Perspectives on Product Policy

Political Science C (Bachelor Thesis) Department of Government

Uppsala University, Spring 2020 Word Count: 11715

Pages: 48

Perspectives on Product Policy

Towards a European Circular Economy

“The Stone Age didn’t end because we ran out of stones“

Author: Edvin Stertman

Supervisor: Thomas Persson

Abstract

A European circular economy would entail many advantages. It has the potential to contribute to a sustainable development by reducing greenhouse gases, minimizing waste and depletion of resources, but can also contribute to the European economy by creating new job opportunities and stimulating growth. The European Commission is ambitious in its efforts to transform our current, linear economy, into a circular. However, a circular economy is a multifaceted target that concerns many aspects of our society and has thus been difficult to achieve. Previous research has provided various explanations to this limited implementation, of which political disunity is one.

This thesis draws attention to the political debate of a European circular economy with the purpose of describing stakeholders' interests and identifying political divergences that could constitute barriers to its further implementation. This will be investigated through a quantitative content analysis of stakeholders' feedback on a European Union initiative called

"Towards an EU Product Policy Framework contributing to the Circular Economy". Political divergences will be identified by analyzing the problems and solutions that stakeholders mention in their feedback. The study is based on the idea that it might be difficult to reach a common goal without a mutual understanding of problems and solutions. The results demonstrate diverging interests, especially between company organizations and environmental organizations but also between environmental organisations and Non-governmental organisations which, potentially, could constitute barriers for the implementation of a European circular economy.

Abstract 1

1.Introduction 3

1.1 Aim and Research Question 5

2. Theoretical framework​ and Previous Research 6

2.1 What is a Circular Economy? 6

2.2 Defining Circular Economy and Product Policy 8

2.3 The Development of a European Circular Economy 10

2.4 Previously Proposed Barriers 11

2.5 Hypothesis 12

2.5 The European Commission’s Summary of Consultations 13

3. Method and Research Design 14

3.1 Selection of Case 14

3.2 Quantitative Content Analysis and Coding Scheme 16

3.3 Critical Review of Research Design 21

4. Results 23

4.1 What Problems Were Found? 23

4.2 What Solutions Were Found? 25

4.3 The Differences Between Stakeholder Categories 25

5. Analysis 27

6. Conclusion 33

7. References 34

8. Appendix 1 38

8.1 Investigation 38

8.2 Problems 41

8.3 Solutions 41

8.4 Stakeholders Relative Interests in Percent 42

8.5 Figures Illustrating Problems 43

8.6 Figures illustrating solutions 46

1.Introduction

Humans have known about climate change for many years. The scientist Svante Arrhenius foresaw climate change more than a century ago and world leaders have acknowledged this crisis for decades. The UN has brought the world together to deal with this issue since the first United Nations Climate Change Conference 1995 in Berlin. Since then, the world leaders have gathered 25 times in order to agree on common goals and actions. Strangely enough, the world is still developing in the wrong direction. We are producing and consuming more each passing year and the rate of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere is constantly increasing. Global consumption of materials is predicted to double in the coming forty years and waste is expected to increase by 70 % to 2050 (European Commission, 2020, p.2). If this development does not turn, we will push the earth system across a planetary threshold which may cause irreversible warming even as human emissions are reduced (Steffen et al. 2018, p.1). This is not only an environmental crisis but a crisis that could have severe consequences for ecosystems, economies, and society (ibid). A majority of people agree that this threat requires a transformation of how we live in our societies today. But there is less consensus on what actions should be taken and what this transformation should look like. An approach that has become increasingly popular in recent years is the idea of a circular economy. ​Half of all greenhouse gas emissions and 90 % of biodiversity loss is due to resource extraction and processing (Ibid). This knowledge has created a dream of a “closed loop”, a society where products are manufactured and used in a way that reduces waste to a minimum.

“What most people see in their garbage cans is just the tip of the material iceberg;

the product itself contains on average only 5% of the raw materials involved in the process of making and delivering it.” (​McDonough, W. and Braungart, M, 2010)

The EU has taken this dream and made it to a goal. The target of a European circular economy is central in the EU’s plan called “A European Green Deal” which aims to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. According to the European Commission, a European circular economy has the potential to create about 700 000 new jobs, decrease firms spending on

materials, and increase GDP with an additional 0,5 % by 2030 (Ibid). According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, a European circular economy would also create net economic benefits of € 1.8 trillion and reduce CO2 emissions by 48% by 2030 (Kirchherr et al., 2018, pp.264)

“It is essential to ensure that the Fourth Industrial Revolution is a sustainable one for people and planet. It could even drive greater innovation, not only for short-term benefits and solutions for human wealth but also long-term solutions that benefit all and enable planetary stability” - ​(Rockström, J, 2016)

Increasing resource productivity has been one of the EU’s main targets during the last decade and the European Commission is working hard to keep the level of ambition high. But despite these efforts, the realization of this dream has been limited. Previous literature has suggested various barriers that may explain this modest progression. One of these barriers, proposed by Kirchherr et al, considers the difficulty of achieving political consensus (Ibid, pp. 264-266).

This study will examine this barrier by investigating EU policies towards a more circular European economy through stakeholders’ interests. This will be done by analyzing the received feedback on the European Commission's published initiative "Towards an EU product policy framework that contributes to the circular economy". The feedback comes from 49 stakeholders invited by the European Commission to share their perspectives and interests on this initiative document (European Commission (B), 2018).

Differing interest between stakeholder categories is an overlooked field of research that can contribute to a greater understanding of this barrier. The European Commission made its own summary of the received feedback. But this summary ignored the aspect of stakeholder categories. In trying to create a consensus approach, there is a benefit in knowing who represents what interest and why. This is the knowledge gap that this study aims to cover.

