Coming Full Circle: Why Social and Institutional Dimensions Matter for the Circular Economy
By V. Moreau, M. Sahakian, P. Griethuysen, F. Vuille. 2017
424 citations recorded by the source corpus.
In light of the environmental consequences of linear production and consumption processes, the circular economy (CE) is gaining momentum as a concept and practice, promoting closed material cycles by focusing on multiple strategies from material recycling to product reuse, as well as rethinking production and consumption chains toward increased resource efficiency. Yet, by considering mainly cost‐effective opportunities within the realm of economic competitiveness, it stops short of grappling with the institutional and social predispositions necessary for societal transitions to a CE. The distinction of noncompetitive and not‐for‐profit activities remains to be addressed, along with other societal questions relating to labor conditions, wealth distribution, and governance systems. In this article, we recall some underlying biophysical aspects to explain the limits to current CE approaches. We examine the CE from a biophysical and social perspective to show that the concept lacks the social and institutional dimensions to address the current material and energy throughput in the economy. We show that reconsidering labor is essential to tackling the large share of dissipated material and energy flows that cannot be recovered economically. Institutional conditions have an essential role to play in setting the rules that differentiate profitable from nonprofitable activities. In this context, the social and solidarity economy, with its focus on equity with respect to labor and governance, provides an instructive and practical example that defies the constraints related to current institutional conditions and economic efficiency. We show how insights from the principles of the social and solidarity economy can contribute to the development of a CE by further defining who bears the costs of economic activities.
Subfields: Environmental Engineering, Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Strategy and Management
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/01daa629a08f7eed7809786796b2fb84e17027c5
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Environmental Engineering
In Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering
In Strategy and Management
Citations in the corpus
- Prioritization of sustainability indicators for promoting the circular economy: The case of developing countries (2019, methodology): “support [32] are deemed to be a vital strategy in the implementation of CE.”
- Addressing the Social Aspects of a Circular Economy: A Systematic Literature Review (2020, background): “[55], it seems that there is no knowledge about how CE could support the promotion of social equity, there has been no detailed analysis, and it is necessary, explicitly, that CE empirically supports this fact.”
- The Relevance of Circular Economy Practices to the Sustainable Development Goals (2019, background): “Notions of the social and solidarity economy applied to CE recycling practices can lead to more robust CE strategies toward environmental and social aims (Moreau et al. 2017), including protection of workers’ health.”
- Targets for a circular economy (2020, background): “Another relevant, but hidden aspect of production is dissipative uses, which absorb a large share of the economy’s throughput (Moreau et al., 2017).”
- Critiques of the circular economy (2021, neutral): “Circular strategies also ignore the substantial amounts of consumed material and artefacts that are stocked in homes, companies, and infrastructures (Fellner et al., 2017; Moreau et al., 2017).”
- The Circular Economy: Swings and Roundabouts? (2019, neutral): “This is supported by Moreau et al. (2017: 500) who also suggest that “there seems to be no clear understanding of the extent to which the Circular Economy could contribute to the promotion of social equity”.”