In France, AMAPs (associations for community-supported agriculture) are emblematic examples of the social solidarity economy. But they are not the only social solidarity economy (SSE) organizations. Other examples include cooperative banks, non-profit groups and mutual funds.

What is the social and solidarity economy?

The social and solidarity economy (SSE) encompasses organizations that seek to respond to human problems through responsible solutions. Far from being an epiphenomenon, the SSE accounts for a significant share of the economy both in France and around the world. Contrary to popular belief, these principles are far from new. Mélissa Boudes, a researcher in management at Institut Mines-Télécom Business School, helps us understand the foundations of this economy.

 

What makes the social and solidarity economy unique?

Mélissa Boudes: The social and solidarity economy (SSE) is based on an organization structure that is both different and complementary to public economy and capitalist economy. This structure is dedicated to serving human needs. For example, organizations that are part of the SSE are either non-profit or low-profit limited companies. In this second case, profits are largely reinvested in projects rather than being paid to shareholders in the form of dividends. In general, SSE organizations have a democratic governance model, in which decisions are made collectively based on the “one person one vote” principle and involve those who benefit from their services.

What types of organizations are included in this economy?

MB: A wide range! Non-profit groups typically fall within this framework. Although sports and community non-profit groups do not necessarily claim to be part of the SSE, they fall within the framework based on their official statutes. Cooperatives, mutual funds and social businesses of varying sizes are also part of the SSE. One example is the cooperative group Up—formerly called Chèque déjeuner—which now has an international dimension. Other organizations include mutual health insurance groups, wine cooperatives, and cooperative banks.

How long has this economy existed?

MB: We often say that it has existed since the 19th century. The social and solidarity economy developed in response to the industrial revolution. At this time, workers entered a subordinate relationship that was difficult to accept. They wanted a way out. Alternative organizations were created with a primary focus on workers’ concerns. The first organizations of this kind were mutual aid companies that provided access to medical care and consumer cooperatives that helped provide access to good quality food. At the time, people often went into debt buying food. Citizens therefore created collective structures to help each other and facilitate access to good quality, affordable food.

So why have we only heard about the social and solidarity economy in recent years?

MB: It’s true that we seem to be witnessing the re-emergence of SSE, which was the subject of a law in 2014. SSE is now back in the forefront because the issues that led to its creation in the 19th century are reappearing—access to food that is free of pollution, access to medical care for “uberized” workers.  AMAPs (associations for community-supported agriculture) and cooperative platforms such as Label Emmaüs are examples of how the SSE can respond to these new expectations. Although new media coverage would suggest that these organization models are new, they actually rely on practices that have existed for centuries. However, the historical structures behind the SSE are less visible now because they have become institutionalized. For example, we sometimes receive invitations to participate in the general meeting for our banks or mutual funds. We don’t pay much attention to this, but it shows that even without knowing it, we are all part of the SSE.

Is the social and solidarity economy a small-scale phenomenon, or does it play a major role in the economy?

MB: The SSE exists everywhere in France, but also around the world. We must understand that SSE organizations aim to provide solutions to universal human problems: better access to education, mobility, healthcare… In France, the SSE represents 10% of employment.  This share rises to 14% if we exclude the public economy and only look at private employment. Many start-ups have been created based on the SSE model. This is therefore an important economic phenomenon.

Can any type of organization claim to be part of the social and solidarity economy?

MB: No, they must define an official status that is compatible with the SSE at the time the organization is founded, or request authorization if the company has a commercial status. They must request specific approval as a solidarity-based company of social benefit, which is attributed by the regional French employment authority (DIRECCTE).  Approval is granted if the company demonstrates that it respects certain principles, including providing a social benefit, a policy in its statutes limiting remuneration, an absence from financial markets, etc.

How does the social and solidarity economy relate to the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR)?

MB: In practice, CSR and SSE concepts sometimes overlap when commercial companies partner with SSE companies to develop their CSR. However, these two concepts are independent. The CSR concept does, however, reveal an economic movement that places increasing importance on organizations’ social aims. More and more commercial companies are opting for a hybrid structure: without becoming SSE companies, they impose limited salary scales to avoid extremely high wages. We are in the process of moving towards an environment in which the dichotomies are more blurred. We can no longer think in terms of virtuous SSE organizations on one side and the profit-driven capitalist economy on the other. The boundaries are not nearly as clear-cut as they used to be.

Read on I’MTech Social and solidarity economy in light of corporate reform

nanoparticles

What happens to nanoparticles when they become waste?

For the past twenty years, industry sectors across the board have been producing a wide range of nanomaterials. They have developed rapidly and with little in the way of regulation. This has led to a regulatory vacuum when it comes to the end-of-life management of these nanomaterials. Little is known about the environmental and health impacts linked to the future of this nanowaste. IMT Atlantique researchers have therefore led two successive projects on the incineration of nanowaste as part of a research consortium: NanoFlueGas and Nano-Wet. The results confirm the persistence of certain nanoparticles after they leave the incinerator, in the form of effluent and ashes. Last April, the research consortium, made up of IMT Atlantique, INERIS and industrial partner Trédi – Groupe Séché Environnement, submitted its technical recommendations to ADEME. Researcher Aurélie Joubert, lead author of the Nano-Wet report and researcher at IMT Atlantique, provides a look back at how this pioneer program came about.

