Towards circular economy implementation: a comprehensive review in context of manufacturing industry

Lieder, Michael; Rashid, Amir

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.042

Cited by 1,913 publications

(1,441 citation statements)

References 139 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

1,184

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…2012 was chosen as the main cut-off point for temporal analyses since the initial report on CE by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2012) was published in January 2012; this report was called seminal (Geissdoerfer et al, 2017, p.759 ff. ;Lieder and Rashid, 2016) and it was thus assumed that it has likely impacted the discourse. Results are presented from both from a peer-reviewed and practitioner angle since "different actors in the CE landscape (e.g., academic, [practitioner] actors) have different interpretations of the concept" (Blomsma and Brennan, 2017).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of those 114 definitions examined only three were found by both coders to include the 3R framework, the R hierarchy, a systems perspective, environmental quality, economic prosperity and social equity -elements outlined as CE dimensions in Section 2 of this paper. These are the definitions by Liu et al (2009), Lieder andRashid (2016) and van Buren et al (2016), all quite lengthy (at least 140 words) which is understandable given the many dimensions included. We find all of them as a starting point for future deliberations on CE.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…We find that the definition by van Buren et al (2016, p.3), the briefest of the three definitions, is also the one written with greatest clarity and we thus particularly recommend this definition. We critically note regarding these definitions that the one by Lieder and Rashid (2016) does not mention 'Recover', that the R hierarchy could be more explicit in all three definitions, that all lack references to future generations and that all fail to include business models as an enabler of CE and that of these three definitions only van Buren et al (2016) mentions the consumer perspective. These are criticisms we have attempted to address with our definition provided in Section 2.2.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These can blur the concept since they frequently operate in significantly different worlds of thought (Gladek, 2017;de Vries and Petersen, 2009). Blurriness has been raised as a criticism against concepts such as the green economy one (Loiseau et al, 2016) and it has also been raised against CE in various CE review articles we identified (Ghisellini et al, 2016;Lieder and Rashid 2016;Blomsma and Brennan, 2017;Sauvé et al, 2016;Murray et al, 2017;Geissdoerfer et al, 2017;Lewandowski, 2016; further details in Table 1) and beyond. For instance, Lieder and Rashid (2016, p.37) point out that "there are various possibilities for defining [CE]", while Yuan et al (2008, p.5) write that "there is no commonly accepted definition of [CE]".…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Conceptualizing the Circular Economy: An Analysis of 114 Definitions

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TThe circular economy concept has gained momentum both among scholars and practitioners. However, critics claim that it means many different things to different people. This paper provides further evidence for these critics. The aim of this paper is to create transparency regarding the current understandings of the circular economy concept. For this purpose, we have gathered 114 circular economy definitions which were coded on 17 dimensions. Our findings indicate that the circular economy is most frequently depicted as a combination of reduce, reuse and recycle activities, whereas it is oftentimes not highlighted that CE necessitates a systemic shift. We further find that the definitions show few explicit linkages of the circular economy concept to sustainable development. The main aim of the circular economy is considered to be economic prosperity, followed by environmental quality; its impact on social equity and future generations is barely mentioned. Furthermore, neither business models nor consumers are frequently outlined as enablers of the circular economy. We critically discuss the various circular economy conceptualizations throughout this paper. Overall, we hope to contribute via this study towards the coherence of the circular economy concept; we presume that significantly varying circular economy definitions may eventually result in the collapse of the concept.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Conceptualizing the Circular Economy: An Analysis of 114 Definitions

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(5) Recovery (4) Recycle (3) Reuse (2) Reduce (1 Fig. 4 Research perspective of CU (n = 57) literature from the current study and the CE (n = 136) literature used by Lieder and Rashid [24] The dimension resource salvageability basically describes how a resource can be recirculated, for instance, by recirculating, regenerating, or reprocessing resources such that they reenter higher levels of the cascade or are introduced into other or new cascade cycles, respectively. It also includes a description of a process used to evaluate the optimal recirculation pathway [8].…”

Section: Characteristics Of Cascading Utilizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cascading Utilization of Wood: a Matter of Circular Economy?

Mair

Stern

2017

Curr Forestry Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of Review The aim of this study was to analyze the differences and similarities between the concepts circular economy (CE) and cascading utilization (CU) and the interactions between these concepts. The method chosen for this study was a qualitative content analysis, which was conducted on academic CU publications that appeared between 1990 and 2016. To identify connections between CU and CE, the findings of this study are compared to the results of a recent review on CE. Recent Findings From the perspective of the broader goals of CE and CU, both concepts promise to increase resource efficiency by supporting the multiple use of a resource. Research conducted on both concepts has included analyses of the environmental impacts of the CU or CE systems and descriptions of frameworks and tools used to develop cascade chains or measure the circularity of a given resource. Even though the concepts have many similarities, the research has mostly been conducted independently, and the number of connections between the two concepts is surprisingly low. Summary In general, the results of the analysis supported the hypothesis that CU and CE have many parallels and similarities. The CU concept addresses primarily resource management whereas CE provides a more holistic approach. Practically, the publications on CE include considerations of many kinds of resources, whereas publications on CU include a stronger focus on bio-based materials. Despite these differences, CU was shown to clearly fit into the CE concept in that it provides a specific focus on the utilization possibilities (e.g., reuse, recycling, and up-cycling) of a given resource. The term CU may be used whenever one or more of these measures are used.

show abstract

Circular Waste‐Based Biorefinery Development

Patria

Wang

et al. 2020

Waste Valorisation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Towards circular economy implementation: a comprehensive review in context of manufacturing industry

Cited by 1,913 publications

References 139 publications

Conceptualizing the Circular Economy: An Analysis of 114 Definitions

Conceptualizing the Circular Economy: An Analysis of 114 Definitions

Cascading Utilization of Wood: a Matter of Circular Economy?

Circular Waste‐Based Biorefinery Development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About