Content uploaded by Karel Frits Mulder
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Karel Frits Mulder on Oct 11, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Towards cleaner production: barriers and strategies in the base
metals producing industry
Ellen H. M. Moors
a,
), Karel F. Mulder
b
,
Philip J. Vergragt
c
a
Department of Innovation Studies, Utrecht University, Bestuursgebouw NWI, Heidelberglaan 8, NL-3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands
b
Department of Technology Assessment, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 5,
2628 BX Delft, The Netherlands
c
Tellus Institute, 11 Arlington Street, Boston MA, 02116-3411, USA
Received 1 May 1998; accepted 23 December 2003
Abstract
The most pressing environmental problems of post-mining base metals production are solid waste production, gaseous emissions,
and a high energy use. Most of the present solutions to clean up the post-mining base metals production can be characterised as
incremental, end-of-pipe technologies. More sophisticated, radical solutions are scarcely implemented.
The purpose of this study is to identify the barriers that impede the implementation of more radical solutions, with the aim to
design strategies towards cleaner production in the base metals producing industry. The paper conceptualises the radicalness of
a technological innovation, and presents the current base metals production processes, their environmental impact, and cleaner
technologies. The most important barriers for radical innovations appear to be the cost of investment, the high risk involved in
committing capital to unproven technology, and the intertwinement of the current production system. The paper presents firm-
internal, inter-firm and firm-external strategies to overcome these barriers.
Ó2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Cleaner production; Incremental; Radical innovations; Metals production
1. Introduction
As a result of the rapid increase in human activities
since the industrial revolution, huge quantities of re-
sources and energy have been consumed in remarkably
short time. This mass consumption, and the associated
industrial production, has far-reaching influences on
the earth’s ecology, exhausting non-renewable resources
(e.g. oil, gases, ores) and causing severe environmental
problems by polluting the air, water and soil.
However, many possibilities to reduce the environ-
mental burden of industrial production exist. For
example; optimisation of the environmental perfor-
mance through good housekeeping and total quality
management, appropriate end-of-pipe techniques, recy-
cling of waste and non-renewable products, substitution
of, or a ban on the use of environmentally unfriendly
produced products, or by incremental and more radical
technological innovations.
Technological innovation is an important factor for
economic growth and seems to play a central role in the
long-term development of cleaner production [1,2].
Hence, this paper focuses on the technological inno-
vation perspective.
Studies have shown that in the industrial North the
efficiency of production with respect to the claim on the
environment needs to increase by a factor 4e50 over
the next 50 years, in relation to the 1990 levels [1e5].
That is because much better results will be necessary
over the next 50 years to achieve absolute reductions in
materials and energy consumption. Taking into account
that since Third World countries will almost inevitably
increase their consumption of energy and materials as
)Corresponding author. Tel.: C31-30-2537812/1625; fax: C31-30-
2533939.
E-mailaddresses: e.moors@geog.uu.nl(E.H.M. Moors),k.f.mulder@
tbm.tudelft.nl (K.F. Mulder), ph.j.vergragt@io.tudelft.nl (P.J. Vergragt).
Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 657e668
www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro
0959-6526/$ - see front matter Ó2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2003.12.010
they industrialise and raise their living standards, the
need for more radical, system innovations towards
cleaner industrial production is quite evident. Thus, to
meet this cleaner production challenge, adaptation or
improvement of existing technology by only incremental
innovations will not be sufficient. Leaving existing
methods of improvement and looking for a fundamental
renewal of technology, and complete new, radical
technological innovations will be essential in order to
achieve the required improvements in environmental
efficiency in the future. Yet, implementation of such
radical, breakthrough technologies is not easy to
initiate. It is necessary to understand the driving forces
for cleaner production at a micro-level within the firm.
Accordingly, this paper focuses primarily on the
perspective of the firm, taking the base metals producing
industry (i.e. the production of zinc, aluminium, and
iron/steel) as an example.
Studies of technological development in scale-inten-
sive firms, such as the base metals producing industry,
have shown that radical change towards cleaner in-
dustrial production is problematic [6,7]. More radical
solutions for some environmental problems are avail-
able, but in practice they are scarcely implemented,
because the established production technologies in the
base metals industry are made up of mature technolo-
gies, which are rather difficult to change. For example,
the conventional Hall-He
´roult aluminium reduction
process is more than 100 years old. These mature
industrial technologies are part of highly embedded
production systems, both technologically and socially.
This makes it very difficult to redirect these processes
quickly and effectively towards cleaner production, even
when the need to do so is generally acknowledged. It
is necessary, therefore, to analyse the nature of this
entrenchment.
Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to identify
barriers which impede implementation of more radical
innovations, in order to develop strategies that could con-
tribute to the base metals industries’ transition towards
cleaner production.
Why is the base metal, producing industry an
interesting case for the study of the driving forces
towards more radical cleaner production?
Producing large volumes of commodity products, the
base metals producing industry is a relatively polluting
industry, causing severe environmental problems, such
as:
eproduction of large amounts of solid waste (e.g.
jarosite, gypsum, spent pot linings, slag),
eemissions of airborne and waterborne pollutants
(e.g. SO
2
,NO
x
, fluorides, dioxins),
ehigh energy use, and CO
2
emissions,
edepletion of non-renewable natural resources,
emoderate recycling rates and difficulties with sec-
ondary production (e.g. for complex aluminium
alloys).
These environmental problems emphasise the need to
study cleaner production alternatives in the base metals
producing industry, both incremental innovations to
tackle the relatively small problems on the short-term,
and radical innovations, to obtain higher environmental
efficiencies on the long-term.