1.1 Aim and Research Question

This research is a descriptive case study that will describe the different interests regarding product policies towards a European circular economy. Interests will be used as a shortening

for mentioned problems and solutions only and consequently, the word interest should be interpreted as referring to these. This is due to an assumption that the problems and solutions one focus on reflect one's interests. This study is interesting since a shared view of problems and solutions seem important when aiming for a consensus approach. Without a mutual understanding of what problems to solve or how to solve them, common targets must be difficult to achieve. Therefore, the aim is to expose divergences regarding what problems underlie the pursuit of a circular economy and what solutions are proposed for its implementation. This will be approached with the research question:

What problems and solutions do different stakeholders mention in their feedback to the European Commission's initiative document “Towards an EU Product Policy Framework contributing to the Circular Economy” and what lines of conflict can be recognized?

2. Theoretical framework and Previous Research

At the beginning of this chapter, I start off by describing what a circular economy is and the history of the concept. I then continue by describing previous research on the concept and the difficulties in agreeing to a unitary definition. Thereafter follows a short introduction of product policy and how it is related to circular economics. That is followed by a summary of the EU:s previous policies and development towards a European ​circular economy​. After that, a short review is provided on previously proposed barriers for the implementation of a circular economy and the hypothesis of this investigation. Lastly, I summarize the European Commission’s (EC) own review of the feedback they received on the initiative document.

2.1 What is a Circular Economy?

Denise Reike, Walter, J. V. Vermeulen and Sjors Witjesb (2018) explores the controversies and the history of the circular economy concept (CE) in their reputed article in order to give a summarizing picture of previous research. Some authors claim that the idea of a CE can be

traced back as far as to the 1750s. But it was not until the 1970s that the concept became more recognizable and started to have a political impact. In the 1970s, the 3R concept of

“reduce, reuse and recycling” alongside environmental movements received increasing attention. Most measures during this decade focused on the output side, such as limited pollution. There was yet no global perspective or thinking in systems to the policies. But between the 1980s and the 1990s, recycling increased and life-cycle thinking was introduced to politics through further policy measures. Between the 1990s and the 2010s, more preventive measures were taken as well as further output actions. The idea of a win-win situation took hold and environmental problems were framed as an economic opportunity. At this time, the attention for global warming grew and so did thinking in systems. After the 2010s, the CE framing still stresses economic gains but also the ultimate threat to human survival due to a better understanding of our growing consumption, resource depletion and population growth. In this light, CE gets celebrated for its potential of decoupling growth from resource use and is consequently viewed as the way out of the resource trap. (Reike et al, 2018, pp.248-250)

The concept of a CE is an interdisciplinary concept that has received increasing attention from many fields of research during the last decade. The growing interest could be explained by increased interest in sustainable development due to the impending climate crisis, but could also be explained by economic issues such as resource depletion and rising prices (European Commission (B), 2011, p 3). When the global demand for resources increases at the same time as the supply of resources shrink, prices go up. This means that the world has entered a new phase with increasing real resource prices and an expected future with a shortage of basic resources (Ibid, pp.3-6). This trend of intensified interest in CE is noticeable by the number of published research articles that have increased in recent years and a similar pattern can be viewed in international politics where CE has become an urgent topic (Reike et al, 2018, p. 246).

A CE can simplistically be described as an opposite to the linear economy which is a

“take-make-consume and dispose of...” system based on the assumptions that natural resources are “abundant, available, easy to source and cheap to dispose of...” (de Jong et al, 2016, p.9). The CE aims to achieve a sustainable future where natural resources are not extracted faster than the earth itself can produce them and the value of materials is maintained for as long as possible. But the purpose of a CE is not only environmental sustainability but

also to create prosperity, new job opportunities and to stimulate innovation (Circular economy, European Commission, 2020). A CE is an alternative model of production and consumption where resource use is decoupled from growth. The alleged potential associated with CE is challenged by critical voices that especially question the “myth of decoupling”.

There have been many different suggestions on how CE should be framed and defined. Some describe it as a new phenomenon, some as a build on to industrialization and some view CE as a paradigm shift of how things are made (Reike et al, 2018, p.247). According to Kirchherr et al, a unitary definition of CE is important and they state that: “a concept with various understandings may ultimately collapse or remain in a deadlock due to permanent conceptual contention” (Kirchherr, Reike and Hekkert, 2017, p.221).

2.2 Defining Circular Economy and Product Policy

With the purpose to clarify the dissonance around this concept, Julian Kirchherr, Denise Reike and Marko Hekkert made the first comprehensive and systematic investigation of CE definitions. They did this by summarizing and analyzing 114 different definitions to construct a unifying definition of the concept. Their research found a great abundance of conceptualizations and no majority for a single definition could be found. This illustrates a problem for all previous research on circular economics as there has been no uniform understanding of the concept which further supports the importance of their research (Kirchherr et al, 2017 p.228). Based on the research, they formulated CE as follows:

“An economic system that replaces the ‘end-of-life’ concept with reducing, alternatively reusing, recycling and recovering materials in production/distribution and consumption processes.” It operates at the micro level (products, companies, consumers), meso level (eco-industrial parks) and macro level (city, region, nation and beyond), with the aim to accomplish sustainable development, thus simultaneously creating environmental quality, economic prosperity and social equity, to the benefit of current and future generations ​(Ibid, p.229).

This definition has received great attention and has been used in articles by some authors such as (Klarin, T, 2018) but has also faced criticism. As an example, Prieto-Sandoval, Jaca

and Ormazabal responded with another systematic literature review and their own definition of CE (Prieto-Sandoval, et al, 2018 pp.605-606). Which in turn has been criticized by Suérez-Eiroa et al that state: “Certainly, there is still not a consensus on the theoretical framework of CE” (Suárez-Eiroa, Fernández, Méndez-Martínez and Soto-Oñate, 2019, p.

