Promoting Industrial Sustainability Through the Development of a Collaborative Ecosystem in Lazio’s Naval and Aerospace Sectors

This study proposes a four-phase framework to implement circular economy practices in Lazio’s aerospace and naval sectors. By overcoming barriers in thermoset recycling, the framework enhances industrial sustainability, improves stakeholder coordination, and promotes economically viable circular practices. These advancements hold significant

1. Introduction

Promoting industrial sustainability through collaborative networks represents a contemporary challenge with significant economic and social implications. 

Traditional linear production systems, characterized by a “take-make-dispose” paradigm, have proven inadequate in addressing contemporary sustainability challenges. In contrast, circular models emphasizing reuse, regeneration, and recycling offer a more sustainable alternative. These approaches facilitate the transition toward what the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013, p. 7) defines as a circular economy – an industrial system intentionally designed to be restorative and regenerative. This system fundamentally reconceptualizes the notion of “end of life,” replacing it with the principle of “restoration”. It encompasses comprehensive strategies including the promotion of renewable energy, elimination of toxic chemicals, and waste minimization through enhanced design of materials, products, systems, and business models. Beyond environmental benefits, circular business models provide strategic advantages, particularly in mitigating risks associated with volatile raw material prices and improving production efficiency (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013).

Despite these potential advantages, the implementation of circular strategies remains suboptimal across many industries (Rosa et al., 2019). Several structural barriers impede effective adoption, including business fragmentation, insufficient inter-organizational coordination, limited knowledge sharing regarding circular practices, inadequate financial resources for innovation, and underdeveloped regulatory frameworks (Berghuis et al., 2023; Planing, 2015).

The RIMATER project emerges as a response to these challenges, proposing an organizational solution specifically tailored to the technical and territorial characteristics of the Lazio Region (Italy). This initiative aims to cultivate and sustain an industrial ecosystem within the Region, emphasizing the critical interdependencies among stakeholders and the essential coordinating role of public institutions (Bolici et al., 2022). The project’s governance model and ecosystem dynamics draw upon the Triple Helix model, which advocates for systemic collaboration among industry, Regional public authorities, and Universities (Leydesdorff & Etzkowitz, 1998).

Figure 1: Overview of the ecosystem solution 

2. Theoretical Background: The Ecosystemic Perspective

The theoretical framework for this study encompasses two primary domains: circular business models and industrial ecosystems. This section examines their conceptual foundations and interconnections, providing the theoretical foundation for our research.

2.1 The Circular Business Model: Internal and External Perspectives

Circular business models represent a fundamental shift in business operations, implementing cycling, extending, intensifying, and dematerializing measures to optimize resource utilization and minimize waste (Geissdoerfer et al., 2020). The analysis of these models has evolved along two distinct trajectories: internal and external perspectives. While both approaches pursue economic and sustainability objectives (Zucchella & Previtali, 2019), they differ significantly in their analytical focus and methodological foundations.

The internal perspective concentrates on individual business units, predominantly employing the business model canvas framework as its design tool (Lewandowski, 2016; Osterwalder et al., 2010; Rosa et al., 2019). However, this approach has faced criticism for constraining business model boundaries within organizational limits, potentially overlooking broader systemic interactions (Zucchella & Previtali, 2019). In contrast, the external perspective emphasizes organization-environment interactions, drawing from stakeholder and network theories, and more recently, ecosystem theory, which encompass the complex relationships between organizations and their environment (Geissdoerfer et al., 2020). The ecosystem perspective proves particularly pertinent for circular business models, as their successful implementation necessitates inter-organizational collaboration rather than isolated initiatives (Zucchella & Previtali, 2019).

2.2 Industrial Ecosystem: Conceptual Framework and Principles

The ecosystem concept, originally rooted in ecological science, has evolved significantly in its application to industrial networks (Korhonen, 2001). Frosch & Gallopoulos (1989) pioneered the industrial ecosystem concept, defining it as an integrated system that optimizes energy and material usage while minimizing waste through cross-process utilization. This framework parallels biological ecosystems through four fundamental principles: roundput, diversity, locality, and gradual change (Korhonen, 2001).

