This is a self-archived – parallel published version of this article in the publication archive of the University of Vaasa. It might differ from the original. Author(s): Please cite the original version: Title: Year: Version: Copyright Intermediation dilemmas in facilitated industrial symbiosis Patala, Samuli; Salmi, Asta; Bocken, Nancy Intermediation dilemmas in facilitated industrial symbiosis 2020 Final draft (post print, aam, accepted manuscript) ©2020 Elsevier. This manuscript version is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial–NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY–NC–ND 4.0) license, https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Patala, S., Salmi, A., & Bocken, N., (2020). Intermediation dilemmas in facilitated industrial symbiosis. Journal of cleaner production 261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121093 1 Intermediation dilemmas in facilitated industrial symbiosis Samuli Patala1* - Asta Salmi2 - Nancy Bocken3 Journal of Cleaner Production (2020), Vol. 261, 10 July, 121093 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121093 Highlights · Industrial symbiosis (IS) is a key concept and practice in the circular economy · Intermediaries are important to stimulate industrial IS activities · Intermediaries’ roles are analyzed for the Finnish national symbiosis network FISS · Openness and value demonstration dilemmas hinder intermediary-firm relations · Intermediaries need to collaborate to maintain value-adding services over time Abstract Industrial symbiosis (IS) is a key paradigm for achieving circular economy among industrial firms.Achieving new IS projects often requires outside facilitation, and intermediaries can help solidifyand expand existing IS networks. While various intermediary roles have been identified in theliterature, less attention has been paid to the potential challenges that intermediaries mightencounter in their activities. Based on the case of the national symbiosis network FISS, the FinnishIndustrial Symbiosis system, this study investigates the dilemmas faced when organizing ISnetworks. It identifies openness and value demonstration dilemmas, which hinder intermediary-firm relations. It also identifies collaborative intermediation processes among intermediaries inseeking to uncover value, ensuring community embedding of new networks and selectiveintegration of intermediation activities. These processes can help overcome the intermediationdilemmas. The results on the collaborative intermediation and its development over time contributeto research on facilitated IS and on intermediaries in sustainability transitions. For policy-makers,the study pinpoints the need for collaborative intermediation where both national and regionalintermediaries are involved to ensure both economies of scale and flexibility. Keywords: intermediaries; industrial symbiosis; dilemmas; intermediation; sustainabilitytransition; waste to value. *corresponding author (e-mail address: samuli.patala@aalto.fi) 1 Aalto University, School of Business, Finland 2 University of Vaasa, School of Marketing and Communication, Finland 3 Lund University, IIIEE, Sweden & LUT University, School of Business and Management, Finland 2 Intermediation dilemmas in facilitated industrial symbiosis 1. Introduction Circular economy has emerged as an important vision, including a range of strategies to tacklesustainability challenges (Blomsma & Brennan, 2017). It has gained popularity in the business andpolicy arenas supported by organizations such as the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (Bocken et al.,2017), and also attracted a rapidly expanding body of research (Ghisellini et al. 2016; Murray etal., 2017). However, the transition to the circular economy requires vast changes in production andconsumption patterns. This requires new types of technologies, products and business models andwider societal changes, and, if not ‘designed’ appropriately, the circular economy can lead tonegative rebound effects and greater levels of material consumption (Zink & Geyer, 2017). Industrial symbiosis (IS) is a key paradigm for achieving circular economy among industrial firms(Baldassarre et al., 2018), where co-located firms can create new value from former wastematerials and resources (Chertow, 2000). Industrial Symbiosis integrates cleaner production intothe ‘interactions of companies in a specific region or park with its local and ultimate globalecosystem’, ‘with the goal of matching industrial inputs/outputs to the real limits of Earth'scarrying capacity’ (Lowe & Evans, 1995, p. 47-48). It has been implemented as a viable businessmodel innovation in existing firms, seeking to build new business opportunities, while resolvingenvironmental challenges associated with their operations (Short et al., 2014). However, achieving new IS projects often requires outside facilitation for several reasons (Paquin& Howard-Grenville, 2012). Firstly, information on waste and byproduct materials is not alwaysreadily available due to lack of trust or strategic interest, especially in regards to cross-industrialresources synergies (Zaoual and Lecocq, 2018). Secondly, the quality and quantity of waste andbyproduct materials is dependent on main products, it may be difficult to optimize for customers(Bansal and McKnight, 2009). Thirdly, technological and regulatory barriers may prevent newsymbiosis opportunities (Salmi et al., 2012). Various facilitated IS initiatives have sprung uparound the world, and many have also caught the attention of researchers, such as the NationalIndustrial Symbiosis Programme (NISP) in the UK, studied by Paquin and Howard-Grenville(2012). Facilitated IS requires the effort of intermediaries that can perform various functions to acceleratenew innovations for material reuse (Kanda et al., 2018). While intermediaries have recently caughtthe interest of scholars interested in sustainability transitions (Kivimaa et al. 2019), they havereceived less attention in the field of IS. This study explores a key challenge that intermediariesface in the facilitation of IS: how to provide value-adding intermediation over the long term tokeep different partners committed to a network, and how they may overcome this challenge. Itinvestigates activities of various intermediaries when they facilitate an IS network. The aim is to 3 identify the challenges and hindrances in the intermediation process and the methods throughwhich intermediaries can overcome these. The key research questions are: What kind of challengeshinder the development and facilitation of IS, and how do intermediaries overcome thesechallenges? How can collaborative intermediation processes contribute to IS development? An in-depth case study of the largest facilitated IS network in Finland, called Finnish IndustrialSymbiosis system, FISS was conducted. The network involves coordination between various typesof intermediaries at both the national and local levels, making it especially suitable for studyingcollaborative activities between different types of intermediaries and firms within a facilitated ISnetwork. The study will illuminate key dilemmas that hinder the relations between intermediariesand firms, as well types of collaborative activities that encourage the network’s ongoing action.By identifying these counteracting forces, this work seeks to contribute to both the understandingof intermediaries in sustainability transitions as well as the work on facilitated IS. 2. Literature review The literature review focuses on former studies of facilitated IS, followed by the role ofintermediaries in sustainability transitions more broadly. It ends with the research gap, focused onunderstanding the dilemmas faced by intermediaries when organizing IS. 2.1 Facilitating industrial symbiosis IS falls under the field of Industrial Ecology and studies material flows in industrial systems inorder to advance change from a linear to a circular economy (Chertow, 2000). IS can be definedas “engaging traditionally separate industries in a collective approach to competitive advantageinvolving physical exchange of materials, energy, water and by-products”(Chertow, 2000, p. 331).While initial studies on IS focused on waste and byproduct synergies, later studies have broadenedthis to encompass other ways to use resources more efficiently, including for example the sharingof infrastructure and equipment (Lombardi & Laybourn, 2012). Yet later studies also focused onthe business and strategic aspects of IS (e.g., Short et al., 2014, who explored IS as a businessmodel). The emergence and management of IS have been important areas of inquiry for IS