953). It consequently appears as if there is still no established view on the CE definition, although, the proposed definitions are rather similar. According to Blomsma and Brennan this could be explained by the fact that CE is a relatively new field of research with connection to different disciplines and schools of thought (Blomsma and Brennan, 2017). Consequently, I have chosen the one appearing most suited for this research, which is the one proposed by Kirchherr et al. This is the best-known definition (most cited article) and covers, according to my interpretation, the EU perception of product policy with its environmental/economic perspective and emphasis on “reducing, reusing and recycling”. This definition will consequently reduce the risk of missing out on valuable interests and therefore be useful when formulating coding categories and conducting the analysis of the feedback.

Product policy is an important aspect of CE and will consequently be central in this research. It is interpreted differently depending on the context and since the object of analysis (the feedback documents) are written in an EU/CE context, the concept should be understood in the same. This research will therefore use the ECs description of Integrated Product Policy (IPP) to understand product policy:

“Integrated Product Policies seeks to minimise environmental degradation by looking at all phases of a products' life-cycle and taking action where it is most effective.” ​The life-cycle of a product is often long and complicated. It covers all the areas from the extraction of natural resources, through their design, manufacture, assembly, marketing, distribution, sale and use to their eventual disposal as waste. At the same time it also involves many different actors such as designers, industry, marketing people, retailers and consumers. IPP attempts to stimulate each part of these individual phases to improve their environmental performance.

With so many different products and actors there can not be one simple policy measure for everything. Instead there is a whole variety of tools - both voluntary and mandatory - that can be used to achieve this objective. These include measures such as economic instruments, substance bans, voluntary agreements, environmental labelling and product design guidelines.”​ - (Integrated Product Policy - Environment - European Commission, 2020)

I could not find any other suitable description, but since it is too long, I have chosen to formulate a shorter description of product policy based on the previous one:

Product policy encompasses environmental degradation from all life-cycle phases of products and include all involved actors such as designers, industry, marketing people, retailers and consumers.

This description clarifies its meaning and will help us understand product policy in this context, which will be beneficial when conducting the investigation.

2.3 The Development of a European Circular Economy

The EU has been working on decreasing waste and increasing recycling for more than a decade. In 2008, the EU Waste Framework Directive included a target of 50 % recycled household waste to 2020, a target of 70% recycled demolition waste to 2020, and a target of 85% recycled cars to 2015 (Reike et al, 2018 p.251). ​During the last decade, implementing a European CE has become one of the EU’s prioritized goals. In 2011, the EC took a big step towards a CE by publishing “The Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe”. This Roadmap pointed out problems with the European linear economy and mentioned several solutions and opportunities which we today associate with a CE, even though the concept of CE was not mentioned. The Roadmap included many guidelines and suggested actions in order to make this transition towards a resource efficient Europe but without measurable targets, therefore this roadmap functioned more like a vision than a plan (European Commission (A), 2011, p.

2-3).

4 years later, the 2 December 2015, the EC put forward its first “Circular Economy Action Plan” with an aim of moving the European Union towards a transition to a more sustainable model of economic development (European Commission, 2015). This plan was declared completed in 2019 with the 54 measures either delivered or about to be implemented since some measures extended beyond 2019. The actions taken consider many different aspects of the CE, such as production, consumption, product requirements, waste

management, and the market for secondary raw materials (European Commission (2), 2019) p.1-2).

The second Circular Economy Action plan was adopted on 11 March 2020. This plan is a follow up to the previous action plan in order to continue the work towards a sustainable economic development and implementation of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. A new component of this plan is the explicit ambition to lead the global transition, especially focusing on helping and cooperating with developing countries (European Commission, 2020, p.2-3). But even though CE is high up on the EU agenda, limited progress has been seen regarding its actual implementation (Kirchherr et al., 2018,​ p.264).

2.4 ​ Previously Proposed Barriers

There are many explanations of what barriers could impede the implementation of a European CE. The EC mentions high costs of repair and spare parts as one barrier (European Commission (B), 2019, p.18). A large N-study on CE brings up “lack of consumer interest”

and “hesitant company culture” as other important barriers but also “lack of global consensus” (Kirchherr et al., 2018, pp.264-266). In a survey by The European Environment Agency (EEA), 29 European countries were asked about their reflections on the main challenges and they brought up barriers such as “current legislation”, “bad reputation of recycled materials” and “consumer behavior” as further examples. But the challenge most often referred to was the “difficulties of developing coherent and synergetic policy responses to complex cross-sectoral issues that touch on different competences of institutions across the same governance level, or when competences are divided between different governance levels” (European Environmental Agency, 2019, pp.120-121). This thought is further strengthened by a study of EU policy framework and national policies on resource efficiency by Domenech and Bahn-Walkowiak. In their research they claim to reveal a complex policy picture with various policy strategies that do not always align and that differences in resource management and diversity in policy choices reveal a lack of orientation towards a CE (Domenech, T, Bahn-Walkowiak, B, 2019, p.18). With this in mind, it seems reasonable to assume that the difficulties in developing a consensus CE policies could constitute a barrier towards a European circular economy.

An alternative barrier is the conflict between economic and environmental perspectives. This conflict can be traced back to the early 1930s when planned obsolescence was introduced. Planned obsolescence is the concept of when a product is manufactured to stop working, to work less well, or without the ability to be repaired before the end of its expected lifetime. This was implemented in order to benefit the economy by stimulating consumption and, consequently, production and growth. This also gave companies an opportunity to sell more products and thus make more money. The mindset of planned obsolescence is illustrated by a quote from 1928 by the magazine Printers’ Ink: “Any manufacturer of a quality product will tell you that the article which refuses to wear out is a tragedy to business” (Dalhammar et al, 2019, pp.1-2).

As people have become more concerned about the environment and sustainability, this concept has received increased attention. As an example, France made planned obsolescence illegal in 2015 (Ibid, p. 31). Of course, not all producers use planned obsolescence, and more companies are becoming environmentally conscious every day. But there are still plenty of examples from the present which indicates that many companies prioritize financial interests above the environment. Some examples of this can be found looking at companies producing goods such as smartphones, cartridges, flat-screen TVs, etc (Ibid, pp. 8-11).

