Master thesis in Sustainable Development 2019/43
Examensarbete i Hållbar utveckling
New economy, same challenges:
Is Circular Economy enabling a
sustainable and holistic transition
in Europe?
Céline Karina E. Ubbelohde
Master thesis in Sustainable Development 2019/43
Examensarbete i Hållbar utveckling
New economy, same challenges:
Is Circular Economy enabling a
sustainable and holistic transition in Europe?
Céline Karina E. Ubbelohde
Content
Abstract ... III Summary ...IV List of Figures ... V List of Tables ...VI List of Abbreviations ... VII
1. Introduction ... 1
2. Background ... 3
2.1 Sustainable Development: the concept and global policies ... 3
2.2 Circular Economy and the European Union ... 4
3. Theoretical Framework ... 6
3.1 Social-ecological systems perspective to sustainability ... 6
3.2 The role of Circular Economy for sustainability ... 7
3.3 Circular Economy framework from a social-ecological systems perspective ... 8
4. Method ... 12
4.1 Qualitative content analysis ... 12
4.2 Material ... 15
5. Results ... 17
5.1 Classification into the SDGs ... 17
5.1.1 Environment ... 18
5.1.2 Economy ... 19
5.1.3 Social ... 20
5.1.4 Global Partnerships ... 21
5.2 Circular Economy principles and the EU reports... 22
6. Discussion ... 26
6.1 How are the Sustainable Development Goals addressed in the European Union’s Circular Economy policies? ... 26
6.2 What is missing to Circular Economy to make it holistic and an enabler of the SDGs? ... 28
6.3 Implications for future research and limitations of the study... 30
7. Conclusion ... 31
8. Acknowledgements ... 32
9. References ... 33
New economy, same challenges: Is Circular Economy enabling
a sustainable and holistic transition in Europe?
CELINE UBBELOHDE
Ubbelohde, C., 2019: New economy, same challenges: Is Circular Economy enabling a sustainable and holistic transition in Europe? Master thesis in Sustainable Development at Uppsala University, No. 2019/43, 89 pp, 30 ECTS/hp
Abstract:
Circular economy has emerged as a new economic paradigm to solve problems of natural resource scarcity and environmental pollution by using resources more efficiently and designing products to minimize waste. This study examines the potential of circular economy to enable the achievement of sustainable development and the Sustainable Development Goals in Europe. This thesis, through a qualitative content analysis of four overarching European reports related to circular economy strategies, uses a social-ecological systems perspective to: (a) analyze how the three aspects of sustainable development are addressed in the reports and (b) pointing out at missing elements in the European circular economy project that could hinder the realization of the Sustainable Development Goals. Circular economy is a good start to change habits in terms of recycling, reusing and repairing but it also raises awareness about the link between our level of consumption and production and its impact on the environment. However, the results of this study show that the link between Sustainable Development Goals and circular economy is weak and that the economic aspects are highlighted in all the reports to the detriment of environmental and social aspects. As a consequence, the current application of circular economy in Europe does not provide systemic and structural changes, fails to address the root of the problem and reflects a weak vision of sustainability.
Keywords: Sustainable Development, Circular Economy, European Union, Content analysis,
Sustainable Development Goals, social-ecological systems
New economy, same challenges: Is Circular Economy enabling
a sustainable and holistic transition in Europe?
CELINE UBBELOHDE
Ubbelohde, C., 2019: New economy, same challenges: Is Circular Economy enabling a sustainable and holistic transition in Europe? Master thesis in Sustainable Development at Uppsala University, No. 2019/43, 89 pp, 30 ECTS/hp
Summary:
Pressures on ecological, social and economic systems caused by our (over)consumption are becoming increasingly pressing, complex and interconnected. Circular economy is becoming more and more popular among countries, regions and companies because it has the potential to address environmental, social and economic issues. Indeed, circular economy is based on the idea of a closed loop, where materials are expected to stay for as long as possible in the economy and where waste and new resources extraction are diminished. Therefore, by implementing circular economy, actors can expect to grow their economy and profits while at the same time diminish their impacts on the environment. This study aims to link both sustainable development and circular economy, two main priorities in the European developmental agenda and explores how the latter could enable the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals in Europe. To do that, qualitative content analysis is the chosen method. The content of four overarching reports is analyzed to draw conclusions on how the EU reports position themselves in the sustainable development paradigm. This thesis applies a social-ecological systems perspective to study how the three aspects of sustainable development are addressed in the reports. The study’s findings point at several missing elements that could jeopardize the successful implementation of circular economy. These include the lack of strong sustainability perspective and missing social aspects and to some smaller extent missing environmental aspects. To conclude, circular economy in Europe does not address the three aspects of sustainable development as suggested by the social-ecological systems perspective and thus risks failing to come up with radical changes to the current linear system.
Keywords: Sustainable Development, Circular Economy, European Union, Content analysis,
Sustainable Development Goals, social-ecological systems
List of Figures
Figure 1 The Sustainable Development Goals
p.3
Figure 2 Weak VS. Strong sustainability p.6
Figure 3 Coding categories: the SDGs p.12 Figure 4 Coding categories: The
Circular Economy principles
p.12
Figure 5 First part of the classification process
p.13
Figure 6 Second part of the classification process
p.13
Figure 7 Summary and interpretation of the results
List of Tables
Table 1 Link between the SDGs targets and the EU Circular Economy reports
p.14
Table 2 Results from the content analysis linking the ‘Environmental’ SDGs’ targets and the reports p.16
Table 3 Results from the content analysis linking the
‘Economic’ SDGs’ targets and the reports p.17
Table 4 Results from the content analysis linking the
‘Social’ SDGs’ targets and the reports p.18
Table 5 Results from the content analysis linking the SDG 17 targets and the reports
p.19
List of Abbreviations
CE Circular Economy
EAP Environmental Action Programme EU European Union
EP European Parliament GDP Gross domestic product GHG Greenhouse gases
MDGs Millenium Development Goals
OECD The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development SC Sustainable Consumption
SD Sustainable Development SDGs Sustainable Development Goals UN United Nations
1. Introduction
“We must continue on this path, but the path must be stepped up to ensure a sustainable Europe by 2030. We cannot afford passing the responsibility to next generations, and our margin of time is becoming even smaller” (European Commission, 2019).
The global challenges concerning natural and human systems are becoming increasingly pressing, interconnected and complex. While the humanity is realizing the urgency of the global threats on the environment, the society and the economy, there is a need to accelerate change. Inequalities regarding wealth, power and gender are rising and are remaining a great concern (United Nations, 2015). Moreover, our planet and its ecological system as well as its biodiversity are changing irreversibly (United Nations, 2015; European Parliament and Council, 2013; Costanza et al., 2014).Over the past decades, sustainable development has become a way of thinking that could possibly solve those global issues by making sure that “no one is left behind, whilst truly respecting the limits of our planet and securing it for future generations” (European Commission, 2019, p.8). While the current problems we are facing simultaneously affect the environment, the society and the economy, they will also influence the livelihoods of future generations.
