A Risk Management Framework to Enhance Environmental Sustainability in Industrial Symbiosis Ecosystems

Abstract

Industrial symbiosis (IS) fosters collaboration between industries to exchange materials, energy, water, and by-products. It contributes to environmental and economic sustainability by reducing resource consumption, decreasing greenhouse gas emissions, and generating economic benefits. However, managing risks in these exchanges presents challenges, particularly as materials like waste and by-products fall outside traditional supply chain practices. This paper introduces the Industrial Collaborative Risk Management (ICRM) Methodology, an extended Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) approach specifically designed for collaborative industrial ecosystems. The ICRM methodology provides a systematic approach to identifying, assessing, prioritizing risks, and implementing corrective actions, enabling the reliable implementation of IS. By effectively managing risks, this methodology minimizes disruptions in material and energy exchanges, strengthens the resilience of industrial ecosystems, and enhances their environmental ambitions. The methodology supports cross-sectoral communication, facilitates knowledge exchange, and promotes trust among stakeholders. A real IS case study demonstrates the ICRM methodology’s ability to document interrelations, standardize risk evaluation, and propose mitigation strategies. This work provides IS facilitators with a practical tool for effective risk management in complex industrial environments and lays the foundation for future applications in diverse ecosystems.

1. Introduction

Industrial symbiosis (IS) refers to a collaborative approach where traditionally separate industries engage in the physical exchange of materials, energy, water, and by-products to achieve mutual benefits [1]. This concept is rooted in the idea of creating an industrial ecosystem that mimics natural ecosystems, promoting efficiency and sustainability [1]. The IS approach supports the transition to a more circular economy by contributing to the decarbonization of energy-intensive industries, reducing environmental impacts, and enhancing economic benefits for network partners [2,3]. Additionally, IS generates benefits across the three pillars of sustainability: economic, social, and environmental [4].

Certain elements are especially relevant in environments of IS. Among these, the exchange of material and/or energy flows which may be valorised play a fundamental role, as they enable undervalued resources to be repurposed for productive use. Shared information between organizations is another core element, enabling the exchange of data among participating companies. Lastly, it is crucial to establish business conditions that promote industrial symbiosis. This can be achieved through market dynamics or by implementing policies and regulations that clarify definitions (e.g., waste versus by-product) and responsibilities [5].

The concept of IS not only encompasses the exchange of waste materials and/or energy flows but also includes the exchange of ideas, assets, and human resources [6]. The exchange of materials can occur through various types of exchanges: via waste exchanges; within a facility, company, or organization; among firms co-located within an EIP (Eco-Industrial Park); among local companies not co-located; or among companies organized “virtually” across a broader region [1,6].

One of the key challenges in industrial symbiosis is ensuring the reliable exchange of materials and streams as agreed upon, to maintain the supply in line with the established agreements. From a supply chain management perspective, this introduces a new dimension to the practice of industrial symbiosis: the supplier-buyer relationship, which fosters the creation of collaborative supply chain networks among companies that were previously unconnected [7]. Moreover, the trade of these materials, which may be classified as waste or by-products, differs from traditional supply chain practices, as these items are not part of the supplier’s core business operations [7].

All these new interactions that arise between companies may require the development of new technology or processing methods to adapt material and energy flows for use in other industries [5,7]. This also presents a challenge for the implementation of symbiosis practices, both in terms of logistics and the agreements required to facilitate such exchanges. Addressing these challenges requires close collaboration among participants, guided by a shared strategic vision and collective decision-making. This process depends on mutual recognition, trust, and effective information sharing, often supported by a centralized organization [7]. In this context, it is crucial to find a way to monitor the material and resource exchange operations between the involved companies and to encourage the formation of such agreements. In addition, it is essential to actively monitor and manage potential risks that could impact the successful development of industrial collaboration activities.

As an enabler within this complex industrial environment, the role of a facilitator becomes crucial. A facilitator in IS ecosystems is an individual or group that drives the development and scaling of IS networks by fostering collaboration between firms, aligning strategic goals, and promoting growth [8,9]. Their role includes analyzing legal, economic, technical, and social factors, engaging with local and regional governments, securing funding, and ensuring the network evolves into a cohesive industrial system [9]. Facilitators face significant challenges in managing and controlling the interactions between participants. Therefore, it is essential to implement tools and methodologies that allow for effective monitoring of progress and changes. These tools should also facilitate and promote agreements among participating companies for the exchange of materials, waste, and energy.

1.1. Literature Review: Risk Management in IS Activities

With the aim of improving the analysis and understanding of industrial symbiosis, tools and methodologies have been developed for this purpose, as well as to contribute to its growth and success. Over the years, a variety of qualitative and quantitative tools have been developed, ranging from identifying opportunities for the creation of IS to evaluating their performance [10]. According to the review of IS tools conducted by Yeo in 2019 [10], there is a notable gap concerning methodologies related to risk management.

Additionally, the work conducted by Maqbool in 2019, [11], analyzed twenty available information technology (IT) tools, primarily aimed at identifying IS opportunities. However, the development of tools for risk identification and management was not covered at all [11]. Moreover, a comprehensive review of industrial symbiosis cases documented in the literature up to 2019 shows that few methods of IS application considered risk management.

Regarding the supply chain implications within IS activities, a comprehensive review of 82 articles has been conducted in the literature [12]. However, only one of these studies specifically addresses risk management methodologies for environmental aspects in IS activities [13]. As a result, there is a highlighted need to investigate, according to [12], “ How can firms manage uncertainty related to the quality and quantity of wastes and by-products?” (p.16).

One study addresses the application of IS in the iron and steel industry, employing a quantitative environmental risk assessment by integrating the bow-tie method with risk index evaluations [13]. The bow-tie method is a general approach used to identify node risks by analyzing the potential causes and effects of risk scenarios [13]. Complementarily, the risk index method measures the overall environmental risk within the network, integrating risks at individual nodes and their transmission across the network [13]. This combined approach provides quantifiable metrics, known as risk indexes, but also necessitates a thorough characterization of numerous parameters for each identified node.

Other scholars conducted a comprehensive review of IS literature, analyzing 584 selected publications to identify the main research directions in this field [14]. This review highlighted that only a few studies focus on risk management analysis. Some relevant articles in this area presented studies related to cascading failure modes frameworks used to analyze and predict sequences of failures in network systems. [15,16,17].

In regard to the analysis of risk methodologies applied to industrial parks, a review conducted in 2020 identified scientific works that employ different risk assessment methodologies [18]. In this study, FMEA is mentioned as one of the traditional methodologies, known for its step-by-step approach in identifying potential failures with general application [18]. Given this method’s application in industrial parks, where a domino effect can occur, its expansion to IS is plausible.