researchers.Many early studies focused on the comparison between two archetypical models: self-organizingand centrally planned symbiosis (see e.g., Baas, 2011; Desrochers, 2004; Gibbs & Deutz, 2005).While successful examples of both extremes exist, more recent studies have acknowledged thatmany IS networks benefit from some degree of purposeful facilitation during their development(Boons et al., 2016), and even initially self-organized systems have often benefited frominstitutionalizing the IS actions (Chertow & Ehrenfeld, 2012). Facilitation can have variousoutcomes, depending for example on the IS network structure and the stage of development duringwhich facilitation happens (Boons et al., 2016) Various important intermediary actions in facilitated IS have been identified. IS intermediariesplay for example a key role in creating trust between previously unknown actors (Hewes & Lyons,2008), and help build new network ties by brokering (Doménech & Davies, 2011). Intermediariesare important for institutionalizing IS through collective norms and governance mechanisms 4 (Chertow & Ehrenfeld, 2012) and for raising awareness (Zaoual & Lecocq, 2018), which helpsreduce mental distance between actors (Ashton & Bain, 2012). Organizations engaging in ISfacilitation typically include government agencies or governmentally-owned organizations (Costaand Ferrão, 2010; Zaoual and Lecocq, 2018), but can also include various associations, NGOs, andprivate businesses (Walls & Paquin, 2015). Although the promise of Industrial Symbiosis is considerable, active facilitation is still necessaryto accelerate the sustainability transition (European Commission, 2014). For instance, the famousKalundborg IS network developed over several decades (http://www.symbiosis.dk/en/), that is,not rapid enough, considering the urgency of many sustainability challenges (Martin, 2019). Thewider CE literature has also acknowledged that public agencies’ role has been found to be crucialfor overcoming barriers to CE, for example in creating supporting infrastructures and promotingawareness (de Jesus and Mendonça, 2018). Despite the recognition of diverse intermediary roles,the literature on the challenges associated with intermediation activities is scarce. Hence, thisstudy focuses on the challenges encountered by intermediaries in IS, and ways in whichintermediaries can help overcome these. 2.2 Intermediaries in sustainability transitions Intermediaries have recently gained wide attention in sustainability transition studies (Kivimaa etal. 2019). They can perform different functions and their roles have for long been studied in othercontexts, including, e.g., distribution channels (Gadde, 2014) and international operations (Ahn etal., 2011). Innovation scholars have emphasized the role of intermediaries in the development andcommercialization of new innovations (e.g. Howells, 2006). Intermediaries can, for example,broker new relations between suppliers and users of technologies, process information for newtechnologies and facilitate technological development (Howells, 2006), and they are ofteninvolved in various stages of the innovation process (Stewart & Hyysalo, 2008). Three different roles of innovation intermediaries have been distinguished: facilitating (i.e.,providing opportunities and space for other people to act); configuring (i.e., adjusting the materialand symbolic form of technology), and brokering (i.e., establishing, nurturing, adjusting andaltering of connections between different actors) (Stewart & Hyysalo, 2008). Kanda et al. (2018)identified several roles of intermediaries in supporting eco-innovation in particular, including,among others, forecasting and road mapping; fostering networking and partnerships; prototypingand piloting; technical consulting; and branding and legitimation. While these examples show thewide spectrum of potential intermediary activities, they focus on the positive potential ofintermediaries. Less attention has been directed on the challenges that intermediaries face in theiroperations. To address this, investigations on ‘what’ intermediaries are doing, but also on context-specific studies revealing ‘how’ intermediaries operate (Hakkarainen & Hyysalo, 2016; Kanda etal. 2018). Recent studies have paid attention to intermediation at multiple levels and by variousintermediaries. Kanda et al. (2018) analyze eco-innovations and intermediaries as agents foraccelerating sustainability transitions. Their cross-level study suggests for policy makers acomplementary use of different types of intermediaries to support eco-innovation. Governmental 5 intermediaries are especially important in transitions to more sustainable practices (Kivimaa,2014). In addition, some non-governmental organizations, referred to as ‘modern environmentalnetworkers’ by Ritvala and Salmi (2010, 2011), have mobilized issue networks to solveenvironmental problems. Gliedt et al. (2018) analyze how sustainability-oriented innovationintermediaries link local, state and business actions, and show that this helps to scale-up andinfluence green economic development in a politically feasible manner, in particular wheninstitutional uncertainty and instability prevail. These studies point to the need to understandoperations of a network of intermediaries at different levels, and their collaborative efforts, as afactor for sustainability transition. Intermediations are often seen as a temporary strategy; Ellis (2005) suggests that when anintermediary successfully increases the understandings and involvement between two parties, itsservices may become redundant, leading to a “trader’s dilemma” phenomenon. Then again, thestudy of supply chains by Vedel and Ellegaard (2013) challenges this view and describes the(sourcing) intermediary as a persistent value-creating actor in the chain. Indeed, recent studieshave focused on temporal dimension and survival of innovation intermediaries, that is, on theirlongevity, to understand sustainability oriented transformations (Kant & Kanda, 2019). 2.3 Research gap: Intermediation dilemmas in industrial symbiosis Several studies have attempted to link the concepts of sustainability transitions and IS. For instanceAdamides and Mouzakitis (2009) and Susur et al. (2019) have utilized the socio-technicaltransitions –framework and analyzed IS networks as strategic niches that can catalyze sustainableinnovations on the broader level. However, while several studies have analyzed transitionintermediaries in a sustainability-related context (Gliedt et al., 2018; Kant & Kanda, 2019), anunderstanding of how they can promote IS networks in particular is lacking. Brokering hastraditionally been important in IS intermediation, as firms with residual resources and firms withresource needs need to be matched, as found in the study of NISP UK by Paquin and Howard-Grenville (2012). IS intermediaries also need to interact with a complex network of participantsfrom different sectors, which makes value creation through intermediation challenging, as itrequires diverse technical and social skills. Hence, challenges such as the trader’s dilemma (wherethe intermediary becomes bypassed) are likely to appear. It is therefore crucial to investigate ISintermediation over time, and what kind of challenges emerge in the intermediation processes. Tobetter understand intermediaries’ survival, it is important to understand the dilemmas they mayencounter in their operations. Secondly, while various intermediary roles have been identified in the literature (Kivimaa et al.,2019), less attention has been paid to the heterogeneity of organizations performing theintermediation. Previous studies have often treated IS facilitators as relatively homogenous typesof actors performing similar functions, one example being public-sector brokering organizations(Zaoual & Lecocq, 2018). However, various types of intermediaries may form separate networksof relations among each other, and uncovering these is important for understanding ofintermediation dilemmas. 6 This study delves into the dilemmas encountered by intermediaries and investigates how theircollaborative actions can help in overcoming those dilemmas. It addresses current gaps in theliterature by an empirical study in this specific context. The investigation concerns an IndustrialSymbiosis network and its organizing over some time: during its inception and first years ofoperations. The case involves different types of intermediaries, operating at different scales fromlocal to national. 