To tackle some of these challenges, circular economy (CE) started to become popular traction in the sustainability scene in the last few years. Frequently associated with the Industrial Ecology approach, circular economy is a new economic paradigm that is based on reducing, reusing, recycling and recovering materials in the production and consumption processes (Korhonen et al., 2018b; Kirchherr
et al., 2017; Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Van Buren et al., 2016). This new model replaces the
‘take-make-dispose’ model of production and consumption. Moreover, circular economy is viewed as a mean to reach sustainable development by creating economic prosperity, reducing environmental impacts and meeting social equity (Kirchherr et al., 2017, p.225). Circular economy is applied by different businesses across the world but also promoted by several countries such as China and more recently by the European Union (Korhonen et al., 2018a). In 2015, shortly after the Paris Agreement, the European Union adopted the Circular Economy Package “Closing the loop - An EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy” (European Commission, 2015). The action plan outlines which actions the European Union is going to take to implement circular economy in its policies and in reality. Four years later, tackling excessive resource extraction and transitioning to sustainable production and consumption are still one of the top priority for the EU (European Commission, 2019).
In this study, I focus on the European implementation of circular economy. More specifically, I show the link between the European Circular Economy project and the Sustainable Development Goals agenda by analyzing the content of the following policy documents: The Circular Economy Package launched in 2015 by the European Commission (European Commission, 2015), the 7th Environmental
Action Programme published in 2013 (European Parliament and Council, 2013), the resolution on “Resource efficiency: moving towards a circular economy” adopted by the European Parliament in 2015 (European Parliament, 2015) and finally, the Reflection paper “Towards a sustainable Europe by 2030” published in 2019 (European Commission 2019). I use a social-ecological systems perspective as a theoretical framework to explore and analyze how the three dimensions of sustainable development (environment, society, economy) are addressed in relation to circular economy in the selected documents, and link these to the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
This project answers the following research questions:
1. How are the sustainable development aspects addressed in European Union’s Circular Economy policies?
2. As a new sustainability paradigm, what is still missing to the EU’s Circular Economy discourse to make it holistic and an enabler of the Sustainable Development?
This research project highlights the importance for the European Circular Economy project to consider all three aspects of sustainable development. This project contributes to the field of sustainability science by applying the socio-ecological perspective to circular economy. This analysis could help stakeholders to consider promoting circular economy solutions that considers economic, environmental and social aspects. It also contributes to critically assess the circular economy in Europe and to point out to potential barriers for its successful implementation. This is done by exploring the literature on circular economy from a sustainability perspective and by using a qualitative content analysis method on four EU reports
.
2. Background
2.1 Sustainable Development: the concept and global policies
The challenges humanity is dealing with are worldwide issues that affect the people, the planet and the prosperity (United Nations, 2015). Sustainable development, as a global concept, has rapidly evolved into a mainstream paradigm to solve those global matters. The concept gained in popularity as a result of rising global environmental risks such as resources’ depletion due to the increase of population and consumption (Du Pisani, 2006, p.87). In 1972, the first UN meeting on international environmental issues was held in Stockholm, Sweden which started the development of international environmental politics. Later, in 1987, the sustainable development concept gained momentum after the publication of the report titled Our Common Future (Du Pisani, 2006, p.92). This report was published by the World Commission on Environment and Development, also known as the Brundtland Commission, which consisted of a group of 22 people commissioned by the United Nations “to identify long-term environmental strategies for the international community” (Ibid). The authors defined sustainable development as followed:
“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987).
Sustainable development is based on the intersection of the environment, society and economy which are its three pillars (Giddings et al., 2002, p.187). The interactions between the three pillars can vary depending on which perspective one has of sustainability. Either, the three dimensions can be seen as separable or they can be dependent on each other, with the economy dependent on the society and the environment and the society reliant on the environment (Ibid). More than a concept, sustainable development has become a fundamental idea and an overarching goal for decision-makers to provide effective and integrative solutions that comprise environmental, social and economic challenges the humanity is facing (Hugé et al., 2013, p.187; Lafferty, 1999, p.123). In 2015, to guide the humanity to a sustainable future, the United Nations set a new development agenda. This agenda is called Agenda 2030 and includes 17 Sustainable Development Goals as well as 169 associated targets with sustainable development as core concept. Those goals are:
Figure 1: The Sustainable Development Goals (European Commission, 2019).
should be pursued simultaneously and by making progress in one of the SDGs others might be affected. Basically, the SDGs mainly affect 5 areas, known as the 5Ps: people, planet, prosperity, peace, partnerships (United Nations 2015). Finally, the SDGs “address the systemic barriers to sustainable development such as inequality, unsustainable consumption patterns, weak institutional capacity, and environmental degradation that the MDGs (Millenium Development Goals) neglected” (ICSU & ISSC, 2015).
The European Union played an important role in the goal-setting process and strongly supports the SDGs (Sjåfjell et al., 2018). “Sustainability is already recognized as a European brand” and an overarching goal (Sjåfjell et al., 2018, p.14) and it is also deeply rooted in the European project (European Commission, 2019). However, the EU still fails to consider the SDGs in its policies (Demailly & Hege, 2018, p.4). Moreover, no single country in the world has reached all the objectives and efforts need to continue to implement the global agenda (European Commission, 2019).
As sustainable development concept interconnects environment, society and economy, applying sustainable development should embrace a holistic view (Giddings et al., 2002) However, many times the economy dominates the environment and the society and in practice, economic activities are prioritized (Giddings et al., 2002, p.190; Sjåfjell et al., 2018, p.104). From earlier on, sustainable development was criticized for not questioning the economic growth (Du Pisani, 2006, p.93). It is even said that sustainable development is an oxymoron as “development is associated with continuous growth from the perspectives of industry, economy, agriculture and consumption: eternal growth cannot be sustainable” (Sauvé et al., 2016, p.52). Moreover, sustainable development was a compromise between growth and conservation which lead to contradiction of the very meaning of sustainable development (Du Pisani, 2006). Indeed, based on the definition of development and the definition of sustainability, the two concepts are incompatible (Du Pisani, 2006, p.94). By only putting an emphasis on the economic pillar, we would fail to have a full and detailed picture of what we have to tackle precisely (Sauvé et al., p.48; Giddings et al., 2002, p.192). By bringing various disciplines together and having a holistic view, we would be equipped to tackle dynamic and complex global challenges (Sneddon et al., 2006, p.264). Despite the numerous criticisms sustainable development and Agenda 2030 still remain relevant in current environmental and socio-economic affairs and as a guiding-principle and concrete policy goal (Sneddon et al., 2006, p.254; Schneider et al., 2019).