The hypothesis of this investigation is based on this conflict between economic and environmental interests and will consequently be highlighted in the discussion. This expectation is supported by previous research stating that:

“The EU is particularly strong in business-related policy areas, where the main conflict is oftentimes between business interests on the one hand and civil society on the other”​ (Binderkrantz et al, 2020, p. 8).

Circular economy is a multifaceted concept which concerns stakeholders in different fields and on different levels. It would therefore seem natural if interests were diverging on such a pluralistic concept and could accordingly be a plausible explanation as to why coherency and consensus is hard to achieve. A lack of global consensus, in other words, diverging interests, is one of the proposed barriers to implementing a European CE. This presumption motivates an investigation in this barrier.

2.5 Hypothesis

Product policies constitute a huge transformation for many companies and industries. A CE would force many to adapt to regulations, restrictions, obligatory labeling, recycling requirements, and so forth, which would entail a lot of changes for many stakeholders. Even though the EC emphasizes the long term economic benefits of a CE, many business associations (BAs) and company organisations (COs) are expected to be unconvinced, stuck in a linear ​take-make-consume, and dispose of mindset ​. Since product policy has a direct effect on COs and BAs, they are expected to demonstrate contrasting interests compared with other stakeholders, especially environmental organisations (EOs) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Both these two stakeholder categories are organisations which stem from civil society and are therefore expected to present similar perspectives.

These expected differences could underlie political conflicts and potentially, explain the limited progress towards implementing a European circular economy. This leads us to the hypothesis of this investigation which is formulated as follows:

The results of this investigation will reveal divergent interests between two different groups, on the one hand business associations and company organizations and on the other NGOs and environmental organisations.

The following chapter will go through the EC’s summary of their feedback and the fact that they overlooked the potential importance of differences between stakeholder categories.

2.5 The European Commission’s Summary of Consultations

As a part of the better regulation agenda, the EC tries to listen more carefully to EU citizens and stakeholders. This is in order to make evidence-based proposals for EU policies by addressing their expressed needs. This is why the EC is asking for feedback and consultation on their initiatives outlined in documents called roadmaps. The same kind of feedback that this study investigates.

The EC summarized the feedback received on their published initiative. The purpose was not to analyze the results and consequently, they didn’t dig very deep. First, the EC states

that responses, in general, were positive and that many stakeholders emphasized the importance of product policies supporting a CE. The summary then continues by looking at what issues were brought up by the stakeholders, such as hazardous substances, planned obsolescence, the EU’s export of waste to third countries, etc. Lastly, it sums up what solutions were mentioned to tackle these issues, e.g solutions considering product labeling, economic incentives, legislation for chemicals, etc (European Commission, 2019, pp.62-63)

This summary does not consider how often interests were represented, how interests diverge between stakeholder categories or the potential lines of conflict. Based on the assumption that political divergences constitute a barrier to the development of a CE, this should be an interesting field to investigate. With that said, this descriptive research could be seen as an extension or deepening of the ECs summary of the consultation since it does not consider differences between stakeholders. This is where this study can make a contribution.

3. Method and Research Design

In this chapter, I review the case selection, how the investigation was performed, and the limitations of the study. I start off by motivating the stakeholders participating in the political debate on a European CE, as the population of this investigation, the initiative as the case, and the feedback documents as the units of analysis. I then continue by describing the method of qualitative content analysis and why it was used for this investigation. After that, I proceed by explaining the structure of the investigation and how it was executed. Lastly, I consider the limitations of the study and what could have been done differently.

3.1 Selection of Case

The purpose of this study is to investigate the ​different stakeholders’ responses to the EC’s roadmap initiative​. In order to do this with a satisfying result, the material should include an as wide distribution of interests as possible to improve the external validity of the study (Esaiasson et al., 2017, p.59). In other words, the possibilities of achieving a generalizable result. With this in mind, and with the knowledge that the EU is striving for a CE, the EU appeared to be a sufficient choice of region to investigate. I assumed different stakeholders within the EU to represent divergent interests due to the wide range of member states and, for

this reason, choosing the EU could be viewed as a strategic selection (Esaiasson et al., 2017, p. 159). Another reason to look at the EU is due to transparency. The EC’s initiative documents are published on their website and all feedback is available there as well. This transparency is a clear advantage, not only when interested in what was said, but also when interested in ​who ​said​ ​it.

After choosing the EU I then looked at the different CE policies and found an initiative with the title “Towards an EU Product Policy Framework Contributing to the Circular Economy” published in 2018. It derives from commitments in the Circular Economy Action Plan and the 7th Environmental Action Plan and is a staff working document which aims to examine different interests, options, and actions to reach a coherent policy framework for a product policy contributing to a European CE. Different stakeholders were invited to have their say on this initiative and feedback was received from 49 different stakeholders.

The EC does regularly publish this kind of consulting initiatives but this one caught my interest since it focused on product policies for a CE. Another argument behind selecting this case was due to its proximity in time. The feedback was received between the 29 November in 2018 and the 24 January 2019, and consequently, it is less than two years old and should therefore provide an updated picture of the situation. The selection of this case could also be motivated by practical reasons such as availability and sufficiency. The 49 feedback documents (approximately 2-4 pages/document) constitutes a reasonable quantity to analyze within the frame of this thesis. Lastly, the variety in stakeholder categories, ranging from influential actors such as the Swedish Ministry of the Environment to particular individuals (European Commission (C), 2018), is another advantage of this case since a diverse material assumably encompasses a wider distribution of interests than a homogenous. But since all stakeholders are European, this investigation should hardly be generalized to the rest of the world.

