An official website of the United States government
Amid the growth of circular economy research, policy, and practice, there are increasingly loud calls for a unified and singular definition of circularity. This unity is needed, proponents argue, to enable swift action in the face of climate and environmental crises. Our work interrogates the ideal of convergence around the circular economy. We ask whether circularity must be singular and uniform in order to be effective. Based on convergence science research and social theory rooted in ideas of divergence, our paper draws on observations of a convergence science workshop, focus groups, interviews, and questionnaires with US-based circular economy professionals to explore shared and divergent understandings and practices of circularity. We find that even among a relatively homogeneous group of research participants (in terms of race, class, and education), there is significant divergence in terms of both practices and perceptions of circular economy principles. We focus in this paper on how research participants understand innovation in the circular economy as just one potential illustration of divergent circularity. Our research contributes to an understanding of circular economy knowledge politics, illuminating how circularity is contested even among those who advocate most strongly for its implementation. We ultimately find opportunity and promise precisely in the spaces of contestation, and see divergence as a way to hold space for multiple ways of being and relating to economies, materials, and beings. These more inclusive pathways, we argue, may be necessary to ensure just and effective transitions to more circular economic forms.
more »
« less
Just by design: exploring justice as a multidimensional concept in US circular economy discourse
ircular economies are often framed as addressing a trio of problems: environmental degradation, economic stagnation, and social ills, broadly defined. Our paper centers on this last claim – that circular economies promise social benefits. There is a dearth of literature focused on the social dimensions of circular economies (Geissdoerfer, Martin, Paulo Savaget, Nancy M. P. Bocken, and Erik Jan Hultink. 2017. “The Circular Economy – A New Sustainability Paradigm?” Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (February): 757–768. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048.), and even less attention to the meaning of social justice in the context of circular economies, let alone how it might be enacted in policy and practice. Drawing on data generated from focus groups with circular economy experts and a content analysis of US-based governmental, NGO, and business literature on circular economies, we explore whether and how justice emerges in circular economy discourse. We explore the narratives that these actors use to describe justice, and the barriers they see in achieving just and inclusive circular economies. We aim to identify the ways in which social justice is defined and discussed – or not – by the actors who seem to be most actively pushing for a circular economy (CE). Our work addresses the critical need to articulate clearly what it is we mean by social justice in relation to the CE. For if the CE is to contribute to sustainable social transformations, justice must be more than a buzzword – the CE must be just by design.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1934426
- PAR ID:
- 10357711
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Local Environment
- ISSN:
- 1354-9839
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 1 to 17
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Over the past two decades, scholars have invoked E. P. Thompson's and James Scott's concept of a “moral economy” to explain how people mobilize notions of justice to make claims to water. We draw together 20 years of literature to assess the state‐of‐the‐art present in research on moral economies for water. We trace the historical foundations of the moral economies concept and its relevance to water; define the three basic components of a moral economy for water—(1) shared understandings of justice, (2) normative economic practices, (3) social pressure mechanisms—and provide examples of how they manifest globally. We then discuss how moral economies for water can cycle through four basic states—balanced struggle, intensified reaction, mass revolt, and collapse and dissolution—at different scales. We also explore the implications of the moral economies framework for key areas of current research on water: water sharing, water commons, water markets, and biocultural outcomes, and discuss the ways in which the moral economies framework dovetails with recent advances in water research, especially the economics of water and development. We argue that the moral economies framework is a powerful explanatory tool for understanding the relationships between ideas of water justice, economic behaviors, and mechanisms of social enforcement that complements other methodological approaches and theoretical perspectives. We envision moral economies for water as a field that can facilitate a range of norm‐based analyses of economic behavior and water justice, including across scales—from local to global—and in broad, integrative, multiscalar, and cross‐disciplinary ways. This article is categorized under:Human Water > Water GovernanceHuman Water > Value of WaterHuman Water > Rights to Watermore » « less
-