In addition to traditional manufacturing industries, FMEA has been successfully applied within the framework of circularity to optimize resource efficiency and minimize waste. A notable example is the work by Kimita et al. (2021), [19], which introduced an extended version of FMEA focused on circularity, termed Circularity FMEA (CFMEA). This approach redefines failures in terms of their impact on circular processes, specifically targeting factors that affect the recycling and reuse of materials. The application of CFMEA was demonstrated at a company producing core plugs for the paper mill industry, with an emphasis on lifecycle perspectives [19]. Through workshops with company management, failure modes were identified, and their impacts on circularity were evaluated. CFMEA proved effective in identifying failure modes with significant interdependencies, enabling the implementation of strategies to enhance circularity and improve resource flow throughout the product lifecycle [19].

The literature also suggests that “there are very few methods for analyzing the vulnerability of IS and enabling managers to improve stability and develop effective risk management” [16]. A comprehensive methodology is needed that not only manages risks in the supply chain of IS activities but also coordinates participants and assesses broader aspects beyond technical issues, such as management, environmental, and economic factors. For instance, some studies specifically address characterizing risks that impact IS activities, focusing on incentives for deploying these ecosystems. A review of various literary sources identifies risks across categories such as economic, political, social, intermediaries, process, and technology [20].

1.2. Novel Contribution of the Paper

Despite the increasing importance of industrial symbiosis in recent years and the challenges it presents in risk management, a review of the literature indicates that there are no specifically tailored methodologies to address these issues effectively. This gap underscores the urgent need to adapt and apply established risk management methodologies to industrial symbiosis ecosystems. It needs to manage risks, but also address both technical and non-technical barriers that can interfere with successful implementation, such as the quality and quantity of materials, sharing information, confidence between partners, and openness [12]. In this regard, FMEA emerges as a promising tool, given its capability to manage (identify, assess, prioritize, and support implementing mitigation actions) risks in complex and multifaceted systems [21]. FMEA not only provides a systematic approach to anticipating potential failures and their impacts but also allows it to be adapted for the unique characteristics of IS, where interdependence between industries adds additional layers of risks and complexity.

This article aims to present a method for supporting the risk management of industrial collaboration ecosystems, focusing specifically on the risks associated with material exchanges between suppliers and buyers in IS environments. The proposed method adapts the Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) methodology to IS contexts, enabling the anticipation of potential supply chain risks and ensuring a continuous supply of materials in the required quantities and quality. For the first time, this paper applies the FMEA methodology to IS and introduces a newly developed approach called the Industrial Collaborative Risk Management (ICRM) methodology. While FMEA has been extensively used in other fields, particularly in manufacturing, its application to industrial symbiosis activities remains unexplored in the literature.

The ICRM methodology aims to comprehensively manage risks across technical, managerial, and economic domains (among others), tailored specifically for the complex interactions within IS ecosystems. The main objectives are as follows:

• Applicability to other industrial case scenarios beyond those presented in this article;
• Providing a framework to facilitate the sharing of information, closing agreements, and trust among stakeholders. Open and transparent communication and a monitoring channel of the risks within the IS ecosystem;
• Standardized method which eases the understanding and engagement of all the members of the IS ecosystem;
• Of application to any maturity level of a given IS ecosystem, from very preliminary conceptual design phases to very mature and consolidated initiatives.

The design of the ICRM, structured to support complex industrial environments, allows it to be used not limited to industrial symbiosis alone. Thus, the ICRM can be applied to other complex industrial cases. For instance, industrial–urban symbiosis (I-US) extends IS by fostering partnerships between industrial districts and adjacent urban areas [22]. Another example is the concept of “Hubs for Circularity” (H4C), which act as central nodes where interconnected industrial entities (including large corporations, SMEs, and public facilities) collaborate within a specific geographic region to achieve measurable levels of resource circularity and carbon neutrality [23,24]. Additionally, “Hydrogen Valleys” represent another type of industrial collaboration ecosystem. These valleys are developed using a bottom-up approach, encompassing a broad value chain from hydrogen production to end-use sectors while promoting renewable energy production and resource optimization on a large scale [25]. In all these cases, the ICRM methodology can effectively be applied to enhance risk management.

The remainder of this article is organized as follows: Section 2 reviews the FMEA methodology. Section 3 introduces the methodology used in this study. Section 4 provides a detailed explanation of the ICRM methodology, while Section 5 describes its application in a real IS case. Section 6 discusses the findings, and Section 7 presents the main conclusions of this work and suggestions for future research.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. FMEA Description

FMEA is used as a systematic, proactive method for evaluating failure modes in a system. This methodology identifies potential failures, assesses their impact, and determines which areas need improvement [26]. FMEA was originally developed by the US aerospace industry in the 1960s [26,27]. Using a systematic methodology, FMEA examines each component, identifying, analyzing, and documenting potential failure modes and their effects on the overall system.

Different sectors benefit from the application of the FMEA methodology. Starting from the aerospace field in which FMEA has been applied in space missions, followed by the automotive industry, in which case FMEA has been used on a large scale [21]. Additionally, FMEA is extensively utilized in the manufacturing sector. Other industrial sectors, including software and healthcare, have also reported using FMEAmethodology for reliability and quality analysis [28]. In all cases, traditional FMEA is applied in the process of designing or producing a new product or analyzing a specific system [21]. This involves prior collaboration between different sectors of the same industry to achieve a successful outcome. Therefore, FMEA is, by definition, a methodology designed to be applied in collaborative environments.

Given that FMEA originated in the design field, its application has expanded to other areas of product development. In the manufacturing sector, where activities are interlinked, risks are not isolated; therefore, FMEA is valuable for integrating risk information across different domains [29]. Under this context, FMEA is well suited for industrial collaboration ecosystem applications where processes are interconnected.

The application of FMEA involves the designation of a cross-functional team with key individuals responsible for the production of the product or system. This team must identify all possible failure modes of the product or system through meetings, brainstorming sessions, as well as historical information [21].

The methodology addresses the failure modes as targeted challenges to manage, from its identification to the development of corrective and mitigation actions, including its evaluation, monitoring, and control. As a starting step, the identification failure modes are listed. Subsequently, those failures are prioritized to select, among them, those which require corrective actions. The prioritization processes among the failures are based on the risk priority number (RPN), which is determined by multiplying the occurrence (O), severity (S), and detection (D) ratings of each failure. The formula is as follows:

$$RPN=O\ast S\ast D$$

Occurrence represents the probability of the failure occurring, severity refers to the impact or severity of the failure, and detection reflects the probability of failing to detect the issue. To determine the RPN for a potential failure mode, these three factors are assessed on a 10-point scale [21].