We can discern various steps in the whole base metals
chain, going from cradle to grave. Fig. 1 shows the base
metals production and consumption chain.
This study focuses on post-mining base metal pro-
duction, with the metal ore as input material and the
primary, non-manufactured base metal as output. This
primary metal can be processed further by additional
processing stages to value-added applications, such as
alloys and composite materials, or comes back in the
metals production system via recycling and secondary
production.
The structure of the paper is as follows: the first
section conceptualises the radicalness of a technological
innovation concerning metals production. The sub-
sequent section provides a brief description of the
conventional production processes for zinc, aluminium
and iron/steel and their environmental impact. Various
technological alternatives for base metals production are
Fig. 1. Base metals production and consumption chain in general.
658 E.H.M. Moors et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 657e668
presented along a gradual scale of radicalness of the
innovation. Based on six case studies in the metals
industry, the barriers for more radical technological
innovations are categorised and illustrated with some
examples. The analysis of barriers provides starting
points for radical technological change at various levels.
Strategies are presented at the firm-internal, inter-firm
and firm-external level, and the paper ends with some
concluding remarks.
2. From incremental towards radical innovations:
conceptualisation
A significant distinction exists between a technological
innovation involving minor technological changes,
which control, adjust, renovate, modify or improve
a current technology based on an existing principle (and
often with a low degree of new knowledge), and
a technological innovation that involves major changes
of technological directions with entirely new technolo-
gies, products, processes and/or systems, and a high
degree of new knowledge. This distinction is often
discussed in terms of incremental versus radical inno-
vations. Yet, technological innovations are not just
incremental or just radical. For our purposes, the degree
of radicalness of a technological process innovation is
interesting, and a technological criterion is used to
determine the extent to which an innovation constitutes
a radical departure from the existing production pro-
cess. Technological innovations can be further divided
on a gradual scale, which enables us to be more precise
in describing the specific process steps to produce the
primary metal, and in describing the technological
innovations that can take place in those steps. In fact,
it is not just incremental innovation on the one hand and
radical innovation on the other, but degrees of
radicalness exist in between, with technological change
representing points in a continuum. Furthermore, we
define the conversion of the ore from one configuration
into another as one step in the primary base metals
production. For example roasting, leaching, purification
and electrolysis in primary zinc production are regarded
as four steps [8].
Accordingly, we define an increasing ‘radicalness’
scale of technological innovations for base metals
production as follows:
Auxiliary technology: auxiliary technologies include
all the supporting technologies to monitor and
control the existing production process, and all the
logistics and technological infrastructure that are
incorporated. In fact, the software (e.g. process
parameters) is adjusted without changing the hard-
ware, such as adjustment of process control by
automation.
End-of-pipe technology: end-of-pipe technologies can
be defined as all the technology (hardware) added at
the end of the usual processes to decrease the release
of environmentally problematic emissions. No
changes take place within the hardware of the
existing process. An example is the installation of
a sulphur dioxide gas cleaning system to treat the
gaseous emissions from metal production.
In-process technology: in-process technologies in-
clude improvement and application of the existing
technology, and the changes are integrated within
the process hardware of the existing production
steps. These technological innovations can be sub-
divided into:
eOne-step change in the production process, retain-
ing the same process principle (no process conver-
sion): this implies adjustments in single machines,
in single steps of the entire production process.
The adjustments do not affect the previous step(s)
or following step(s). An example is the reversal of
a vessel in one production step, which gives rise to
an increased level of efficiency.
eOne-step change in the production process, apply-
ing a different process principle: this generally
implies a departure from current practices,
regarding a specific process step. Since no other
steps are involved, the input and output charac-
teristics are very similar to those from the existing
practices. An example is the change from a sul-
phate to a chloride milieu in the leaching step of
zinc production [8].
eTwo to three step changes in the production
process: replacing one step often affects other
steps in the process. In this category, we focus
especially on those changes, which also involve
adjustments in the following and/or previous
steps. Pressure leaching in zinc production, for
example, combines the first two steps of the
conventional zinc production process into one
new process step [8].
eMore than three step changes: generally, this
implies redesigning a major part of the production
process. Leaching, purification, and electrolysis
e.g. were new production steps in going from
a pyrometallurgical to a hydrometallurgical route
in zinc production [8].
Breakthrough technology: breakthrough innovations
include an entirely new production process principle,
or a completely new technical plant design. De-
parture from the conventional hardware is a neces-
sary prerequisite. Bio-leaching, for example, is a
potentially cleaner production process for some
metals, since it can obviate the need for the energy
intensive and traditionally polluting roasting,
smelting, and refining stages [9]. Changing from
659E.H.M. Moors et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 657e668
pyrometallurgical to hydrometallurgical production
of zinc is another example of a breakthrough
technological change.
Table 1 presents schematically the radicalness of
technological innovations in the zinc production pro-
cess [8].
Most companies, when introducing changes in their
production process, stay within the first three stages of
technological change that is applying auxiliary technol-
ogy, end-of-pipe technology or a one-step change of the
production process thereby retaining the same pro-
duction principle. Thus, the bulk of process changes
have an evolutionary, incremental rather than a revolu-
tionary radical character. It is interesting, therefore, to
study the barriers, which constrain the development and
implementation of more radical technological change in
these companies.
This study was performed through six comparative
case studies of the production of zinc, aluminium, and
iron/steel, respectively, in which both incremental and
more radical innovations were studied (see Table 2).
