The Circular Economy (CE) is an idealistic and relatively old concept that has been derived from various fields of study such as Cradle2Cradle (C2C), Industrial Ecology, Biomimicry etc [1]. Despite the increasing focus, attention and number of businesses working towards circularity, the implementation of a truly circular economy remains largely theoretical with very little adoption in industry. In order for societies and businesses to transition to a more circular way of life, the apparent contradictions that stand in the way of circularity must be addressed. Moreover, action should be taken to mitigate the risks associated with circularity – we must move from a passive position to an active one. Surely mistakes will be made, but importantly these failures will act as course corrections on the journey towards circularity.
In all cases, adaptability, compromise and thorough resource planning will be critical to the successful implementation of a CE. Here, some of the main contradictions acting as barriers to achieving an increased level of circularity are described and explored, in hopes that knowledge sharing and open discussion will lead to meaningful progress in the quest to minimise the negative impact on the biosphere.
Squares in a Circle
In many ways, as CE practitioners and advocates we are attempting to fit square pegs into round holes. The theoretical proposals of circularity do not fully address the reality in which the world operates today. The CE faces many challenges, the solutions to which can only be achieved once the fundamental issues within the CE are acknowledged and accounted for. Some of the missing pieces of the pi are explored below:
Unclear Definitions
Circularity, like Sustainability, is hampered by fragmented definitions spread across countries, organisations and governing bodies. [2] found 95 unique definitions of the CE from a sample of 114 definitions. The Ellen Macarthur Foundation for example defines the CE as: “A systems solution framework that tackles global challenges like climate change, biodiversity loss, waste, and pollution. It is based on three principles, driven by design: eliminate waste and pollution, circulate products and materials (at their highest value), and regenerate nature.” [3]. Whereas the European Parliament defines it as: “The circular economy is a model of production and consumption, which involves sharing, leasing, reusing, repairing, refurbishing and recycling existing materials and products as long as possible. In this way, the life cycle of products is extended.”. In practice, it implies reducing waste to a minimum. When a product reaches the end of its life, its materials are kept within the economy wherever possible thanks to recycling. These can be productively used again and again, thereby creating further value.” [4]. Despite some of the similarities, the language and focus in the definitions remains largely open to interpretation. This poses a significant risk and invites incompatibilities in efforts to develop feasible circular models. In order for industry and government policy to implement meaningful change, it is important to find a universal definition of the circular economy which ensures that the combined efforts eventually lead to improvements that are desperately needed. Currently, this misalignment in the definition of a circular economy results in a lack of a unified ideology which in turn results in investment and research & development pulling in different directions which slows down the development of effective and meaningful circular initiatives.
Neglecting the Laws of Science
Waste cannot be eliminated. In all processes there will be waste and an increase in entropy (2nd Law of thermodynamics), whether that be heat, molecular weight loss or by-products of the process. Therefore, achieving a truly circular economy is like achieving perpetual motion. Unfortunately in many conversations regarding the CE, this limiting factor is not discussed or accounted for. In order to maintain product, material and process quality, resource (i.e. energy, material) must be added to a system to account for that which is lost. Over time, all materials will degrade to a point where they no longer serve their function, whether that is through recycling, repeated use or exposure to UV, moisture, heat etc.
Also, when considering looping materials, it is not enough to assume that the recycling of a material is sufficient. It is critical to the CE that primary production is avoided. If the recycled material does not reduce primary production, then more energy is being used by recycling and more waste is being generated. Imagine a bathtub without a plug, that is filling faster than it is emptying and is about to overflow. Which of the two following scenarios makes any difference to the impending overflow of water:
Scenario A: Keep the tap running (primary production), and collect the overflowing water (recycling) and keep adding that into the bath.
Scenario B: Close the tap (displace primary production) and use the overflowing water (recycling) to keep the bath topped up.
These issues remain as significant stumbling blocks to the implementation of feasible CE initiatives. Without careful consideration, efforts to implement circularity will result in rebound effects, where not only will the linear economy continue to grow, but a quasi-circular economy will be added on top of it.