2.2. Limitation and Success Case Studies of FMEA

Although the traditional FMEA is widely regarded as one of the most significant tools for managing risk in various sectors by preventing failures and errors from reaching customers, the RPN method has been extensively debated in academic literature for numerous reasons [21]. Based on a review of the literature, Liu et al. (2013) [21], highlighted several key shortcomings of FMEA that have been documented in various scientific studies. One major issue is the lack of distinction and consistency in risk prioritization, as the relative importance of occurrence (O), severity (S), and detection (D) is not considered, leading to ambiguities in evaluating and ranking risks [21]. Additionally, the RPN has significant limitations: the mathematical formula for calculating RPN is questionable, as different combinations of O, S, and D can result in identical values despite differing risk implications [21]. Furthermore, the RPN is highly sensitive to variations and cannot effectively measure the impact of corrective actions [21].

Despite the challenges identified, numerous successful case studies have demonstrated the method’s effectiveness across various industries. Through a comprehensive literature review, several examples from different sectors have been identified and are discussed below, showcasing the diverse applications and benefits of FMEA.

In the automotive sector, it was implemented in a leaf spring manufacturing company in India, utilizing both design FMEA (DFMEA) and process FMEA (PFMEA) to reduce product failures by 10%, improve productivity by 15%, and decrease rejection rates by 20% [30]. In the food industry, FMEA was used in salmon processing to enhance food safety by identifying failure modes in key stages like receiving and evisceration, leading to significant risk reductions validated by the Ishikawa diagram [31]. Similarly, in the cement industry, FMEA addressed losses of iron sand by analyzing critical activities, calculating the RPN, and implementing corrective measures to optimize production processes [32].

3. Applied Methodology

This novel adaptation integrates the principles of FMEA with the unique characteristics of material exchanges between suppliers and buyers within IS ecosystems, with the goal of managing risk situations that hamper the deployment of IS activities. The adaptations have resulted in the ICRM methodology, which follows four key phases:

• Theoretical development: Building on the existing FMEA, certain adjustments were made to adapt the definitions, worksheets, and procedures to the ICRM methodology framework;
• First testing phase: The ICRM methodology was applied in different industrial symbiosis ecosystems. Facilitators within each of those ecosystems were trained to effectively use the methodology;
• Standardization and harmonization (empirical): Based on the results of the first testing phase, several actions were taken, including the standardization of general risks that could be applied to other cases;
• Second testing phase: A second round of testing was conducted with the same industrial symbiosis ecosystems. The analysis was updated, taking advantage of the latest adjustments, such as the inclusion of general risks. The result allowed us to collect insights to fine-tune the ICRM methodology and promote its use in those IS cases beyond the scope of the activity.

One of the major conclusions was that it is recommended to apply the methodology regularly, preferably every two months, as part of a continuous maintenance program to ensure its sustainability and effectiveness.

3.1. Case Studies

The ICRM methodology was implemented in various IS environments at differing maturity levels. In all the cases, the ICRM methodology aimed to foster IS links, with high environmental and economic impacts. In total, the ICRM was implemented in five IS demonstration cases. One of them has been selected to be further elaborated in this article due to its complexity, representativity, and the lessons learned along the process.

Validation of the ICRM Methodology in a Real IS Case

This article presents a case study located in the region of Brescia, Italy. This case was chosen because it is representative of other industrial symbiosis scenarios, encompassing a wide range of different types of industries, and stakeholders, including local industrial associations, and supportive research and technology organizations (RTOs). The case study involves technological, managerial, and economic implications, making it a promising example for assessing risk management across various areas. Additionally, the case is currently in the implementation phase of enabling technologies and scaling. The case study covers a range of several kilometers distance between their members and leaves some room for potential new members with a high potential of adding value to the overall IS ecosystem.

4. Development of the ICRM Methodology

4.1. Key Postulates Based on Traditional FMEA

Five postulates summarize the key descriptions and assumptions commonly found in FMEA studies, and their adaptation to transform it into a useful methodology in industrial symbiosis settings [33].

Postulate 1:

FMEA is applied to a limited selection of assets/processes.

FMEA should be applied selectively to a limited number of assets that are most critical for safety and performance, as commonly supported in the literature [27]. Therefore, it is crucial to define the assets and processes within a framework and limit the application of ICRM methodology to specific areas. Additionally, it is essential to identify the partners associated with these assets and processes, as they may belong to different companies. In the context of IS, ICRM methodology is applied not only to the assets and processes developed and implemented in IS activities but also to the managerial, legal, and economic aspects required to operate those assets and processes. Furthermore, it encompasses communication activities related to the deployment among partners and relevant external stakeholders, including third-party participants and industrial associations.

Postulate 2:

Failure modes and effects are identified with sufficient accuracy across horizontal and vertical structures.

The FMEA method involves identifying potential failure modes through structured group sessions, bringing together key stakeholders who possess the necessary knowledge and expertise in the activities being assessed [33]. When applying this method to industrial symbiosis, failure mode analysis should take into account the following aspects: (1) the emergence of risks that could threat the industrial symbiosis practice; (2) the potential impact both within the individual company and across the broader symbiosis network; and (3) the capacity to detect the risk.

Postulate 3:

FMEA is applied according to a clearly defined procedure.

FMEA procedures are well structured, providing a common language that enables organizations to systematically assess their assets, system vulnerabilities, and their interconnections [33]. The standardization and consistency of FMEA are enhanced through a unified approach for all participants. Section 4.2, Procedure, presents the ICRM methodology, which is tailored to the specific needs of industries and symbiosis activities.

Postulate 4:

Following the FMEA method ensures consistency in building the necessary cooperation for IS deployment (e.g., decision-making, conjunction planning, prevention activities, etc.).

The outcome of the FMEA procedure is to establish preventive measures and strategic planning among IS partners [33]. For the ICRM methodology to be effective, participants must be willing to agree that both individual and corrective actions may be necessary to address identified risks. Additionally, ICRM should be viewed as a tool to ensure consistency in decision-making processes.

Postulate 5:

FMEA enables continuous improvements and coordination of actions.

Several authors highlight the importance of regularly or occasionally reviewing and refining the findings and conclusions of FMEA’s results [33]. When any aspect of the context changes, it becomes easier to identify the impacted tasks and update them as needed. This process should remain open, and monitored, and require the support of a standardized documentation system to update the status of the case. All in all, it will allow the participants of the process to enrich a dynamic tool, evolving in response to changes in the system, processes, legal frameworks, or stakeholders involved. This also applies to the ICRM methodology.

The five principles of the FMEA methodology have been adapted for use in IS activities. The next section details these adaptations to the ICRM methodology and the procedures necessary for implementation.

4.2. ICRM Definitions

To standardize the terminology for ICRM methodology, the definitions adopted in this work are based on “The Basics of FMEA (2nd ed.)” [29], ensuring alignment with its core concepts.

The adaptation of the traditional FMEA approach to better address the unique characteristics of IS activities with the ICRM methodology is outlined in

Table 1. Adaptation of FMEA parameters to ICRM methodology.

