According to the World Resources Institute, “More than 100 billion tons of resources enter the economy every year—everything from metals, minerals and fossil fuels to organic materials from plants and animals. Just 8.6% gets recycled and used again. Use of resources has tripled since 1970 and could double again by 2050 if business continues as usual. We would need 1.5 Earths to sustainably support our current resource use.”1
This is owing to our current manufacturing system built on “take-make-throw away”2. It intensively ‘takes’ in raw materials, ‘makes’ profitable products, and ‘throws away’ tonnes of waste. This ‘straight-to-the-landfill’ economic system is the Linear Economy. Linear economy’s aim is to generate profit, causing excessive pressure on the environment and resources3. Besides having detrimental effects on the environment such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution, the increasingly inefficient use of resources also contributes to social problems including poor health and poverty4. Consequently, our urgent concern is to find an alternate system which ensures ‘Sustainability’, that is, environmental, social and economic balance in our planet.
The proposed alternative is ‘Circular Economy’, a regenerative economic system based on “made-to-be-made-again”5. The European Parliament defines it as involving ‘sharing, leasing, reusing, repairing, refurbishing and recycling existing materials and products as long as possible’6. In simple words, it ‘circulates’ resources to: maximise productivity, reduce primary production, and design out waste. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation, an advocate of circular economy, claims that Circular Economy promotes prosperity, jobs and resilience while cutting greenhouse gas emissions, waste, pollution and healthcare costs7. However, many researchers disagree, saying that it is an enticing concept that disregards physical complexities of materials and has no connection to greater social equity8. Therefore, can Circular Economy help us achieve sustainability? To appraise this question with a balanced judgement and conclusion, I will weigh two contrasting perspectives by evaluating and analysing the arguments for and against the research question.
The present rate of population growth, rising standard of living, and, ultimately, unsustainable overconsumption, makes this question a significant concern.
First, Trevor Zink and Roland Geyer justify the perspective, ‘Circular economy cannot help us achieve Sustainability.’ In their thesis titled ‘Circular Economy Rebound’, Zink and Geyer argue that the circular economy could initiate a rebound effect that partially or fully offsets its environmental benefits. According to them, the rebound effect is a phenomenon where the increase in overall production is proportionally greater than the increase in production efficiency, which leads to higher net environmental impacts.
This research paper is worthy of evaluation as it clearly explains the circular economy as a system of markets, beyond just the production-consumption cycle. The authors apply economics, science, and consumer psychology to validate a conceptual argument about an important phenomenon that undermines the effectiveness of circular economy. Its reliability can be explained by the scientific background of the authors, Zink is an Environmental Science and Management Expert at Loyola Marymount University9 and Geyer is a professor in Industrial Ecology and Pollution Prevention at the University of California, Santa Barbara10. Moreover, the paper was a recipient of the 2017 Graedel Prize11.
This study has many strengths and weaknesses. The main strength is that Zink and Geyer support their claims using a range of credible sources and two scientific equations. Most importantly, authors prove that circular economy may prevent some primary production, but it will not be entirely discontinued. This can be supported by Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s claims that primary production will reduce only by 32% by 20307. This argument can be further corroborated by an article in the Harvard Business Review titled, ‘The Limits of the “Sustainable” Economy’. It says that “repair and reuse do not always substitute for new product sales” and it may add more energy-consuming products into circulation12.
The second strength is that drawbacks of circular economy are explained in both economic and scientific terms, as a practical ‘system of markets’ and an engineered ‘energy efficiency’ cycle. These drawbacks are well manifested by suggesting two mechanisms for the rebound effect along with examples. A mechanism given was that competition between primary and recycled products can cause price drop and consumption increases. McKinsey & Company, a global management consulting firm shares a similar view. In their opinion, when relative prices decrease, consumers buy more, eventually magnifying resource challenges13. This gives credibility to Zink and Geyer’s opinion.
As a third strength, the authors give concluding advice on how to prevent the economic rebound. This adds a constructive tone. The conclusion says that “what is truly required to reduce environmental impact is less production and less consumption.” This shows that the rebound effects are not only because of circular economy strategies, rather they emerge due to market dynamics and competition14. Though this is a counterargument that looks like a weakness, overall, the authors eliminate the need for the complex circular economy and direct the focus on decreasing total consumption.
A recurring weakness across the paper is the unjustified assumption that every unit of secondary production achieves environmental benefits directly proportional to the difference between the secondary and primary good’s impact14.
‘Circular Economy Rebound’ successfully assesses circular economy in two major aspects of sustainability: ‘Economic’ and ‘Environmental’. That said, the social aspect is eliminated, hence, three-dimensional judgement for sustainability is incomplete. This is a transparent weakness. The paper focuses almost exclusively on environmental impact. Having said that, some researchers theorise that it is unclear how the circular economy contributes to greater social equality and opportunity, and that key moral and ethical issues are missing from the construct15. In total, the arguments are highly legitimate, as the study cites credible sources. However, insufficient examples and statistics limit the research.