These case studies were based on semi-structured
interviews with internal company representatives of the
zinc, aluminium and iron/steel producing industry,
working either in R&D laboratories, engineering,
production plants, or as strategic or environmental
managers. Various external representatives were also
interviewed, such as researchers in universities, and in
(inter) national governmental and environmental organ-
isations. The case studies were further based on qualita-
tive document analyses, such as scientific articles, annual
reports, patents, and newspapers [10].
3. Current base metals production, environmental
impacts, and cleaner technologies
This section presents a brief description of the current
zinc, aluminium and iron/steel processing technologies
and their environmental impact. The section ends with
a schematic overview of some technological alternatives
for cleaner production, in increasing degree of radical-
ness of the innovation.
3.1. Production of zinc
The common process to produce zinc is the hy-
drometallurgical roast-leach-electrowinning process,
consisting of four basic steps: roasting, leaching,
Table 1
Degree of radicalness of technological innovations in zinc production [8]
Technological alternatives Radicalness of technological innovation
Auxiliary
technology
End-of-pipe
technology
In-process technology Breakthrough
technology
1-step: same
principle
1-step: different
principle
2e3 steps O3 steps
Optimisation electrolysis cell C
Gas cleaning C
Jarosite/goethiteleaching C
Sulphate/chloridemilieu C
Direct leaching C
Pyrometallurgy/Hydrometallurgy C
Direct zinc making C
Table 2
Case studies related to incremental and more radical innovations
Metal Environmental problems Technological innovation
Incremental Radical
Zinc jarosite, gypsum waste Standard zinc production process
(Outokumpu Zinc, Finland )
Use of low-iron zinc sulphide ore in zinc
production processSO
2
emissions
energy use (CCO
2
) Jarosite treatment process (Budel Zinc,
The Netherlands)
Aluminium energy use (CCO
2
) Standard Hall-He
´roult process
(Aluminium Delfzijl, The Netherlands)
Following inert anode developments Point
feeding alumina (Hydro Aluminium,
Norway)
red mud, spent pot linings waste
SO
2
/, PAHs, fluorides emissions
Steel NO
x
,SO
2
, VOC emissions Optimisation blast furnace
technology (British Steel, UK )
Cyclone converter furnace technology
(Hoogovens Steel, The Netherlands
a
)dioxins, slag, dust
a
In October 1999, British Steel merged with Koninklijke Hoogovens into a new company called ‘Corus’ since then. As the research for this paper
took mainly place before the merger, between 1970e1997, the old names Hoogovens and British Steel are used in this study.
660 E.H.M. Moors et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 657e668
purification and electrolysis. Zinc concentrate undergoes
fluid-bed roasting to convert zinc sulphide into zinc
oxide. After roasting, zinc oxide, sulphur dioxide and
ferrite are formed. SO
2
gas is treated for mercury
removal and is directed to the H
2
SO
4
plant, where
concentrated H
2
SO
4
is obtained as a by-product. Zinc
oxide is then leached in a dilute sulphuric acid solution
to dissolve zinc and other metals like cadmium and
copper, while eliminating iron and a large part of the
impurities as a jarosite or goethite residue. The solution
of zinc sulphate thus obtained is purified to recover the
valuable metals such as cadmium and copper, and to
eliminate elements, disturbing electrolysis. During elec-
trolysis, zinc is deposited on aluminium cathodes, which
are stripped mechanically. H
2
SO
4
is regenerated and
recycled to leach the roasted concentrates. The stripped
sheets are melted in induction ovens and are alloyed or
cast into zinc slabs or blocks [11].Fig. 2 presents the
hydrometallurgical zinc production process.
The most important environmental problems of the
zinc production process are the high electricity con-
sumption (approx. 15 GJ
e
/ton of zinc, of which
electrolysis uses approx. 80%); the production of large
amounts of the iron-bearing residues jarosite or
goethite, and gypsum (approx. 0.6 ton jarosite and
approx. 0.06 ton gypsum are formed/ton of zinc
produced); and the emission of SO
2
(approx. 0.004
ton/ton of zinc produced) [11]. Recycling of zinc is
rather difficult because of the dissipated use of zinc as
a sacrificial protective coating in cars, as roof gutters
and in crash barriers.
3.2. Production of aluminium
Bauxite is the main raw material for the production of
aluminium. Aluminium is extracted from bauxite in the
form of alumina (Al
2
O
3
) in the Bayer process. An
aluminium production operation normally consists of
an anode baking plant, an electrolytic reduction plant
and a casthouse. In the Hall-He
´roult process, alumina is
reduced to molten aluminium metal by means of elec-
trolysis in a series of electrolytic baths. The reaction
involves the use of electricity and carbon anodes. The
electrolytic bath consists mainly of molten cryolite, which
is a fluoride compound and the only medium into which
alumina reasonably dissolves. A carbon cell lining is used
as the cathode. Liquid aluminium (O99% purity) is
formed at the cathode, and is cast into ingots. There are
two major types of reduction processes, the Søderberg
and the prebaked process, the main difference between
them being the design of the anodes [12,13].Fig. 3 shows
the Hall-He
´roult electrolysis process of aluminium.
The entire primary production process of aluminium,
including bauxite extraction, alumina production, trans-
port, the Hall-He
´roult process (electrolysis and anode
production), and fluoride production, requires a very
large amount of electric energy (approx. 72 GJ
e
/ton of
aluminium), of which the Hall-He
´roult process uses
about 80%. About 60% of the electricity used to
produce aluminium comes from hydroelectric power. In
that case, the total amount of electric energy is about 48
GJ
e
/ton of aluminium [13].