FMEA Parameter	ICRM	Reason
Failure more	Risk	Higher understanding of what a risk can be considering
Severity	Impact	Impact has a broader meaning that can be applied to different aspects of the same risk (impact on production, on time, on social acceptance, etc.)
Occurrence	Likelihood	Due to its unpredictability of a risk to occur and the lack of feasible data, it is recommended to use the term likelihood to occur.
Detection	Detection efficiency	Due to the high variation in risk ‘types’, there is not a single method for detection. Instead, it is suggested that the effectiveness of the detection method be assessed.

.

Finally, the definitions adopted by the ICRM methodology are presented as follows:

• Risk: A situation or circumstance with a realistic likelihood of occurring and unfavorable consequences if it does, potentially leading to financial or other losses, or negatively affecting the technical, schedule, or cost performance of a process, project, program, or objective. It may have a direct or indirect impact on the implementation of IS activities;
• (I) Impact of the risk: The consequences of the risk, considering its effects on schedule, cost, and goals. Additionally, it encompasses the impact of the risk across different partners and potential cascading effects among them;
• (L) Likelihood: The probability that a risk will occur, based on previous experiences or anticipated changes that could affect the system;
• (De) Detection efficiency: The accuracy of the method in detecting risk events, taking into account the various aspects of the identified impacts. Furthermore, it should consider the timeline ahead of a risk to occur, and accordingly, define the detection mode, allowing time to implement solutions before the risk event materializes.

4.3. Procedure for ICRM Methodology

4.3.1. Selection of ICRM Committee—Procedure

The ICRM committee should include at least one representative from each industrial partner involved in the IS ecosystem. Also, it is recommended to involve other entities (enablers) which may play a role in the development and operation of IS initiatives, in the specific IS case. Among others, and on a case-by-case basis, these may include organizations such as research and technology organizations (RTOs), contracted engineering firms, sectoral associations, municipalities or government representatives, and public entities like energy clusters, innovation hubs, or circularity hubs. To ensure a thorough and well-rounded assessment, the committee should be a cross-functional team, incorporating technical, managerial, legal, and social perspectives in the evaluation of the symbiotic process.

It is crucial to engage multidisciplinary teams with the necessary expertise, and the literature [29,34] also recommends the appointment of a team leader to enhance the process. In the context of IS ecosystems, the role of the leader is typically assigned to the facilitator of the IS case. Within the ICRM methodology framework, the ICRM leader is responsible for centralizing and overseeing all information related to activities within the IS framework. The leader is expected to guide the process during the implementation of the ICRM methodology and establish the foundation for a successful session. If the leader is not fully familiar with the methodology, involving an external expert can be beneficial to provide guidance and support during the session, facilitating communication between the leader and the various team members.

4.3.2. Selection of ICRM Assets/Processes—Procedure

The selection of assets and processes within the context of industrial symbiosis must be clearly defined for all partners involved to establish the boundary conditions for the application of ICRM, as outlined in Postulate 1. It is crucial to maintain the focus on the principle of “as open as possible, as closed as necessary” to facilitate fruitful cooperation while preserving the competitiveness of each company. This approach encourages sharing or disclosing information to foster trust and collaboration while restricting access when necessary for security, privacy, or other justifiable reasons for confidentiality.

Although ICRM is applied only to the selection of assets or processes derived from industrial symbiosis activities, the evaluation must cover all aspects related to their management, as well as the potential impacts (effects) that risks could have on the different partners and the cascade effects that might arise.

It is highly recommended to provide a schematic representation of process interactions, clearly visualizing the partners involved, as well as the material, energy, or waste streams in place, and those potentially subject to be exchanged. Even if there is no direct connection to certain third-party partners (enablers), including their names in the scheme could still be useful for illustrative purposes.

4.3.3. Identification and Evaluation of Risks -Procedure

Building on traditional FMEA worksheets [29], the template has been adapted for its use in IS systems (

Table 2. ICRM template.

Industrial Collaborative Risk Management (ICRM) Methodology
Project name:										Template number:
Stakeholders:										Total page:
Prepared by:										Date:
General risk	ID nº	Risk event	Current risk evaluation							Results
			Impact	I	Likelihood	L	Detection efficiency	De	RPN (1)	Correction actions	Responsible	I	L	De	RPN (2)
Category: Operational and technical
Category: Organizational and Governance
Category: Economic and Financial
Category: Legal
Category: Environmental
Category: Social

). The updated draft version incorporates previously defined variables, such as risk event, impact, likelihood, and detection effectiveness. This document is the core of the overall ICRM methodology since it is used to trace, exchange, propose, and monitor risks and the mitigation measures within the case study. The analysis is conducted across different categories to assess risks in diverse areas. Additionally, each risk is assigned to an identification number and categorized into general risk groups, facilitating the organization of similar risks. This standardization process enhances broader applicability across various case studies.

The identification of risks covers six distinct thematic areas, as shown in Table 2. As a result of analyzing all those elements, the template (Figure 1) includes all the required elements to illustrate understandably the status of the IS case to all the members of the case.

The steps to identify and assess risks are described below:

• Brainstorming potential risks

Once the ICRM committee is established, and the selection of assets and processes is completed, the team will gather in a workshop session to jointly review the process diagram to ensure a shared understanding among all participants [29]. Subsequently, the committee members will begin identifying potential risks that could affect the ecosystem; for this, a brainstorming session will be useful. It is highly recommended to encourage members to think about potential risks before the workshop session to facilitate a smoother discussion. To guide the brainstorming process, the facilitator of the IS ecosystem (who will act as the ICRM leader) will provide a list of generic potential risks to serve as a starting point for discussion. This list, presented in

Table 3. List of examples of potential risks.

Risks (List I)		Risks (List II)
Regulation	Permits not granted	Circularity	Need for good coordination among the partners
	Change in local/regional administration		Shortage of recycled materials
	Introduction of new regulations		Shortage of used products
Supply Chain	Delays in purchases		Inefficiency in the manufacturing process
	Increase in unaffordable costs		Decrease in sales of recycled products
	Low quality of feedstocks		Low quality of recycled materials
	Delays in supplies		Substitution of virgin feedstocks
Management	Lack of high-level decision support	Production	Delivery delays
	Delays in management decisions		Limited facilities and resources to support IS planning
	Lack of agreement on future steps (maintenance, prices, etc.)		Inconsistent adherence by workers to maintain maximum IS practices
	Changes in the advisory board of the companies	Green Supply Chain	Lack of technological knowledge among workers
	Changes in technical staff		Disruptions/irregularities in the supply of green virgin and/or recycled materials
	Changes in business focus		Lack of environmental standards and certifications (e.g., ISO, RoHS, etc.)
	Mistakes in scheduling		Issues with green quality in supply
	Lack of company attention to emerging risks		Ineffectiveness in using environmentally friendly inputs
	Mismanagement of unplanned events		Unskilled labor
Social	Lack of social acceptance of the infrastructure		Improper green operating procedures
	Lack of workforce/competencies for the new infrastructure		Lack of green social responsibility
Economics	Rising prices of raw materials and utilities		Redundancy among customers in adopting green products
	Misuse of resources		Competitors’ approaches to green initiatives
	Lack of sales qualification		Irregularities in used product collection
	Fluctuation in market demand		Uncertainties in secondary and returning markets
	Lack of investment and availability of funding		Capacity and inventory-related issues at reprocessing centers
Communication	Lack of partner commitment, delays in communication		Issues with returns, such as gatekeeping and screening
	Lack of business commitment		Green issues in closing the loop of the Green Supply Chain (GSC)
	Unclear roles and responsibilities		Lack of environmental policies and regulations
	Unclear goals		Technological lag in implementing green policies
	Lack of communication channels

