The idea of Industrial symbiosis and eco-industrial parks (EIPs) has nowadays become one of the most powerful tools in realizing sustainability while industrial system evolves. The paper firstly clarified the definition of industrial symbiosis and business model, and then identified the key actors, core competencies and capital flows of each case as the three indicators for comparing industrial symbiosis models worldwide. We distinguished the Kalundborg, USA, UK, Japan, Korea and China's models, by the level of governmental intervention, from the models that are self-organizing to those that are planned cooperate with government. Regarding the key actors involved, like Japan and Korea, the EIP practices in China are also driven by the central government. However, the administrative committee of the industrial parks in China is also acting as an agency from the government, and this makes China' model more towards the ‘planned’ end of the spectrum. Another distinction of China's model is that a stable, continuous capital flow has not been established to provide financial support for industrial symbiosis, especially the EIPs. As a major driving force for eco-industry's prototype in promoting industrial symbiosis, in reality, the environmental protection departments barely have any capacity in providing funds. There is not a stable source of finance for EIP in China, unlike the Korean EIP special funds, the landfill tax in the UK or the recycling and recovery fee in Japan, which offer stable funding. Considering the huge industrial foundation and the vigorous situation of development, there is no doubt that China has the highest amount of EIP practices. Nevertheless, the development of EIPs in China is still in its trial stage. For example, compared with the UK model, China hasn't established the nationwide industrial symbiosis network; compared with Korea model, China should enforce better the supporting and monitoring capabilities. In conclusion, China should make a clearer plan on development targets and layout. The future sustainable development of EIPs requires the building of an appropriate regulatory framework, as well as stable funding schemes and sustainable competitive advantage. Thus, several policies recommended are proposed as follows: 1) the planning of EIPs should be incorporated into the mainstream decision-making for all industrial park construction, which requires the establishment of a more integrated institutional framework. Total discharge volume control, environmental entry standards, information disclosure and some other policies should be highlighted; 2) The leading role of the environmental protection departments should be emphasized, including the establishment of an unified management approach, as well as unifying the technical standards and specification guidelines, and the provision of sustainable sources of funding; 3) The building of the core capacities and transparency of EIPs should be highlighted by carrying out key activities. The auditing of EIPs should be administrated, with the setting up of a measurable, comparable and verifiable evaluation criteria system. 4) Last but not the least, a stable, sustainable financial supporting scheme should be formulated. For instance, certain proportion of the pollution discharge fees can be used to provide funding. In the meantime, similar to the Korean case, a competitive funding distribution system can be established to achieve the optimal allocation of money based on performance.