By examining product policy, this study won’t encompass all aspects of CE but presumably the fundamentals. Product policy is central within a CE since all resources we obtain from the earth, end up in the products we produce, use, throw away, and sometimes, recycle. I would therefore like to justify investigating product policy as a core piece of the CE concept and as an appropriate operationalization and, accordingly, as a suitable case for this study. Assuming that this expected conformity exists between CE (theoretical definition) and

product policy (operational indicator), this should benefit the validity of the study (Esaiasson et al., 2017, p.57).

In the initiative document, the EC address different issues of product policy. They articulate the issue that many products are designed without circularity in mind, that is, some products can’t be repaired, remanufactured, upgraded or recycled which causes premature obsolescence and a waste of resources. They consider analysing product groups with high CE potential that are or aren’t covered by EU policy tools and different actions and options to realize the potential of these products. They also highlight the importance of developing a circular product policy with various objectives and methods to enable this goal given the diversity in products. Lastly, the EC identifies the fundamental problem that prices of products do not always reflect their societal costs which reduce the incentive to invest in circularity (European Commission (A), 2018).

3.2 Quantitative Content Analysis and Coding Scheme

Quantitative content analysis (QCA) is used in many disciplines of research and is commonly used in descriptive studies (Esaiasson et al., 2017, pp.200-201). A quantitative content analysis consists of two components, ​content​, which alludes to textual, verbal or pictorial illustration and ​quantitative, ​which implies that the investigation is based on equal and consequently comparable data from so many units of analysis that the information can be expressed and analyzed through numerical values. Quantitative content analysis is consequently a quantification of qualitative data. The quantitative approach is often useful when interested in how often and when categories of content occur in a material, but can also be used when interested in if a specific category is mentioned or not (Esaiasson et al., 2017, pp.198-199). Which is what we are interested in in this investigation. The variables can consequently adopt two values, 1 or 0, and should, therefore, be defined as dummy variables.

Since this analysis is the first of its kind on this specific material, the investigation will be of an inductive character. This means that the categories won’t be determined in advance since the objective is to discover and describe the distribution of interests and not to control already acknowledged ones. This method will increase the chance to obtain an exhaustive categorization. The categories will thus be simultaneously constructed during the analysis depending on the findings of interpreted problems and solutions. When a finding

warrants a change in the coding scheme, a re-coding of previously analyzed units will be required. This type of modification is expected to occur at the beginning of the analysis, when interests unthought-of are detected, but is also expected to cease along with the analysis (Esaiasson et al., 2017, p.208). The coding scheme consists of the following three questions:

1. What kind of stakeholder is it?

2. What problems are mentioned that could be solved by a circular economy?

3. What solutions are proposed in order to enable a circular economy?

Stakeholder is a “form variable” (Esaiasson et al., 2017, p.204) that is not important during the research but rather important when performing the analysis since it provides the possibility of exposing patterns between which type of stakeholder that represent which interest. The categorization used is the same as the one used by the EC, except for the split of business association/company organisation and NGO/environmental organisation (European Commission (A), 2019, p. 62). This division is motivated by the possibility to obtain a larger distribution of arguments and to expose differences between the stakeholder categories and consequently to increase the chance to attain a meaningful result. Based on this, the chosen stakeholder categories are:

1. Public authority 2. Business association 3. Company organisation 4. NGO

5. Environmental organisation 6. Citizen

7. Other

We are now moving on to the investigation method and the “content variables” (Esaiasson et al., 2017, p.205).

When conducting a quantitative content analysis, not everything is relevant to the investigation, and consequently, only what is relevant should end up in categories. Deciding what information is relevant ​must be determined by the researcher and there are no set

standards for defining information as irrelevant ​(Carley, 1993, pp.82-83). In this study, mentioned problems and solutions are what’s relevant to this investigation and therefore everything not interpreted as either a problem or a solution will be defined as irrelevant.

It is important to follow clear principles when conducting a QCA (Esaiasson et al., 2017, p.138). Due to the exploring character of this investigation, this coding scheme consists of open, rather than precise principles of what information that should fit into which category.

Thus, the principles are formulated as follows:

To constitute a problem a statement has to apply to the following principles:

1. A problem must be interpreted as something negative, e.g something that should change, be reduced or regulated/restricted.

2. A problem must be related to and manageable by policies in accordance with the definition of a circular economy.

To constitute a solution a statement has to apply to the following principles:

1. A solution must be interpreted as something which can enable a circular economy.

2. A solution should entail a political proposal that corresponds with the definition of a circular economy.

General principles for the investigation:

1. To be coded as an interest, the problems and solutions must be expressed explicitly.

The openness of these principles is motivated by the attempt to minimize the risk of leaving important interests out of the investigation. Before the investigation took off, a few problem-categories were selected:

1. Global warming​ - ​A problem related to emissions contributing to global warming.

2. Substances and chemicals - ​A problem related to substances and chemicals that are dangerous to the health of humans, animals, or contribute to environmental problems such as acidification, eutrophication, or overfertilization.

3. Waste​ - ​A problem related to the end of life of products.

4. Resources​ - ​A problem related to dependency or depletion of natural resources.

These were expected to be found and interpreted as problems, which they all were. During the analysis, two more categories were added:

5. Economic​ - ​A problem related to jobs, competitiveness, costs, revenue, or growth.

6. Social​ ​- A problem related to the inequitable distribution of resources.

Moving on to the solution-categories, two were formulated before the analysis began:

1. Regulations - ​A proposal for stronger regulations or restrictions, e.g, restriction of chemicals in products.

2. Encouragements - ​A proposal for more encouragements and incentives,​ ​e.g, contribution to companies recycling.

These solutions were also expected and identified and onward the analysis, four other categories were identified:

3. Research - ​A proposal for further investigations and research,​ ​e.g, investment in research on recycling.

4. Innovation - ​A proposal for stimulation of innovation, e.g, funding of innovative technical solutions.

5. Information - ​A proposal for more education or information, e.g, more information on product labels.

6. Assessments ​- ​A proposal for improved assessments, e.g, well-founded and detailed life-cycle analyses.

These categories and their theoretical definitions were based on the problems and solutions discovered in the material and the chosen definition of circular economy. These categories are consequently the central concepts of this research and the following definitions are their operationalizations (Esaiasson et al., 2017, p.56-57). The category “other” was the seventh category for both problems and solutions in order to achieve an exhaustive distribution (Ibid, p.139). But no interest was coded in the category and therefore, the category was removed.

