Focusing on the flows has the additional danger of ignoring the rebound effect, e.g., savings on the circular side leading to expenses on the linear side, with an overall increase of negative effects. 3. Unclear implementation strategies Proponents outline policy agendas, for example within Europe, providing proposed solutions for material circulation, but social and environmental consequences appear diffused. Some companies only develop circular activities for part of their operations. This may be because it is difficult to scale up from pilot projects, and often only a small part of the operation is characterised by the circular economy, while the core business continues as usual. Other barriers to implementing circular business models include inappropriate technology, training, high investment costs, legislation, and limitations in demand and supply of secondary materials and products. Advocates of the circular economy have paid less attention to consumers when thinking about implementation. In particular, how they might value and respond to circular business models and their levels of awareness and interest in circularity. Will consumers accept swapping ownership for temporary access with what this entails in loss of long-term control? Who gains the most from circularisation? With increased digitisation attached with circular solutions, surveillance increases as well. 4. Unclear environmental and social contributions Contrary to what advocates say, there appears to be poor knowledge about how the circular economy will affect resource use and growth. Will the circular economy lead to more sustainable growth, or simply more growth? This makes it difficult to measure environmental impacts, especially over the long-term and across larger geographical scales. For example, it is unclear how, where, and when circular practices conserve natural resources. Some argue that it only delays, not eliminates, the negative environmental impacts of the linear economy. Although proponents of the circular economy claim it contributes to a socially sustainable future for all, the concept tends to be reduced to reducing the consumption of primary resources alone. There is no link to how the concept would lead to greater social equality, neither locally nor globally. For example, increased circularity here risks accelerating the transfer of destructive resource extraction and production from the Global North to the Global South. 5. An ideological agenda Some critics argue that the circular economy depoliticises industrial and environmental policy. This entails two things: that the economy is a technical matter; and that companies are the engine for social change. It is an attractive concept that promises everyone will benefit. It makes it possible to talk about synergies, winwin, and opportunities, rather than compromises, problems, and constraints. WHAT CAN WE LEARN? The criticisms call into question the notion of circularity. There are numerous inconsistencies, hidden assumptions and unclear consequences that still need to be worked through. What is needed is to keep questioning how we know that a circular solution is good for the environment. How can we transform existing social institutions? For whom is it better or worse? Will it phase out the linear economy – dig up, produce, consume, throw away? Each area of the critiques above points at an issue in need of research, policy, and managerial attention. A pathway toward circularity would be a circular economy that is modest, not a panacea but an actual solution to actual problems; concrete, in the sense of being clear about which kind of circularity it sets up and the conflicts it entails; inclusive, in that it takes energy, people, and waste on a global scale into consideration; and transparent, in being accountable for its achievements and shortcomings, not least when it comes to economic, social, and environmental changes. FIFTY FOUR DEGREES | 33 Dr Alison Stowell is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Organisation, Work and Technology. Her research interests focus on social and organisational responses to the challenges of waste. Hervé Corvellec is Professor of Business Administration at the Department of Service Management and Service Studies at Lund University, Sweden. Dr Nils Johansson is a researcher and teacher in the Division of Strategic Sustainability Studies at KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden. The article Critiques of the circular economy, by Professor Hervé Corvellec, of Lund University; Dr Alison Stowell, of Lancaster University Management School; and Dr Nils Johansson, of KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, was published in the Journal of Industrial Ecology. a.stowell@lancaster.ac.uk
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTI5NzM=