2.2 Circular Economy and the European Union
With a growing concern about increasing natural resources’ depletion and exceeding planetary boundaries, circular economy appears to offer a solution to those global challenges. The linear economic model, the ‘take-make-dispose’ scheme, began with the industrial revolution and quickly progressed into an overexploitation of resource which made it unsustainable (Prieto-Sandoval et al., 2018, p.609; Esposito et al., 2017). Global population is growing as well as consumption and thus non-renewable resources are depleted. As a consequence, waste management issues are also rising. circular economy comes under consideration as an answer to the linear model of production and consumption.
Furthermore, the sustainable development agenda and the emergence of circular economy complete each other. Indeed, CE applications have the potential to achieve Sustainable Development Goals (Schroder
et al., 2018). Particularly, regarding the transformation of the production and consumption system (Ibid).
While sustainable development defines clear goals to achieve (: the SDGs), it does not give any tools to reach them. On the other hand, circular economy has a set of tools but no clear goals (Sauvé et al., 2016, p.54). At the European level, the circular economy policies have been linked to SDG 6, SDG 7, SDG 8, SDG 9, SDG 11, SDG 12 and SDG 13 (European Commission, 2019a). The European Union and its Member States have committed to implement the SDGs by 2030 and it is one of its number one priority (European Commission, 2019). Additionally, in its last Reflection Paper “Towards A Sustainable Europe by 2030” (Ibid), the European Commission reaffirmed its will to transition to a circular economy. The circular economy policy area is subject to a strong political will, and important resources are also being allocated to implement by 2030, the international commitment on sustainable development (Ahlström, 2019, p.8). More broadly, the CE has the potential to answer to environmental and developmental challenges (Schroeder et al., 2018).
The European Union became aware of its intensive use of resources as well as potential future challenges that would arise. Already in 2003, the European Commission launched the ‘Towards a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources’ (European Commission, 2003). The aim was to reduce the impacts on the environment due to resources’ use and continue to economically grow (European Commission, 2016). Later on, in 2011, Europe followed with a ‘Roadmap to Resource Efficient Europe’ which was about transforming Europe’s economy and production and consumption to make them more resource efficient (European Commission, 2011). The circular economy concept became popular and in 2014, the European Commission introduced its programme for a zero waste Europe. Finally, in 2015, after the withdrawal of the zero waste programme, the European Union launched its Circular Economy Package that has a broader focus and include the whole supply chain of production (European Commission, 2019b). In 2019, the European Commission announced that the actions set under the Action Plan have already been implemented (European Commission, 2019c, p.1). Currently, CE is high on the political agenda and is considered as a new socio-economic paradigm in Europe (Merli et al., 2018; Ahlström, 2019)
3. Theoretical Framework
3.1 Social-ecological systems perspective to sustainability
Sustainable development is commonly represented in the form of three interconnected circles. The circles represent the social, economic and environmental pillar of the concept. This model faces a common criticism which is that the three pillars are considered as separate entities where sustainability is assigned to one of them (Thatcher, 2014; Folke et al., 2016, p.3). This leads to problems in the interpretation of sustainability. Indeed, the separation of the pillars led to the economic pillar to take over the society and the environment which are being exploited for economic benefits (Giddings et al., 2002, p.191). While it has been recognized that the environment is changing rapidly, there is still a common belief that the environment and the ecosystems will adapt to the changes imposed on them (Johnston et al., 2007, p.61).
The separation of the three entities contributes to narrow approaches based on the belief of technological fix which alludes to a weak application of sustainability (Giddings et al., 2002, p.187). Indeed, weak sustainability is defined as allowing the three aspects of sustainability to be interchangeable (Biely et
al., 2018, p.225). This means that natural and manufactured capital are substitutable because the
well-being they produce is similar (Pelenc & Ballet, 2015; Sauvé et al., 2016; Dedeurwaerdere, 2014). Moreover, weak sustainability is based on short-term solutions founded on the future promise of technological progress (Dedeurwaerdere, 2014, p.15). Technological progress is said to enable future generations’ well-being with less resources (Biely et al., 2018, p.225). This poses a problem in the sense that technological fixes rely on natural resources which are not taken into account in weak sustainability (Dedeurwaerdere, 2014, p.15).
Figure 2: Weak VS. Strong sustainability framework
In the nested or embedded model of sustainability, the society is dependent on the environment, and the economy is a dependent on the society and the environment (Lozano, 2008, p.1842; Giddings et al., 2002, p.191; Folke et al., 2016). This means that the well-being of the society and the economy depends primarily on the well-being of the environment (Thatcher, 2014). Additionally, contrary to the first model, the economy depends on the society, for the labor and environment, for the resources and
Environment Economy Social Economy Social Environment
Common three interconnected pillars model
ecosystems’ services (Folke et al., 2016; Giddings et al., 2002). The nested model highlights the interconnectedness of the three dimensions of sustainable development. In this representation of sustainability, the environment is the foundation for the economy and the society (Folke et al., 2016).
The nested model alludes to the concept of strong sustainability where all of its three aspects are considered. Contrary to the weak sustainability, the three aspects are not interchangeable, and technology is not considered as the only answer to solve global sustainability challenges (Biely et al., 2018, p.225). Strong sustainability is based on the principle of environmental conservation and argues to keep environmental assets constant over time (Hediger, 1999, p.1125; Sauvé et al., 2016). The planetary boundaries framework and the definition of a safe operating space enter into this logic of considering the three aspects of sustainability together and seeing the environment as the basis for the well-being of the society and the economy (Folke et al., 2016). Strong sustainability is represented as a radical and structural change of the economy and more broadly, all parts of the system are considered, meaning it is based on system thinking (Biely et al., 2018, p.225; Ahlström, 2019, p.2). Furthermore, the nested representation of sustainability refers to a socio-ecological systems approach where people and economies are embedded in the biosphere and where they shape one another (Folke et al., 2016, p.5). The socio-ecological approach ensures that the progress of human well-being does not weaken the biosphere (Fisher et al., 2015). Integrated approaches which consist of ecological, economic and social practical solutions are needed to help foster sustainable development (Fisher et al., 2015; Dedeurwaerdere, 2014a, p.26).
Finally, these systems’ representations face several criticisms. First, the two models presented above are highly anthropocentric (Lozano, 2008). Sustainable development itself can be seen an anthropocentric concept as it only concerns current and future generation of humans (Sauvé et al., 2016). Indeed, the concept fails to consider wider views of the environment by only focusing on the human needs and perspectives (Giddings et al., 2002, p.188). Second, those models are “broad-brush model[s]” (Giddings
et al., 2002, p.192). Actually, the graphic representations seek to explain the complex concept of
sustainability in a simple manner (Lozano, 2008, p.1843). In reality, there is no sharp distinctions between the three spheres (Giddings et al., 2002, p.192). Furthermore, these models could give the impression of a static world (Ibid) as “they are centered on one point in time” (Lozano, 2008, p.1843) while, in fact “there are different economies, societies and environments which changed and are changing over time” (Giddings et al., 2002, p.193). Considering the complexities of the challenges, the fact that they are multi-layered and multi-faceted, the analysis of socio-ecological systems is difficult (Dedeurwaerdere, 2014a, p.33). Additionally, sustainability is often criticized for being a blurry and broad concept (Biely et al., 2018; Giddings et al., 2002). There are around 300 definitions of sustainability (Geissdoerfer et al., 2018, p.758) and this allows different stakeholders to imply different things when referring to sustainability (Biely et al., 2018; Giddings et al., 2002). There are many interpretations, no common philosophy of the concept nor any specific criteria to define what is and is not considered as sustainable (Giddings et al., 2002, p.188; Du Pisani, 2006). Thus, the two models presented, even though are commonly used, represent two views of sustainability among many others.