Another important aspect of constructing categories is that they should be mutually exclusive (Ibid, p.139). This demand was difficult to meet while prioritizing broad categories and consequently, the categories aren’t fully mutually exclusive, even though there is are distinctions. This is an issue that places higher demands on a mutual understanding of how the materials should be interpreted and how the statements should be categorized.

By coding statements literally, you can cause problems such as categorizing the same kind of interest into two different categories due to a different choice of words. Therefore, text won’t be coded literally as it occurs but will be adjusted and interpreted to fit into the constructed categories (Carley, 1993, p.83). An example of this adjustment would be to encode a quote such as ​"to facilitate the transition to a circular economy, financial support is an absolute necessity for companies in the textile industry" to the category "Encouragements"

even though the word encourage or encouragement wasn’t expressed. This is also necessary to make sure that implicit information or unfitting information is not excluded (Ibid, p.86).

The main problem to be aware of with this kind of generalization is the risk of using categories too vague and consequently loose semantic distinctions (Ibid, p.85).

To provide a better understanding of this investigation, how it is conducted, and what’s required to end up in a category, a few examples of different quotes will be demonstrated. The statement: ​“The cost and availability of materials in itself is already a driver for resource efficiency and a key imperative for manufacturers when designing products to cut costs and eliminate waste” ​mentions both the cost of Resources and Waste as problems that could be solved by a CE and would accordingly be coded as both ​Resources and ​Waste​. Another example would be: “​If washing machines lasted as long as consumers expect – 12 years – Europeans would save £3.6 billion and generate 900,000 fewer tonnes of e-waste annually”. ​This statement focus on the economic benefits of improved durability, which is an important aspect of CE, as well as the reduction of waste and would, therefore, fit into the categories Waste and Economic.

The following quotes are examples of what would be coded as solutions: “ ​The success of the circular economy hinges on a strong REACH as well as specific product regulations included in the refit process”. ​This statement supports a strong REACH ​ (registration, evaluation, authorization, and restriction of chemicals) and specific product regulations and would consequently be a typical interest coded in the category Regulation. Another quote such as: “Obligatory information / disclosure on substances (of concern) in products along

the value chain including end of life operations and consumers is utmost important”

constitute an example of a statement that would fit into the categories Regulations and Information. This should be interpreted as an interest promoting Regulations but since the emphasis lies on Information, this statement would be encoded as both. A third and more straightforward example is: ​“An effective European Product Policy should avoid unnecessary regulatory burdens. It should create a coherent business policy in order to encourage long-term business investment in new technology and products’ innovation.”. ​This quote opposes too much regulation and encourages investment in new technology and innovation instead and would, therefore, fit into the category Encouragement​ ​and Innovation.

This research relies heavily on interpretation. To deal with this issue, and the reliability issue it entails, another individual was asked to perform the same investigation of one feedback document. The result was very similar to my own analysis. I even remade a couple of codings to control the results and also challenged the investigation by doing it the other way around. Which means starting in the table and then finding the interests in the text.

Both tests worked out, which mean I got the same results once again. These tests strengthen the coding scheme and the results of this investigation (Esaiasson et al., 2017, pp. 208-209).

3.3 Critical Review of Research Design

Reliability obviously constitutes the greatest weakness of this research. But knowing this beforehand kept me on my toes throughout the investigation, constantly reflecting on this matter. High reliability implies the absence of unsystematic errors. This means that the results would have been the same if the investigation was performed once more or even by another researcher. Without reliability, no result is worth anything, since the result could be completely different if the investigation was remade. Typical causes of insufficient reliability are fribble, tiredness, stress, misunderstanding, mishearing, etc (Esaiasson et al., 2017, p.64).

The biggest threat to insufficient reliability in this research is presumably, differences in interpretations (Riffe et al, 2005, p.127). This problem is exacerbated by not having mutually exclusive categories, this has already been discussed previously in this chapter.

Another reliability issue with this research is the fact that the researcher has to have 12 different categories and their definitions in mind while analyzing. The risk of forgetting a category or misremembering a definition is plausible which could cause further errors (Ibid,

p.128). The investigation-principles, the category definitions, and the previously mentioned examples of interpretation aim to minimize this risk by achieving a coherent understanding of the investigation. But the success of this can only be ascertained if the entire investigation is recreated by somebody else. What strengthens the reliability of this research is the fact that the researcher does not have to make any gradings. The only consideration required by the researcher is if an interest appears in the text or not. This should presumably make the results of this investigation more reliable than it would have been otherwise. A smaller problem with reliability is that three documents are written in other languages than English which forced me to rely on google translate, which could have caused errors in translation.

Another important aspect of any research is validity. High validity implies that the research investigates what it aims to examine and the absence of systematic errors (Esaiasson et al., 2017, pp.57-58). How well the two analyzing-questions (what problems and what solutions) and their categories actually measure the prevailing interests in CE is the answer to how high the validity of this research is. It is possible to argue that the validity of this investigation is high since the selected categories are based on the definition of CE. But an interesting question, and perhaps slightly philosophical, is if the definition of CE responds to what CE really is? Because if the chosen definition is far off from what CE really is, then this research will investigate something other than what was intended, which would consequently harm the validity of this study. But since the stakeholders provide their feedback within the context of CE (product policy for a CE), their expressed interests should be in line with what they interpret as CE. This should accordingly strengthen the chosen definition and consequently the validity of the study, since the interests expressed and the definition are compatible. In other words, the stakeholders’ interpretation of CE, and the chosen definition of CE, are synergistic.

