4. Conclusions & Discussion

There are significant differences in the way IS initiatives come to be in different countries and regions, and there are varying degrees of effectiveness and efficiency of the existing approaches of facilitating such arrangements. The comparatively large proliferation of IS networks in Sweden compared to other countries provides valuable lessons. Despite the majority of IS initiatives have first emerged spontaneously in Sweden, they tend to be well functioning, some of which involving highly complex set-ups of exchange involving a diverse range of actors. Mirata (2018) highlights that the limited need for nursing the relevant stakeholders in Swedish cases denotes the existence of favourable conditions for co-operation. These include supportive policy contexts and mechanisms, as well as a solid industrial tradition with extensive presence of industries, material flows and residual streams, and an open culture for collaboration and problem solving. This holds true also in Finland and to some extent in Denmark, although there are some country-specific differences.

In the Baltic States, the development of IS ventures is influenced by two distinct factors compared to Nordic countries. The first is their industrial structure and traditions. The degree of industrialisation in the Baltic countries is limited, with fewer large industries. This means that there are lesser and residual streams compared to Nordic countries and are more dispersed, limiting the possibilities of exchange. Baltic countries have a substantial bio-based economy, but production is predominantly within the primary level. The diffusion of processing industries is comparatively low. This means that the available resources gain little added value along the supply chains within the countries or their regions of origin and hence there is little capacity within the existing industries to valorise residual side-streams. However, valorisation does take place, and increasingly so with many new start-ups and ventures stemming from existing businesses and from universities. However, the most common cases of valorisation exist in the absence of collaboration via efforts concentrated within single companies. Therefore, increased maturity of existing ventures and business ecosystems may well lead to the formation of more complex symbiotic relations in the future. Moreover, initiatives at both national and sub-national policy levels, complemented by EU programmes and R&D projects, are progressively helping to shift mindsets and raise awareness of the business opportunities that stem from the global ‘green’ transformation of industrial systems.

The second factor influencing the IS ventures in the Baltic states is the governance arrangements. Government functions tend to be more centralised, with sub-national government tiers having limited tools, responsibilities, and resources compared to their counterparts in the Nordic countries. This centralisation restricts local authorities’ ability to tailor development initiatives to regional needs and opportunities, potentially slowing the progress of IS ventures. In addition to the formal mandate, it is increasingly recognised that sub-national authorities play a crucial role in mobilising stakeholders and orchestrating regional industrial path creation. So far, isolated initiatives in Baltic countries amount sub-national government authorities to meet this role. The Vidzeme Bioregion represents one unique example of how collaborative governance can be established sub-nationally, which is setting the region on a promising path towards developing complex forms of collaborations including IS.

Municipalities in the Nordic countries possess essential tools that play a crucial role in facilitating the implementation of IS ventures. For example, they may own or co-own waste management or energy facilities, and control physical infrastructure. Additionally, municipalities are responsible for land-use planning and public services such as schools, daycare, and elderly care. This range of responsibilities grants municipal authorities significant influence over new developments and public procurement processes. It also positions them to potentially engage in new ventures as partners, such as becoming co-owners of a biogas plant. Therefore, the process of strengthening the influence of sub-national authorities in the Baltics will entail a combination between i) formal decentralisation, including reallocation of responsibilities of government functions and resources, and ii) developing informal capacities within building the administrations to orchestrate collaborative processes among different stakeholders.

The discussion that follows centres on the enabling factors for developing IS, drawing on lessons learned from the case studies presented in this report and further enriched by findings from academic and grey literature. The identified enablers are grouped into three key categories: context-specific, governance-related factors, and (inter)organisational factors.

Examining individual cases reveals that the context in which IS emerges plays a critical role. Place-specific factors, such as geographic proximity and resource availability, are key enablers for IS activities. For example, in the case of Kemi-Tornio, the geographical closeness of the actors, coupled with the availability of substantial by-product outputs, has facilitated direct residual exchanges and streamlined communication among the companies participating in IS.

Additionally, access to affordable, stable, and, more recently, green energy, is often an important precondition for successful IS ventures. An example from a masterplan of Estonian Industrial Symbiosis Agropark in Eastern Estonia demonstrates that the reliance on domestic fossil-based energy sources, and uncertainty about the stable access to energy in the long-term significantly hampered the attractiveness of the eco-industrial park to potential investors, for who access to green energy source was seen as a prerequisite.