3.2 The role of Circular Economy for sustainability
This can contribute to reach the SDGs. Even though, circular economy is not explicitly mentioned in the targets, several authors believe in the positive contribution of circular economy to the fulfillment of SDGs and their targets (Geng et al., 2013; Schroeder et al., 2018) because they both share a global perspective, emphasize on inter- and intra-generational commitments and focus on the state of the environment (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). Furthermore, some scholars think that circular economy can replace sustainable development (Sauvé et al., 2016). Implemented within the linear economy and system, some authors claim that this makes sustainable development and linear economy inseparable (Ibid). In this context, circular economy goes further than sustainable development and suggests a new economic paradigm that goes beyond the sustainability limitations (Ibid).
Despite the mutual beneficial relationship between the two concepts, the conceptual link between both is still not clear (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). Indeed, Sustainable Development is defined at a macro-level and encompasses the three aspects of environment, society and economy at large (Sauvé et al., 2016; Merli et al., 2018). Moreover, it consists of multiple goals addressed by various actors (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). Circular economy is mainly focused on the decrease of resources’ use benefiting economic actors (Merli et al., 2018; Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). Unlike sustainable development, circular economy prioritizes economy with direct benefit to the environment and only implicit social improvements (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). This can represent a barrier to achieve sustainable development. Another difficulty to achieve sustainability is that circular economy might worsen climate change and increase the greenhouses gases due to the technical challenges regarding closing the loop as well as the inability of circular economy to maintain a constant level of consumption (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Andersen, 2007; Lukman et al., 2016). Currently, circular economy has narrow focus on the economy and the environment and society rather than viewing challenges through a holistic lens (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017).
Moreover, circular economy is a movement towards weak sustainability as it does not integrate social dimensions (Sauvé et al.., 2016). This is one of the major research gap concerning CE and also a barrier for circular economy to enable sustainability. However, several authors address that issue and provide some explanations as to why circular economy does not explicitly provide social goals and improvements. Circular economy is set in an industrial context which does not address social issues and thus could explain the limited focus of CE (Merli et al., 2018). Another explanation is given by Sauvé
et al. (2016), which state that if CE principles are followed, those would necessarily lead to an
improvement in well-being and therefore that would justify why CE does not include specific social goals. Furthermore, it can also be said that it is very challenging to pursue a simultaneously the environmental, economic and social goal (D’amato et al., 2017).
In a larger context, scholars do not agree on a common definition for circular economy and for sustainable development and thus, concepts can be linked and compared in various ways (Sauvé et al., 2016). Moreover, a lack of common CE definition could hinder its momentum and the scope of CE’s definition could affect its aim. For example, a narrow scope would not allow CE to set a new socio-economic paradigm (Merli et al., 2018, p.718).
3.3 Circular Economy framework from a social-ecological
systems perspective
Based on the idea of a closed loop, circular economy has for aim to increase efficiency and eventually achieve decoupling. This would renew the economy, increase jobs and employment and save the environment. However, circular economy is not only perceived as a ‘win-win’ situation by the scholars. Indeed, from a sustainability perspective, CE appears to offer limited solutions to today’s challenges among which resource scarcity, global natural ecosystem and ecosystems’ services decline (Esposito et
al., 2017, p.10; Korhonen et al., 2018a, p.38).
closed system. Resource efficiency can refer to either, an increase in resource productivity or a reduction of the resource intensity of the used materials such as metals, minerals, fuels, water, land, clean air and biodiversity (Domenech & Bahn-Walkowiak, 2019, p.9). Several advantages result from being resource efficient during the production process. A country or a region could rely less on the import of raw materials for the production of products (Van Buren et al., 2016, p.3). It also creates more employment opportunities and job growth by creating new markets such as recycling and reusing, which increase resource productivity (Ibid). More generally, by being more resource efficient, the industry can reconcile and benefit economic and environmental objectives, but it also goes further and considers inter- and intra-generational equity (Cooper, 2005). Even though, circular economy tries to pursue economic growth with environmental challenges in a sustainable way, many scholars are uncertain about the real impact of resource efficiency. Indeed, while it is important to lower the input and the impact of natural resources, Akenji et al. (2016, p.5) states that it is not sufficient.This is due to the increasing demand of resources and goods which outpace the efficiency improvements (Ibid; Cooper, 2005; European Parliament, 2015). When referring to nested model of sustainability in Figure 2, resource efficiency coupled with an increase in production and consumption fails to consider the environment as the foundation of the well-being of the society and the economy.
Eventually, by reducing the amount of resources’ use, CE aims to decouple economic growth from negative environmental effects. Absolute or relative decoupling refers to achieving economic growth while at the same time reducing the impact on the environment and the resources’ use (Lazarevic & Valve, 2017, p.64). Absolute decoupling means that resource consumption decreases while the economy grows (Akenji et al., 2016, p.2). Relative decoupling means that resource consumption increases at a lower rate than the economy (Ibid). It is envisioned, by some authors, as a win-win scenario that will benefit the environment and the economy (Lazarevic & Valve, 2017) and is one of the key concepts to achieve sustainable consumption and production (Akenji & Bengtsson, 2014). Others question the possibility to achieve decoupling as there are only a few examples of relative decoupling and none of absolute (Akenji et al., 2016; Akenji & Bengtsson, 2014). However, from 2000 to 2014, “the EU-28 on average experienced absolute decoupling” (the indicator used to calculate decoupling did not take into account the “hidden flows” of the imported goods) (Domenech & Bahn-Walkowiak, 2019, p.8). More generally, circular economy topics revolve around the concept of decoupling driven by the technological innovation specifically recycling and eco-efficiency (D’Amato et al., 2017, p.721). Furthermore, decoupling as used in policy discourse tend to give priority to economic growth and ecological concerns take a back seat (Akenji et al., 2016, p.5). This alludes to a weak sustainability vision which refers to the three interconnected circles model. Even though, decoupling is an appealing concept, it does not consider the economy as dependent on the environment and the society. Therefore, circular economy is mostly based on relative decoupling and weak sustainability. (D’Amato et al., 2017, p.725).
face and solve complex and global issues, innovations and technologies integrating ecological and social challenges must be scaled up and accelerated (Ibid).
