This article investigates the phenomenon of rebound effects in relation to a transition to a Circular Economy (CE) through qualitative inquiry. The aim is to gain insights in manifestations of rebound effects by studying the Dutch textile industry as it transitions to a circular system, and to develop appropriate mitigation strategies that can be applied to ensure an effective transition. The rebound effect, known originally from the energy efficiency literature, occurs when improvements in efficiency or other technological innovations fail to deliver on their environmental promise due to (behavioral) economic mechanisms. The presence of rebound in CE contexts can therefore lead to the structural overstatement of environmental benefits of certain innovations, which can influence reaching emission targets and the preference order of recycling. In this research, the CE rebound effect is investigated in the Dutch textile industry, which is identified as being vulnerable to rebound, yet with a positive potential to avoid it. The main findings include the very low awareness of this effect amongst key stakeholders, and the identification of specific and general instances of rebound effects in the investigated industry. In addition, the relation of these effects to Circular Business Models and CE strategies are investigated, and placed in a larger context in order to gain a more comprehensive understanding about the place and role of this effect in the transition. This concerns the necessity for a new approach to how design has been practiced traditionally, and the need to place transitional developments in a systems perspective. Propositions that serve as theory-building blocks are put forward and include suggestions for further research and recommendations about dealing with rebound effects and shaping an eco-effective transition. Thomas Siderius, Kim Poldner, Reconsidering the Circular Economy Rebound effect: Propositions from a case study of the Dutch Circular Textile Valley, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 293, 2021, 125996, ISSN 0959-6526, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.125996.
DOCUMENT
From a circular standpoint it is interesting to reuse as much as possible construction and demolition waste (CDW) into new building projects. In most cases CDW will not be directly reusable and will need to be processed and stored first. In order to turn this into a successful business case CDW will need to be reused on a large scale. In this paper we present the concept of a centralized and coordinated location in the City of Utrecht where construction and demolition waste is collected, sorted, worked, stored for reuse, or shipped elsewhere for further processing in renewed materials. This has expected advantages for the amount of material reuse, financial advantages for firms and clients, generating employability in the logistics and processing of materials, optimizing the transport and distribution of materials through the city, and thus the reduction of emissions and congestion. In the paper we explore the local facility of a Circular Hub, and the potential effects on circular reuse, and other effects within the City of Utrecht.
DOCUMENT
The circular economy (CE) is heralded as reducing material use and emissions while providing more jobs and growth. We explored this narrative in a series of expert workshops, basing ourselves on theories, methods and findings from science fields such as global environmental input-output analysis, business modelling, industrial organisation, innovation sciences and transition studies. Our findings indicate that this dominant narrative suffers from at least three inconvenient truths. First, CE can lead to loss of GDP. Each doubling of product lifetimes will halve the related industrial production, while the required design changes may cost little. Second, the same mechanism can create losses of production jobs. This may not be compensated by extra maintenance, repair or refurbishing activities. Finally, ‘Product-as-a-Service’ business models supported by platform technologies are crucial for a CE transition. But by transforming consumers from owners to users, they lose independence and do not share in any value enhancement of assets (e.g., houses). As shown by Uber and AirBNB, platforms tend to concentrate power and value with providers, dramatically affecting the distribution of wealth. The real win-win potential of circularity is that the same societal welfare may be achieved with less production and fewer working hours, resulting in more leisure time. But it is perfectly possible that powerful platform providers capture most added value and channel that to their elite owners, at the expense of the purchasing power of ordinary people working fewer hours. Similar undesirable distributional effects may occur at the global scale: the service economies in the Global North may benefit from the additional repair and refurbishment activities, while economies in the Global South that are more oriented towards primary production will see these activities shrink. It is essential that CE research comes to grips with such effects. Furthermore, governance approaches mitigating unfair distribution of power and value are hence essential for a successful circularity transition.
