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
Protective clothing is designed to protect humans against risks like fire, chemicals or blunt impact. Although protect¡ve clothing diminishes the effects of external risks, it may hinder people in functioning and it may also introduce new (internal) risks. Manufacturers are often not aware of the seriousness of those risks. Prof. Daanen, human movement scientist, postulates that knowledge on human physiology must be part of protective clothing design. After a career in protective clothing research that started about 25 years ago at TNO (NL) he is entitled to say things like that.
Steeds meer bedrijven publiceren naast hun financieel jaarverslag een integrated report, waarin naast financiële waarde ook over maatschappelijke waarden wordt gerapporteerd. Uit een rapport van KPMG (2017) blijkt dat 93% van de grootste bedrijven van de wereld een integrated report publiceert. Met de opkomst van integrated reporting is hier echter ook de nodige kritiek op ontstaan. Zo zouden bedrijven het integrated report vooral gebruiken om zich duurzamer voor te doen dan ze daadwerkelijk zijn (‘greenwashing’). In dit artikel wordt een analyse van de Triple Depreciation Line (TDL) beschreven. De TDL is een raamwerk, waarmee in potentie (voor een deel) tegemoet wordt gekomen aan de huidige kritiek op integrated reporting zoals bijvoorbeeld ‘greenwashing’. In dit artikel concluderen wij dat de TDL in zijn huidige opzet in de praktijk moeilijk toepasbaar is en doen wij aanbevelingen voor een meer praktische toepassing van dit raamwerk. Dit leidt tot een aangepast TDL-raamwerk, waarbij wij beargumenteren dat de toepassing van dit aangepaste raamwerk de potentie heeft om de transitie naar een duurzame economie aanzienlijk te versnellen.
MULTIFILE