Aluminium is being recycled in quite substantial
amounts (O60%) [14], depending on its application
mode. It is relatively easy to recycle aluminium that is
used in construction and transport, but recycling is more
difficult for aluminium used in packaging. Energy
savings are the most important incentive for recycling,
because secondary aluminium production requires only
about 5% of the energy needed for the primary pro-
duction of aluminium.
Besides the very high energy consumption of alu-
minium production the extraction of aluminium from
bauxite into alumina in the Bayer process produces red
Fig. 2. Hydrometallurgical zinc production process.
661E.H.M. Moors et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 657e668
mud waste. The waste gases from the reduction cells and
anodes in the Hall-He
´roult process contain fluorides,
dust, SO
2
,CO
2
, CO and minor quantities of pitch
volatiles. About 20% of the latter consists of PAHs
(polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) [12]. Fluoride com-
pounds are an integral part of the electrolytic bath, from
which gases and dust, containing fluorides, are released.
CO
2
is formed when anodes are consumed during
electrolysis. The greenhouse gases CF
4
and C
2
F
6
are
primarily formed during anode effects in electrolysis.
Furthermore, wastewater and solid waste, e.g. dust,
cathodic waste (spent pot linings), anodic waste and
aluminium dross is produced containing fluorides, heavy
metals, and PAHs [13].
3.3. Production of iron/steel
The most conventional routes to produce steel are
integrated steel production, scrap melting in electric arc
furnaces, and blending scrap with sponge iron or other
forms of scrap substitutes as a feed to the electric arc
furnace (EAF). In this paper, we focus on the widely
used integrated steel production process. This process
consists of coke making, ore agglomeration, iron
making and steel making. The process relies mainly on
virgin ore as the iron source. During ore agglomeration
(sintering/pelletising), the fine iron ore is converted into
particles suitable in size for charging into a blast
furnace. The coke is produced in coke ovens where the
volatile and non-volatile components of the coal are
separated. Then, pig iron is produced in the blast
furnace, using coke in combination with injected coal or
oil to reduce (sintered/pelletised) iron ore to pig iron.
The molten pig iron, which has some carbon and silicon,
is then intermittently tapped from the hearth and the hot
metal is delivered to the steel making unit where it is
transformed into steel in the basic oxygen furnace,
through the injection of oxygen, oxidising the carbon in
the hot iron metal; the steel is then treated in ladle fur-
naces before being continuously cast into slabs, billets
and blooms. Further deformation and shaping processes
take place to obtain the almost finished product, which
may include hot or cold rolled thin sheet (e.g. plates,
bars, rod, tubes, profiles, wires, rails). Finishing is the
final production step, and may include a number of
different processes, e.g. galvanising, annealing, pickling
and surface treatment [15,16].Fig. 4 presents the iron
and steel production process.
The most important pollutants of iron and steel
production are particulates, NO
x
,SO
2
, and dioxin
emissions by the sinter plants, volatile organic com-
pound (VOC) emissions by the coke ovens, blast furnace
slag, rolling mill waste, pickle liquor waste, iron- and
steel making slags and waste oils and greases.
When it comes to recycling, steel appears to score
very strongly, being the most recycled material, with an
overall recycling rate of between 50% and 67% [16]. The
emission of CO
2
is directly coupled to the energy
Fig. 4. The iron and steel production process.
Fig. 3. Electrolysis of aluminium.
662 E.H.M. Moors et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 657e668
consumption of the whole production process. The total
energy use of the integrated steel production process is
approximately 5.6 GJ
e
/ton of steel, of which the blast
furnace process uses more than half (approx. 4.3 GJ
e
/
ton of steel) [15,17].
The most important options for cleaner production
of zinc, aluminium, and steel, are schematically sum-
marised in Table 3, in increasing degree of radicalness
[11,13,15].
Table 3 shows that many alternatives for cleaner base
metals production do exist. These alternatives are in
various stages of technological development that is labo-
ratory scale, design stage, pre-commercial, and commer-
cial stage. Yet, the more radical alternatives are not easily
implemented within base metals producing firms.
4. Barriers to cleaner production in the base metals
producing industry
Why are the more radical cleaner technologies not
easily implemented? The case studies revealed many
barriers for the implementation of more radical cleaner
technologies, which could be classified as follows:
eEconomic barriers
eSystemic characteristics
eKnowledge infrastructure
eLegislative context
eOrganisation and culture of the firm
eStage of technology development
Below, a brief description of the various types of
barriers is given, illustrated with examples from the case
studies.
4.1. Economic barriers
Financial constraints play a prominent role in the
rigidity of the conventional base metals production
processes. Enormous capital investments are required
for radical technological changes, which involve many
production steps in base metals production. Well-
established processes have large-scale advantages, and
often are still very profitable, giving adequate returns on
investments, after the machinery has already been
depreciated. A striking example is the observed in-
vestment-lag in aluminium production, due to the high
capital intensity in the reduction step of aluminium. It
has kept old potlines alive for up to 40 years or even
longer. Improvement of operational cost of the most
advanced technology does not match the capital element
of replacing old capacity with modern potlines. A
respondent of Hydro Aluminium declared: ‘‘all the big
aluminium smelters have come up to the same plateau
regarding innovativeness and nobody has been able to
make a real breakthrough in aluminium reduction tech-
nology’’.
