Circularity is an aspirational and increasingly practical concept that has
continued to gain popularity in sustainable business circles for the past few
years. Studies have projected that scaling of circular models holds trillions
in potential
value
for our global economy, in addition to innumerable social and environmental
benefits — and more and more
companies
and
countries
are making headway into transforming the way we make and use products and food
to significantly reduce the negative impacts of human life and industry on the
planet.
Despite this, business as usual — our extractive, wasteful, degrading and
polluting linear economy — remains the norm, and the side effects continue to
cause damage. More than 90 percent of biodiversity loss is due to the extraction
and processing of natural resources.
A recent Ellen MacArthur Foundation report, The Nature Imperative, says
among its other benefits, a circular economy can play an important role in
reversing biodiversity
loss.
The study deep dives into the role of 4 sectors —
Food,
the Built
Environment,
Plastics
and
Fashion
— and shares compelling ways for business and policymakers to accelerate the
shift towards a circular economy and a nature-positive system.
OK, Now What?: Navigating Corporate Sustainability After the US Presidential Election
Join us for a free webinar on Monday, December 9, at 1pm ET as Andrew Winston and leaders from the American Sustainable Business Council, Democracy Forward, ECOS and Guardian US share insights into how the shifting political and cultural environment may redefine the responsibilities and opportunities for companies committed to sustainability.
The EMF study points to a growing number of circular solutions already being
used to help the public and private sector meet biodiversity and climate
ambitions. But a team of researchers from Lancaster University Management
School, Lund University and the Royal Institute of Technology
(RIT) in Sweden warns the definition of a circular economy is unclear
and lacks substance.
Their new study, published in the Journal of Industrial
Ecology, says a
circular economy risks becoming counterproductive unless we stop looking to it
as a panacea for all kinds of environmental problems.
While circular models and ambitions are being embraced by businesses, regions,
cities and NGOs worldwide — from
China
and Latin
America
to the
EU
and the
US
— criticism of the model from both practitioners and researchers has received
less attention.
Among their criticisms, the academics from Lancaster, Lund and the RIT say:
-
The concept of a circular economy is so diffuse and sprawling that it is
not possible to measure its impact. It includes everything from recycling
systems, renting, and replacing products with services to developing apps
for the sharing economy, etc.
-
Advocates of a circular economy tend to ignore the vast amount of
materials and products that people have already accumulated. The concept
is reduced to a question of choosing between linear and circular products,
and disregards physical laws about the physical limitations of materials and
the complexity of the waste; even though these issues are crucial if a
circular economy is to become a reality.
-
Some businesses only develop circular activities for parts of their
operations. This may be due to the difficulty of scaling up pilot
projects; often it is only a small part of the operation that is
characterized by a circular economy, while the core activities continue as
usual.
-
Contrary to what the advocates say, we know little about how a
circular economy will affect the utilization of resources and growth. This
makes it difficult to measure the environmental impacts, especially in the
long term and over larger geographical scales. Some claim that a circular
economy only delays, rather than eliminates, the negative environmental
impact of the linear economy.
-
Although advocates of a circular economy claim it contributes to a socially
sustainable future for all, the concept tends to be reduced to a debate
about resource consumption. There is no connection to how the concept
would lead to greater social equality.
-
Some critics argue that the circular economy depoliticizes industrial and
environmental policies while advancing the power of the market and
businesses. It is an enticing concept that promises that everyone will
benefit from its implementation. It enables discussions about synergies,
win-win and possibilities rather than about compromises, problems and
limitations.
But Hervé Corvellec, principal author of the study, is quick to point out:
“Criticism of the circular economy does not challenge the concept of
circularity. Rather, it is a case of how the supposed benefits are based on
inconsistencies, an incomplete picture, hidden assumptions, agendas and unclear
consequences. These are the questions we have to ask ourselves: How do we know
that a circular solution is good for the environment? Who benefits from it and
who does not? Will it phase out the linear economy? Clarity is required
regarding precisely what type of circularity it applies and what the conflicting
objectives are.”
Within the paper, the team of researchers propose a more modest circular
economy, which is not presented as a panacea but as a real solution to concrete
problems.
Co-author Dr Alison
Stowell, from
Lancaster University Management School, said: “We recognise that the circular
economy agenda has made significant impact; and this study aims to highlight the
areas in need of research, policy and managerial attention to drive further
progress.
“We hope it will assist in the development of a more modest pathway to
circularity that is concrete, transparent and inclusive.”
Get the latest insights, trends, and innovations to help position yourself at the forefront of sustainable business leadership—delivered straight to your inbox.
Published Oct 5, 2021 2pm EDT / 11am PDT / 7pm BST / 8pm CEST