Roundput describes the retention and transformation of vital resources within ecosystems, analogous to industrial systems’ utilization of renewable and recycled materials. The principle of diversity manifests through varied species, interdependencies, and cooperation patterns, promoting ecosystem resilience through adaptability. The locality principle suggests that environmental conditions significantly influence ecosystem configuration, often resulting in regionally specific industrial ecosystems (Gamidullaeva et al., 2022). Finally, gradual change promotes sustainable resource utilization within natural renewal capacities (Korhonen, 2001).

Industrial symbiosis, mirroring biological mutualism, characterizes how traditionally unrelated businesses exchange resources for mutual benefit (Chertow, 2000). This symbiotic relationship generates collective advantages that exceed individual benefits, often manifesting in eco-industrial parks—communities of businesses that cooperate internally and with local communities to share resources efficiently while generating both economic and environmental gains (PCSD, 1996).

2.3 Organizational Dynamics of Industrial Ecosystems

Industrial ecosystems comprise heterogeneous, hierarchically independent, and interconnected actors, including businesses, startups, government entities, and investment funds (Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2021; Tolstykh et al., 2020). These diverse participants fulfill distinct roles and contribute varying inputs and outputs within waste exchange mechanisms (Korhonen, 2001; Tsujimoto et al., 2018). While fundamentally self-organized, these ecosystems require coordination through network orchestrators who facilitate collaborative practices through shared vision, trust, and transformational leadership (Tolstykh et al., 2020; Zucchella & Previtali, 2019). The orchestrator promotes sustainable ecosystem development by facilitating technological, innovative, and economic transformations (Tolstykh et al., 2020). Regional sustainable development can be described as following Communities-of-Practice (CoPs) logic, involving Innovators, Influencers, and Initiators (Liu et al., 2023). These networks, commonly led by research or government entities, support knowledge co-creation through practice (Brown & Duguid, 2001). Industrial platforms facilitate ecosystem operation through modular architectures (Gawer, 2014), incorporating resource providers, consumers, intermediaries, and coordinators (Benedict et al., 2018; Mukhopadhyay & Bouwman, 2019). Notably, local authorities have evolved from supervisors to facilitators, increasingly cooperating with private sectors while providing organizational resources, knowledge, funding, and infrastructure support (Berghuis et al., 2023; Von Malmborg, 2004).

3. Ecosystemic Solution: A Four-Phase Implementation Plan

Analysis of the Lazio entrepreneurial landscape through the RIMATER project has identified significant barriers to implementing circular strategies for thermosetting material waste recycling at an ecosystem level. These impediments, exacerbated by the Region’s fragmented industrial context, manifest across technical, financial, and systemic dimensions, creating a scenario where landfill disposal remains more economically viable than composite material recycling.

To address these multifaceted challenges, we propose a comprehensive four-phase implementation plan designed to foster industrial ecosystem development. This approach leverages stakeholder complementarity (Cuel et al., 2021) and synergetic interdependencies to generate integrated economic, environmental, and social value. The proposed solution encompasses both upstream and downstream companies, innovative startups, regional authorities, and the scientific community, and is structured across four macro-interventions: i. defining priorities and disseminating the circular perspective; ii. implementing circularity support measures; iii. promoting private initiative and innovative startups; iv. promoting ecosystem sustainability and continuous development (Figure 1 and 2).

 Figure 2: Visual representation of the ecosystem development plan

3.1 Phase 1: Definition of priorities and dissemination of the circular perspective

The initial phase focuses on three primary objectives: industrial context mapping, strategic priority establishment, and circular objective articulation for thermosetting materials recycling. These interventions align strategically with the Lazio Region’s Ecological Transition Plan guidelines (Regione Lazio, 2023), advocating for a systemic, interdisciplinary approach to circular production systems. 