, will help committee members generate ideas and propose relevant risks more effectively. The risks listed in Table 3 were identified after numerous meetings with the facilitators of the five different IS cases analyzed. In this table, the risks are grouped into different categories.

Once the brainstorming session is complete, the ideas should be organized by grouping them into categories, considering different perspectives as indicated in Figure 1, operational and technical, organizational and governance, economic and financial, legal, environmental, and social dimensions.

2.

Identification of potential impacts for each identified risk

Once the potential risks are identified, the ICRM committee reviews each risk and determines the potential effects if the risk occurs. In some cases, a single risk may have multiple effects, as it could impact the system in different ways. It may be helpful to think of this step as an “if-then” process: If the risk occurs, then what are the impacts? [29].

3.

Assessing impact, likelihood, and detection effectiveness

To assess impact, likelihood, and detection effectiveness, three rankings are used based on a 5-point scale, where the lowest value is 1, corresponding to the least critical situation. It is crucial to ensure that all members of the committee share a common understanding of the rankings before starting the process.

In the ICRM methodology, a 5-point scale is adopted instead of the traditional 10-point scale used in standard FMEA, and a linear scale is applied for the three parameters. In this regard, using a 5-point scale brings greater simplicity, as there are fewer options to choose from, which reduces subjectivity and allows for a quicker analysis. However, this simplicity comes at the cost of losing specificity within each range, meaning that risks falling within the same category may differ from each other, leading to a potential loss of precision in subsequent prioritization.

Nevertheless, considering that ICRM methodology will be applied by multidisciplinary teams from different companies evaluating complex IS systems, opting for a 1-to-5 scale is preferred to keep the analysis straightforward. The most important factor is ensuring that the chosen scale aligns with the specific needs of each evaluation case, to avoid inconsistencies.

Each identified risk variable should be ranked, as shown in

Table 4. Ranking to assess impact, likelihood, and detection efficiency.

Rank	Impact (I)	Likelihood (L)	Detection Efficiency (De)
5	Schedule—Major milestone impact and >20% impact on critical path.	Very likely to occur	There is no detection method available or knowledge that will provide an alert with enough time to plan for a contingency.
	Cost—Total project cost increase >20%.
	Technical—The effect on the scope renders end item unusable.
4	Schedule—Major milestone impact and 10–20% impact on critical path.	Will probably occur	Detection method is unproven or unreliable; or effectiveness of detection method is unknown in time.
	Cost—Total project cost increase of 10–20%.
	Technical—The effect on the scope changes the output of the project and it may not be usable to the client.
3	Schedule—Impact of 5–10% impact on critical path.	Equal chance of occurring or not	Detection method has medium effectiveness.
	Cost—Total project cost increase of 5–10%.
	Technical—The effect on the scope changes the output of the project and it will require client approval.
2	Schedule—Impact of <5% impact on critical path.	Probably will not occur	Detection method has moderately high effectiveness.
	Cost—Total project cost increase in <5%.
	Technical—The effect on the scope is minor but requires an approved scope change internally and maybe with the client.
1	Schedule—Impact insignificant.	Very unlikely	Detection method is highly effective, and it is almost certain that the risk will be detected with adequate time.
	Cost—Project cost increase insignificant.
	Technical—Changes are not noticeable.

. It is important to emphasize that each risk may have multiple impacts, each one with different levels of severity. It is the impact, not the risk itself, that is rated. Therefore, each impact should be assigned to its own severity ranking, even if there are multiple impacts for a single risk. The likelihood, which assesses the probability of the risk occurring, is based on previous experiences or anticipated changes that could affect the system. In the case of IS, specific data might not be available in the early years of implementation due to the novelty of interactions within a symbiotic context. As such, initial likelihood assessments may rely on estimates rather than empirical data.

4.

Calculate the risk priority number (RPN) for each risk

The RPN is simply calculated by multiplying the impact ranking, the likelihood ranking, and the detection effectiveness for each item.

$$RPN=L\ast I\ast De$$

5.

Prioritize the risks for action

This RPN value helps categorize risks and allocate the necessary resources to prevent them from occurring. Prioritization is performed by ranking the RPN values in descending order, from the highest to the lowest. A threshold is set at RPN = 30, indicating the need to develop an action plan to reduce the RPN; in this case, prevention measures can be applied to reduce the impact and likelihood and/or improve the detection level.

To differentiate between risks that could significantly hinder the development of the industrial symbiosis case and those that pose minor challenges, a threshold of RPN ≥ 30 was established. This threshold was chosen because it represents 24% of the maximum score (30/125), meaning that countermeasures will be applied to more than 75% of the identified risks.

4.3.4. Elimination or Reduction in RPN, Action Plans—Procedure

For risks that exceed the established threshold, corrective actions must be implemented to reduce either the impact, likelihood, or detection. Once the corrective actions are agreed upon, the ICRM committee designates a responsible party to execute them. The aim is to keep the ICRM template simple and summarize the corrective actions in a few lines. The ICRM leader can then take notes and develop a more detailed action plan for further execution.

Once the corrective actions are identified, the RPN needs to be recalculated to validate that it has been reduced. For the risks where actions were taken, there should be a significant reduction in the RPN. If not, this indicates that the action did not effectively reduce the impact, likelihood, or detection effectiveness.

The methodology aims to identify risks and, if they are likely to occur and are significant, to implement action to mitigate them. Then, the most relevant stage is to assess and agree on the risks that may happen in the studied IS context. To this end, all the members of the ICRM’s committee participate actively in the search for those risks which might underpin the development of IS’s interactions. Once all the risks are flagged, the participants score them to come to a common ground using very simple accounting mechanisms based on the FMEA methodology. This process finishes with the assignment of the required results to quantify the occurrence, impact, and detection efficiency. As a result, some of the listed risks require action/s which are agreed upon by all the members of the ICRM’s committee, with the support of the ICRM leader.