LINK
Our planet’s ecology and society are on a collision course, which manifests due to a contradiction in the assumptions of unlimited material growth fueling the linear economic paradigm. Our closed planetary ecosystem imposes confined amounts of space and a finite extent of resources upon its inhabitants. However, practically all the economic perspectives have been defiantly neglecting these realities, as resources are extracted, used and disposed of reluctantly (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2015). The circular economy attempts to reconcile the extraction, production and usage of goods and resources with the limited availability of those resources and nature’s regenerative capabilities This perspective entails a shift throughout the supply chain, from material science (e g non-toxic, regenerative biomaterials) to novel logistical systems (e g low-carbon reverse logistics). Because of this, the circular economy is often celebrated for its potential environmental benefits and its usefulness as a blueprint for sustainable development (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2017). Unfortunately, the promise of the circular economy aiming at enhanced sustainability through restorative intent and design (McDonough & Braungart 2010), is often inhibited by institutional barriers posed by the current linear economy of take, make, use and waste (Ghisellini et al. 2016). Underlying those barriers our cultural paradigm celebrates consumerism, exponential growth and financial benefit instead of human values such as diversity, care and trust. Based on a mapping exercise of the circular economy discourse in the Netherlands and an overview of international (academic) literature (Van den Berg 2020) supplemented with collaborative co-creation sessions, visiting events, conferences, giving talks and classes, we have defined a gap leading to the focus of the Professorship. First, we highlight the importance of a process approach in studying the transition from a linear to a circular economy, which is why we use the verb ‘entrepreneuring’ as it indicates the movement we collectively need to make. The majority of work in the field is based on start-ups and only captures snapshots while longitudinal and transition perspectives - especially of larger companies - are missing (Merli et al. 2019; Geissdoerfer et al. 2018; Bocken et al. 2014). We specifically adopt an entrepreneurship-as-practice lens (Thompson, Verduijn & Gartner 2020), which allows us to trace the doings – as opposed to only the sayings - of organizations involved in circular innovation. Such an approach also enables us to study cross-sector and interfirm collaboration, which is crucial to achieve ecosystem circularity (Raworth 2019). As materials flow between actors in a system, traditional views of ‘a value chain’ slowly make way for an ecosystem or value web perspective on ‘organizing business’. We summarize this first theme as ‘entrepreneurship as social change’ broadening dominant views of what economic activity is and who the main actors are supposed to be (Barinaga 2013; Calás, Smircich & Bourne 2009; Steyaert & Hjorth 2008; Nicholls 2008). Second, within the Circular Business Professorship value is a big word in two ways. First of all, we believe that a transition to a circular economy is not just a transition of materials, nor technologies - it is most of all a transition of values We are interested in how people can explore their own agency in transitioning to a circular economy thereby aligning their personal values with the values of the organization and the larger system they are a part of Second, while circularity is a broad concept that can be approached through different lenses, the way in which things are valued and how value is created and extracted lies at the heart of the transition (Mazzucato 2018). If we don’t understand value as collectively crafted it will be very hard to change things, which is why we specifically focus on multiplicity and co-creation in the process of reclaiming value, originating from an ethics of care Third, sustainability efforts are often concerned with optimization of the current – linear – system by means of ecoefficient practices that are a bit ‘less bad’; using ’less resources’, causing ‘less pollution’ and ‘having less negative impact’. In contrast, eco-effective practices are inherently good, departing from the notion of abundance: circular thinking celebrates the abundance of nature’s regenerative capacities as well as the abundance of our imagination to envision new realities (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2015). Instead of exploiting natural resources, we should look closely in order to learn how we can build resilient self-sustaining ecosystems like the ones we find in nature. We are in need of rediscovering our profound connection with and appreciation of nature, which requires us to move beyond the cognitive and employ an aesthetic perspective of sustainability This perspective informs our approach to innovating education: aesthetics can support deep sustainability learning (Ivanaj, Poldner & Shrivastava 2014) and contribute to facilitating the circular change makers of the future. The current linear economy has driven our planet’s ecology and society towards a collision course and it is really now or never: if we don’t alter the course towards a circular economy today, then when? When will it become urgent enough for us to take action? Which disaster is needed for us to wake up? We desperately need substitutes for the current neo-liberal paradigm, which underlies our linear society and prevents us from becoming an economy of well-being In Entrepreneuring a regenerative society I propose three research themes – ‘entrepreneurship as social change’, ‘reclaiming value’ and ‘the aesthetics of sustainability’ – as alternative ways of embracing, studying and co-creating such a novel reality. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kim-poldner-a003473/
MULTIFILE