The circular economy (CE) is a resource system in which byproducts and traditional end-of-life resource flows are fed back into the system to reduce virgin resource use and waste production. Emerging technologies offer an exciting opportunity to support circular economy efforts, especially in the early design phase when opportunities for incorporating these technologies are relatively easy. Traditionally, however, the early design phase has access to very little data about resource flows which makes the introduction of new technologies difficult to do, especially with respect to market-related design decisions. In the later design stages, this data is easier to obtain but is met with increased inflexibility and costs that make these types of changes less common. This paper proposes the use of cyclicity, also known as spectral radius, and NS* minimal-data input metrics that can direct designers to options with the greatest theoretical impact on routing commonly wasted resources back into value circulation. Cyclicity is a metric commonly used in ecology to assess the existence and complexity of cycles, or material/energy pathways that can start and end at the same node, occurring in a system. The metric uses a topological adjacency matrix of resource flows between potential circular economy actors, modeled as a directional graph, and is calculated as the largest absolute eigenvalue of an adjacency matrix and can be a value of zero (no cycles), one (basic cycles), and any value larger than one (increasing presence and complexity of cycles). This study also evaluates actors making up the network as to whether they are part of a strong cycle, a weak component of a cycle, or are disconnected from a cycle, quantified with NS*. In a strong cycle, all actors feed into the cycle and the cycle feeds back into the actors. Actors that are weakly connected to a cycle do not contribute to a cyclic pathway. Disconnected actors are not connected to any actor participating in cycling. This paper conducts two case studies on these design tools. The first, a survey of 51 eco-industrial parks (EIPs) and 38 ecological food webs to compare the presence and complexity of cycles in industrial resource systems to ecological resource systems. The latter, food webs, are very effective at retaining value inside the system boundaries. The former, EIPs, were built in support of circular economy principles to use waste streams from one industry as resource streams for others. The analysis shows that 46 out of 51 EIPs had cyclicity values of one or greater and an average of 54% of actors in an EIP are strong. The food webs all have a cyclicity greater than one and an average of 79% of actors in a food web are strong. These results can help decision makers consider CE-supporting pathways earlier in the design process, increasing the likelihood that emerging technologies are incorporated to maximize their CE impact. The second case study explores an emerging technology, Brine Miners, and how cyclicity and NS* can be used to guide design decisions to impact the ability of this technology to aid in the creation of a circular economy. The exploration found that focusing on the creation of energy has the potential to add new actors to resource cycling and that diversifying the uses of byproducts creates more complex cycling within a hypothetical economy.more » « less
-
This study investigates the interplay between digital technology and the circular economy (CE) within supply chain management through theoretical lenses. We conduct a systematic literature review to explore the theoretical underpinnings at the intersection of digital technology and CE. We determine the dominant theories and how they relate within a broader ecosystem. We further outline the promising avenues and topics for future research to foster the understanding and application of joint adoption of digital technology and CE. Contributing to the existing literature, this study develops a three-level framework (micro, meso, macro) enriched with a multi-stakeholder perspective to present in-depth insights into the interplay between digital technology and CE from theoretical viewpoints. Our proposed framework synthesizes 39 distinct theories, employed in literature to examine the dynamics between digital technology and CE, and categorizes them into five key areas: motivators, enablers, synergy, external environmental context, and multi-level stakeholders. Leveraging this framework, several research propositions, each grounded in one of the identified categories, are proposed to further explore this domain. This paper advances the theoretical discourse in the interplay between digital technology and CE and provides theoretical and practical implications for both scholars and practitioners.more » « less
-
The health of the planet and its people are at risk. The deterioration of the global commons—ie, the natural systems that support life on Earth—is exacerbating energy, food, and water insecurity, and increasing the risk of disease, disaster, displacement, and conflict. In this Commission, we quantify safe and just Earth-system boundaries (ESBs) and assess minimum access to natural resources required for human dignity and to enable escape from poverty. Collectively, these describe a safe and just corridor that is essential to ensuring sustainable and resilient human and planetary health and thriving in the Anthropocene. We then discuss the need for translation of ESBs across scales to inform science-based targets for action by key actors (and the challenges in doing so), and conclude by identifying the system transformations necessary to bring about a safe and just future. Our concept of the safe and just corridor advances research on planetary boundaries and the justice and Earth-system aspects of the Sustainable Development Goals. We define safe as ensuring