The market price of base metals is cyclic and for zinc
and aluminium it is determined at the London Metal
Exchange (LME). It is very difficult to calculate the
environmental costs in the price of the metal. In fact,
base metals’ commodities provide little scope for
product differentiation between the individual producers
and, assuming a standardised product quality, compe-
tition is based predominantly on costs. The commodity
market for base metals, therefore, provides a consider-
able incentive to produce at the lowest cost. The
competition among metals producers is very strong,
for example between steel and aluminium, and even with
other material producers, for example the plastics and
glass industry. This competition is based primarily on
price, determined by the costs of energy and materials
input, and the profit from the well established, mature
production processes.
Furthermore, firms’ quarterly profit-figures are be-
coming increasingly important, which could also impede
long-term decisions. All capital investments for the
Table 3
Alternatives for cleaner production of zinc, aluminium, and iron/steel [10,12,14]
Radicalness innovation Cleaner production alternatives
Zinc Aluminium Iron/steel
Incremental Desulphuring
SO
2
emissions
Desulphuring emissions Coke oven gas cleaning
Re-use gypsum, jarosite,
goethite
Point feeding alumina Improving energy efficiency
Improving energy efficiency Improving efficiency of electrolytic ovens Change pellet/sinter %
Melting recycled Zn Improving energy efficiency Powder coal injection
Direct leaching (high press/
atmospheric)
Use carbon anodes with desulphurised
coke
Re-use zinc coated steel, slag
Hematite process Melting recycled Al Jumbo reactor, formed non-recovery
coke oven
Jarosite treatment Inert anode technology Full, balanced oxygen blast furnace
Use low-iron zinc sulphide ore Closed system process Direct reduction processes
New/inert anode technology Carbothermic process Smelt processes
Radical Alcoa process Iron carbide processes
663E.H.M. Moors et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 657e668
metals industry including radical innovations are huge
and thus long-term.
All these factors increase the perceived risk for base
metals producing companies considering investing in
radical new technologies. Up scaling of a new unproven
technological development is a risky activity, which will
give rise to losses if the new technology does not work.
4.2. Systemic characteristics
An enormous physical intertwinement exists between
base metals production units and the extraction of
minerals, the generation of electricity, the production of
co- and by-products (e.g. combined zinc/lead/cadmium
production), the use of recycled metal, and the treatment
of liquid and solid waste and gaseous emissions. This
gives rise to a complex industrial production system.
The presence of mines, hydroelectric power, and an
accessible physical infrastructure (e.g. rivers, harbours,
roads, railways) determines to a large degree the
presence of base metals production in a certain location.
A representative of the steel industry expressed the
consequences of the intertwinement as follows: ‘‘the
most important barrier for implementation of new
technologies is the difficulty getting alternative new
technologies within the existing infrastructure’’.
Base metals companies often have long-term con-
tracts with their raw material suppliers and customers,
or they form technological alliances with other compa-
nies, which leaves not much room for experiencing with
radical technologies, and which keep them in their
conventional production paradigm. After all, the risks
of failure associated with implementation of radical,
unproven technologies in large-scale base metals pro-
ducing firms can be considerable.
4.3. Knowledge infrastructure
Base metals companies often have small R&D
departments, only used for troubleshooting and process
optimisation, without extended firm-internal or inter-
firm knowledge networks for the development and
exchange of scientific and technical know-how about
new (cleaner) production methods. In addition to
internal know-how exchange, (informal) contacts and
co-operation with universities and technical institutes,
and joint research projects with other firms are
important. As Outokumpu Zinc and Hoogovens Steel
have clearly shown, the technology developers and
suppliers are often the integrated metals producers
themselves. The availability of an extended firm-internal
technology network including technical specialists is
essential. The reason is that a commercially proven
technology needs to have been demonstrated in com-
mercial production for a sufficiently long period of time.
This means that there has to be a first user for this new
technology and typically that is usually the company
that has developed it. The company has invested in the
development and is thus, committed to the technology
and knows the technology and related risks better than
an outside company, especially in the case of major
changes in the production process principles and core
equipment. Thus, strategic technology development
which aims at radical improvements is typically carried
out by fairly large producers with a strong and active
R&D. Sharing process technology occurs more in the
open, ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community)
supported steel industry than in the relatively closed and
conservative aluminium industry, which has always been
exposed to high competition.
4.4. Legislative context
Some companies are rather successful in circum-
venting drastic government regulation. In fact, they
often lobby for more time to carry out research on
environmentally sound alternatives.
In some instances, however, external pressure from
authorities or environmental movements can motivate
companies to think about alternatives for cleaner pro-
duction.
Budel Zinc has clearly shown such circumventing
behaviour. The company was forced by the authorities
to find a definitive solution for its jarosite waste, which
had been stockpiled for years. The company tried to
delay the development of a jarosite treatment process,
by asking for more development time and a temporary
licence for a new jarosite storage pond. When the
external pressure from the authorities became stronger
by not giving a license for a new jarosite pond anymore,
the company was forced to find a solution for jarosite or
otherwise it would have had to have shut down its zinc
production plant.
The absence of international environmental legisla-
tion and a lack of harmony between national legislation,
often impedes radical innovation, because only a few,
mostly large, companies have been able to bear the risks
and high costs of development of cleaner production
alternatives by themselves. As the Budel Zinc case study
has shown, the jarosite treatment process ultimately
failed, because other companies did not support co-
development of the new process.
4.5. Organisation and culture of the firm
The absence of top-level advocacy towards cleaner
production, the absence of environmental management
capacities, and the absence of a clear long-term tech-
nology (R&D) strategy could be important barriers for
more radical innovations. A technology manager of
Budel Zinc stated: ‘‘With new processes it is always the
question who dares to make the choice for a new process,
664 E.H.M. Moors et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 657e668
which is not yet 100%proven technology. Someone must
dare to say: ‘we are going to do it’’’. The size and
character of the company (i.e. openness/innovator/
imitator) are also important influences on its innova-
tiveness [6].