Another issue with this study is that not mentioning a specific solution or problem is not the same as not acknowledging it. That is to say, a stakeholder can focus on one issue but at the same time accepting other problems without mentioning them. This could constitute a problem when looking at differences between stakeholder groups in order to identify patterns.

A similar problem could emerge if stakeholders aren’t honest in their feedback. Some stakeholders may have incentives to hide their true motives or their real interests to appear more devoted or faithful to CE (since the interests were expressed in a pro-CE context). This

could constitute a validity problem since this investigation wouldn’t examine interests but alleged interest.

Another aspect of this research that should be mentioned is the limited opportunity to achieve generalizable results. The selection of stakeholders is broad and diverse yet modest.

Some stakeholder categories are smaller than others, such as EOs (5) and public authorities (4). Nothing could be done about this problem since it came with the material, but it still affects the ability of generalization. Individuals were only two and therefore excluded from the investigation since two were considered too few to make any contribution to the analysis.

To improve the generalizability of this study, further research has to be made, looking at a greater number of stakeholders. Therefore, this investigation does not claim to find every interest existing considering a CE, neither in the world or within the EU. This study should instead be viewed as a pilot study but can with confidence say that the interests found in this investigation actually do exist (Esaiasson et al., 2017, p 167).

4. Results

In this chapter, I provide an overview of the results from the investigation with all the interests identified. I start off by looking at the different problems and how often they did occur. This is followed by the same procedure but for solutions. I then continue by looking at the differences between the stakeholder categories. The results in its entirety can be found and are presented in the Appendix.

4.1 What Problems Were Found?

As previously stated in the summary by the EC, this investigation also found that stakeholders, in general, were positive to this initiative. The problems discovered ​that underlies the pursuit for a CE ​are related to global warming, substances and chemicals, waste, resources, economics and social aspects.

Figure 1.​ The proportional distribution of problems relative to the total number of stakeholders

The problems occur about as often with five out of six problems being mentioned by 28-49 percent of the stakeholders. No category was mentioned by a majority of the stakeholders.

Problems related to resources were most often addressed (49 %), closely followed by substances and chemicals (47 %) and waste (43 %). Global warming and economics-related issues were mentioned by approximately 30 % of all stakeholders and social problems were mentioned least, by 6 % which equals 3 stakeholders. For a complete overview of the frequencies, see table 4 in the Appendix. The mean of the mentioned problems is 34,5 %.

4.2 What Solutions Were Found?

Figure 2. ​The proportional distribution of solutions relative to the total number of stakeholders

The solutions discovered, for the​implementation of a CE, were regulations, encouragements, research, innovations, information and assessments. The distribution of the mentioned solutions was more diverse than the distribution of problems. Regulation was the solution most often mentioned and was considered by 77 % of the stakeholders. This was 26 percentage points more than the second most often mentioned solution, which was information (51 %). These two were the only categories mentioned by a majority.

Encouragements and assessments were mentioned by approximately 40 % of the stakeholders. The least often mentioned solutions were innovations (15 %) and research (13

%). The mean of all the mentioned solutions is 39,8 %. Accordingly, stakeholders mentioned solutions more often than they mentioned problems, with a margin of 5,3 percentage points.

4.3 The Differences Between Stakeholder Categories

Figure 3-14 in the Appendix illustrates how often the different stakeholders brought up a problem or a solution relative to the total number of stakeholders in the category. The figures

illustrate one problem/solution each and show all stakeholder categories. Looking at these, it is evident that the EOs, overall, acknowledged problems and solutions at a higher rate than the other stakeholders. 100 % of the EOs mentioned global warming, resources and regulations while no other stakeholder category reached a 100% unity for any problem or solution. The EOs demonstrated the highest rate for 6 out of 12 categories, including global warming, resources, economic, regulations, research and information. NGOs mentioned substances and chemicals at a higher rate than the other stakeholders (78 %) as well as for social problems (22 %) and encouragements (78 %). COs brought up waste at the highest proportion (67 %), public authorities acknowledged innovations at the highest rate (25 %) and also the importance of assessments (75 %). Neither COs or public authorities mentioned economic problems and no CO mentioned research as a solution either. The only stakeholders mentioning social problems were two NGOs and one EO. The proportional average total numbers were: 56,7 % for EOs, 45,5 % for NGOs, 39,7 % for public authorities, 33,3 % for BAs and 27,7 % for COs. These average total numbers can be seen in Table 6 in the Appendix.

During the analysis, I noticed something that was unexpected, regulations were mentioned, not as a solution to enable a CE or as a problem that could be solved by a CE but as something that stakeholders wanted to see less of. This could be illustrated by arguments such as “Product characteristics should only be regulated by law if there is actual evidence of a need for regulation” and “An effective European Product Policy should avoid unnecessary regulatory burdens”. These arguments appear too often (in my opinion) to be excluded from the analysis and should therefore be considered later in the discussion. These interests do not answer directly to the analysis questions since it should not be interpreted as a problem that could be solved by a CE or as a solution to enabling a CE. But since these interests contradict one of the proposed solutions, it can constitute a line of conflict and therefore become relevant to this investigation. This kind of argument was brought up by 7 BAs and COs. This is equivalent to 24 % of these two categories combined (7/29). This was not systematically coded in the same way as the other interests since they did not fit into any category. This result is consequently less reliable than the other since the lack of systematics presumably increases the risk of errors. Moving forward, focus will lie on the differences between the stakeholder categories.

5. Analysis

In this chapter, I begin by analyzing the average total numbers, how they differ, and what could possibly explain these numbers. I then continue by looking at differences in individual problems and solutions in order to answer the hypothesis of this investigation. Finally, the results are discussed in relation to the CE concept.