Although the new methodology proposed is quantitative and involves assigning values to each parameter, its primary objective is to establish an organized framework that ensures all members of the ICRM committee are well informed and agree on the mitigation actions, when required, to address the most important risks. Importantly, the focus is on action rather than merely achieving a numerical value. Consequently, the methodology contributes significantly to the facilitation of essential aspects such as providing a framework that supports the sharing of information, closing agreements, and building trust among stakeholders.

5. Application of ICRM Methodology

This section presents a real-world application of the ICRM methodology within the context of an IS environment.

5.1. Case Description

This case study focuses on an emerging IS network, where multiple companies are in the process of implementing IS exchanges. The analysis focuses on identifying potential risks that could affect the implementation phase, as well as risks that could arise during the operational phase.

The case study is located in the region of Brescia, Italy. The main industrial activities of this area are those manufacturing, related to the metallurgic sector, mechanical engineering activities, and production and distribution of machine tools [35]. In this case, the IS is focused on assessing the feasibility of the use of metal powder, oxides, and other industrial wastes for producing steel, iron, and aluminum, as well as substituting coal with biogenic materials.

The IS case involved four companies in the metallurgic sector, an industrial organization which represents and protects manufacturing and service companies in Italy, and a research and technology organization acting as a reference for the industrial partnership consortium for facilitating the organization and the assessment of the test case (technical facilitator).

A brief description of the companies involved is presented below:

• Company 1: Steel company A. It is an electric furnace steel mill that produces continuous casting billets and hot rolled wire rods, bars in coils, and alloy steel bars for special applications in the automotive sector;
• Company 2: Steel company B. It is a major European manufacturer of reinforcing steel in bars and coils, smooth and ribbed wire rods, electro-welded mesh, and other derivatives;
• Company 3: Iron company. It is a second-casting foundry for gray cast iron production; it develops, produces, and sells iron castings for original equipment manufacturing automotive and truck industries;
• Company 4: Aluminum company. A leading European manufacturer of aluminum alloys for remelting, produced entirely from recycled materials.

5.2. Results of ICRM Methodology

5.2.1. Selection of ICRM Committee and Methodology Followed

The authors of this article applied the methodology in a real IS case in Brescia, acting as the leader of the methodology until one of the participants of the IS case was trained. To support its implementation, they formed an ICRM committee, which included representatives from the participating companies, the regional industrial association, and the technical facilitator.

The methodology was implemented through a series of workshops (

Table 5. Workshops for ICRM methodology training and implementation.

Workshop	Objective	Participants	Key Outcomes
Workshop 1	Introduction to the methodology and committee formation. The technical facilitator was appointed as the ICRM leader.	Authors of this article (as external researchers), technical facilitator, industrial associations, and companies.	Participants were trained in the methodology, initial risks were identified, their RPN calculated, and mitigation measures proposed.
Workshop 2	Exclusive session for the technical facilitator focused on updating the risk template and deepening knowledge of the methodology.	Authors of this article, technical facilitator.	The facilitator enhanced their understanding of the methodology and its practical application.
Workshop 3	Review and refinement of the ICRM with the technical facilitator and industrial association.	Authors of this article, technical facilitator, industrial association.	The risk assessment was adjusted based on insights from previous sessions.
Workshop 4	Final application of the methodology with all stakeholders involved in the industrial symbiosis.	Technical facilitator, industrial association, companies (without the participation of the authors).	The risk analysis was validated by the industrial partners, assessing mitigated and materialized risks.

), which served not only to apply the methodology but also to train the members of the ICRM committee in its use. These sessions ensured that the committee members gained the necessary knowledge and skills to independently apply the methodology in future risk assessments.

Part of the work developed by the authors involved preparing the workshops, holding extra meetings when necessary, and maintaining updates on the ICRM template.

To ensure that the ICRM methodology remains a dynamic and continuously updated tool, the active participation of the ICRM committee is essential. Once the initial assessment is completed, the risk template will be systematically updated whenever new risks emerge or previously identified risks materialize. The responsibility for monitoring and reporting changes lies with all involved partners, who must stay informed and promptly notify the ICRM leader of any developments. Additionally, the template will be reviewed and revised during regular committee meetings, with their frequency tailored to the specific needs of the case—these meetings may be held monthly, quarterly, or as required. Figure 2 illustrates the structured process for communicating and updating identified risks.

5.2.2. Selection of ICRM Assets/Processes

The aim of this step is to select the assets and processes to be evaluated within the ICRM framework. The assessment focuses primarily on risks within the supply chain and other categories associated with new activities introduced as a result of industrial symbiosis (IS). The analysis considers only the interactions between companies that aim to valorize waste streams and by-products.

Figure 3 presents a flow diagram illustrating these interactions. As shown, four new technologies have been introduced to reintegrate waste streams into the production process—either for internal reuse within the same company or for exchange with other companies.

Company 1 introduces a novel briquetting unit making use of recovered metal powder to valorize residues from different companies into briquettes. In company 2, a reducing furnace is used with metal oxides, dust, and sludges to produce pig iron that, in turn, is partially used inside the steelwork and partially sent to both company 1 and 3. Figure 4. (a) shows the briquettes produced at companies 1 and Figure 4. (b) shows the briquettes produced at laboratory scale which will be used in the reduction furnace.

Concerning company 3, in a separation unit both metal powder and SiO₂ are obtained. These materials are used for other companies: in particular, SiO₂ is used in the reducing furnace and the metal powder is sent to the briquetting machine in company 1. Finally, company 4 introduces a pilot plant for the recovery of residual aluminum, and a solid inert residue is produced that is sent to the reducing furnace in company 2.

5.2.3. Identification and Evaluation of Risks

The risk identification along with the evaluation process was carried out using the ICRM template, during the dedicated workshops explained before.

Table 6. ICRM methodology results for the Brescia case.