the biophysical stability of the Earth system, and our justice principles include minimising harm, meeting minimum access needs, and redistributing resources and responsibilities to enhance human health and wellbeing. The ceiling of the safe and just corridor is defined by the more stringent of the safe and just ESBs to minimise significant harm and ensure Earth-system stability. The base of the corridor is defined by the impacts of minimum global access to food, water, energy, and infrastructure for the global population, in the domains of the variables for which we defined the ESBs. Living within the corridor is necessary, because exceeding the ESBs and not meeting basic needs threatens human health and life on Earth. However, simply staying within the corridor does not guarantee justice because within the corridor resources can also be inequitably distributed, aggravating human health and causing environmental damage. Procedural and substantive justice are necessary to ensure that the space within the corridor is justly shared. We define eight safe and just ESBs for five domains—the biosphere (functional integrity and natural ecosystem area), climate, nutrient cycles (phosphorus and nitrogen), freshwater (surface and groundwater), and aerosols—to reduce the risk of degrading biophysical life-support systems and avoid tipping points. Seven of the ESBs have already been transgressed: functional integrity, natural ecosystem area, climate, phosphorus, nitrogen, surface water, and groundwater. The eighth ESB, air pollution, has been transgressed at the local level in many parts of the world. Although safe boundaries would ensure Earth-system stability and thus safeguard the overall biophysical conditions that have enabled humans to flourish, they do not necessarily safeguard everyone against harm or allow for minimum access to resources for all. We use the concept of Earth-system justice—which seeks to ensure wellbeing and reduce harm within and across generations, nations, and communities, and between humans and other species, through procedural and distributive justice—to assess safe boundaries. Earth-system justice recognises unequal responsibility for, and unequal exposure and vulnerability to, Earth-system changes, and also recognises unequal capacities to respond and unequal access to resources. We also assess the extent to which safe ESBs could minimise irreversible, existential, and other major harms to human health and wellbeing through a review of who is affected at each boundary. Not all safe ESBs are just, in that they do not minimise all significant harm (eg, that associated with the climate change, aerosol, or nitrogen ESBs). Billions of people globally do not have sufficient access to energy, clean water, food, and other resources. For climate change, for example, tens of millions of people are harmed at lower levels of warming than that defined in the safe ESB, and thus to avoid significant harm would require a more stringent ESB. In other domains, the safe ESBs align with the just ESBs, although some need to be modified, or complemented with local standards, to prevent significant harm (eg, the aerosols ESB). We examine the implications of achieving the social SDGs in 2018 through an impact modelling exercise, and quantify the minimum access to resources required for basic human dignity (level 1) as well as the minimum resources required to enable escape from poverty (level 2). We conclude that without social transformation and redistribution of natural resource use (eg, from top consumers of natural resources to those who currently do not have minimum access to these resources), meeting minimum-access levels for people living below the minimum level would increase pressures on the Earth system and the risks of further transgressions of the ESBs. We also estimate resource-access needs for human populations in 2050 and the associated Earth-system impacts these could have. We project that the safe and just climate ESB will be overshot by 2050, even if everybody in the world lives with only the minimum required access to resources (no more, no less), unless there are transformations of, for example, the energy and food systems. Thus, a safe and just corridor will only be possible with radical societal transformations and technological changes. Living within the safe and just corridor requires operationalisation of ESBs by key actors across all levels, which can be achieved via cross-scale translation (whereby resources and responsibilities for impact reductions are equitably shared among actors). We focus on cities and businesses because of the magnitude of their impacts on the Earth system, and their potential to take swift action and act as agents of change. We explore possible approaches for translating each ESB to cities and businesses via the sequential steps of transcription, allocation, and adjustment. We highlight how different elements of Earth-system justice can be reflected in the allocation and adjustment steps by choosing appropriate sharing approaches, informed by the governance context and broader enabling conditions. Finally we discuss system transformations that could move humanity into a safe and just corridor and reduce risks of instability, injustice, and harm to human health. These transformations aim to minimise harm and ensure access to essential resources, while addressing the drivers of Earth-system change and vulnerability and the institutional and social barriers to systemic transformations, and include reducing and reallocating consumption, changing economic systems, technology, and governance.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2021.1994535