Conversely, in the Latvian Balticovo case, the enterprise has invested their own funding in R&D (an area largely underfunded in Latvia) and developed a solution where previously unutilised waste streams can be turned into biogas due to proximity of the gas distribution company’s infrastructure. No public funding – neither national, nor EU level have been invested in the project that can be viewed also through the lenses of national agenda for security and independence, highlighting the potential of strategic alignment of ‘green’ agendas with other governmental objectives, such as energy independence.

Initiating and promoting IS, as well as coordinating various actors and sectors in subsequent phases, hinges on the ability of different government tiers to mobilise action and promote decentralised leadership. This includes subnational authorities and non-authority actors such as key firms, industrial parks, clusters, research entities, and incubators. Consequently, different ‘governance models’—how governments are organised and how the actions of various actors are legitimised—play a crucial role in the opportunities available in different countries. This factor partly explains why Nordic countries have been more successful so far, thanks to their strong institutional structures, decentralisation, and the financial resources and competences inbuilt within the sub-national authorities. Here, decentralisation refers not just to regulatory capacity, but to a concrete mandate and tools that empower these authorities to influence regional development opportunities.

Sub-national authorities can take on a variety of roles in IS initiatives, including acting as initiators or facilitators by providing leadership, developing strategies, offering infrastructure, and fostering partnerships. They may also serve as owners, for instance, of waste management and energy supply services, and also act as regulatory authorities, e.g. addressing complaints, such as those related to noise generated by IS and industrial activities. For example, in Kemi-Tornio, the support from regional and local authorities has been crucial in strategic agenda-setting and in funding feasibility studies and pilot activities.

The study by Lander Svendsen et al. (2021) identifies eight key organisational aspects that can enable municipalities to effectively support the initiation, development, and expansion of industrial symbiosis: vision and leadership, strategy, structure, systems, employees, culture, communication, and partnerships (see Figure 13). The study underscores the role municipalities can play in facilitating IS by supporting business development, waste and supply services, land use planning, and public procurement, as well as by addressing and overcoming potential legal and operational barriers to IS, particularly in areas such as waste treatment and land-use planning (Lander Svendsen et al. 2021).

 

Figure 13:  The role of municipalities in developing industrial symbiosis. Source: Lander Svendsen (2021).

In addition to the ‘external’ factors such as context, policy, and governance, there are crucial ‘internal’ factors at both the inter-organisational and organisational levels that can facilitate the development of IS. Among these, trust and transparency play pivotal roles. Building a supportive culture of trust, innovation, and collaboration with and between local companies and other stakeholders relies heavily on direct communication and openness—symbiosis is first about the people, and then about practical steps such as funding, infrastructure, or technology.

In this regard, the Baltic countries have a unique advantage due to their relatively small size, close-knit networks, and indirect communication styles, where “everybody knows each other.” This familiarity provides a solid foundation for nurturing a collaborative culture among companies, which is a key strength to build upon for fostering IS.

Another key enabler at the organisational level is time and resources to implement new business models such as IS. The study by Johnsen et al. (2014) in the Nordic context highlights that a lack of time and resources is a common constraint at the organisational level, hindering efforts to explore IS opportunities. Additionally, business opportunities—driven by the desire to enhance profitability and competitiveness—serve as major motivators for IS development. Companies are more inclined to engage in IS when they can clearly see the economic benefits, such as cost savings and improved resource efficiency (Johnsen et al 2014).

Research and case studies highlight the critical role of a coordinating body in bridging stakeholder gaps, fostering communication, building trust, and managing relationships in IS projects. These intermediaries align interests, provide expertise, and mediate conflicts, ideally operating under public-sector platforms to ensure continuity, legitimacy, and neutrality. Integrating businesses, knowledge institutions, and clusters into these entities enhances engagement and relevance (Mirata, 2018). An example of such effective leadership is seen in Finland’s Kemi-Tornio IS initiative, where Digipolis Technology Park, with its diverse membership of companies, public authorities, and academia, has bolstered confidence among participating companies.