The circular economy (CE) is widely recognized as the new economic model that aims to preserve the value of materials, parts and products for as long as possible, minimizing the extraction and use of new resources and waste generation, while adopting design strategies use that slow down the flow of resources, close cycles between production and subsequent use and increase resource efficiency.
However, despite the well-understood need to move away from the unsustainable linear “take-make-waste” model, concrete circular economy measures have been largely incremental.
Typical examples include excessive focus on recycling and substitution of materials and practices that on the surface appear “less bad.” Other measures, commonly referred to as “Rs,” generally have larger impacts. Reusing, repurposing, repairing and remanufacturing tends to keep the value higher and reduction is the most important but also most avoided of all Rs.
The transition to sustainability requires transformative systems change, a move away from mass production and mass consumption towards the dematerialization of production processes and maximization of the value and longevity of materials and products.
Courageous leadership is needed to achieve a new economic and social system that decouples economic prosperity and well-being from resource consumption and environmental degradation, as called for in SDG Target 8.4. To promote the development of a more holistic, effective and transformative CE at the global level, transformative policies and regulations, followed by appropriate actions, are required.
Circular Economy: Multiple definitions and scopes
One reason for the dominance of incremental approaches is the wide range of definitions of CE. A study found 221 definitions for the circular economy, covering its applicability for practitioners, contributions to the environmental and social pillars of sustainability, and the conceptual distinction between CE and sustainability.
Definitions of the scope of CE are broad, ranging from a narrow waste management strategy to a new economic paradigm. Unfortunately, this leads to a lack of conceptual clarity and confusion about the goals, strategies and priorities of CE, resulting in a lack of coherence in actions to promote CE. Differing perceptions from different stakeholders and countries hinder progress.
CE developed in three phases. CE 1.0 (1970-1990) emphasized waste management and the concepts of “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle” (3R). However, most of the measures were based on end-of-pipe principles rather than waste prevention. In CE 2.0 (1990s-2010), life cycle thinking and design for environment strategies emerged. At the heart of CE 3.0 is the concept of value retention, with an emphasis on minimizing resource use, expanding reuse, expanding system scope and engaging a wider range of stakeholders.
As the CE scope expands, the number of Rs also increases. Researchers have proposed a hierarchical 10R typology: R0 (garbage); R1 (reduce); R2 (reuse); R3 (repair); R4 (renovation); R5 (overhaul); R6 (Rezoning); R7 (recycling); R8 (restore); and R9 (re-mine). However, the hierarchy is not sufficiently taken into account. In practice, even in CE 3.0, the focus is predominantly on less transformative activities such as recycling and incineration.
Reduce: The Ignored Principle
The reduction principle of less production and consumption is the most effective R, but due to its supposed negative effects on economic growth and company sales and profits, it is the least common in government policy and in the scientific literature.
Economic actors promoting reductions in production and consumption include companies and grassroots organizations in alternative economies such as the sharing economy (though not platform economy companies such as Airbnb or Uber), the collaborative economy, and degrowth actors.
Alternative economies aim to reduce consumption through changing attitudes by providing access to products without ownership. Examples include libraries of things, sharing items, ride sharing, and free stores. In addition, more and more companies are developing CE business models that focus on the entire supply chain, are designed for CE and end-of-life, and design goods with longer product life cycles and lower material and energy consumption by changing the use phase from purchase-use. Waste models to models that involve leasing or selling the services of an item, thus decoupling profit from the number of items sold.
Promote superficial rather than transformative solutions
Apart from a few front-runners, most governments and companies use short-term, comfortable, lenient and gradual strategies with almost invisible positive effects. Various alternatives have been presented as sustainable solutions, but many are highly questionable from both an environmental and life cycle perspective.
For example, instead of limiting the use of single-use plastics, there is a trend towards using substitutes such as bio-based polymers, many of which are derived from edible plants. Sometimes items made from these alternative materials are mislabeled as “green” or “sustainable.” CE became part of marketing, which led to greenwashing.
Related articles: Circular Plastic Economy: A Startup's Solution to Ocean Pollution | Turning waste into wealth, a collaboration for the circular economy
Electric vehicles (EVs) are another shallow approach that does not reduce the overall demand for individual transportation vehicles. By expanding local public transport and introducing car-sharing platforms, a high level of mobility can be maintained. In order to improve the environmental performance of existing vehicles, regulations should be introduced that enable the conversion of internal combustion engines to electric motors. France recently adopted this policy.
A third example is the emphasis on producing more renewable energy rather than reducing energy demand. In addition, renewable energy technologies rely significantly on the use of various environmentally harmful materials. Solutions that reduce the use of energy and materials, such as: E.g. passive design of buildings, and reducing energy demand through the adoption of CE practices that maximize the value retention of materials and goods should be a priority.
The need for systemic and transformative change is overlooked
The need for systematic and transformative change to move away from the linear economic model is widely recognized. However, there is a lack of urgency for ambitious action. Additionally, the research community promotes narrow definitions and focuses on narrow and incremental research questions using the latest buzzwords rather than thinking about how to accelerate transformation.
There is also insufficient awareness of the impact of resource scarcity and the linear economy on climate change and the environment. It is estimated that the extraction and processing of natural resources is responsible for half of all greenhouse gas emissions and 90% of terrestrial biodiversity loss. Large-scale extraction and consumption of natural resources contributes to human exploitation, social injustice and geopolitical conflicts. Scarcity of resources, severe pollution and climate change are leading to despair and mass migration.
Given the enormous scale of global sustainability problems, current “circular” solutions will have little visible impact.
Instead, we must find ways to live within Earth's boundaries while meeting society's needs and redefining prosperity rather than pursuing unattainable eternal growth. Single-use products do not represent optimal use of materials or energy. We will produce more than enough food to feed the world if we stop wasting more than a third of the world's food, and we will have enough wealth to feed the entire population.
In short, we often focus on solving individual elements of the problem and avoid a broader view, preventing the economic system from evolving into a sustainable cycle.
One reason that the need for systematic and transformative change has been overlooked is the insufficient attention to insights from systems science. More systems science research could help persuade policymakers to take more ambitious and transformative actions.
But with the resources on which our economies rely accelerating, waiting for further research is no excuse to delay more ambitious action.
Way forward
It is well known that the current linear economic model is unsustainable. However, the current understanding and implementation of CE is too incremental and not sufficiently transformative. A transformative systemic change is required that begins with a redefinition of quality of life and the decoupling of quality of life from material consumption and puts social sustainability at the heart of a CE transformation. Collective action and bold leadership are critical.
* * *
About the authors
Vesna Lavtizar is a political researcher and To mark Older is Director of Research and Publications at the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Japan. Rannveig Edda Hjaltadottir is an associate professor at Nord University Business School, Nord University, Norway, and a senior researcher at Nordland Research Institute, Norway. Dolores Modic is an associate professor at Nord University Business School and a senior researcher at Rudolfovo – Science and Technology Center Novo Mesto, Slovenia.
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Norwegian Research Council (Critical Views and Controversies in Circular Economy – From Environment to Bioresources (C3E, Project No. 337187)), which supported the workshop that inspired this commentary. This paper reflects the views solely of the authors and not of their affiliated organizations.
— —
This article was originally published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) and is republished here as part of an editorial collaboration with IISD.
Editor's Note: The opinions expressed here by the authors are their own, not those of Impakter.com — Featured photo: Waste management and recycling in Bogotá, Colombia. Featured photo: Greenpeace.
Comments are closed.