Absolute decoupling and the acceleration of technological fixes contributed to green consumerism and the rebound effect (Vivanco et al., 2016). Indeed, while industries become more and more resource efficient, the cost of production has been reduced leading to more produced goods and ultimately drove the consumption up (Figge et al., 2014; Zink & Geyer, 2017). Additionally, goods produced from the secondary resource market may be of insufficient quality or less desirable to the consumers than the primary goods (Zink & Geyer, 2017).These mechanisms are known as the rebound effect. The rebound effect could jeopardize the implementation and limit the benefits of circular economy. In fact, consumers are encouraged to buy more green products which fits in the mainstream economic paradigm based on GDP growth (Akenji et al., 2016, p.2; Vivanco et al., 2016, p.122). This growing consumption questions the benefits and the limits of circular economy in that it delivers limited sustainability outcomes (Geels
et al., 2015). Moreover, it does not address issues of fair distribution of resources and wealth and
inequality and therefore, offers limited benefits for the society. For circular economy to be successful, the secondary production market has to outweigh the primary production (Zink & Geyer, 2017). If not, secondary and primary production impacts will accumulate and results in increasing environmental impacts (Ibid). This could occur for several reasons: secondary products are less desirable or less quality than the primary products, prices of secondary products are higher than primary production ones (Ibid).
To be able to use waste as an input for the secondary production, several gradations for circularity known as the 9R are applied. Those are: refuse, reduce, reuse, repair, refurbish, remanufacture, repurpose, recycle, recover (Van Buren et al., 2016, p.3; Kirchherr et al., 2017). The European Union uses the 4R framework: reduce, reuse, recycle and recover (Kirchherr et al., 2017). The 9R framework is a waste hierarchy where refuse is the most desirable and recover the least desirable strategy. Among the literature, scholars have different standpoints regarding the closed loop which challenges the core and the promises of circular economy.For example, Van Buren et al. (2016, p.2) write that “products can be recovered and reused almost endlessly”. Others say that at some point, material loop and circulation will reach its limits (Milios, 2018, p.865). Skene (2018, p.482) says that “nature’s economy does not operate like this [i.e in a closed loop]” and that “the Earth is an open system, not a closed system”. The circular economy waste hierarchy also faces criticisms and more precisely, recycling which most policies are oriented towards (Kirchherr et al., 2017, p.226). Indeed, recycling is the most common component in the definitions followed by reuse and reduce (Kirchherr et al., 2017) despite the fact that the two last ones are above recycling in the waste hierarchy. Promoting reduction of demand for material is seen as a less attractive option for policy makers as this means decreasing consumption and economic growth (Allwood, 2014; Kirchherr et al., 2017). Recycling has some limitations and policies lack to recognize them (Akenji et al., 2016, p.6). While recycling plays an important role in decreasing the depletion of finite natural resources and thus offers a solution to environmental and waste challenges, it is not possible to achieve 100% recyclability due to thermodynamics and entropy law (Milios, 2018, p.865). Moreover, recycling will always need energy and thus it won’t be possible to close the loop and stop generating wastes (Korhonen et al., 2018a, p.42; Skene, 2018; Akenji et al., 2016; Van Buren et
al., 2016; Allwood, 2014). The CE principles might seem encompassing and face little critique from the
policymakers but there is a need to carefully analyze the real environmental impact of CE projects (Korhonen et al., 2018a, p.42) and acknowledge that CE goes far beyond than recycling (Mayer et al., 2018). The idea to use wastes from one process for another does not mean that it automatically creates environmental benefits (Zink & Geyer, 2017, p.595).
leads to sustainability and also alludes to a socio-ecological perspective of sustainability (D’Amato et
al., 2017, p.717; Borel-Saladin & Turok, 2013, p.211). Indeed, it is said that growth has lifted millions
of people out of poverty, but it has been environmentally damaging (Borel-Saladin & Turok, 2013, p.211). Now green growth is seen as being able to repair the environment while at the same time reduce poverty through job creation (Ibid). Furthermore, some scholars even say that green growth sees climate change as an opportunity, instead of a cost, for more investments in the environment and a driver for increased growth (Vazquez-Brust et al., 2014). Overall, actors see green economy and green growth as structural changes that would enable to pursue growth and prevent environmental harm (Hallegatte et
al., 2011; Borel-Saladin & Turok, 2013). Nonetheless, the concept of green growth is also largely
criticized because “in many cases, green growth is interpreted as free market environmentalism and used to continue advocacy for neoliberal policy and governance tools” referring to income inequality, market failures, lack of attention to social inclusion (Vazquez-Brust et al., 2014, p.40). Moreover, green economy and green growth tend to be associated with weak sustainability and technological fix which does not refer to a holistic vision of sustainability and where economy operates without enough concern for the environment (Prieto-Sandoval et al., 2018; Lorek &Spangenberg, 2014, p.35; Vazquez-Brust et
4. Method
4.1 Qualitative content analysis
The chosen method to look into the sustainable development aspects in the circular economy concept as defined but the European Union was qualitative content analysis. Content analysis is a qualitative research method that “focuses on the characteristics of language as communication with attention to the content or the contextual meaning of the text” (Hshien & Shannon, 2005, p.1278). Qualitative content analysis is done through systematization of findings classified into various and relevant coding categories. “The aim [of qualitative content analysis] is to attain a condensed and broad description of the phenomenon and the outcome of the analysis is concepts and categories describing the phenomenon” (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008, p.108).
This particular method was selected because the aim of this study is to look into the environmental, economic and social aspects that are addressed and included in various EU reports and documents. Indeed, qualitative content analysis is “a research method for making replicable and valid inferences from data to their context, with the purpose of providing knowledge, new insights, a representation of facts and a practical guide to action” (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008, p.108). By using this research method, conclusions can be drawn on how the EU reports position themselves in the sustainable development paradigm.
Content analysis grew in popularity among research over the past decades (Neuendorf, 2002). This method was particularly used in the field of communication, journalism, sociology and psychology (Ibid). Therefore, there is a lack of firm definitions and procedures to conduct qualitative content analysis (Hshien & Shannon, 2005, p.1277). Nevertheless, through reading various scientific articles using content analysis it was possible to note similarities in the procedure.
Qualitative content analysis is built on the following steps:
1) Formulate research questions that will be investigated through content analysis; 2) Define content categories to systematize the findings;
3) Code the data into categories;
4) Analyze the results and highlight shared meaning across the data.
The first step is thus to formulate research questions that will be investigated through this method. In this research study, my goal is to answer two questions:
- How are the sustainable development aspects (social, environment, economic) addressed in EU’s Circular Economy policies?
- As a new sustainability paradigm, what is still missing to the EU’s Circular Economy discourse to make it holistic and an enabler of the Sustainable Development?
Several authors suggested different categorizations of the SDGs. For analysis purposes, the classification of the SDGs follows the categorization proposed by Folke et al. (2016). The Circular economy principles i.e refuse, reduce, reuse, repair, refurbish, remanufacture, repurpose, recycle, recover energy had their own categories.
