Transitioning towards circular systems: property rights in waste

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the impact that property rights can have on the implementation of circular waste economies, in which waste is reused, recycled or recovered, within the European Union’s Waste Framework Directive. Design/methodology/approach A theoretical lens is applied to the legal definition as well as production and treatment cycle of waste to understand the property rights that can exist in waste. Findings This paper argues that even though different property rights regimes can apply to waste during its creation, disposal and recovery, the waste management regulatory and legal system is currently predominantly set up to support waste within classic forms of private property ownership. This tends towards commodification and linear systems, which are at odds with an approach that treats waste as a primary wanted resource rather than an unwanted by-product. It is recommended that adopting state or communal property approaches instead could affect systemic transformative change by facilitating the reconceptualisation of waste as a resource for everyone to use. Research limitations/implications The property rights issues are only one dimension of a bigger puzzle. The roles of social conceptualisation, norms, regulations and policies in pursuing circular strategies are only touched upon, but not fully explored in this paper. These provide other avenues that can be underpinned by certain property regimes to transition to circular economies. Originality/value The literature focused on property rights in waste has been very limited to date. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to consider this question in detail from a legal perspective.

An Investigation of Waste Management Practice in a South African Township: A Case Study of Ekuphumleni Township, Ndlambe Municipality

“…Waste Directive defines waste as any object or substance the owner throws away, implying that it is useless [19]. However, several schools of thought, such as Steenmans and Malcolm [20], Thomas [21], and Hannon and Zaman [22], have argued against this definition as the value of waste is deemed to be subjective as what is waste to a consumer is a resource to another.…”

Blockchain Technology for Sustainable Waste Management

“…responsibility for any waste. The type of responsibility and whether it transfers with ownership may be set out in laws and policies, but gray areas exist (e.g., Thomas, 2014;Steenmans and Malcolm, 2020). Simply, this may be the last owner; if O produces waste, then O is responsible for physically discarding it in a lawful manner, which will often entail transferring it to a waste management operator and paying for its disposal (or other management).…”

“…Furthermore, these assumptions are further complicated by the lack of clear definitions and boundaries. While smart contracts cement definitions once they are made, their subject (i.e., waste) and terms (i.e., pre-requisites for execution) must still be defined by the parties involved, which is problematic when a legal definition has resulted in disputes [as is the case with "waste" in certain contexts such as the European Union, as evidenced by the volume of existing case law (e.g., Steenmans, 2018;Steenmans and Malcolm, 2020)] or does not exist [as is the case with sustainability (e.g., Ross, 2009)].…”

Al-Substituted Tobermorites: An Effective Cation Exchanger Synthesized from “End-of-Waste” Materials

“…One of the main challenges for modern society is to reduce the production of waste and limit the consumption of natural raw materials (NRM) whose availability is increasingly difficult and costs are increasing . At once, the growing awareness for the “environmental issues” has led to the development of environment-friendly, sustainable, and cost-effective industrial processes and, in several countries, new production activities can be launched only if fully integrated within the circular economy regime. − Nevertheless, these goals are frustrated by the fact that, for a long time, humans will have to live with the hazardous waste produced in the past and the nonhazardous waste generated at a faster rate than their recycling. Two typical examples are asbestos and glass from the recycling of domestic containers.…”