3. Method An in-depth case study was used as the primary research method for the empirical study. Casestudies are especially useful for generating new theory about a phenomenon that is relativelyunknown (Eisenhardt, 1989). They have been recommended as a key method to study businessnetworks, as they allow for a multi-perspective contextual understanding and capture the inherentcomplexity and dynamism of networks (Halinen & Törnroos, 2005). For a single case study,exemplary cases with unusually revelatory power and good access are generally preferred (Yin,2013). Here, a single case study of a facilitated IS network was conducted. The network consists of anationally coordinated program for promoting IS as well as regional networks for facilitatingresource exchanges between firms. Thus, embedded within the single macro-level case, there weremultiple sub-networks with related intermediaries. This analysis of multiple organizationsinvolved in same types of activities, but in different localities, gave a rich basis for understandingintermediation practices. The units of analysis were the interactions within network-level relations(Provan et al., 2007) of the intermediaries. To ensure deep understanding of the case, both informant and data triangulation were used.Multiple perspectives were reached by analyzing various types of network actors includingintermediaries (e.g. local authorities, public sector organizations, consultancies and researchorganizations) and the participating industrial firms. Multiple informants were interviewed in thoseorganizations where several individuals had been substantially involved in the network, while insome organizations only a single individual was involved, and consequently, interviewed (seeappendix for the core interview themes). In addition to interviews, data was gathered throughobservations of key events in the network and using archival data. Data gathering in two mainphases (2014 and 2016) enabled identification of development aspects within the networks. 3.1 Case description The case study was conducted in Finland, where activities associated with IS have a long history,as firms from resource-intensive industries have reused byproducts and waste materials from theirprocesses (Levänen, 2015). These activities have typically taken place inside the firm. Oneexample is the forest industry, where black liquor is a byproduct of pulp production and iscommonly used to produce energy. 7 In 2013, an official national network (Finnish Industrial Symbiosis system, FISS) was created topromote IS especially with an inter-organizational perspective. The program was modeled afterthe NISP in the UK. At the national level, the coordinators of the network promote IS by spreadingawareness and organizing resource workshops. The program also operates on the regional level,where currently 14 of the 19 administrative regions in Finland have a designated coordinatingorganization to promote IS in its region. As of 2019, 623 firms with 4734 resources have beeninvolved in the network’s activities. A core activity in the network are ‘resource workshops’,where diverse firms in a region are brought together in a collaborative workshop. The firms listtheir excess resources as well as their resource needs, in order to find resource synergies with otherfirms. These resource flows are then presented in a national database in order to further facilitateresource exchanges. The program also promotes implementation of IS by helping the firms to findtechnical expertise, legal advice and funding. In addition to the IS networks coordinated by the FISS, many IS initiatives in Finland have startedthrough self-organized network activities, a pattern found by Boons et al. (2016) as well. Thesenetworks also catalyzed the FISS network during its inception by providing initial case examplesand sharing best practices. These IS networks, while more emergent in nature, had typically alsoinstitutionalized IS facilitation in some form. They typically had either a local economiccoordinating organization or a private firm in charge of promoting further IS projects. Figure 1illustrates the structure of the FISS network. Figure 1: Structure of the FISS -network (partial network model for illustrative purposes) 3.2 Data collection The objective of the study was to explore the challenges in intermediary activities in facilitatingthe IS network, and thus it sought for an in-depth understanding of the different interactions presentin the network. The main units of analysis included two types of interactions within the multi-tiered network: intermediary-firm and intermediary-intermediary interactions. Data was gatheredfrom various organizations acting as either intermediaries or IS participants in the network.Intermediaries were specified as organizations engaged in the promotion of IS without being directparticipants (i.e. exchanging materials) themselves. Table 1 summarizes the data. . Regional IS networks National coordinatorsFirm / IS participantIntermediaryHub firm 8 Table 1: Data collection summary. Note. Brackets [ ] list the number of interviewees per organization Interviews Observations Secondary data 1st round(2014) Organizations interviewed [number ofinterviewees]: Six intermediaries: energy and materialefficiency service provider[3], innovation fund[2],two regional development organisations [1each], environmental consultant [1], university[1], technical research centre [1] Five participant firms: Metals recovery [1], foodwaste reprocessing solutions [1], wastemanagement services [1], biofuel production [1],waste management technology [1] Total: 11 organizations and 15 interviewees (150pages of single-spaced transcriptions) 2 seminars (12 hours,15 pages of fieldnotes)1 IS site visit (4 hours) Archival documents: Eco-industrial park reports (N=3) FISS industrial symbiosis case studies (N=20) Archival websites: FISS websiteCoordinatorwebpages (N=7) 2nd round(2016) Organizations interviewed [number ofinterviewees]: Five intermediaries: energy and materialefficiency service provider [1], four regionaldevelopment organisations [1 each] Two firms: Food waste reprocessing [1], graniteproduction [1] Total: 7 organizations and 7 interviewees (55pages of single-spaced transcriptions) 1 resource workshop(3 hours, 5 pages offield notes)1 site visit with anintermediary (6 hours,5 pages of field notes) Data was collected through semi-structured interviews and observations in two phases. The firstphase was conducted in Spring 2014, during the initiation phase of the launched national network.At this time, the activities within the network were being tested and refined. The second phase ofdata collection took place in Autumn 2016, to explore how the network had developed and to gaininsights from new actors, who had joined the network since its initiation. The data thus capturedthe development of the network’s interactions over a two-year period. Data collection covered a diverse set of organizations that had participated in the network’sactivities. The network consisted of various organizations (intermediaries, participant firms andexpert partners) acting on the national and/or regional levels. Interviewees included bothintermediaries (N=10) as well as participating IS firms (N=7). In both phases, the data collectionstarted by contacting the key coordinating organization of the network. Other suitableorganizations were then contacted through the contacts and information provided by the networkcoordinator. The central coordinator was interviewed in both phases, but the other intervieweesduring the second phase were new intermediaries and firms that had joined the network. Theprimary rationale for choosing the informants from the organizations was their high degree of 9 involvement in the network. Typically, each organization had one designated individual for thenetwork’s activities. The informants included mostly managers and experts. The interviewsfocused on the following issues: the organization’s motives and key activities related to IS; therelations and interactions with other network participants (firms/intermediaries), organization andcoordination of network’s activities, as well as the barriers and success factors related to theactivities. The interview data was triangulated through observations as well as secondary data. Theobservations focused on the network’s key activities: two seminars, two site visits (one togetherwith an intermediary) and one resource workshop. The archival data included the network’swebpages, presentations, technical documents and research reports. Data analysis The data was analyzed through an inductive and interpretative method (Gioia et al., 2013). Thisqualitative data analysis method is based on a three-stage coding process, where descriptive first-order codes are abstracted and grouped into second-order codes, which in turn are linked toaggregate concepts that relate to major parts of the studied phenomenon (Gioia et al., 2013). Theprocess involved developing first-order codes using the informants’ concepts followed byaggregating these under second-order theoretical concepts. During the analysis process, thechallenges identified were specified as dilemmas and the solutions to these challenges ascollaborative processes. For instance, descriptions related to the challenges of information sharing,the underlying challenge related to openness (confidentiality), and the resultant need to retainsemi-open access to information emerged as linked first-order codes; and these led to the abstractedconcept of openness dilemma. This code, along with the value creation dilemma, formed theaggregate concept of intermediation dilemmas. The study found that the intermediation dilemmasemerged in the intermediary-firm relations, while the collaborative intermediary-intermediaryrelations could alleviate the dilemmas. Table 2 illustrates the process for generating theoreticalcategories. 