Figure 3: Coding categories: the SDGs. (Modified from Folke et al., 2016)
Environment
Society
Economy
SDG 6 ‘Clean water and sanitation’ SDG 13 ‘Climate action’
SDG 14 ‘Life below water’ SDG 15 ‘Life on land’
SDG 1 ‘No poverty’ SDG 2 ‘Zero hunger’ SDG 3 ‘Good health and well-being’
SDG 4 ‘Quality education’ SDG 5 ‘Gender equality’ SDG 7 ‘Affordable and clean energy’
SDG 11 ‘Sustainable cities and communities’
SDG 16 ‘Peace, justice and strong institutions’
SDG 8 ‘Decent work and economic growth’
SDG 9 ‘Industry, innovation and infrastructure’
SDG 10 ‘Reduced inequalities’ SDG 12 ‘Sustainable production and consumption’
SDG 17 ‘Global Partnerships’
Refuse Preventing the use of resources
Reduce Increase efficiency to reduce the use of resources
Reuse Reused by another customer, second-hand, sharing products
Repair Repair a product instead of discarding, make the product more durable
Refurbish Restore product
Remanufacture Use parts of old and unused products for new similar products Repurpose Use parts of old and unused products for a different purpose
Recycle Process materials for reusing
Recover Incineration of discarded products
Figure 4: Coding categories: The Circular Economy principles (Table adapted from Kirchherr et al., 2017 and van Buren et al., 2016)
The third step consists of organizing larger text into fewer content categories. “When classified into the same categories, words, phrases and the like share the same meaning” (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008, p.108). The coding process was done manually and not with the help of a computer software. Manual coding can reduce the risks of misinterpretation (Kirchherr et al., 2017). Only one coder had coded the data into categories and this consists of a limitation of this study. For optimal results and reliability, it is encouraged to have more than two coders (Kirchherr et al., 2017; Neuendorf, 2002). Moreover, if other coding categories were chosen to analyze the same documents, the results could vary.
The classification process was divided in two parts. The first classification consisted of reading each of the selected reports and classifying their contents in the different SDGs. The SDGs include key words related to the title. For example, SDG 2 included words such as: ‘food’, ‘hunger’. Different colors were assigned to different results.
Figure 5: First part of the classification process
This classification gave preliminary results and showed the different SDGs addressed in the data. In a second time and for the purpose of having a more accurate and detailed representation of which SDGs were included in the data, a second classification was done where the data was classified into the 169 SDGs targets (United Nations, 2015). Table A.1 presents the results of the content analysis for each SDG target and reports. Due to time constraint, only direct and explicit mentions to the SDGs and SDGs targets were considered.
Figure 6: Second part of the classification process
4.2 Material
In this research project, I analyze four main policy documents (and sections of reports) published by the European Union on Circular Economy. Those documents are:
1. “Circular Economy Package “Closing the loop - An EU action plan for the Circular Economy” published by the European Commission in December 2015 (from page 1 to 21) (European Commission, 2015);
2. The “Reflection Paper: Towards A Sustainable Europe by 2030” published by the European Commission in January 2019 (from page 1 to 16) (European Commission, 2019);
3. The European Parliament resolution “Resource efficiency: moving towards a circular economy” adopted in July 2015 (from page 1 to 14) (European Parliament, 2015); 4. The decision of the European Parliament and the Council on the “General Union
Environment Action Programme to 2020 ‘Living well, within the limits of our planet’” more commonly known as the 7th Environmental Action Program to 2020 published in December 2013 (from page 176 to 178 and from page 182 to page 186) (European Parliament and Council, 2013).
In this study, I also use the United Nations report on Agenda 2030 where the Sustainable Development Goals and their targets were described (United Nations, 2015).
The oldest document is the 7th Environmental Action Programme, which was published in 2013. The document is an overarching ‘framework’ paper that defines the environmental strategy of the European Union until 2020 and beyond. The circular economy strategy is thoroughly presented in the second thematic priorities called ‘To turn the Union into a resource-efficient, green and competitive low-carbon economy’. As circular economy was framed as one of the objectives for Europe, in 2015 the European Parliament adopted a resolution on ‘Resource efficiency: moving towards a circular economy’ (European Parliament, 2015). Couple months later, the European Commission published the ‘EU Action
Does the data mention SDGs targets
Yes
Less than 50 %
50%
More than 50% Yes but it is not linked to
Circular Economy
plan for the Circular Economy’ also known as the Circular Economy Package. This document sets out the main strategies and actions that Europe is to take to achieve its ambitious goal of transitioning to a “sustainable, low-carbon, resource efficient and competitive economy” (European Commission, 2015). Finally, the analysis ‘Reflection Paper: Towards A Sustainable Europe by 2030’ published in 2019 brings a broader view to how Europe is doing in the field of sustainability in general.
These documents were chosen because each of them is an overarching report that shapes the Circular Economy project in Europe. Indeed, the 7th EAP frames the environmental strategy for Europe until
5. Results
5.1 Classification into the SDGs
Table 1 represents the results from the content analysis conducted on the four documents and shows how the SDGs are represented and addressed in the reports on Circular Economy.
Table 1: Link between the SDGs targets and the EU Circular Economy reports. The SDGs presented in this table pertain to Agenda 2030 and can be found in United Nations, 2015.
Social
SDG 5: Gender equality
Social
SDG 7: Affordable and clean energy
Social SDG 11: Sustainable cities and communities Social SDG 16: Peace, justice and strong institutions Sustainable Development SDG 17: Partnerships for the goals
5.1.1 Environment
The environment coding category included four SDGs according to the classification made by Folke et
al. (2016). Those SDGs are SDG 6 ‘Clean water and sanitation’, 13 ‘Climate action’, 14 ‘Life below
water’, 15 ‘Life on land’. The table below shows which SDG targets were addressed in the different reports. The red cell means that none of the targets were mentioned. The targets mentioned in the reports but not linked to CE were put in parenthesis. Most of the documents address the environmental aspects of Sustainable Development Goals. Similar targets are cited in all the four documents.
Table 2: Results from the content analysis linking the ‘Environmental’ SDGs’ targets and the reports (See appendix for detailed results)
Texts 7th EAP, 2013 EP resolution, 2015 CE Package, 2015 Reflection paper, 2019 SDG6 Target 6.3; 6.4; (6.6) 6.3 ; 6.4 SDG13 13.2; (13.1) 13.2 13.2 13.2 SDG14 (14.1); (14.2); (14.3); (14.4); (14.5); (14.6) 14.1 14.1 (14.1) SDG15 (15.1); (15.5) (15.5)
Regarding SDG 6 ‘Water and sanitation’, mainly two targets were mentioned: target 6.3 and target 6.4 which refer to the improvement of water quality and increase water efficiency. Those targets are mentioned and linked to the CE by the 7th EAP and the Circular Economy Package. Target 6.6 which relates to the protection and restoration of water-related ecosystems, is mentioned by the 7th EAP but not linked to the Circular Economy project. The European Parliament’s resolution and the Reflection Paper do not mentioned SDG 6 in relation to the CE implementation in Europe.