General risk	ID nº	Risk event	Impact (I)	I	Likelihood (L)	L	Detection Efficiency (De)	D	RPN (1)
Category: Operational and Technical
Supply chain vulnerability	1	Lack of raw material— company 2	Temporarily stopping the production of new briquettes in the reducing furnace	4	Very unlikely	1	Establish contact with suppliers with sufficient time to respond	3	12
	2	Lack of raw material— company 3	A shortage of pig iron could halt production	5	Very unlikely	1	Establish contact with suppliers with sufficient time to respond	3	15
	3	Lack of raw material— company 4	The planned symbiosis activities will be interrupted	4	Very unlikely	1	Establish contact with suppliers with sufficient time to respond	3	12
	4	Lack of Al oxides (company 4) to supply the reducing furnaces (company 2)	Delays in the trials in the reducing furnace	4	Equal chance of occurring or not	3	Control the amount of Al oxides generated in company 4	1	12
Process Integration and Optimization	5	Difficulties integrating new materials and processes	Additional testing required, leading to delays	4	Equal chance of occurring or not	3	Conduct laboratory analysis. Pilot plant tests to consider new parameters that need forecasting	2	24
	6	Company 3: Difficulty in separating dust from metal	Delays in project scheduling	3	Very unlikely	1	Mocked trials	2	6
Transportation Risks	7	Transporting briquettes may require additional additives to prevent breakage, potentially raising costs and complicating logistics	Briquettes may break or crumble during transportation from the production site to the furnace	3	Will probably occur	4	Test briquettes before and after transportation	2	24
Category: Organizational and Governance
Collaboration and Transparency	8	Unclear roles of participation and decision-making power—company 2	Delays in decisions at the start of the project. Delays in defining technical procedures, external trials, plants, and contracts	4	Equal chance of occurring or not	3	Hold regular meetings	3	36
	9	Lack of commitment and a collaborative approach to join the network of IS	Delays in mid- to long-term symbiosis activities	4	Probably will not occur	2	Schedule regular update meetings with the involved companies + the facilitator + industrial association	2	16
Category: Economic and Finance
High O&M costs	10	Increase in energy costs	Increased production costs, unsustainable for the current business model	5	Very unlikely	1	Unpredictable energy prices	5	25
	11		Some activities may need to be reduced due to high energy costs	5	Very unlikely	1	Unpredictable energy prices	5	25
Category: Economic and Finance
Market fluctuations	12	Price instability of waste materials compared to virgin raw materials	Companies might opt for cheaper virgin raw materials, reducing demand for recycled materials and hindering IS initiatives	4	Equal chance of occurring or not	3	Monitor market prices	2	24
Investment risks for technology development and scaling	13	Risk of increased investment requirements for company 3	Insufficient budget to acquire equipment for SiO2 powder separation	5	Probably will not occur	2	Monitor technological development to ensure that the proposed budget is not exceeded	3	30
	14	High risk of increased investment due to the current research status of the new pyrolysis unit	Higher engineering service costs to develop the new pyrolysis unit	5	Very likely to occur	5	Monitor the ongoing research and the deviation of the budget	3	75
	15	Challenges in securing sufficient investment to scale up to the industrial level, the novel technologies	Inability to scale up novel technologies	5	Will probably occur	4	Monitor the investment growth rate for each of the technologies and track the number of meetings with interested investors	3	60
Category: Legal
Non-compliance with regulatory requirements or missing local permissions	16	Lack of authorization to run pilot plants for testing	Increased staff time and effort to obtain permits	4	Probably will not occur	2	Meet with local authorities and stakeholders responsible for the authorizations	2	16
	17		Inability to send briquetting materials for external testing by company 2	5	Probably will not occur	2		3	30
	18	Lack of authorization for the construction of the pilot plant	Delays in gathering accurate data on pyrolysis process parameters	4	Will probably occur	4	Small plant testing and data analysis	3	48
Partnership and Negotiation Risks	19	Delays in finalizing agreements between companies (company 2)	Delays in the execution of the activities in company 2	4	Equal chance of occurring or not	3	Monitor time wasted during the project’s timeline	3	36
InformationandData Management Risks	20	The exchange of sensitive information necessary for industrial symbiosis carries potential risks of misuse.	Unauthorized or improper use of shared information	5	Probably will not occur	2	Regularly monitor information-sharing processes and conduct security audits, including reviewing access logs, data-sharing agreements, and network activity	2	20

presents the results of the ICRM analysis, where twenty risks were identified and assessed. These risks include those associated with the deployment of symbiosis activities, such as testing, scaling up, and establishing new agreements, as well as risks inherent to the symbiosis process itself, arising from operational and systemic interactions.

5.2.4. Elimination or Reduction in RPN, Action Plans

For risks exceeding the established RPN thresholdof 30 points, the ICRM committee defined corrective actions, for those risks which required them, and assigned responsible parties for their implementation.

Table 7. Highest risk priority numbers (RPNs) in the ICRM analysis in the Brescia case.

							Results
General Risk	ID Nº	Risk Event	I (1)	L (1)	De (1)	RPN (1)	Correction Actions	Responsible	I (2)	L (2)	De (2)	RPN (2)
Category: Economic and Finance
Investment risks for technology development and scaling	14	High risk of increased investment due to the current research status of the new pyrolysis unit.	5	5	3	75	Increase R&D activities and conduct a comprehensive analysis of the new unit to improve its feasibility and reduce uncertainties	Company 4	4	2	3	24
	15	Challenges in securing sufficient investment to scale up to the industrial level the novel technologies	5	4	3	60	Seek public investment opportunities as a potential solution to bridge funding gaps and support the scaling process	All	4	1	3	12
	13	Risk of increased investment requirements for company 3	5	2	3	30	Conduct comprehensive feasibility studies to validate the profitability of the investment and identify potential cost optimization strategies	Company 3	4	2	3	24
Category: Legal
Non-compliance with regulatory requirements or missing local permissions	18	Lack of authorization for the construction of the pilot plant	4	4	3	48	Organize a meeting with the local industrial association to align requirements for regulatory approval	Company 4	3	1	2	6
Partnership and Negotiation Risks	19	Delays in finalizing agreements between companies involved in the collaboration (company 2)	4	3	3	36	Conduct regular meetings with all parties involved to share activity updates, address concerns, and streamline decision-making	Company 2	3	2	3	18
Non-compliance with regulatory requirements or missing local permissions	17	Lack of authorization to run pilot plants for testing	5	2	3	30	Adjust the material mix to comply with existing regulations and expedite approval.	Company 2	3	1	3	9
Category: Organizational and Governance
Collaboration and Transparency	8	Unclear roles of participation and decision-making power—company 2	4	3	3	36	Prioritize activities and establish conditional agreements to define roles and responsibilities more clearly.	Company 2	3	2	3	18

presents the seven risks with the highest RPN, categorized under the economy and financial, legal, organizational, and governance domains. Each risk includes a corresponding corrective action, along with the recalculated RPN values after implementation.

In some cases, the corrective action affected the severity, likelihood, or detection effectiveness parameters, or even multiple parameters simultaneously. Notably, the RPN was reduced to below the threshold of 30 points in all cases. Nevertheless, these potential risks require continuous monitoring and periodic re-evaluation in future ICRM analyses.

5.3. Lessons Learnt from the Applied ICRM Methodology in the 5 Studied Cases

The applied ICRM methodology in the five real IS cases, among them, Brescia’s case, used as an illustration for this paper, has led to some lessons learned. The methodology’s application across diverse IS scenarios with differing maturity levels, industry sectors, and resource flows has facilitated the identification and broad extrapolation of common risks. The risk patterns observed in these diverse contexts show consistency, reinforcing the robustness and adaptability of the ICRM methodology in assessing and mitigating risks within IS initiatives.