10 Table 2: Coding structure Aggregate concepts Second order codes(explanation) First order codes Intermediationdilemmas Openness dilemma(Tension between open andclosed access to resourceinformation) · Open information sharing as a principle · Confidentiality issues in information sharing · Semi-open access to information system as asolutionValue demonstrationdilemma (Tension betweenbroad brokering vs.providing more specializedservices) · Losing access to firms after initial brokering · The value of the network’s activities to the firms · Service provision vs. broader collective action Collaborativeintermediationprocesses Uncovering value(Encouraging simultaneouscreation of economic andenvironmental value) · Finding systemic interconnections through multi-disciplinary learning · Building an expert network · Finding ways to valorize environmental benefits Community embedding(Shift towards collectiveaction thinking among co-located firms) · Community development · Utilizing informal networks · Leveraging local champions · Sharing assetsSelective integration(Selective homogenization ofcertain intermediationpractices, while maintainingdiversity in some areas) · Standardizing best practices · Maintaining local flexibility and distinctiveness · Inter-regional competition as a risk 4. Findings This section discusses the findings of the qualitative analysis. First, it describes the organizationof the network as a background for how the dilemmas emerged. Then, it focuses on the dilemmasassociated with intermediating IS, and finally, elaborates the collaborative intermediationprocesses, which emerged as solutions to alleviate the dilemmas. 4.1 Organization of the network Diverse types of organizations from multiple levels (national and regional) were involved in theIS intermediation processes. The key intermediary across the whole network was Motiva, agovernmentally owned company providing expert services to firms for improving resource andenergy efficiency. In the beginning, a governmentally owned innovation foundation, Sitra, wasalso involved. As the network developed, Motiva assumed sole responsibility for coordination onthe national level. After the start-up phase, it set up regional coordination, with designatedintermediaries, which included regional development organizations, universities and researchcenters, as well as a sustainability consultant firm. IS participants were firms from variousindustries, which typically, had waste material or byproducts that were left unused, taken tolandfill or used in low-value exchanges. Their business interest in IS was therefore to avoid 11 waste management costs or to find higher-value opportunities for recycled material. Other firmswere looking for new suppliers of materials for their own processes. A key activity of the intermediaries was to raise awareness on IS, through e.g. seminars. Secondly,the intermediaries facilitate connections between firms. A key method for this were resourceworkshops, where firms co-located in a specific region listed their excess resources as well asresource needs. More focused workshops were organized around specific materials and forselected participants to increase potential for finding resource synergies. The regionalintermediaries also utilized informal networking events for building trust among participants.Thirdly, the intermediaries facilitated open sharing of information in the network. For instance,the intermediaries gathered knowledge of best practices for IS on a national scale, as well asmaintained a database of resources available for IS. While many connections were established inthe workshops, the resource database allowed the intermediaries to find potential synergies beyondtheir scope and even on cross-regional scale. In addition, the intermediaries also developed a mapof IS sites in Finland, which was posted on the program’s official webpage and thus made availableto the public. Lastly, the national coordinators also developed and maintained a network of experts,who could be called upon for providing technical knowledge for specific IS projects. 4.2 Dilemmas in the network development The analysis of the actions of the intermediaries and the responses of the involved firms identifiedtwo major issues that hindered the networks’ potential to grow and achieve its targets. These arelabeled here as dilemmas. 4.2.1. Openness dilemma The first observed dilemma, referred as the ‘openness dilemma’, relates to the sharing ofinformation in the network. The network’s actions are dependent on open sharing of resource datafrom participating firms, but simultaneously, this may become a confidentiality issue for the firms.Freely available information on resource data may give away competitive information. Thenetwork development, however, required that firms were willing to share information in theresource workshops. Identifying resource synergies required firms to share detailed data on thetype, quality and quantity of resources that they had available. Some firms were hesitant to sharethe information completely due to confidentiality reasons: “Although we are progressing towards more open use of data, some of the workshopparticipants are still skeptical about sharing all of their resource data. They wish to know whowill use the information and how.” (Senior expert, national development organization) The intermediaries addressed this by making the information only partly open. Inessence, the resource database was only accessible to the intermediaries themselves. They were incharge of inputting resource data into the system from the companies, as well as identifyingpotential opportunities through the system. 12 4.2.2 Value demonstration dilemma The second key challenge in the network’s functioning related to the value of the network’sactivities to the firms. This is referred here as the ‘value demonstration dilemma’. Firms receivepotentially valuable support from the intermediaries, which can result in IS relations witheconomic and environmental benefits. However, after receiving information from the network andfinding a potential partner for IS, firms can continue the development of the symbiosis project bythemselves. Indeed, the intermediaries mentioned that they had only limited information aboutwhich symbiosis projects proceed beyond the initial recognition of the opportunity without theintermediary: “Often, the firms will continue the development of the IS project independent from theintermediary.” (Senior expert, national development organization) This created a problem for the intermediaries, who had to demonstrate successfuloutcomes of the network in order to secure further public sector funding for the network. This wasusually achieved with projects where the symbiosis was relatively straightforward to implementwithout the need of additional technologies. However, in many cases, the exchanges were morecomplex and required some kind of additional resources in order to be implemented. For instance,technological expertise or new investments into equipment to reprocess the waste were needed, orthe firms were hesitant to proceed without public funding or support for the required investments.This dilemma could potentially be addressed by offering higher value, more focused services tothe firms. However, the intermediaries often did not have enough resources for this, and they feltit would detract from the broader reach of the network’s activities. In essence, the intermediariesdid not want to become a dedicated service organization, but rather maintain collective functioningof the network. The openness dilemma and value dilemma are interrelated. If firms do not see value inparticipating in the network, they are hesitant to share information. Similarly, if firms are hesitantto provide information for confidentiality reasons, it hinders the intermediaries to develop thenetwork and provide value for firms. The dilemmas thus potentially lead to a vicious cycle, whichhinders growth of the network. 