Second, we will discuss the perspective, ‘Circular Economy can help us achieve Sustainability’. The main supporting article is, ‘The Circular Economy’, by Walter R. Stahel. Stahel is an architect, economist and a founding father of circular economy and industrial sustainability16,17. So, his concepts of industrial sustainability and circular economy are significant, thereby, this article is reliable. Stahel is also the Founder-Director of the Product-Life Institute in Switzerland18, and currently associates with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation19 to promote circularity.
Stahel’s main argument is that circular economy’s ultimate aim is to recycle atoms, which can be achieved with more labour but fewer resources. He outlines that the circular economy generates jobs and saves energy while reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, resource consumption and waste. Thereby, it caters to environmental, social and economic sustainability.
Stahel’s article is highly credible as it was published in Nature, a leading scientific journal. It is worthy of evaluation because of its provocative and persuasive tone in favour of circular economy.
I can see both strengths and flaws in this work. The striking strength is the use of real-world examples and statistics. Michelin, Caterpillar, Xerox, and SpaceX are eye-catching examples used to show that circular economy concepts have been successfully applied since the 1990s. Additionally, Stahel employs statistics to demonstrate the efficacy of circular economy, notably, “a shift to a circular economy would reduce each nation’s greenhouse-gas emissions by up to 70% and grow its workforce by about 4%”. This gives legitimacy to his arguments.
Next influencing factor is the emphasis on social role and benefits, making it more inclusive unlike most articles. Stahel talks about job creation without displacing existing jobs in the Circular Model and mentions, “People—of all ages and skills—are central to the model.” This argument can be validated by the European Commission’s claim that “already between 2012 and 2018 the number of jobs linked to the circular economy in the EU grew by 5% to reach around 4 million”20.
Stahel’s identification of key tools for implementing circular economy brings concrete action that is often lacking in other articles. Such as, waste management, creation of a new marketplace and collection points for exchanging used parts or discarded components.
Further, the article urges for “concerted action” to reach the ultimate goal, to “recycle atoms”. To achieve this, Stahel has stressed the importance of renewed research, innovation, communication and information strategies. These suggestions show that the circular economy has potential, but they also highlight that it is not application-ready in the current global setup. So, this is both a strength and a weakness.
The major flaw is the emphasis on the engineering model of circular economy rather than its practical feasibility. For example, the ideas of recycling atoms and “molecules as a service” are not practical and require drastic technological leaps. Moreover, Stahel uses unjustified statements with lack of proof. Such as, “Services liberate users from the burden of ownership and maintenance and give them flexibility.” This takes away credibility.
In the article overall, Stahel does recognise some shortcomings of circular economy. This makes his argument weak. For example, “Collecting and reusing waste are labour intensive and expensive”. However, it also gives a neutral tone to the article, playing to its strengths. Conclusively, using credible sources, Stahel successfully evinces that circular economy is sustainable. Even so, acknowledging lack of current practical feasibility of circular economy gives away a weakness.
After evaluating either side of the research question, the opposing perspective, ‘Circular Economy cannot help us achieve sustainability’, is strong because the arguments altogether highlight drawbacks in scientific, economic and environmental aspect They question the circular economy’s feasibility in the present and future, although, overlooking future technological advancements. The perspective also provides a good counterargument that it has some benefits but brings proportionally more complexity and needs groundbreaking reforms to improve. Similarly, other prominent critics like Hervé Corvellec argue that the circular economy will instead focus on aggravating the power of the market and businesses8. Yet, the opinions draw less attention due to lack of data.
However, the supporting viewpoint, “Circular Economy can help us achieve sustainability,” is the most powerful and convincing because the sources predominantly argue towards the counterargument that though Circular Economy is not completely developed, it is more sustainable than the prevailing paradigm. This is strengthened as the opposition does not directly deny its proposed benefits, specifically on the social front. The lack of opposing arguments in the social impact, amplified by Stahel’s focus on social responsibility and benefits in his article, makes his arguments undisputed and valid. This way, Circular Economy is shown to fulfil all aspects of sustainability. The perspective is further fortified by using distinct statistics and successful examples to make readers believe that the opinion is reliable. Especially, broader range of scholars and institutions support this side. In 2018, such institutions took a joint action, the UNEP, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Philips, and over 40 other organisations launched the ‘Platform for Accelerating the Circular Economy’ (PACE)21.
In conclusion, Circular Economy can help us achieve Sustainability, albeit it has some loopholes. Thus, reflecting on my initial standpoint on the research question and comparing it to the conclusion will validate the confidence in this conclusion. Initially, my view on circular economy was neutral, because, though it is much more sustainable than linear economy, it also has design flaws. After researching, however, I found that circular economy can also solve the less defined Sustainable Development Goals, and there already are businesses pursuing it. For example, Jakarta-based XSProject buys waste from waste-picker communities. This creates work opportunities alongside safeguarding hygiene and quality22. Moreover, businesses like Accenture, Adidas, IKEA, Burger King, and H&M are embracing circularity. Consequently, my personal stance has changed.