Building on RIMATER analyses, the Regional authority conducts targeted interviews with ecosystem-compatible enterprises to proactively identify potential obstacles and opportunities. This engagement serves dual purposes: establishing critical touchpoints between regional authorities and key ecosystem actors while addressing potential resistance to change. Simultaneously, it reinforces the Region’s commitment to implementing circular policies.

Concurrent with mapping activities, the Region develops a comprehensive framework of transition objectives for relevant materials and industries, establishing clearly defined intervention areas across medium and long-term horizons. Information dissemination occurs through multiple channels, including institutional websites, social media platforms, dedicated newsletters, and industry events. This multi-channel approach facilitates direct industry-Region dialogue and promotes the development of a shared vision for circular transformation.

The scientific community assumes a crucial role in this phase through the development and delivery of specialized circular economy training courses and workshops, conducted in collaboration with regional authorities. These educational initiatives serve dual purposes: establishing fundamental knowledge bases and catalyzing interaction between industry professionals. This interaction facilitates the development of collaborative networks and potential symbiotic relationships among participants.

The priority-setting and perspective-dissemination process represents a crucial foundation for developing regional consensus on industrial directions, establishing essential groundwork for subsequent implementation phases.

3.2 Phase 2: Implementation of measures to support circularity

The second phase encompasses a comprehensive approach to establishing the fundamental infrastructure and regulatory mechanisms necessary for circular economy implementation. This phase manifests through three primary dimensions: regulatory initiatives, infrastructure development, and industrial matching platform implementation.

Recognizing the absence of private sector first-movers, the Region assumes direct managerial responsibility for recycling facility operations. This intervention addresses a critical market gap while ensuring the integrity of recycling processes and promoting the economic-financial viability of circular practices. The strategic location decision for the recycling infrastructure favors the Province of Rome, supported by RIMATER project analyses demonstrating the highest concentration of ecosystem-compatible businesses in this area.

Central to this phase is the development and implementation of an industrial matching platform that facilitates ecosystem development through the aggregation of upstream and downstream actors. This platform serves multiple functions (see Table 1): i. facilitating supply-demand matching for recycled materials; ii. enabling operational information sharing regarding material availability, logistics, and recycling processes; iii. promoting industrial partnerships and innovative practices; iv. supporting knowledge dissemination across the ecosystem.

Public control of the platform aligns strategically with the Region’s enabling role, allowing for balanced ecosystem development while maintaining stability. Additionally, the Region leverages its procurement capacity by utilizing the platform to source secondary raw materials for compatible public works projects.

The scientific community assumes a crucial supporting role in this phase, providing expertise across two critical dimensions: i) technical support for recycling facility development and management; ii) strategic guidance for platform coordination and optimization. This collaboration ensures that both physical and digital infrastructure development benefits from academic expertise while maintaining practical applicability.

The Region promotes three key objectives through these integrated strategies: i) enhanced collaboration among complementary actors; ii) improved scalability of recycling processes; iii) and systematic reduction in operational costs. Collectively, these interventions create a cohesive ecosystem focused on the revalorization of thermoset material waste, specifically targeting the aerospace and naval sectors in Lazio. 

Table 1: Benefits arising from the matchmaking platform

3.3 Phase 3: Promotion of Private Initiatives and Engagement of Innovative Startups

The third phase marks a strategic transition in ecosystem development, focusing on private sector integration and innovation promotion following the successful implementation of core infrastructures. This phase represents a crucial evolution in the Region’s role from primary infrastructure manager to co-manager and mentor, manifested through strategic public-private partnerships with innovative startups focused on ecosystem material flow management.

Startups serve as critical agents of ecosystem renewal and flexibility, distinguished by their innovative capacity and rapid market adaptation capabilities. Their operational agility supports the essential collaboration, integration, and dynamism required within the circular economy context. Through targeted funding calls, the Region actively incorporates these enterprises into ecosystem material flow coordination, facilitating shared coordination and intermediation functions through the established matching platform. These innovative entities promote novel approaches to enhance recycling process efficiency and sustainability, simultaneously supporting creative solution design and sustainable ecosystem development.