4.3 Collaborative intermediation processes In addition to the two hindering dilemmas, three specific collaborative intermediation processeswere identified. Through these the intermediaries could alleviate the aforementioned dilemmasand this contributed to the IS development. These are described below. 4.3.1 Uncovering value Firstly, one key process related to uncovering latent value potential through the network’sactivities. Several respondents noted that the program had been successful in changing some firms’perceptions to view waste as a potential input to other industrial firms. 13 “It’s important to change the way waste is viewed. It shouldn’t be just about finding the cheapestway to get rid of waste but really thinking about what’s in it. What is waste for others, is resourcesfor us. There should be more focus on seeing the potential and making something new, in somecases it can be even an exportable product.” (Development manager, Biofuel producer) Many firms saw themselves as forerunners in this regard. In many cases, the firms had amanager with a multifaceted industrial background or a team with diverse experience, whichenabled them to recognize opportunities for IS. Firms active in IS also mentioned that it was vitalto keep an open mindset towards new relationships. Many industrial firms typically collaboratewith partner firms, but only in their supply chains. However, IS often requires collaborating withfirms from other industries. Several respondents mentioned that this requires an openness towardsnew relations and willingness to collaborate with new partners, which not all firms had: “Seeing the bigger picture is vital, understanding the other industrial who can use yourmaterials…and this can be difficult especially for SMEs focusing on their core business.” (Expert,environmental consultant) Collaboration between the intermediaries was vital for identifying new value potential. Forinstance, the intermediaries developed an expert network that could be utilized to develop potentialresource synergies. These included e.g. technical experts who could provide consulting to realizeresource synergies, regulatory experts who could help with permissions, and business developmentexperts. A business case was often mentioned as a critical factor for IS to happen, usually achieved byavoiding the costs of waste management (such as landfill taxes) or gaining extra revenue fromselling the material. But the forerunner firms also had a high emphasis on environmental values,as enablers of IS: “For more and more firms, the motive is also to increase their profile as an environmentally awarecompany.” (Project Manager, Regional development organization) Reusing wastes and byproducts allows firms to decrease environmental impactsassociated with waste management, such as land use and hazardous emissions to ground and water.Decreased water use and carbon footprint were also mentioned as other benefits. For instance, onefirm manufacturing granite products noted that the largest environmental impact from theiroperations was the stone scrap constituting about 80-85% of the total mined material. The scrap isstored in piles, which lead to landscape impacts. The firm was highly interested in an IS, whichwould allow them to decrease the amount of this scrap material. Many of the respondentsmentioned that the concern for environment was part of their personal values. Especially forsmaller firms with an environmentally aware founder or CEO, these values were usually alsoingrained into the organization. In addition, the firms’ public image and green marketing activities also factored into themotivations to engage in IS. Firms with a high need to express a sustainable image, e.g. consumer-facing firms, had a higher motivation to engage in IS for public image purposes. Potential for greenmarketing, for example, the ability to use certification and standards, also had an effect. For 14 example, the end-of-waste criteria developed by the European Commission were mentioned as anemerging certification method, which would make it considerably easier to market products usingrecycled material. 4.3.2 Community embedding Another process related to building local community relations, which enabled firms to develop amindset for collective action in resource sharing. Such collective logic was also evident in socialbenefits as a motive for IS. These arguments usually concerned community values and benefits tothe local economy. IS generally focuses on local collaborations and many firms preferred workingtogether with local firms whenever possible, and they valued the benefits provided for the localindustrial relations. Many informants also mentioned that IS could improve local employment andeconomy, as well as bring additional services to the region. The intermediary collaboration for community embedding was evident through the relationsbetween the national and local intermediaries. While the national intermediaries were ofteninvolved with setting up the resource workshops and maintaining the resource database (that is,brokering), they encouraged the local intermediaries to set up initiatives to foster deeper localcollaboration beyond resource brokering. The local intermediaries in turn commonly relied on thehelp of champions, entrepreneurial individuals who could contribute to building local IS networks(Kokoulina et al., 2018). Champions, while often being participants in IS themselves, could alsoacts as intermediaries to expand the reach of IS activities. Infrastructure and facility sharing are typically seen as the second form of IS, in addition toresource links between firms (Chertow, 2000). Many respondents mentioned that while they hadpreviously considered the value potential of wastes and byproducts, infrastructure sharing was aconsiderably less obvious activity for them. The sharing activities were focused commonly onindustrial facilities and equipment, such as laboratory space, pilot/test equipment, etc. Thesefacilities and equipment could be rented out to other firms in the area, improving their utilizationrate and providing additional revenue to firms. The collective logic is potentially at odds with theconventional closed form of innovation. Outside partners are not always allowed to operate in afirm’s premises or share infrastructure for the potential fear of losing intellectual property. “There’s a lot of unused facilities in this area which could be used to make new symbioses. And Idon’t mean only reusing byproducts but the kind of symbiosis where we can utilize the samelaboratory space, same staff, same brains.” (CEO, metals recovery firm) 4.3.3 Selective integration A third set of coordinated processes among the intermediaries concerned the selective integrationof intermediation activities. This served the purpose of taking advantage of economies of scale byhomogenizing certain intermediation activities (e.g. information sharing), while retainingflexibility for local intermediaries to provide value creation that benefits from local distinctiveness. Firstly, the intermediaries aimed to maintain and develop the nationwide database of resources(and resource needs) available for IS. The data collection practices were therefore homogenized 15 so that each intermediary would use the same format for collecting information from the resourceworkshops. In addition, the intermediaries jointly maintained other forms of information on awebsite, including a collection of case examples of best practices of IS. They also developed amap of known IS projects across Finland, which included both projects initiated through theintermediary activities as well as self-organized networks. On the other hand, the governance structure of the system gave the intermediaries considerableflexibility in providing tailored value-adding intermediation activities. While the aforementionedactivities related to information sharing and brokering were coordinated nationwide, many of thelocal intermediaries developed their own intermediation actions within their localities, often in theform of a separate project. These activities included for example material and energy audits,helping with obtaining ecolabels or standards, as well as regional planning activities at morespecific eco-industrial