Embedding Science in Politics: “Complex Utilization” and Industrial Ecology as Models of Natural Resource Use

361

209

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. Keywords:circular economy flow fund model industrial ecology institutional economics labor social and solidarity economy Conflict of interest statement: The authors have no conflict to declare.

Section: Historical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 90%

Coming Full Circle: Why Social and Institutional Dimensions Matter for the Circular Economy

Moreau

Sahakian

Griethuysen

et al. 2017

361

209

“…Among policies related to the CE, those regarding comprehensive utilization of resources (CUR) have the longest history, introduced first in the early period of the People's Republic of China of the 1950s (Palmer ). Like many Chinese institutional and policy arrangements at that time, the concept of CUR originated from the Soviet Union (Salmi and Toppinen ). The initial idea was simply a pursuit of more products from the same resource, which is often considered as originating domestically from the business model of “mulberry fish pond” in the mid‐Ming Dynasty in the sixteenth century.…”

Section: Policy Prototypesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efforts for a Circular Economy in China: A Comprehensive Review of Policies

Zhu

Fan

Shi

et al. 2018

145

Summary Circular economy concepts, practices, and policies are increasingly drawing attention as important means for the pursuit of sustainable development. This article uses a conceptual framework to catalogue and investigate policy efforts for the circular economy in China. Based on the framework, policy prototypes and specific examples are identified: resource‐oriented, production‐oriented, waste, and use‐oriented and life cycle policies. A comprehensive review of 280 related policies shows that China has a long history of resource‐oriented policies and implemented production‐oriented policies very quickly after the year 2000. China's policies toward the circular economy became more comprehensive through time, with a broad engagement of government agencies, an extensive and progressive coverage of recycling opportunities, production initiatives across multiple scales, and use of different policy instruments. The continuous progress has been driven by proactive state actors and their learning from the international society. The current policy framework, however, is concerned more with the means rather than the ends of the circular economy, and relies too much on direct subsidies and other financial incentives. Policy making can be improved by more explicit consideration of the whole production life cycle and use of market‐based policy design.

“…Given the urgency outlined above, such challenges probably require even more pressing final analytical refinement. Industrial ecologists have displayed over the years a frustrating tendency to sidestep issues related to the need to foster fundamental changes in consumption practices (Cohen and Howard 2006; Salmi and Toppinen 2007; Røpke 2009). 3 Studies related to the modification of consumer practices have been more readily pursued by scholarship in collateral fields, such as policy studies (Sondeijker et al 2006), innovation studies (Geels 2005), and consumer studies (Fuchs and Lorek 2005; Cohen 2006; Yates 2008).…”

Section: Industrial Ecology and Scpmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impacts of Household Consumption and Options for Change

Tukker

Cohen

Hubacek

et al. 2010

192

148

This introductory article situates the contributions that comprise this special issue within the field of sustainable consumption and production (SCP) studies. After a brief review of the policy history surrounding SCP, we organize our discussion and the subsequent collection of articles into two groups. The first suite of articles views the environmental impacts associated with household consumption from the perspectives of different consumer groups, income levels, and geographic areas. This work confirms and refines several insights that have been developing over the past several years, namely that food and beverages, mobility, housing, and energy-using products are the most critical consumption domains from the standpoint of environmental sustainability and that higher household income leads to greater (but less than proportional) impacts. The second subset of articles analyzes the potential for mitigating these impacts through behavioral changes and innovation strategies. Although the contributions to this special issue describe several noteworthy examples of information-and team-based initiatives to catalyze behavioral changes, the state of knowledge pertaining to this aspect of the consumption problem is much more inchoate. Research on the formulation and implementation of effective "change management for sustainable consumption" should be treated as an area of priority attention for industrial ecologists.