A significant outcome of this process is the adoption of the methodology beyond its initial implementation. Local facilitators have integrated the ICRM methodology into their own risk management frameworks, demonstrating its relevance and applicability regardless of each scope and maturity level. This independent adoption underscores the methodology’s practicality and effectiveness in real-world industrial symbiosis settings.

Despite the identification of common risks across multiple IS case studies, it was observed that these risks can manifest differently in each specific scenario. In some cases, different mitigation measures are required, even when the risk is similar. Given that general risks can include multiple specific risks, an analysis was conducted to determine whether it would be possible to standardize not only the risks themselves but also their associated impacts and action plans (when required), making them universally applicable to any IS system. This hypothesis was tested in collaboration with the different cases studied. However, after thorough evaluation, it was concluded that such an approach would result in the loss of valuable and specific contextual information for each risk within the analyzed IS cases. Consequently, the first key conclusion drawn from this experience is that generalizing impact assessments and action plans for general risks is not recommended. Instead, tailored risk mitigation strategies should be maintained to preserve the accuracy and effectiveness of risk management within each specific IS environment.

6. Discussion

The ICRM methodology was developed to comprehensively manage risks across different domains, specifically tailored for the complex interactions within IS ecosystems, including operational and technical, organizational and governance, economic and financial, legal, environmental, and social aspects. Moreover, the methodology contributes to minimizing disruptions in material and energy exchanges, increasing the resilience of industrial ecosystems, and strengthening their environmental sustainability. Given the complexity of IS environments, this structured approach provides a proactive strategy that not only facilitates the long-term viability of symbiotic exchanges but also supports the achievement of sustainability goals.

Additionally, the methodology was developed with the aim of broader application. The ICRM methodology was applied in various IS environments at different maturity levels. In total, five analyses were conducted, including the case study presented in this article along with four additional cases. While ICRM can be applied to different sectors, it does not imply that the results of the risk analyses are comparable. Instead, each result is specific to its respective case. The possibility of extending and generalizing the risks was analyzed; this exercise was satisfactory. However, in terms of the values of impact, likelihood, action effectiveness, and even mitigation actions, depend on each specific case.

Finally, the methodology proposed facilitates other aspects, which affect the success of IS environments. One of the key advantages of the ICRM methodology is that it relies on information shared voluntarily among stakeholders. This characteristic makes it a valuable tool to encourage partners to share relevant data, fostering transparency and collaboration within the industrial ecosystem. Additionally, the methodology can be leveraged during negotiation or monitoring phases to promote open communication and build trust among stakeholders in the development of partnerships.

Practical Implications

The application of the ICRM methodology in five real IS cases has concluded with several practical experiences. The Brescia demonstrator case acknowledged the simplicity and effectiveness of the methodology in handling complex industrial symbiosis cases. Participants emphasized how the methodology helps organize and classify risks, enabling timely corrective actions while maintaining an efficient and straightforward validation process. These results emphasize that the ICRM methodology is a robust and accessible tool for enhancing risk management in industrial collaborative ecosystems.

Another key point highlighted by the partners of the companies involved in the studied cases is their ability to track the latest developments in collaborative activities. Additionally, it helps new members—whether new employees within a company and/or new companies joining the ecosystem—to be updated with recent events. By facilitating the management of multiple simultaneous actions with a global perspective, the methodology ultimately proved to be an effective coordination tool and know-how logbook for the ecosystem.

The application of the developed methodology requires the involvement of a trained individual or team, who can effectively implement it and act as the leader of the methodology. This leader plays a crucial role in gathering detailed information about the current situation and ensuring the participation of all key partners. Consequently, the success of this type of analysis hinges on the presence of someone familiar with the methodology and capable of coordinating its implementation.

Nevertheless, the findings of this study demonstrate that it is feasible to train facilitators for industrial collaboration ecosystems. A notable example is the Brescia case, where facilitators with no prior experience in the methodology were successfully trained. Through targeted capacity-building efforts, these facilitators were equipped with the necessary tools and knowledge to independently conduct the analysis. The results suggest that, while the methodology initially requires external expertise, the training of facilitators ensures long-term sustainability and reduces dependency on external researchers. This approach empowers local stakeholders and enhances their capacity to manage and optimize industrial collaboration ecosystems effectively.

7. Conclusions

This paper proposed a new methodology that provides industrial symbiosis facilitators with a practical tool to collaboratively manage risks.

The proposed methodology achieves several key goals with measurable impacts. First, it enables the systematic registration of interrelations, problems, and risks in industrial collaboration activities, along with their corresponding solutions. Second, it fosters cross-sectoral and cross-border communication, facilitating knowledge exchange among different companies, and thereby improving the overall deployment of industrial collaboration activities. Third, it adopts a prevention-oriented approach for deployment activities, allowing for the early identification and prioritization of risks, which leads to better resource allocation and a more efficient implementation process by means of implementing mitigation actions. Lastly, the methodology supports the achievement of sustainability objectives by reducing operational uncertainties, enhancing resource efficiency, and minimizing disruptions in material and energy exchanges.

7.1. Limitations

An important limitation identified in the risk assessment process is the variability in the ranking system used to evaluate each variable within the methodology. While a guide is provided to assign values, these rankings can vary significantly across different industrial ecosystems due to differences in scale, priorities, and contextual factors. As a result, the RPN values calculated for risks in one ecosystem cannot be directly compared to those from another. The effectiveness of the analysis is, therefore, confined to the specific context in which the RPN values were determined. This limitation underlines the need for a context-specific approach when applying the methodology, since comparisons or attempts to generalize findings across ecosystems might lead to inaccurate conclusions.

Although the ICRM methodology employs a subjective scoring system, its primary goal is to implement actions to reduce risk when it is significant and necessary. Therefore, the scoring of variables is used as a tool to ensure that all ICRM committee members are well informed and aware of the outcomes, responsibilities, and decisions to be implemented.

Regarding the limitations in data availability and the challenges of its real-world adoption, the methodology can be applied regardless of whether there is an abundance or scarcity of data available from the system under study. The goal is to coordinate actions consensually to mitigate risks based on the existing information and opinions of the involved representatives.

7.2. Future Research Directions

Future research should focus on applying this methodology in diverse industrial collaboration ecosystems, such as H2 valleys and H4C initiatives. Expanding its application to these contexts would not only validate its adaptability but also enrich the list of general risks, enabling the standardization of potential risks that commonly arise in industrial collaboration environments. However, it is important to note that the scoring of impact, likelihood, detection effectiveness, and the corresponding corrective measures remain highly case-specific. Attempting to standardize these elements across different cases would risk losing the characteristics and contextual nuances of each ecosystem, which are critical to ensuring the effectiveness of the analysis.

Furthermore, the study of the new methodology could be expanded to cover the alignment of the ICRM with established international standards on risk management, such as ISO 31000 [36] and IEC ISO 31010 [37].