spyros Ntemiris

Hi Spyros!

I was particularly interested in your entry because I chose the same topic (water) for mine, and it is very interesting to see different approaches on the same topic.
I liked how you built up your system starting with Latin America and brought it closer to home talking about the EU and Greece.
I like your use of multimedia to enrich your blog!
One small comment however, in my opinion, you could maybe elaborate a little bit more on Ostrom's framework, I think, that even though it is very well written,  you might have deviated a little from the assignment and gave too little attention to analysing your system under Ostrom's core subsystems.
Maybe you can elaborate more on this aspect giving specific examples of each subsystem and houw they interact within Greece or the EU.
And regarding Friedman's position, I understand the conflict of applying it to water distribution but you talked about the benefits/disadvantages and your position on privatising water sanitation and distribution, but could maybe work on making a more clear connection to "The business of business is to increase profit" and Friedman's position and you gave examples of possible benefits of privatisation of water sanitation, but you can maybe land your argument with a closing statement saying exactly why these advantages can make this a more sustainable system.

Hope my comments are clear enough and may work for you!

Best,


Paulina

4. Feedback week 4

Unfortunately, the entry for the first blog assigned to me for this week was not available.

Sandra van der Lee

Hi Sandra!

Great entry, very well written! I liked that you were very rigorous with the use of reference and relied a lot on the theory to back up your arguments.
I would only make a small suggestion, maybe at some points too much theory can be a bit overwhelming for the average reader, so maybe you can level the entry by trying to put in your own words what each element of DiMaggio's paper is, or maybe give small examples of everyday situations in the organizational field.

Also, I feel that I did not get where do you include the last part of the assignment, where you had to discuss which other coordination mechanism might be more efficient to spread sustainable development, maybe I missed it, and in that case I apologize, but I feel you could be more clear as to which other form of coordination might serve this purpose.

Hope this feedback is helpful!

Best,

Paulina 

5. Feedback week 5 (Network)

Unfortunately, the entry for the first or second  blog assigned to me for this week was not available.



6. Feedback week 6 (harvest Game)

Jody Milder

Hi jody!

Just wanted to make a few comments on your, blog.
+ you start by talking about your experience and the results you got with your own group which I think is nice to read. Maybe you can also talk a little about the game and the current rules.
- Yo discarded several options, like complete openness and under-fishing, but I feel it was a bit unclear why you think these alternatives would fail, maybe you can consider elaborating a bit on that. Also, I feel that maybe you brought your solutions to a scenario of real fishing, while the assignment was really oriented to the setting up of rules that would help the game go on for more rounds without the sea being empty and keeping the game interesting.
One suggestion would be to re-frase your ideas more like game rules, and maybe considering if your "sustainable fishing label" can be explained in more detail, because I had a little bit of trouble understanding your concept.

Hope this comments are helpful

best,

Paulina



Unfortunately, the entry for the second blog assigned to me for this week was not available.

7. Feedback week 7 (LCA and Sabatier)

Unfortunately, the entry for the first blog assigned to me for this week was not available.

Jeroen Huisman

Hey Jeroen!

Would like to start by saying that your entry was very clear and easy to read, ideas are concrete and not overdeveloped.I also like the pointers on LCA developers.
I have some pointers that I hope can be useful:
- Your ideas of external control certainly provide possible ways in which LCA can be further standardised and possibly improved, but may not ensure entirely that the use of LCA will increase as a direct result, the policy initiative is the one that more concretely addresses a way to increase the use of LCA. You should maybe explore a little more on initiatives like the latter as forms of external control to increase the use of LCA.
- Informing clients does seem a way to increase the use of LCA, however, you could maybe elaborate on how is this information setting boundary conditions, it is not so clear to me, and perhaps just informing people is not really implementing public policy, perhaps if you were a little more specific saying i.e. " enforcing environmental awareness campaigns as a responsibility of municipalities to spread information on topics such as LCA" can be more specific as setting boundary conditions. 

Ok, hope this feedback is useful and if you have any comments let me know.

Cheers,


Paulina

4rd Assignment

1. NOKIA

Nokia is a Finnish communications and information technology multinational corporation, and as an important actor in the organizational field of communication technology, NOKIA is not exempt of striving for legitimacy.

In his article, Paul DiMaggio explains that institutions within an organizational field start to resemble one another, this resemblance or isomorphism, according to DiMaggio, is better explained as a consequence of the search for legitimacy from these companies (institutional isomorphism), and is described by three basic mechanisms:

Coercive, Normative and mimetic isomorphism.

I will not elaborate on each mechanism, but just for the sake of clarity, I’ll briefly describe each: coercive: due to external pressure, mimicry: derives from uncertainty, so companies copy of successful players whenever they feel uncertain about their actions, and normative: due to professionalization.

Out of these three, I consider the first one to be the mechanism that most appropriately describes NOKIA’s search for legitimacy.

Coercive isomorphism emerges as a response to external pressures, by which companies need to adhere to in order to gain legitimacy in the society within which they function.

 In the documentary, NOKIA’s representative mentions at some point that as a response to pressure from their shareholders, they were making an audit of their major suppliers in order to make sure that they were complying to basic normative and social regulatory standards. By doing this, NOKIA is responding to the external pressure and tacking action to try to adhere to external demands and makes sure it’s activities are desirable and appropriate to the eyes of their shareholder.

The supplier case is much more evident, they must adopt the practices, performance evaluation and plans that are compatible to their consumer’s view (in this case NOKIA) so by external pressure of their consumer, they will need to adjust their practice in order to preserve business but also gain legitimacy in the eyes of NOKIA and other major tech organizations that might, (also by some isomorphic change, mimicry maybe?) start imposing stricter supplier control policies in order to gain legitimacy as socially responsible institutions.

The approach taken by NOKIA has a good intention, or an apparent good intention because it is not clear exactly where does this initiative come from other that the slight comment about shareholder pressure and company image, but either way I don’t think it is very effective.

The audit only uncovered the tip of the iceberg I think of safety concerns and labor conditions within the factory, it is also a snapshot in time for only one of what I’m sure are many suppliers, so not only are they just focusing on one factory of possibly many others, they had a short visit which they announced in advance, giving enough time to the factory manager to cover (not very effectively) the major flaws of their working conditions.

Also they did a nice presentation at the end of it, and issued some recommendations, but not major action was taken.

Provided that I understood correctly this assignment, we were prompted to think of a different coordination mechanism that would make the process of diffusing sustainability criteria more effective. I have the confusion because I did not understand if we had to talk about the three mechanism of institutional isomorphic change, or the mechanisms of coordination of Self organization, Private interest government, Self governance, and government.

As I believe it is the latter, I should say that a more effective form of coordination to  diffuse sustainability would be the government.

The government could issue a regulation imposing fines to industries that are working outside the law or under precarious circumstances, these fines could extend to consumers of these industries, meaning that if after signaling a provider for some reason, if the consumer keeps dealing with this company knowing that they are outside the regulation, they could also be fined as “accomplices” so, in a way, by external intervention both supplier and NOKIA would be obliged to make sure that they stick to regulation and labor laws.

 Government would then be a more effective mechanism than self-organization, to try to spread social responsibility among these enterprises.