This article will discuss philosophical debates on economic growth and environmental sustainability, the role of management responsibility, and the risk of subversion to business as usual. This discussion will be framed using the concepts of Cradle to Cradle (C2C) and Circular Economy about sustainable production. The case study illustrating the danger of subversion of these progressive models discussed here is based on the assignments submitted by Masters students as part of a course related to sustainable production and consumption at Leiden University. The evaluation of the supposedly best practice cases placed on the website of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation or those awarded Cradle to Cradle certificate has led some students to conclude that these cases illustrated green-washing. Larger implications of identified cases of green-washing for the field of sustainable business and ecological management are discussed. “This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in 'Philosophy of Management'. The final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-019-00108-x LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
Increasingly, entrepreneurial growth is discussed in relation to business sustainability and the wider questions of ‘growth’ – economic, green, or sustainable. This chapter will discuss the challenges and opportunities of teaching circular economy and Cradle to Cradle (C2C) models of sustainable production. The course applying circular economy theory to corporate case studies at the liberal arts college in The Netherlands will be discussed. Students were given the assignment to advise an existing company how to make a transition from a linear to circular economy model. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78714-501-620171028 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
Phosphate is essential for agricultural production and therefore plays a key role in the global production of food and biofuels. There are no agricultural alternatives for phosphate, and a substantial fraction of our annual phosphate consumption is dispersed into the environment where it is largely lost to agriculture. Phosphate is an irreplaceable, and to a considerable extent non-renewable, resource that is being exploited at an ever increasing rate. The ongoing depletion of phosphate resources combined with recently increased phosphate prices urge us to reconsider our phosphate consumption patterns. In addition to economic and geo-political reasons, further reducing phosphate consumption would moreover be beneficial to the quality of our environment. Even if we increase the reserve base, for which there are plenty of opportunities, it is clear that the phosphate industry will sooner or later have to make a switch from a reserve-based industry to a recycling industry
LINK
This chapter will introduce the circular economy (CE) and Cradle to Cradle (C2C) models of sustainable production. It will reflect on the key blockages to a meaningful sustainable production and how these could be overcome, particularly in the context of business education. The case study of the course for bachelor’s students within International Business Management Studies (IBMS), and at University College in The Netherlands will be discussed. These case studies will illustrate the opportunities as well as potential pitfalls of the closed loop production models. The results of case studies’ analysis show that there was a mismatch between expectations of the sponsor companies and those of students on the one hand and a mismatch between theory and practice on the other hand. Helpful directions for future research and teaching practice are outlined. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319713113#aboutBook https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
This article addresses European energy policy through conventional and transformative sustainability approaches. The reader is guided towards an understanding of different renewable energy options that are available on the policy making table and how the policy choices have been shaped. In arguing that so far, European energy policy has been guided by conventional sustainability framework that focuses on eco-efficiency and ‘energy mix’, this article proposes greater reliance on circular economy (CE) and Cradle to Cradle (C2C) frameworks. Exploring the current European reliance on biofuels as a source of renewable energy, this article will provide recommendations for transition to transformative energy choices. http://dx.doi.org/10.13135/2384-8677/2331 https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
According to the critics of conventional sustainability models, particularly within the business context, it is questionable whether the objective of balancing the social, economic and environmental triad is feasible, and whether human equality and prosperity (as well as population growth) can be achieved with the present rate of natural degradation (Rees 2009). The current scale of human economic activity on Earth is already excessive; finding itself in a state of unsustainable ‘overshoot’ where consumption and dissipation of energy and material resources exceed the regenerative and assimilative capacity of supportive ecosystems (Rees 2012). Conceptualizing the current ‘politics of unsustainability’, reflected in mainstream sustainability debates, Blühdorn (2011) explores the paradox of wanting to ‘sustain the unsustainable, noting that the socio-cultural norms underpinning unsustainability support denial of the gravity of our planetary crises. This denial concerns anything from the imminence of mass extinctions to climate change. As Foster (2014) has phrased it: ‘There was a brief window of opportunity when the sustainability agenda might, at least in principle, have averted it’. That agenda, however, has failed. Not might fail, nor even is likely to fail – but has already failed. Yet, instead of acknowledging this failure and moving on from the realization of the catastrophe to the required radical measures, the optimists of sustainable development and ecological modernization continue to celebrate the purported ‘balance' between people, profit and planet. This is an Accepted Manuscript of a book chapter published by Routledge/CRC Press in "A Future Beyond Growth: Towards a Steady State Economy" on 4/14/16 ,available online: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315667515 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