parks. I see it as really important that on the national level we have some degree of similarity anddirection. But on the other hand, this local coordination has to also be involved, an some of thecollaborations we have do are very locally situated (Project manager, University) These localized practices helped the intermediaries leverage local distinction for IS. Many of theIS sites in the network had more specific industrial profiles (such as agriculture, bioenergy, orquarrying) with associated material streams. In some cases, this helped participants to develop aspecific “identity” for IS in the region, which contributed to the community embedding activities.Yet, according to the national intermediaries, a potential downside of strong local distinctivenessis that local intermediaries start to compete rather than collaborate with each other for waste andbyproduct streams. The potential challenge of having too many different agencies and areas of governance is that theytend to start to compete with each other. Which can lead to sub optimization. (CEO, biofuelproducer) 5. Discussion Intermediation and intermediaries have been extensively studied in relation to sustainabilitytransitions (Kivimaa et al. 2019), but so far little attention has been given on how variousintermediaries can promote IS networks in particular. To address this gap, this study investigatedthe national IS network FISS in Finland, and its organizing during the first years of operations.Furthermore, the focus on collaborative actions of various intermediaries and intermediationtargeted at different levels provided us new understanding of cross-level intermediation processes.This study has two main contributions. The first contribution relates to the identification of keydilemmas in IS intermediation and the collaborative actions that intermediaries took to overcomethese. The second contribution relates to uncovering interactions among different intermediariesand developments over time. Figure 2 illustrates these mechanisms in a framework, discussed inmore detail next. 16 Figure 2: Framework of intermediation dilemmas and collaborative intermediation processes. Thelines represent interactions and arrows illustrate mechanisms. The rectangles representintermediaries. Two key dilemmas were observed from the study of IS network FISS: the openness and valuedemonstration dilemmas. The openness dilemma challenges intermediaries’ brokering activities asthey depend on firms being willing to reveal information on their resources to the larger ISnetwork. Hence, social skills of the intermediary are essential as it may act as the trusted brokerbetween companies of essential IS information. The value demonstration dilemma refers to therisk that firms disengage from the network after initial participation unless the intermediaries cansustain their value-creating activities. While individual firms have turned IS into a source ofcompetitive advantage (e.g. Short et al., 2013), it appears that intermediaries have an importantrole in highlighting the combined business and environmental opportunities of IS. Together, thesedilemmas can lead to a vicious cycle for IS, as intermediaries depend on information to providemore value, and require proof of value creation to gain additional funding to sustain their activities. Furthermore, the study showed how the coordinated actions of an intermediary network helpovercome these dilemmas. Firstly, the intermediaries were able to leverage inter-disciplinaryknowledge networks to better identify value creation possibilities of IS, which could alleviate thevalue creation dilemma. Secondly, the intermediary network relied on the local knowledge andrelations in order to promote the community embeddedness of IS within specific regions,promoting engagement through norms and informal relations. This could alleviate both the valuecreation dilemma by identifying new ways for actors to benefit from their local networks, while Firm Intermediary Firm Community embeddingUncovering valueSelective integration Openness dilemma Value demonstrationdilemma Expertintermediary Local intermediary 17 building trust which is an important antecedent for openness (Walls & Paquin, 2015). Thirdly, theintermediary network utilized selective integration of activities, where certain processes such asinformation sharing were standardized, but flexibility and emergent action were retained foradditional tailored intermediation activities. This process, in turn, required a balancing act. Whilehigh integration could facilitate openness due to having a larger pool of valuable data available,more tailored activities could provide higher value to specific participants. These coordinatedactivities and collaboration help to understand how intermediaries may sustain their actions in theface of challenges that threaten their survival. Many studies have highlighted the importance ofintermediaries in catalyzing sustainability transitions (Kivimaa et al. 2019). However,intermediaries - who typically receive public sector funding to facilitate industrial activities - oftenhave to cope with the operational logics of both the public and private sector, making their ongoingsurvival challenging (Jay, 2013). This study’s findings help understand how interactions of different intermediaries may unfold asdevelopment patterns of IS. Specifically, the intermediary interactions in FISS highlight aparticular development path of facilitated IS. First, an initial intermediary adopts the concept fromexisting examples (NISP in this case) and engages in pilot facilitation and dissemination. In orderto overcome the intermediation dilemmas that emerge, this is followed by brokerage and collectivelearning models in local contexts as other intermediaries engage with the aim to develop local ISnetworks. These local networks in many cases also build on existing relations (i.e. self-organizednetworks). As the field of IS matures globally, and best practices are disseminated across countries,it is suggested that this development path can be a typical way how multi-tiered, national programsfor promoting IS develop. To conclude, the present study adds further support to past studies of facilitated IS, which suggestthat intermediaries need to proceed gradually towards higher value exchanges as the networkdevelops (Paquin & Howard-Grenville, 2012). Opportunities for simple brokering activities(which are temporary by nature) and low-hanging fruits are exhausted as the network develops.The longevity of intermediation activities thus depends on the ability to catalyze higher-orderprocesses for collective learning. 5.1 Theoretical implications and future research directions The findings have important implications for the research on transition intermediaries as well asfacilitated industrial symbiosis. Industrial Symbiosis is one of the core practices of the widercircular economy (Ghisellini et al. 2016), with its focus on forming closed-loop resource linksbetween and inside firms (Mulrow et al. 2017). Intermediation has been recognized to be a keyprocess to overcome barriers and accelerate the development of IS networks (Zaoual and Lecocq,2018). The first theoretical contribution is to the study of intermediaries in sustainability transitions. Manyexisting studies have identified a multitude of roles for intermediaries and the processes andactivities associated with those roles (Hakkarainen & Hyysalo, 2016; Kanda et al. 2018). However,this research has had a largely static view of intermediaries that does not consider their temporaldevelopment or the potential challenges related to intermediation. Only recently have scholars paid 18 attention to how intermediaries sustain their activities over the long term, and a recent study byKant and Kanda (2019) identified how the characteristics of an intermediary affect its survivalover time. The present study contributes to this stream of research by shedding light on twointermediation dilemmas. These form a key barrier to intermediaries’ ongoing activities and theirrelations with IS participants. Moreover, the study looked beyond intermediaries’ internalcharacteristics affecting their survival, and identified collaborative processes among differentintermediaries as a key remedy to the dilemmas. By providing insights through studying the FISS network and the involved intermediaries, thisresearch aims to inspire further work on the dynamics of facilitated IS and intermediaries' role init. In particular, comparative case studies of facilitated IS programs could expand these findings.Such studies would help understand the effect of contextual conditions (e.g. type of economy,regulatory