Feasible Implementation
Circular strategies and initiatives face significant barriers in their implementation. These can be viewed from three perspectives: 1) Governmental/Policy, 2. Organisational and 3. Individual/Consumer.
Policy led collaboration is required to promote circularity. One example of where it currently falls short, is regarding the classification of used and/or end-of-life (EoL) products and materials which today, are considered waste. This means that importing and exporting these secondary resources (if it is assumed that waste is a resource) across borders carries a significant financial burden, and in many case cannot be exported to some countries. Government policy must align across the globe to ensure secondary products and materials can be transported to where they need to be in the supply and value chains so that they can be reintroduced into production cycles. Without this level of collaboration, the manufacturing industry finds that not only is there a lack of financial incentive, but worse, there is an increase in the cost (driven by taxation) to adopt circular business within their current value chains.
Many companies’ supply chains are built for flexibility – which is important to remain competitive and ensure supply chain resilience. However, this also means that partnerships and the development of circular value chains in terms of products and materials remains elusive because of legacy contracts and means of doing business. Additionally, the lack of transparency between industry players means that it is unclear who would benefit from receiving secondary resources because the specific knowledge about supply/value chains remains within individual companies.
On the consumer level, circularity remains an alien concept in the 21st century. With almost an infinite variety of products which are upgraded regularly as well as the externalisation of costs (e.g. human rights violations, biodiversity loss etc), consumption behaviour does not support a CE. In fact, in many cases it is easier for a consumer to buy brand new items which carry less risk in terms of warranty and are more widely available. In order to incentivise and ‘nudge’ businesses to adopt more circular models, we must change how we perceive the things that we buy. An increase in sharing and a commitment to using our purchased goods for a longer time, as well as purchasing based more on necessity than want will increase the demand for circular solutions, which in turn, will increase adoption of such practices within industry.
The Way Forward
1.Define Circularity
Ensure that a clear definition of exactly what circularity means in a specific business context. Also, quantifying how this addresses the issues that circularity aims to address such as resource consumption and waste. Similarly in research, a clear definition of the work’s interpretation of the CE should be provided to allow readers to understand what may or may not be addressed in the work and how applicable it is to their industry.
2. Take a 360༠ approach to quantifying circularity
When estimating the benefit of circular initiatives and their benefits, ensure all aspects are captured and accounted for (e.g. logistics, material degradation, impact on supply chain etc). For example, the following equation could be used to estimate some of the benefits of recycling in terms of energy [5]:
Benefit of Recycling = Displacement x (Eprimary + Elandfill) − Ereprocessing
In other words, the benefit of recycling a particular product or material is equal to how much primary production is avoided as a fraction (displacement) multiplied by the difference between the energy required to manufacture (Eprimary) & dispose of the virgin material (Elandfill) and the energy required to recycle the material (Ereprocessing).
3. Develop focussed, industry specific solutions
Dedicate time and resources to understanding how circularity can be achieved in a given context, there will be different solutions for different industries and materials. The end destination should be the same, but the route to get there will take many forms. This should also include a change in business practice where the typical Supplier – Customer relationship transforms to a long term partnership where research and development is a collaborative effort along the entire value chain.
References
- Corvellec, H., Stowell, A.F. & Johansson, N. (2022) Critiques of the circular economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology. 26(2), pp.421-432.
- Kirchherr, J., Reike, D. & Hekkert, M. (2017) Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, conservation and recycling. 127, pp.221-232.
- Ellen Macarthur Foundation. (2023) Circular economy introduction. [https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/topics/circular-economy-introduction/glossary].
- European Parliament. (2023) Circular economy: definition, importance and benefits. [https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/economy/20151201STO05603/circular-economy-definition-importance-and-benefits].
- Geyer, R., Kuczenski, B., Zink, T. & Henderson, A. (2015) Common Misconceptions about Recycling.