Concurrent with innovative design processes, the co-management strategy enables systematic knowledge transfer from the public to private sector, particularly regarding plant management expertise and ecosystem interaction dynamics. The scientific community maintains its crucial technical-management support role, providing startups with essential competencies in engineering and innovative project management. This knowledge transfer mechanism ensures the preservation and enhancement of accumulated expertise while facilitating private sector capability development.

3.4 Phase 4: Sustainability and Continuous Development of the Ecosystem

The final phase focuses on transitioning infrastructure management to the private sector, ensuring long-term ecosystem sustainability, and establishing mechanisms for continuous growth and development. Building on the capability development achieved in Phase 3, the Region systematically reduces its direct operational involvement while maintaining essential support and oversight functions. The Region introduces regulations promoting circular initiatives and economic incentives to foster a favorable institutional environment for the ecosystem’s survival and growth.

The Region promotes circular economy culture through awareness campaigns, best practice exchanges, and continuous training programs. These initiatives foster a cycle of ongoing improvement while strengthening the foundational understanding of circular economy principles among stakeholders. A comprehensive monitoring framework evaluates the ecosystem’s environmental, social, and economic impacts, enabling timely identification and correction of operational inefficiencies while optimizing ecosystem performance.

Innovative startups remain fundamental to the ecosystem’s development. The Region, in collaboration with the scientific community, continues to provide funding, resources, and networking opportunities. This partnership drives research incentives, promoting collaboration between industry and Universities through applied research projects and shared laboratories. This multi-faceted approach ensures the ecosystem’s economic sustainability while institutionalizing circular practices and promoting continuous research and development activities.

The fourth phase thus establishes the foundation for long-term ecosystem viability, combining private sector leadership with ongoing public sector support to maintain momentum in circular economy development. Through this carefully orchestrated transition, the ecosystem achieves both operational independence and sustainable growth potential, while maintaining the innovative capacity essential for continuous improvement in circular practices.

4. Conclusions and Implications

This research presents an organizational framework designed to facilitate the adoption of circular practices in the Lazio Region, with specific emphasis on thermoset material waste recycling in the naval and aerospace sectors. While the framework maintains inherent flexibility, its targeted approach addresses specific challenges within these strategic sectors. 

The proposed solution adopts a systematic four-phase approach: priority setting and circular perspective promotion; circularity support measure implementation; private initiative and innovative startup encouragement; and ecosystem sustainability and continuous development facilitation. This structured progression aims to catalyze the formation, expansion, and innovation of an industrial ecosystem within the target sectors.

The framework is anticipated to strengthen Lazio’s industrial capacity across four strategic dimensions: circularity enhancement, stakeholder coordination optimization, industrial innovation acceleration, and economic-financial sustainability of circular practices (Figure 3). Upon full implementation, the initiative is expected to yield an industrial ecosystem characterized by several distinctive features. These include widespread adoption of circular economy principles ensuring long-term sustainable development, autonomous private sector management of processes and ecosystem interactions, sustained focus on continuous growth, and financial sustainability of circular processes driven by collaborative innovation and coordinated stakeholder engagement.

This research contributes to the practical implementation of circular economy principles at a regional level. The proposed framework offers a structured approach to addressing the complex challenges of industrial transformation while maintaining flexibility for adaptation to specific sectoral needs. Future research might explore the framework’s applicability to other industrial sectors and regional contexts, as well as examine the long-term impacts of such ecosystem-based approaches on regional industrial development.