Common practice and traditional production tech-
nologies are mostly very dominant in the base metals
producing industry. For example, the conventional
Hall-He
´roult aluminium reduction process is already
more than 100 years old. The historical context of the
base metals producing company has created fixed
traditions and a conservative culture with certain
standard routines. Employees are often reluctant to
work with procedures and substances other than the
ones they are used to.
Metals companies are very sensitive with regard to
their image: nowadays, there is a trend in large
industries to have a green reputation and to be open
and willing to co-operate in environmental issues that
are important for the society as a whole. Besides the
corporate green image, the personnel at lower levels in
the organisation need to become conscious of environ-
mental aspects.
Companies also differ in their perceptions of what
they consider the short- and long-term. Usually, com-
panies are only looking 5e10 years ahead, and they are
not thinking of possible environmental effects and pre-
ventive measurements in the long-term (25e50 years).
4.6. Stage of technology development
The development stage of the technology itself could
be a limiting factor for the innovativeness of a company.
The development stages include: the R&D stage, design
and development stage, pilot plant stage, pre-commer-
cial stage, and finally the commercial stage. The
development of inert anodes in aluminium production,
for example, is impeded because scientific knowledge is
not developed yet, necessary to solve all the technical
problems related to the use and up scaling of these
anodes in the aluminium production process.
A representative of the European Aluminium Asso-
ciation said: ‘‘I cannot see a major technological break-
through in terms of a completely new process, because
there is nothing out on the horizon. There is a technolog-
ical research barrier’’.
In conclusion, multiple barriers are impeding the
implementation of more radical cleaner technologies in
the metals producing industry. These barriers may also
influence each other. For example, organizational
intertwinements such a long-term cheap energy supply
agreements in the established aluminium industry could
complicate the development of energy-saving technolo-
gies in aluminium production.
The study revealed that implementation of radical
cleaner technologies is a complex problem, which makes
it difficult to design single strategies to overcome these
barriers. Or, in the words of a senior vice president of
research and development of Outokumpu: ‘‘New tech-
nologies seldom emerge. Incremental improvements are
made continuously with good success, new ideas are pre-
sented frequently, but commercially significant quantum
leaps are rare.’’
In the next section, we suggest some tentative starting
points for strategies towards cleaner production on the
firm-internal, inter-firm, and firm-external level.
5. Strategies towards implementing cleaner
production in the base metals producing industry
Various strategies can be proposed to overcome the
identified barriers to the implementation of more radical
cleaner technologies. This paper gives an overview of the
strategies towards cleaner production, at the firm-
internal, the inter-firm, and the firm-external level.
5.1. Firm-internal and inter-firm strategies
1. Re-enforcement of existing firm-internal networks
between R&D, engineering, production, strategy,
the environmental department and top manage-
ment. Dedication of top management, the develop-
ment of a long-term technology strategy (25e50
years), and the incorporation of environmental
management in business activities is especially
important for the implementation of more radical
cleaner technologies. For radical innovations, de-
parture from the established production process is
a necessary prerequisite, and the whole firm-internal
network needs to be convinced of that necessity.
Therefore, specific firm-internal relations should be
strengthened: the R&D should be more involved in
the laying down of long-term technology strategies;
a powerful innovation champion, who can direct
and push the radical innovation at various layers
within the company, should be found internally.
Stimulation of strategic and corporate research
funding, instead of business unit driven research,
is another driving mechanism within the firm.
2. Formation of inter-firm knowledge networks. Re-
garding the steel industry, a lot of research is
performed in European Coal and Steel Community
(ECSC) projects, where at least three or more steel
producing firms work together in joint research
projects. These joint research projects are especially
fruitful in the pre-competitive stage. Relations
between firms should be structured to include shared
education and training, risk sharing agreements and
joint agreement on performance measurements. An
example is the joint development of the cyclone
665E.H.M. Moors et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 657e668
converter process by Hoogovens, British Steel and
the Italian company Ilva.
3. Strengthening of the existing or formation of new
connections with public R&D facilities (universities,
technological institutes) by means of co-operation
with PhD students, professorships, contract re-
search, conferences, university courses, publica-
tions, etc.
4. Cross-fertilisation of knowledge within and between
firms. Exchange of knowledge and new ideas of one
metals’ production method to another within large
integrated firms could be very fruitful. For example,
at Outokumpu the flash-smelting technology in
copper production had lead to the use of the same
kind of technology for nickel production. At the
moment, Outokumpu is even thinking of using the
flash-smelting technology as a new technology for
more environmentally friendly zinc production. In
addition, cross-fertilisation can also take place
between firms, for example when two companies
form strategic alliances, thereby taking mutual
advantage of each other’s technological knowledge
and resources. This was for example the case between
Hoogovens and British Steel in the first develop-
ments of the cyclone converter process.
5. Relating the firms’ image to their cleaner production
performance, which could give the firm a competitive
advantage in the long-term. Although the ‘environ-
mental imperative’ is most often regarded as an
external pressure to which firms must react, there is
emerging evidence, particularly in the manufacturing
sector, that some firms regard the environment as
a new strategic arena. Firms are taking a proactive
stance towards the environment to capture a com-
petitive advantage. There is little evidence that the
base metals producers are seeking competitive
advantage through the marketing of ‘green’ metal
products, with the possible exception of the alumin-
ium industry, promoting aluminium-based light-
weight cars [9]. But the ‘green image’ consciousness
is growing in the steel industry which does not want
to be regarded anymore only as a commodity pro-
ducing industry, but as an industry that adds value to
metals and wants to sell environmentally sound
products. Process development is regarded as an
important instrument for developing better and
environmentally compatible products at lower costs.