 

What was the purpose of the NanoFlueGas and Nano-Wet project?

Aurélie Joubert: There are currently no regulations on the management of nanoparticle waste, especially for end-of-life materials. If the nanoparticles contained in the waste are identified as being hazardous for the environment or health, this waste is categorized and treated in the hazardous waste cycle. If not, they follow the common domestic waste incineration cycle. Our goal was to understand what was happening to the nanoparticles over the course of this treatment, to determine whether the cycles are adapted to nanowaste and possibly how to optimize them.

During the NanoFlueGas project, we studied the incineration of nanowaste at temperatures of 850°C, which is the common practice in the domestic waste management cycle. A lab incineration furnace was developed for this purpose at INERIS. It reproduced the same conditions in terms of temperature, air turbulence and oxygen levels. We were able to confirm that nanoparticles were released during treatment at varying concentrations depending on the nature of the nanowaste being studied. We also observed a capture efficiency of over 99% of the nanoparticles released thanks to a system developed at IMT Atlantique: a pilot blowback bag filter.

During the second project, Nano-Wet, which ended on April 1st, we focused on the hazardous waste incineration cycle at 1,100°C and on a technique for the wet processing of smoke. ADEME, which funded the project, now has the results of this study, and they are now public.

Which types of nanowaste have you worked on, and where do they come from?

AJ: A national registry—called R-nano—has existed since 2013. It requires all nanoparticles present on French territory to be declared. We worked on actual waste deposits received by Trédi that are part of this registry. For the Nano-Wet project, we worked on chlorinated waste, which is waste produced during the manufacturing of PVC floor covering in the construction sector. We also had sulfur waste from ion exchange resin beads used for water treatment. Finally, we worked with organosilicon waste, in the form of a polymer from mastic, which we had already studied in the previous project and found to have high-emissivity.

We went through a fairly long and in-depth characterization phase for the types of waste selected. This was a choice we made and was unlike other research projects in which laboratories produce their own product and are therefore perfectly aware of its composition. We wanted to use real waste deposits, for which we did not know the exact composition, in order to develop relevant methodological tools for analysis. This could now allow industrialists like Trédi to identify the potential nanofillers in its waste in the lab, enabling them to remain in advance of the regulations in this area.

What were the findings from the Nano-Wet project?

AJ: For the incineration component, we observed different scenarios in the nanoparticles present in the smoke. This revealed that nanowaste behaves differently during incineration depending on the composition. With organosilicon polymer waste, the initial nanostructure of the silica is preserved. It even increases through the formation of nano-silica caused by the degradation of a polymer. Conversely, the nanostructure disappears in PVC waste. In the case of resin waste, which does not originally contain nanofiller, a nanostructure appears due to reactions involving the impurities that were present from the beginning.

The results also suggest that the “hazardous waste” cycle with incineration at 1,100°C should be applied to nanowaste. With the organosilicon polymer waste, we found that incineration at 1,100°C instead of 850°C reduced nanoparticle emissions due to a sintering phenomenon. This interesting finding could be applied to other types of waste. Concerning the smoke treatment system, we specifically focused on a device for treating gaseous pollutants: a washing column.  We showed that the washing column reduced the quantity of nanoparticle emissions by 60% after incineration. This column therefore significantly contributes to the overall effectiveness of the treatment system.

Why did you decide to focus on the water column smoke treatment process?

AJ: Both researchers and industrialists see scrubbers as an unusual process for nanoparticles, because they are normally used to treat acid gases in the smoke. With Nano-Wet, we demonstrated that they are still significantly effective with nanoparticles, reducing the quantity by 60%. This was a rather unexpected outcome, especially since it was obtained without optimizing the process: we studied the column’s effectiveness without adapting it to treat nanoparticles. Despite its effectiveness, it is important to maintain the complementary procedures designed specifically for particle collection, namely bag filters and electrostatic precipitators, which have an effectiveness of 99%. We are pioneers in this type of study and we will continue. We want to assess the influence of the operating conditions to improve the scrubbers’ effectiveness for nanoparticles, while maintaining their effectiveness with acid cases.

How did you go about studying the effectiveness of the water columns?

AJ: The idea was to build a water column that sprays fine droplets in our research facility. We developed our pilot test to enable us to work in realistic conditions in terms of temperature and humidity, but on a reduced scale. We kept the same turbulent flow regime, the same ratio between the flow of the liquid sprayed into the column and the air flow, the same size for the sprayed droplets, etc. Here we clearly witnessed the advantage of working with an industrialist on this project: Trédi provided us with the operating conditions in the form of technical specifications at the start of the project. However, we did simplify the experiment: the conditions are very complicated in the flue gas treatment lines because due to the large amount of acid gases. We made the decision to inject air enriched with nanoparticles without injecting corrosive acid gases like hydrochloric acid and sulfur dioxide.