environment, cultural norms) on intermediation. It can also help understand the role offacilitation and intermediaries in IS programs where the degree of government planning is high.As various national level IS programs mature, there is considerable potential for conducting suchstudies across borders. Despite the identified challenges, the present study demonstrated theimportant role of active intermediation for promoting IS, beyond self-organized IS. The findingsmay also have implications for other CE models beyond IS, as demonstrating economic value hasbeen identified to be a critical part of realizing CE projects (Ngan et al. 2019), especially for SMEs(Paletta et al. 2019). The second theoretical contribution concerns facilitated IS where interactions of an intermediarynetwork in the facilitation process were elaborated. Past studies have identified roles ofintermediaries in IS (Zaoual and Lecocq, 2018), but have paid less attention on the interactionsamong different intermediaries or the longevity of intermediary activities. Recent studies on thedevelopment of IS have highlighted multiple dynamics where intermediaries can play a role(Boons et al., 2016). The process outlined here takes the understanding of these dynamics furtherby elaborating how the individual dynamics can become patterned during longer-termdevelopment processes, as well how the dynamics can intersect between different levels of analysis(national and local). 5.2 Implications for practitioners This research has several implications for practice and policymaking in IS. Firstly, the study highlights the importance for intermediaries to establish and cultivaterelationships not only with potential target firms for IS, but also other complementaryintermediaries. This is a shift in perspective as an intermediaries’ primary relations are usuallyconsidered to be its clients. Intermediaries may even be tempted to compete with each other forclients and resources, but this study found that collaborative intermediation can help overcomesome of the fundamental challenges of intermediation, such as the value demonstration dilemmaand openness dilemma, by identifying more value potential through a network –approach andhelping generate trust by community embedding. In a similar vein as a firm’s value creationnetwork is considered a crucial part of its business model (Bocken et al. 2014), this study suggests 19 that it is important for intermediaries to also consider their own intermediary network for valuecreation. Second, for IS facilitation programs designed to involve collaborative intermediation from thestart, the study recommends to choose the right type of actors to act as intermediaries. It identifiedcommunity embedding to be a key collaborative process for overcoming the dilemmas, and it isimportant that the involved local intermediaries are able to develop this. In short, localintermediaries need relational capacity (Boons & Spekkink, 2012) for their intermediation. Thus,existing local economic development agencies and hub firms have important advantages asintermediaries compared to external or new intermediation entities. Reflecting on the identifieddevelopment path, this study concludes that while it is important for governments to initiateintermediation programs, it is equally important to provide support in the critical phase whereintermediation moves beyond initial brokering and identifying low-hanging fruits to deeper,locally-embedded value creation activities. Thirdly, the identified selective integration processes show the need to maintain a degree offlexibility in facilitation programs. Some intermediation mechanisms, such as information sharing,clearly benefit from standardized practices, which allow information to be aggregated to resourcedatabases. However, many value-creating network activities may be uncovered through localizedIS knowledge and relations. It is therefore important for local intermediaries to be able tocustomize and tailor their activities in their respective local networks (Mignon & Kanda, 2018). 6. Conclusions Industrial Symbiosis is one of the key pillars of circular economy, and active facilitation is oftenneeded to accelerate its emergence and development. This study focused on intermediation infacilitated IS, by uncovering intermediation dilemmas and the collaborative intermediationprocesses, which help overcome the dilemmas. Understanding these dilemmas is important forintermediation in IS as well as for intermediation in sustainability transitions in general. Pastresearch has shown that intermediaries are vital for accelerating sustainability transitions, and oftengovernmental support for such activities is justified. However, as the FISS case showed,governmental backed initiatives are still accountable to demonstrate the impacts of their activities.Understanding the dilemmas faced by intermediaries is critical for policymakers to make better-informed decisions on intermediation programs. For instance, a seemingly ineffectiveintermediation initiative may require additional supportive functions from other types ofintermediaries to create impact. Moreover, since joint value creation and openness are key parts ofany collaboration, these findings are expected to be generalizable beyond IS. Many studies have shown that intermediation is crucial for accelerating development towardsindustrial symbiosis, and more widely, circular economy. It is thus important to understand howintermediaries can maintain their value-creating services over time. This study has shed light onthis topic through the intermediation dilemmas and collaborative processes, which can emerge infacilitated industrial symbiosis. 20 Acknowledgements: The data collection for this study was supported by Business Finland (ex. Tekes) via theDemaNET project [grant number 40477/11]. The article writing was supported by the StrategicResearch Council at the Academy of Finland via the Finix-project [grant nr. 327296]. REFERENCES Adamides, E.D., Mouzakitis, Y., 2009. Industrial ecosystems as technological niches. Journal ofCleaner Production 17, 172–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.003Ahn, J. Khandelwal, A. K. and Wei, S. J. 2011 ‘The role of intermediaries in facilitating trade’.Journal of International Economics, 84: 73-85.Ashton, W.S., Bain, A.C., 2012. Assessing the “Short Mental Distance” in Eco-IndustrialNetworks. Journal of Industrial Ecology 16, 70–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00453.xBaas, L., 2011. Planning and Uncovering Industrial Symbiosis: Comparing the Rotterdam andÖstergötland regions: Strategies for Manufacturing. Business Strategy and theEnvironment 20, 428–440. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.735Baldassarre, B., Schepers, M., Bocken, N., Cuppen, E., Korevaar, G., & Calabretta, G. (2019).Industrial Symbiosis: towards a design process for eco-industrial clusters by integratingCircular Economy and Industrial Ecology perspectives. Journal of CleanerProduction, 216, 446-460.Bansal, P., McKnight, B., 2009. Looking forward, pushing back and peering sideways: analyzingthe sustainability of industrial symbiosis. Journal of Supply Chain Management 45, 26–37.Blomsma, F., & Brennan, G. (2017). The emergence of circular economy: A new framing aroundprolonging resource productivity. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(3), 603-614.Bocken, N. M., Olivetti, E. A., Cullen, J. M., Potting, J., & Lifset, R. (2017). Taking thecircularity to the next level: a special issue on the circular economy. Journal of IndustrialEcology, 21(3), 476-482.Boons, F., Chertow, M., Park, J., Spekkink, W., Shi, H., 2016. Industrial Symbiosis Dynamicsand the Problem of Equivalence: Proposal for a Comparative Framework. Journal ofIndustrial Ecology n/a-n/a. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12468Boons, F., Spekkink, W., 2012. Levels of institutional capacity and actor expectations aboutindustrial symbiosis: evidence from the Dutch stimulation program 1999-2004. J. Ind.Ecol. 16, 61e69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00432.x.Chertow, M., Ehrenfeld, J., 2012. Organizing Self-Organizing Systems: Toward a Theory ofIndustrial Symbiosis. Journal of Industrial Ecology 16, 13–27.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00450.xChertow, M.R., 2000. INDUSTRIAL SYMBIOSIS: Literature and Taxonomy. Annual Reviewof Energy and the Environment 25, 313–337.https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.313Costa, I., Ferrão, P., 2010. A case study of industrial symbiosis development using a middle-outapproach. Journal of Cleaner Production 18, 984–992.