The horizon of this research is limited, and I cannot fully oppose or support the future of the proposed question. To strengthen my position, I must conduct extensive research on implementation features of circular economy to assess practical feasibility. This can begin with research on the business model in companies and countries and how it could be integrated to form a circular input cycle. Finally, research to determine the ratio of rebound effect to social, economic, and environmental benefits of the circular economy is required to fully judge or justify whether it is naturally sustainable. These findings may challenge my conclusion and viewpoint. Nonetheless, as yet, I believe that circular economy has potential to bring about positive change.
WORD COUNT: 2 000
CITATIONS:
- McGinty, David. “5 Opportunities of a Circular Economy | World Resources Institute.” World Resources Institute, 3 Feb. 2021, www.wri.org/insights/5-opportunities-circular-economy.
- Schröder, Patrick, et al. “What Is the Circular Economy?” Chatham House, 17 June 2021, www.chathamhouse.org/2021/06/what-circular-economy.
- “5 Crucial Reasons for Implementing a Circular Economy for Sustainable Development – Earth5R.” Earth5R, 20 May 2021, earth5r.org/crucial-reasons-implementing-circular-economy.
- “Sustainability Issues | Sustainability Trends | Sustainability Challenges.” Terrafiniti, 15 July 2022, www.terrafiniti.com/sustainability-issues.
- Khajuria, Anupam, et al. “Accelerating Circular Economy Solutions to Achieve the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals.” Circular Economy, vol. 1, no. 1, Elsevier BV, Sept. 2022, p. 100001. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cec.2022.100001.
- “Circular Economy: Definition, Importance and Benefits | News | European Parliament.” European Parliament, 12 Feb. 2015, www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/economy/20151201STO05603/circular-economy-definition-importance-and-benefits.
- “The Circular Economy in Detail.” Ellen MacArthur Foundation, archive.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/explore/the-circular-economy-in-detail. Accessed 3 Apr. 2022.
- Corvellec, Hervé. “Circular Economy Is Not the Panacea Many Had Hoped for | Lund University.” Lund University, 29 Sept. 2021, www.lunduniversity.lu.se/article/circular-economy-not-panacea-many-had-hoped.
- ExpertFile. “Trevor Zink, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Management and Sustainability, College of Business Administration – Expert With Loyola Marymount University.” ExpertFile, expertfile.com/experts/trevor.zinkphd/trevor-zink-phd. Accessed 14 Sept. 2022.
- Cline, Elizabeth. “Will the Circular Economy Save the Planet?” Sierra Club, 23 Dec. 2020, www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2021-1-january-february/feature/will-circular-economy-save-planet.
- Lifset, Reid. “Winners of the 2017 Graedel Prizes.” International Society for Industrial Ecology, 11 Dec. 2018, is4ie.org/announcements/517.
- Mayers, Kieren, et al. “The Limits of the ‘Sustainable’ Economy.” Harvard Business Review, 16 June 2021, hbr.org/2021/06/the-limits-of-the-sustainable-economy.
- “Europe’s Circular-economy Opportunity.” McKinsey & Company, 1 Sept. 2015, www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/europes-circular-economy-opportunity.
- Siderius, Thomas, and Kim Poldner. “Reconsidering the Circular Economy Rebound Effect: Propositions From a Case Study of the Dutch Circular Textile Valley.” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 293, Elsevier BV, Apr. 2021, p. 125996. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.125996.
- Murray, Alan, et al. “The Circular Economy: An Interdisciplinary Exploration of the Concept and Application in a Global Context.” Springer Link, 22 May 2015, link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s10551-015-2693-2?author_access_token=DmSzxz99LULZcPQSPro0x_e4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY7tV9HYEePksERST-V5oZke8mXgOfmr6Eg5BcBl_fOQsMUs2n7MMX4w5zRddCX2gIVapqO3fBm-DtrKocr4jEX2ycec2tD5TfksakZX36CWHA==.%20Journal%20of%20Business%20Ethics.%2010.1007/s10551-015-2693-2.
- “Circular Economy.” Wikipedia, 1 Mar. 2021, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_economy.
- “The Origins of Circular Economy With Dr. Stahel.” BEAST Magazine, 26 Sept. 2017, www.beastmagazine.lu/origins-circular-economy-dr-stahel.
- “Walter Stahel.” European Circular Economy Stakeholder Platform, 10 Oct. 2019, circulareconomy.europa.eu/platform/en/dialogue/cg-names-contacts/walter-stahel.
- “Walter R. Stahel.” Wikipedia, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_R._Stahel. Accessed 10 Aug. 2022.
- “Impact of Shift to Circular Economy.” European Commission, knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/foresight/topic/changing-nature-work/impact-shift-circular-economy_en#:~:text=Circular%20economy%20can%20bring%20a,compared%20to%20the%20baseline%20case. Accessed 8 Sept. 2022.
- “WEF Launches Public-Private Platform on Circular Economy | News | SDG Knowledge Hub | IISD.” International Institute for Sustainable Development, 30 Jan. 2018, sdg.iisd.org/news/wef-launches-public-private-platform-on-circular-economy.
- “How The Circular Economy Can Help Us Reach the Sustainable Development Goals.” Circle Economy, 8 Apr. 2022, www.circle-economy.com/blogs/how-the-circular-economy-can-help-us-reach-the-sustainable-development-goals.
Leave a Reply