Was it easy to transition from the laboratory to the industrial site?

AJ: When possible, we try to incorporate an on-site measurement phase in order to compare the laboratory scale with the real scale. In the context of the Nano-Wet project, a specialized team from INERIS conducted two measurement campaigns at the industrial site. They were faced with very complicated sampling conditions. Results from samples taken at the entrance to the water column allowed us to determine the particle size and concentration, conditions that we could then reproduce in the lab.

When the particles are removed from the column, they end up in the wastewater. What happens to them after that?

AJ: This is an issue that must be addressed. We did not identify the particles in the liquid phase after leaving the column.  We do not know what form they take, if they remain nanoparticles or if they agglomerate, in which case they could easily be separated in the water treatment station. Other research laboratories are working on these issues.

You just submitted your last report to ADEME. How could the legislation change?

AJ: The threshold values for particle emissions for waste incinerators are currently expressed in terms of total mass concentration in micrograms per cubic meter of air. This is not relevant for nanoparticles. Despite their negligible mass, they are suspected to be highly toxic. In the future, I think the standards could specify a concentration threshold in terms of quantity of particles, or in terms of mass according to the given particle size. For indoor air quality, for example, new tools have been developed to characterize mass concentrations by size of fine particulate matter: PM 10, PM 2.5 or PM 0.1.

This article was written (in Frenh) by Alice Mounissamy for I’MTech.

ALGIMEL is an environmentally-friendly material which is used in a wide range of projects.

ALGIMEL, a ‘marine’ polystyrene

In the future, materials will not only need to be more efficient; it will also be essential that they are environmentally friendly. With this in mind, researchers from IMT Mines Alès who specialize in bio-sourced materials are working on this project.  Over the past few decades, they have been trying to develop environmentally-friendly alternatives to the most polluting materials. One of their latest designs is a naturally occurring polymer foam which can replace several of polystyrene’s uses. Eric Guibal and Thierry Vincent tell us about their work.

 

What is the material you have developed like?

Eric Guibal: We see it as a material with similar properties to polystyrene. It is a low-density foam with a structure that is mainly made up of biopolymers. This material, named ALGIMEL, is mostly made up of alginate, a natural polymer which is found in the cell wall of brown algae. The team’s expertise is mainly focused on the synthesis and composition of these foams.

Why did you choose this type of biopolymer?

Thierry Vincent: From the beginning, our aim was to develop the most environmentally-friendly material possible. This decision goes far beyond the choice of polymer as during the synthesis of the material we don’t use any toxic products. For example, when we are developing the foam, we don’t use any chemical solvents.  We don’t use products which could be dangerous for the technicians. The additives which we use to improve the properties of the material are also natural. Our manufacturing processes have low energy consumption and the drying process is carried out at a maximum temperature of 50°C. Some synthetic products are still used during manufacturing, but they make up less than 1% of all the materials that we use, and we are working on replacing them with bio-sourced materials.

Why did you want to develop these foams?

EG: Our aim was to produce an insulating material which was also an alternative to polystyrene. This is because polystyrene takes several hundred years to biodegrade, pollutes water and releases several toxic substances when it burns. Although our biopolymer foam has similar thermal insulating properties to polystyrene, it is also different due to its outstanding fire-resistant properties. ALGIMEL also has a controlled lifespan. When it is being used, the material is stable; however, at the end of its life, its biodegradable properties mean that it can be put in the household compost.

What could this material be used for?

TV: This material is light and extremely versatile, which means it can have many uses. As well as its thermal insulation and flame-retardant properties, its surface properties can be modified by applying biopolymers which make the foam hydrophobic, so it can be used in humid environments. To increase its mechanical strength, you can easily add plant-based fibers or mineral fillers. We can also add pigments or dyes, both on the interior and the surface, to change its appearance. If it’s used with other materials such as wood, fabrics, leather, etc., either in its composite form or as a sandwich compound, the foam has many uses. These include decoration, packaging, bags, clips fashion and luxury items, etc.

How did your research lead you to this material?

TV: For around thirty years, our work has focused on developing biopolymers. Our main area of experience is with alginate, as well as other biopolymers such as chitin and chitosan, which are made from crustacean shells. We have always directed our research towards developing materials that are more environmentally friendly. ALGIMEL is the result of all the skills we have acquired during our research.

Will the material soon be used outside of your laboratory?

EG: We are currently working with organizations that specialize in technology transfer, including SATT AxLR Occitanie Est. We are also lucky enough to have a contract with Institut Carnot M.I.N.E.S and the Carnot Carats network. Today, we are in the process of raising process quality and pre-industrialization. In collaboration with several partners, we are working on improving the design of our foams so they can be used in decorative, fashion and luxury products. We know that the development of this type of material is in line with many announcements made by the public authorities and industrialists. The most recent example is Emmanuel Macron’s aim of making the fashion and luxury goods industries more sustainable, which he entrusted to François-Henri Pinault. All of this shows that this product has a promising future ahead of it.