6. Rival companies should work together and share
risk on the development of risky, costly, unproven
technological developments on a more regular basis.
One of the studied aluminium companies finds joint
research projects advantageous. When the costs are
put together, the companies have a bigger scope.
With smaller amounts of money each company can
participate in a huge program with the advantage
that many other international companies are
joining. The research work will thus be carried out
in either horizontal or vertical joint ventures among
a few major companies to share the risk and utilise
each other’s core competencies. May be this could
be stimulated by the European Union giving some
companies exemption of the anti-cartel formation
law for a certain period.
7. Shared responsibility through the production chain.
Customers could put pressure on metals producers
by threatening that they only want to buy green
produced metal in the future. Metals producers
could do the same upstream the production chain
by pressing raw material-, energy- and machinery
suppliers to move towards cleaner production
methods. One of the studied aluminium companies
actually sends people to the alumina refineries to
examine if the alumina is produced environmentally
friendly, and if the refiners have systems that protect
the environment. The reason behind is that the
aluminium company wants to be sure that if they
sell their aluminium products they have an image of
being environmentally friendly. Using Environmen-
tal Management and Auditing Systems (EMAS) as
a quality system is now becoming a trend in the
aluminium industry, at least for the larger com-
panies.
5.2. Firm-external strategies
1. The sensitivity of metals producing companies to
external pressure. Continuing pressure on metals
companies’ environmental performance by the au-
thorities and environmental movements has proved
to be a fruitful strategy to force companies to change
towards cleaner production. First, this could be done
by making the base metals producers responsible for
cleaner production themselves, e.g. by using Volun-
tary Agreements. In the Netherlands, the base metals
industry has Voluntary Agreements with the author-
ities since 1992. Second, governments could directly
intervene in the current polluting production process
by imposing more severe environmental legislation.
This instrument is used in all the studied cases.
Thirdly, the government could provide positive
stimuli by investing in joint (public) research projects
for the development of unproven cleaner technolo-
gies. In Norway, the National Reach Board (NTNU)
stimulates long-term research development projects
in the Norwegian aluminium industry. Fourth,
pressure is also exerted on the metals producing
companies via media, such as newspapers, and tele-
vision. Especially the non-governmental envi-
ronmental organisations, such as Greenpeace and
Earth Alarm use this instrument to bring the
polluting activities of the metals industry under the
public’s attention.
666 E.H.M. Moors et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 657e668
2. Creation of conditions for pre-competitive research.
The government need to stimulate research on
cleaner production in public R&D facilities (univer-
sities/institutes) creating a fundamental basis for the
development of more radical alternatives in the
metals industry, especially when this industry is not
able to develop these technologies themselves. Small
market niches should be created for the introduction
of cleaner production methods.
3. Stimulation of government-industry partnerships.
The government could introduce price-measure-
ments incentives to stimulate selective cleaner tech-
nology development. The government could also act
as a pro-active launching customer by buying only
green metal products.
4. Creation of ‘green metal is good’ incentives at the
demand side of the production chain. Therefore,
consumers should trigger generation of product
choice and green labelling of primary produced
metals. The cases showed that steel production does
react to ‘green triggers’ from their downstream
customers in the production value chain.
5. Stimulation of the market introduction of green
products and cleaner production methods. Europe-
an branch organisations could co-ordinate this
introduction, such as the European Zinc and Alumi-
nium Institute, respectively, but also product
information centres. The European Aluminium
Association, for example, promotes the aluminium
product as a very environmentally friendly product,
because it weights less than steel and it can be
recycled very often without large quality losses.
International harmonisation of environmental leg-
islation and cleaner production policies is impor-
tant, first on the European Union level. This would
prevent unfair competition between companies in
different countries that are currently subject to
varying degrees of external pressure.
6. Pressure by insurance companies on mining and
base metals producing companies. A good environ-
mental record is increasingly important in securing
financial backing [9]. In the aluminium industry, for
example, financial institutions are starting to pay
attention to the companies’ environmental perfor-
mance.
6. Concluding remarks
Radical technological innovations towards cleaner
production in the metals producing industry seem to be
technologically possible. However, various barriers were
identified which impede a fruitful implementation of
these radical innovations. Starting points for strategies
were developed at the firm-internal, inter-firm, and firm-
external level to overcome these identified barriers.
First, the terms ‘incremental’ and ‘radical’ innovations
were conceptualised by a technological criterion on
a gradual scale of radicalness. Then, the current zinc,
aluminium and iron/steel production processes and its
environmental problems were described. Some alterna-
tives for cleaner production were presented in increasing
order of radicalness. The conducted case studies showed
that various categories of barriers impede radical
innovations taking place. Important barriers appeared
to be: economic motives, such as the high costs of capital
investments in the base metals industry and the high
risk involved in committing capital to the scale up of
unproven technology; the embeddedness of the physical
intertwined production system and an underdeveloped
available knowledge infrastructure. Thus, implemen-
tation of radical cleaner production technologies is a
complex problem on various levels. In general, it can be
stated that companies are concentrating more on in-
cremental innovations because the existing infrastructure
and capital investments are then already in place.