SDG 13 is mentioned by all the reports but here only one of the target is mentioned and linked to Circular Economy namely target 13.2 “Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning” (United Nations, 2015). The documents relate to cutting down greenhouses gases emissions and finding alternatives to fossil-fuel based products. The 7th EAP also links indirectly target 13.1
SDG 14 ‘Life below water’ is mainly mentioned when talking about marine litter which concerns target 14.1. The EP resolution, the CE Package and the Reflection paper highlight the contribution of CE to the goal of marine litter reduction. Other targets, target 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, 14.4 and 14.5, were mentioned by the 7th EAP but none were linked to the CE.
Finally, target 15.5 about habitats and ecosystems loss and protection and conservation is mentioned in the 7th EAP and the Reflection paper, however it is not linked to CE. The two documents recognize the urgency of taking action to stop global warming and loss of biodiversity. Moreover, target 15.1 which refers to “conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services” (United Nations, 2015) is mentioned in the 7th EAP but not linked to CE. The EP resolution and the Circular Economy Package do not mention or linked any SDG 15 targets to CE.
5.1.2 Economy
The coding category included SDG 8 ‘Economic growth and decent work’, SDG 9 ‘Industry, innovation and infrastructure’, SDG 10 ‘Reduced inequalities’ and SDG 12 ‘Sustainable production and consumption’. The table below shows the targets that were addressed in the four documents. Concerning, the economic SDGs’ targets, more of them are addressed and linked to Circular Economy throughout the four reports compared to the environmental and social SDGs.
Table 3: Results from the content analysis linking the ‘Economic’ SDGs’ targets and the reports (See appendix for detailed results)
Texts 7th EAP, 2013 EP resolution, 2015 CE Package, 2015 Reflection paper, 2019
SDG8 Target 8.1; 8.2; 8.5; (8.3); (8.4) 8.1; 8.2 ; 8.3; 8.4; 8.5; 8.8 8.1; 8.2; 8.3; 8.4; 8.5; 8.8 8.1: 8.2 ; (8.3); (8.4); (8.5) SDG9 9.4; 9.5 9.4; 9.5 9.3; 9.4; 9.5 (9.4); (9.5) SDG10 (10.3) SDG12 12.3; 12.4; 12.5; 12.7; (12.8) 12.2; 12.3; 12.4; 12.5; 12.7; 12.8; 12.C 12.2; 12.3; 12.4; 12.5; 12.7; 12.8 12.2; 12.5; 12.7; 12.8; (12.3); (12.C)
SDG 8 ‘Economic growth and decent jobs’ is thoroughly mentioned in the four documents. More specifically, target 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, and 8.5 which all related to economic growth and productivity as well as resource efficiency and job creation are directly linked to the CE implementation. Furthermore, target 8.8 “Protect labor rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers, including migrant workers, in particular women migrants, and those in precarious employment”(United Nations, 2015) is mentioned and linked to the Circular Economy by the EP resolution and the Circular Economy Package
For the SDG 9 ‘Industry, innovation, infrastructure’, mainly two targets are mentioned: target 9.4 and target 9.5 which relate to upgrading infrastructure and increasing technological research. The 7th EAP,
the EP resolution and the Circular Economy Package link them to CE but not the Reflection Paper. Target 9.3 “Increase the access of small-scale industrial and other enterprises to financial services” (United Nations, 2015) is mentioned and linked to CE by the Circular Economy Package.
employment inequalities are still too large, and that EU needs to continue to make effort to reduce inequalities which refers to target 10.3 (European Commission, 2019).
Finally, SDG 12 ‘Sustainable consumption and production’ has many links with the CE project in Europe. Indeed, all targets are mentioned by the four reports except for target 12.6 which refers to the integration of sustainability information into the reporting cycle of the companies. All the targets mentioned allude to waste and food waste reduction, safe management of chemical wastes, sustainable management of the resources, awareness raising and were for most of them linked to the CE project.
5.1.3 Social
The social coding category includes 8 SDGs: SDG 1 ‘No poverty’, SDG 2 ‘Zero hunger’, SDG 3 ‘Good health and well-being’, SDG 4 ‘Quality education’, SDG 5 ‘Gender equality’, SDG 7 ‘Affordable and clean energy’, SDG 11 ‘Sustainable cities and communities’, SDG 16 ‘Peace, justice and strong institutions’. Similarly, to the environmental SDGs, very specific targets are addressed across the four documents. Moreover, the two social SDGs are not cited at all in the documents.
Table 4: Results from the content analysis linking the ‘Social’ SDGs’ targets and the reports (See appendix for detailed results)
Texts 7th EAP, 2013 EP resolution, 2015 CE Package, 2015 Reflection paper, 2019 SDG1 Target 1.2 SDG2 (2.4) 2.4 2.4 SDG3 (3.9) 3.9 3.9 SDG4 4.7 4.7 4.4; 4.7 (4.7) SDG5 SDG7 7.2; (7.3) 7.1; 7.2; 7.3 7.3 (7.1); 7.2 SDG11 (11.5) 11.5 11.5 SDG16
SDG 1 ‘Zero poverty’ is only mentioned through target 1.2 “Reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions” (United Nations, 2015) by the 7th EAP which links and green economy to poverty eradication. The other documents do not refer to SDG 1 and its targets.
Similarly, to other targets, SDG 2 ‘End hunger’ is only mentioned very specifically with target 2.4 “Ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices” (United Nations, 2015) by the EP resolution, the Reflection paper and indirectly with the 7th EAP. The Circular Economy Package do not mention per se SDG 2 but do mention food waste issues which could contribute to end hunger.
the amount of toxic release of products through eco-design and new waste management projects. The 7th EAP do not linked any targets to CE.
For SDG 4 ‘Quality education’, target 4.7 about knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development is the main focus of the 7th EAP, the EP resolution and the Circular Economy Package. The Reflection paper did not link it specifically to the CE project but more broadly to the resilience of our societies. Similar to the SDG 8, target 4. 4 refers to the “Increase the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship” (United Nations, 2015) is only mentioned in the CE Package but directly fits the EU employment and jobs goal.
SDG 7 is frequently linked to CE. Mainly, target 7.2 which relates to the share of renewable energy. Moreover, energy efficiency and affordability, target 7. 3 and 7.1 are mentioned by the 7th EAP, the EP resolution, the Circular Economy Package and the Reflection paper. This also goes hand in hand with SDG 13 ‘Climate Action’.
SDG 11 ‘Sustainable cities and communities’ was mentioned with target 11.6 which refers to the quality of air and waste pollution in cities. This target can be paired with SDG 3 which also mentions health and well-being issues related to chemical and waste pollution. The EP resolution and the Circular Economy Package include target 11.6 and link it to CE. The 7th EAP did not directly linked it to the implementation of CE.