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.03.007 21 Desrochers, P., 2004. Industrial symbiosis: the case for market coordination. Journal of CleanerProduction 12, 1099–1110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.02.008Doménech, T., Davies, M., 2011. The role of Embeddedness in Industrial Symbiosis Networks:Phases in the Evolution of Industrial Symbiosis Networks. Business Strategy and theEnvironment 20, 281–296. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.695Eisenhardt, K., 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of ManagementReview 14, 532–550.European Commission. 2015. Closing the loop- An EU action plan for the Circular Economy.Brussels, Belgium. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:8a8ef5e8-99a0-11e5-b3b7-01aa75ed71a1.0012.02/DOC_1&format=PDFEllis, P. D. 2005. The trader’s dilemma: the adverse consequences of superior performance inmediated exchange. International Business Review, 14 (4): 375-396.Gadde, L-E. 2014.Distribution network dynamics and the consequences for intermediaries. IndustrialMarketing Management 43, 622–629.Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The Circular Economy–Anew sustainability paradigm?. Journal of cleaner production, 143, 757-768.Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., & Ulgiati, S. 2016. A review on circular economy: the expectedtransition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. Journal ofCleaner production, 114, 11-32.Gibbs, D., Deutz, P., 2005. Implementing industrial ecology? Planning for eco-industrial parks inthe USA. Geoforum 36, 452–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.07.009Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G., Hamilton, A.L., 2013. Seeking Qualitative Rigor in InductiveResearch Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational Research Methods 16, 15–31.https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151Gliedt, T., Hoicka, C. E., Jackson, N. (2018). Innovation intermediaries acceleratingenvironmental sustainability transitions, Journal of Cleaner Production, 174, 1247-1261.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.054Hewes, A.K., Lyons, D.I., 2008. The Humanistic Side of Eco-Industrial Parks: Champions andthe Role of Trust. Regional Studies 42, 1329–1342.https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400701654079Howells, J. 2006. Intermediation and the Role of Intermediaries in Innovation. Research Policy,35(5): 715–728. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.005Jay, J., 2013. Navigating Paradox as a Mechanism of Change and Innovation in HybridOrganizations. ACAD MANAGE J 56, 137–159. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0772de Jesus, A., Mendonça, S., 2018. Lost in Transition? Drivers and Barriers in the Eco-innovationRoad to the Circular Economy. Ecological Economics 145, 75–89.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.08.001Kanda, W., Hjelm, O., Clausen, J., Bienkowska, D., 2018. Roles of intermediaries in supportingeco-innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production 205, 1006–1016.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.132Kant, M., Kanda, W., 2019. Innovation Intermediaries: what does it take to survive over time?Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.213Kivimaa, Paula (2014) Government-affiliated intermediary organisations as actors in system-level transitions. Research Policy, 43 (8). pp. 1370-1380. 22 Kokoulina, L., Ermolaeva, L., Patala, S., Ritala, P., 2018. Championing processes and theemergence of industrial symbiosis. Regional Studies 0, 1–12.https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2018.1473568Lombardi, D.R., Laybourn, P., 2012. Redefining Industrial Symbiosis: Crossing Academic-Practitioner Boundaries. Journal of Industrial Ecology 16, 28–37.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00444.xLowe, E. A., Evans, L. K. 1995. Industrial ecology and industrial ecosystems. Journal of cleanerproduction, 3(1-2), 47-53.Martin, 2019. UN Report: Nature’s Dangerous Decline “Unprecedented”; Species ExtinctionRates “Accelerating.” United Nations Sustainable Development. URLhttps://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/nature-decline-unprecedented-report (accessed 5.15.19).Mignon, I., Kanda, W., 2018. A typology of intermediary organizations and their impact onsustainability transition policies. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 29,100–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.07.001Mulrow, J.S., Derrible, S., Ashton, W.S., Chopra, S.S., 2017. Industrial Symbiosis at the FacilityScale. Journal of Industrial Ecology 21, 559–571. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12592Murray, A., Skene, K., Haynes, K., 2017. The Circular Economy: An InterdisciplinaryExploration of the Concept and Application in a Global Context. Journal of BusinessEthics. 140 (3), 369-380. DOI:10.1007/s10551-015-2693-2Ngan, S.L., How, B.S., Teng, S.Y., Promentilla, M.A.B., Yatim, P., Er, A.C., Lam, H.L., 2019.Prioritization of sustainability indicators for promoting the circular economy: The case ofdeveloping countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 111, 314–331.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.05.001Paletta, A., Leal Filho, W., Balogun, A.-L., Foschi, E., Bonoli, A., 2019. Barriers and challengesto plastics valorisation in the context of a circular economy: Case studies from Italy.Journal of Cleaner Production 241, 118149.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118149Paquin, R.L., Howard-Grenville, J., 2012. The Evolution of Facilitated Industrial Symbiosis.Journal of Industrial Ecology 16, 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00437.xRitvala, T., and Salmi, A. 2010. Value-based network mobilization: A case study of modernenvironmental networkers. Industrial Marketing Management 39, 898–907.Ritvala, T., and Salmi, A. 2011. Network mobilizers and target firms: The case of saving theBaltic Sea. Industrial Marketing Management 40, 887–898.Salmi, O., Hukkinen, J., Heino, J., Pajunen, N., Wierink, M., 2012. Governing the Interplaybetween Industrial Ecosystems and Environmental Regulation: Heavy Industries in theGulf of Bothnia in Finland and Sweden. Journal of Industrial Ecology 16, 119–128.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00403.xShort, S. W., Bocken, N. M., Barlow, C. Y., & Chertow, M. R. (2014). From refining sugar togrowing tomatoes: Industrial ecology and business model evolution. Journal of IndustrialEcology, 18(5), 603-618.Stewart, J., & Hyysalo, S. 2008. Intermediaries, Users and Social Learning in TechnologicalInnovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 12(3): 295–325.http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S1363919608002035 23 Susur, E., Hidalgo, A., Chiaroni, D., 2019. The emergence of regional industrial ecosystemniches: A conceptual framework and a case study. Journal of Cleaner Production 208,1642–1657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.163Vedel, M. and Ellegaard, C. 2013 ‘Supply risk management functions of sourcing intermediaries:an investigation of the clothing industry’. Supply Chain Management: An InternationalJournal, 18: 509-522Walls, J.L., Paquin, R.L., 2015. Organizational Perspectives of Industrial Symbiosis A Reviewand Synthesis. Organization Environment 28, 32–53.https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615575333Yin, R., 2013. Case Study Research: Design and Methods., 5th ed. Sage: Thousand Oaks.Zaoual, A.-R., Lecocq, X., 2018. Orchestrating Circularity within Industrial Ecosystems:Lessons from Iconic Cases in Three Different Countries. California Management Review60, 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125617752693Zink, T., & Geyer, R. (2017). Circular economy rebound. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(3),593-602.Baldassarre et al., 2018 APPENDIX Interview themes. Questions varied depending on the type of organization (intermediary or firm): 1. Background- Interviewee and organization background. Involvement in industrial symbiosis (IS)2. Drivers- Motives for IS, history of the IS project, reception to facilitative actions (ifintermediary)3. IS interactions and development processes- actors involved, relations and interactions withother actors (firms/intermediaries), development process of an IS project, achieved results,challengers and enablers, role of social networks4. Facilitation structures: facilitative mechanisms and activities, Responsibilities of coordinators,roles of different regional actors, needed infrastructure (e.g. IT systems), knowledge managementin the network, funding, regulations