Appropriate firm-internal and inter-firm knowledge
network structures are very important for the implemen-
tation and diffusion of cleaner production methods.
The firm-external strategies could be translated into
environmental policies for authorities and societal
movements to overcome barriers towards cleaner pro-
duction in scale-intensive firms, such as the metals
producing industry. Competitive companies could co-
operate more in the pre-competitive stage of technology
development because of the high costs and risk involved
in the development of radical cleaner technologies. This
could be stimulated by the European Union by exemp-
tion of the anti-cartel laws.
Furthermore, the case studies showed that cleaner
production depends very much on the continual knowl-
edge build up at the supply side, such as research
traditions within the firms, and also on the demand side,
such as public R&D investments for the development of
cleaner production methods, and customers and con-
sumers consistently asking for green produced metals.
Intensification and extension of existing industrial net-
works or even formation of new networks between the
metals producing companies, their suppliers and cus-
tomers, the governments, universities and technological
institutes could facilitate developments and implementa-
tion of cleaner production processes. In particular, the
horizontal, intra-sectoral networks, with universities,
institutes and competitors seemed to play an important
role [18]. The large integrated firms play an important
role in the introduction of more radical technological
innovation in base metals industry, and also the
knowledge exchange between the base metals producing
firms themselves. These firms often produce more than
one metal, which enables exchange of ideas between the
various production methods of metals. Thus, the in-
tertwinement of the metals production system, which
667E.H.M. Moors et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 657e668
could be a barrier, could also be an incentive for the
development of more radical innovations in other pro-
duction processes in the base metals producing industry.
This paper presented preliminary results of a disser-
tation on transition towards cleaner industrial pro-
duction. Future work will elaborate further on the
barriers and strategies for cleaner production. The
structure and characteristics of the various networks
that are important for the development and implemen-
tation of cleaner production processes will be analysed
in more detail and theoretically supported, using the
concepts of technology dynamics (systems approach,
network theory). These concepts will be used to obtain
more insight into the relationships between the network
structures, the production system and the decision-
making processes and the impact on incremental and
radical innovations in the base metals producing
industry.
References
[1] Vergragt PhJ, Jansen JLA. Sustainable technological develop-
ment: the making of a Dutch long-term oriented technology
programme. Project Appraisal 1993;8(3):134e40 September.
[2] Vergragt PhJ, van Grootveld G. Sustainable Technology De-
velopment in the Netherlands: The first phase of the Dutch STD
programme. Journal of Cleaner Production 1994;2(3e4):133e9.
[3] Weizsa
¨cker E, von Lovins, AB, Lovins HL, Factor Four.
Doubling wealthdhalving resource use, The New Report to the
Club of Rome. London: Earthscan publications Ltd; 1997.
[4] Jansen JLA. The environment: towards a sustainable future.
Dordrecht: CLTM, Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1993. p.
497e523.
[5] Weterings RAPM, Opschoor JB. The Eco-capacity as a challenge
to technological development. Rijswijk, The Netherlands: Advi-
sory Council for Research on Nature and Environment; 1992.
[6] Pavitt K. Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a
taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy 1984;13:343e73.
[7] Tidd J, Bessant J, Pavitt K. Managing innovation. integrating
market and organizational change. Chichester: John Wiley &
Sons; 1997.
[8] Moors EHM. Metal making in motion. Technology choices for
sustainable metals production. Delft: Delft University Press; 2000.
[9] Warhurst A, Bridge G. Improving environmental performance
through innovation: recent trends in the mining industry.
Minerals Engineering 1996;9(9):907e21.
[10] Yin RK. Case study research. Design and methods. 2nd ed.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1994.
[11] Schinkel JN, Bouwmans I. Technologische mogelijkheden voor
een doelmatiger beheer van primaire en secundaire grondstoffen.
17, Zink. Translated from Dutch: technological possibilities for
a more efficient management of primary and secondary raw
materials. 17, Zink. Delft: Interduct rapport, Interduct; 1995.
[12] Hydro Aluminium a.s., Elkem Aluminium ANS, Sør-Norge
Aluminium A/S, The Norwegian Aluminium Industry and the
Local Environment, Summary Report, Oslo; 1994.
[13] Schinkel JN, Bouwmans I. Technologische mogelijkheden voor
een doelmatiger beheer van primaire en secundaire grondstoffen.
9. Aluminium. Translated from Dutch: technological possibilities
for a more efficient management of primary and secondary raw
materials. 9, Aluminium. Delft: Interduct rapport, Interduct;
1995.
[14] Stichting Aluminium Centrum, The Netherlands, personal com-
munication; 1997.
[15] Schinkel JN, Smits DF, Bouwmans I. Technologische mogelij-
kheden voor een doematiger beheer van primaire en secundaire
grondstoffen. 15, Staal. Translated from Dutch: technological
possibilities for a more efficient management of primary and
secondary raw materials. 15, Steel. Delft: Interduct rapport,
Interduct; 1995.
[16] Szekely J. Steelmaking and Industrial EcologydIs Steel a Green
Material? ISIJ International 1996;36(1):121e32.
[17] Worrell E. Advanced technologies and energy efficiency in the
iron and steel industry in China. Journal of International Energy
Initiative 1995;II(4):27e40. Reprinted from Energy for Sustain-
able Development.
[18] Knot M, Moors E. Innovation characteristics and social net-
works: different styles in product and process innovation.
Innovations in the packaging and steel industry as examples.
Paper presented at Fourth International ASEAT Conference,
Manchester, September 2e4. 1997.
668 E.H.M. Moors et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 657e668