Figure 3: Expected impacts of the proposed solution on the Industrial Context of Lazio

References

Aarikka-Stenroos, L., Ritala, P., & D. W. Thomas, L. (2021). Circular economy ecosystems: A typology, definitions, and implications. In S. Teerikangas, T. Onkila, K. Koistinen, & M. Mäkelä (Eds.), Research Handbook of Sustainability Agency. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789906035.00024

Benedict, M., Kosmol, L., & Esswein, W. (2018, June 29). Designing Industrial Symbiosis Platforms—From Platform Ecosystems to Industrial Ecosystems. PACIS 2018 Proceedings. https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2018/306

Berghuis, E., Loorbach, D., Van Vulpen, A., Verkuijl, M., Van Orden, C., & Greer, R. (2023). Coming together for transition? Entrepreneurial ecosystems for a circular economy. International Review of Applied Economics, 37(3), 372–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/02692171.2023.2205111

Bolici, F., Cuel, R., Ghiringhelli, C., & Virili, F. (2022). Ecosystems in Blockchain Competence Certification: An Explorative Multi-Perspective Analysis. In L. Solari, M. Martinez, A. M. Braccini, & A. Lazazzara (Eds.), Do Machines Dream of Electric Workers? (Vol. 49, pp. 99–108). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83321-3_7

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and Organization: A Social-Practice Perspective. Organization Science, 12(2), 198–213. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.2.198.10116

Chertow, M. R. (2000). Industrial Symbiosis: Literature and Taxonomy. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 25(1), 313–337. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.313

Cuel, R., Virili, F., Ghiringhelli, C., & Bolici, F. (2021). An Emerging Digital Ecosystem: Blockchain Competence Certification Networks. In F. Ceci, A. Prencipe, & P. Spagnoletti (Eds.), Exploring Innovation in a Digital World (Vol. 51, pp. 50–61). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87842-9_5

Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2013). Towards the circular economy.

Frosch, R. A., & Gallopoulos, N. E. (1989). Strategies for Manufacturing. Scientific American, 261(3), 144–153.

Gamidullaeva, L., Shmeleva, N., Tolstykh, T., & Shmatko, A. (2022). An Assessment Approach to Circular Business Models within an Industrial Ecosystem for Sustainable Territorial Development. Sustainability, 14(2), 704. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020704

Gawer, A. (2014). Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework. Research Policy, 43(7), 1239–1249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.03.006

Geissdoerfer, M., Pieroni, M. P. P., Pigosso, D. C. A., & Soufani, K. (2020). Circular business models: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 277, 123741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123741

Korhonen, J. (2001). Four ecosystem principles for an industrial ecosystem. Journal of Cleaner Production, 9(3), 253–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(00)00058-5

Lewandowski, M. (2016). Designing the Business Models for Circular Economy—Towards the Conceptual Framework. Sustainability, 8(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8010043

Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The Triple Helix as a model for innovation studies. Science and Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.1093/spp/25.3.195

Liu, Z., James, S., Walpole, G., & White, G. R. T. (2023). A communities of practice approach to promoting regional circular economy innovation: Evidence from East Wales. European Planning Studies, 31(5), 988–1006. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2022.2132785

Mukhopadhyay, S., & Bouwman, H. (2019). Orchestration and governance in digital platform ecosystems: A literature review and trends. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance, 21(4), 329–351. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPRG-11-2018-0067

Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., & Clark, T. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. Wiley.

PCSD, U. (1996). Eco-Industrial Park Workshop Proceedings. https://clintonwhitehouse3.archives.gov/PCSD/Publications/Eco_Workshop.html

Planing, P. (2015). Business Model Innovation in a Circular Economy Reasons for Non-Acceptance of Circular Business Models. Open Journal of Business Model Innovation.

Regione Lazio. (2023). Piano per la Transizione Ecologica della Regione Lazio: Linee di indirizzo.

Rosa, P., Sassanelli, C., & Terzi, S. (2019). Towards Circular Business Models: A systematic literature review on classification frameworks and archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 236, 117696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117696

Tolstykh, T., Shmeleva, N., & Gamidullaeva, L. (2020). Evaluation of Circular and Integration Potentials of Innovation Ecosystems for Industrial Sustainability. Sustainability, 12(11), 4574. 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

Von Malmborg, F. (2004). Networking for knowledge transfer: Towards an understanding of local authority roles in regional industrial ecosystem management. Business Strategy and the Environment, 13(5), 334–346. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.419

Zucchella, A., & Previtali, P. (2019). Circular business models for sustainable development: A “waste is food” restorative ecosystem. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(2), 274–285. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2216