Finally, two social SDGs are not mentioned at all: SDG 5 ‘Gender equality’ and SDG 16 ‘Peace, justice and strong institutions
5.1.4 Global Partnerships
The global partnerships category includes only SDG 17 ‘Partnerships for the Goals’. This goal and its targets is an overarching goal according to the classification of Folke et al. (2016) and this is why it has its own section. Similarly, to the other categories, specific targets are mentioned in the reports. However, all the reports mention SDG 17 and mainly the targets under the subsection ‘Systemic issue’ which relates to policy and institutional coherence challenges.
Table 5: Results from the content analysis linking the SDG 17 targets and the reports (See appendix for detailed results)
Texts 7th EAP, 2013 EP resolution, 2015 CE Package, 2015 Reflection paper, 2019
SDG17 17.7; 17.14; 17.17; 17.18; (17.16) 17.14; 17.17 17.14; 17.16; 17.17 17.14; 17.16; 17.17
Target 17.14 and 17.17 are mentioned by all the four reports. Those targets relate to the need of policy coherence to promote sustainable development and also to encourage partnerships between various stakeholders such as public, private and civil society.
Target 17.16 is also mentioned by the Circular Economy package and the Reflection Paper as well as indirectly by the 7th EAP. That target is about enhancing the cooperation between partners. In the reports, this is mainly about promoting the cooperation between the Member States to work between them but also with other countries.
5.2 Circular Economy principles and the EU reports
The circular economy principles can be classified in 9 categories, commonly called the 9R. The tabl
e
below summarizes what each report says on the Circular Economy principles, which are also coding categories. The red cell means that the report does not mention the principles in question
7th EAP, 2013 EP's resolution, 2015 CE Package, 2015 Reflection paper, 2019
Refuse "Waste legislation should be based on a strict application of the waste hierarchy. The solutions should privilege prevention, recycling, re-use." (p. 184)
"Stresses that in accordance with the waste hierarchy that prevention takes priority over recycling" (p.8)
"Choices made by the consumers are crucial for preventing the generation of houselhold waste and the EU Commission promotes waste prevention through exchange of information (...)" (p.6) Reduce "Need to reduce the
overall resource use among other initiatives to achieve more competitive and low-carbon economy" (p. 182)
"The EU’s use of resources needs to be sustainable and that this requires, inter alia, an absolute reduction in the consumption of resources to sustainable levels. It is also necessary to overcome the rebound effect." (p.6)
"Reduce the amount of waste and resources use by increasing resource efficiency" (p.7)
"Reduce the need for new resources to be extracted at great financial and environmental cost with the help of eco-design" (p.15) Reuse Products designed for
reuse
Reuse strategy could boost the business based on the reuse market and promote industrial symbiosis programme
"There is a need to increase preparation for reuse of key waste streams. Lifetime of products can be extented through reuse. Reuse market could also contribute to EU's jobs and social agenda." (p.2)
"New designs of materials and products so that we are properly equipped to reuse" (p. 15)
Repair Repair in the eco-design directive
"Develop a set of product standards for the circular economy, which include repair, facilitating
dismantling, and the efficient use of raw materials, renewable resources and recycled materials in products" (p.7)
"Better design can make products more durable and easier to repair" (p.3)
"New designs of materials and products so that we are properly equipped to repair" (p. 15)
Refurbis h
"Develop a set of product standards for the circular economy that include refurbishment and public procurements procedures where refurbished products are to be preferred" (p.11) Remanuf acture "Develop public procurements procedures where remanufactured products are to be preferred" (p.11)
"Remanufacturing is another high-potential area. This practice could be applied to other sectors" (p.5)
Repurpo se
Recycle "Increase the
recyclability with to the eco-design directive" (p. 183)
Increase the recyclability with to the eco-design directive (p.6)
"There is need to increase preparation for recycling of key waste streams" (p.2)
"New designs of materials and products are required so that we are properly equipped to recycle" (p.15) Recover energy "Recovery limited to non-recyclable materials" (p.186)
"Strictly limit incineration, with or without energy recovery, by 2020, to non- recyclable and non-biodegradable waste" (p.9)
Refuse
The European Parliament states that “prevention takes priority over recycling and that, accordingly, recycling should not justify the perpetuation of the use of hazardous legacy substances” (European Parliament, 2015, p.8). Similarly, the European Commission in the Circular Economy Package mentions that “the waste hierarchy establishes a priority order from prevention, preparation for reuse, recycling and energy recovery through the disposal, such as landfilling” (European Commission, 2015, p.8). Moreover, the report state that choices made by the consumers are crucial for preventing the generation of household waste (Ibid, p.6). The 7th Environmental Action Programme mentions that the waste
legislation should be “based in a strict application of the waste hierarchy and covering different types of waste” (European Parliament and Council, 2013, p. 184). The solutions should privilege prevention, recycling and re-use (Ibid). However, none of the documents mention prevention of initial resource extraction. The latest report of the European Commission (2019) does not mention “prevention” or “refuse” in the parts that were analyzed.
Reduce
The European Parliament mentions in its resolution that the reduction of the extraction and the use of resources is urgent and key to solve the issue of resource scarcity, rebound effect and enable an absolute decoupling (European Parliament, 2015, p.4). This has been highlighted in the latest report of the European Commission: “our culture of consumption has resulted in excessive resource extraction and growing pressures on natural capital and climate” and thus with new design it will be possible to “reduce the need for resources to be extracted at great financial and environmental cost” (European Commission, 2019, p.15). The 7th Environmental Action Programme also states that to be able to transition to a more
competitive and low-carbon economy there was a need to reduce the overall resource use among other initiatives (European Parliament and Council, 2013, p.182). Circular Economy Package does not explicitly use the word “reduce” but alludes to it by mentioning the need to improve resource efficiency (European Commission, 2015).
Other references to the words “reducing”, “reduce”, “reduction” allude to reduction of greenhouse gases emissions, reduction of the amount waste, reduction in the per capita waste generation as well as reduction of environmental impacts.
Reuse
The Circular Economy Package mentions that it will be necessary for the legislative proposals on waste to “increase preparation for reuse and recycling of key waste streams such as municipal waste and packaging waste” (European Commission, 2015, p.2). Reusing a product extends its lifetime and avoid wastage and at the same time, since the reuse sector is labor intensive, it also contributes to the EU’s jobs and social agenda (Ibid, p.7). Moreover, “the Commission proposes new rules which will encourage reuse activities” (Ibid, p. 8). The European Parliament’s resolution also mentions the reuse strategy to boost the business based on the reuse of secondary raw materials (European Parliament, 2015, p.11) but also to promote the creation for industrial symbiosis programmes (Ibid).
Reuse is often linked to the eco-design directive which is also one of the top priority of the European Union: “we need to make sure that we can continue to grow our economy in a sustainable way and improve the living standards people demand. This will require new designs of materials and products so that we are properly equipped to re-use […] more and more” (European Commission, 2019, p.15), “products should be sustainably sourced and designed for re-use and recycling” (European Parliament and Council, 2013, p.184)
Repair