As already stated, stakeholders were positive about this initiative. This might be because stakeholders with a positive approach towards a European CE are the ones providing feedback on this kind of initiative. But it might also be due to the lack of lawmaking. This initiative does only include suggestions for future actions and regulations and could, therefore, be described as rather edgeless. If the initiative had proposed a law or regulation that went against the interests of stakeholders, incentives to protest would probably have been higher (Binderkrantz et al, 2020, p.8). According to this reasoning, a legislative proposal would consequently have led to a greater variety of attitudes. With that said, this discussion will proceed by looking at the different interests and how they diverge between the different types of stakeholders.

The hypothesis of this investigation was that the interests would vary between BAs/COs and NGOs/EOs. At first glance, this thesis seems to have little support since no obvious pattern could be confirmed. But looking at figure 3-14 in the Appendix, it is possible to outline differences in scope between the different stakeholder categories. It seems as if EOs have a broader perspective on CE or at least, focus on a plurality of interests at a much higher rate (56,7 %). This is not to say that they were more positive towards a CE, but that they, in general, mentioned more problems and solutions than the other categories. The same could be said about NGOs even though their average score (45,5 %) is more than 10 percentage points lower than the average of EOs. BAs have a lower average rate (33,3 %) and COs show a rate of less than half of EOs (27,7 %). This could be interpreted as if they have a more narrow perspective on CE or as if they prefer to focus on a few issues rather than many.

The reason for this might be that their primary focus lies on running a business and not on developing a sustainable future, which presumably is the case for many EOs. Just as one

could argue that the CO's narrow perspective seem logic, one could say the same about the EOs broad perspective. A CE conforms with several environmental goals that EOs usually work with and this could, possibly, explain the EO’s broad approach. However, it is possible to argue that COs narrow perspectives may be a result of some COs basing their feedback on their business experience. This would make sense since few COs are experts on circular economics but probably know their own business, how it could contribute to, and how it would be affected by a CE. But this could also be due to COs presuming that the EU wants to hear the "business perspective". Both these thoughts are further supported in the material since many COs and BAs based their feedback on knowledge from their field, such as the Swedish Forest Industries Federation:

“The Nordic countries with large forest areas are the main suppliers of virgin fibers while the paper industry in continental and south Europe mainly is based on recycled fibers. This continuous flow of fibers from the Nordic countries is vital for the

European paper industry as recycled fibers are worn out after some cycles. There will be no recycled fibers without virgin fibers. This means that there must not be

requirements on content of recycled material in paper products in any regulations or voluntary instruments.” ​(Swedish Forest Industries Federation, 2018)

It could also be argued that COs have the same broad perspective as the other stakeholder categories but prefer a more narrow scope due to their business interests. COs may have more to gain by promoting a narrow self-interests than EOs do and may, therefore, highlight what is most important to themselves to increase their chances of the EC paying attention.

Correspondingly, it can be said that EOs also promote their self-interest since the broad perspective probably goes hand in hand with their pursuit of sustainability.

Public authorities represented the mean with an average total rate of 39.7 %. This could be due to the central position that public authorities often have in supporting both industries and civil society simultaneously. But the feedback constituted by the public authorities were very divergent, ranging from the Swedish Ministry of the Environment mentioning all six solution categories to an anonymous public authority not mentioning a single. This divergence within the same category, combined with a small number of public authorities makes this category of stakeholders insufficient and ultimately, its results

unreliable for further analysis. The analysis will now continue by looking at the differences in specific interests.

An unforeseen aspect of the results was that not a single CO brought up an economic problem which was surprising since you could expect that COs would mention economic aspects. But unlike the COs, some BAs (35 %) did mention the economic aspects. This could be interpreted as if the BAs spoke on this issue on behalf of the companies they represent.

What many COs focused on instead was the importance of using encouragement (44

%) for the implementation of a European CE. This interest was only mentioned more often by the NGOs. This interest is hereby represented by the Hungarian oil and gas company MOL:

“Now, this system, which has worked well since the beginning of the last century, is provably unnecessarily counteracted by a regulated service industry. An industry such as the tyre industry, including granulators and processors of end-of-life-tyres, deserves the highest level of support today - from politics and society, especially in view of the requirements for waste prevention!” ​(MOL Group, 2018)

This quote illustrates the will to see more encouragements, but also the struggle to cope with new requirements (“especially in view of the requirements for waste prevention!”). This statement and the emphasis on requirements for waste prevention might also explain why so many COs brought up waste as a problem (67 %). The fact that COs mentioned waste more than any other category becomes interesting since they mentioned the problem with resources least often. You could argue that these two problems are related, and in that sense, if one of these problems is important, both should be. The more resources we extract, the more waste we create, and the other way around, the more we recycle, the less resources are needed. By looking at figure 6 in the Appendix, resources seem to be a category of divergence, most mentioned by EOs and NGOs, and least mentioned by BAs and COs. But a comparison between COs (22 %) and EOs (100 %) illustrates the greatest gap. You could argue that this difference between how often COs brought up waste compared with how seldom they mention resources is evidence of their narrow scope. The waste problem might be evident to COs if they see it and deal with it every day while depletion of resources is a distant problem.

This indicates that the earlier mentioned issue with rising prices due to resource depletion (p.4) has not had a sufficient impact on COs in order to capture their interest. Rising prices

could otherwise have been something attracting CO’s attention to the issue with depleting resources. With reference to the quote by MOL, it seems as if regulations have made waste an even bigger issue to COs. This might be another reason why so many COs brought up waste as a problem. Further reflections on regulation will follow in the next paragraph.

The only stakeholders who stressed a concern with too many regulations were COs and BAs. This concern has already been illustrated in the quotes above from MOL and the Swedish Forest Association, but can be further demonstrated by APPLiA business association who represents the home appliance industry:

“Product characteristics should only be regulated by law if there is actual evidence of a need for regulation, the requirements are appropriate, the requirements can be measured accurately and reliably, market surveillance has sufficient means to ensure fair competition, and a high degree of legal certainty and level playing field for all actors can be guaranteed.” ​(APPLIA, 2018)

To conclude, some BAs and COs disapprove of further regulations while the other stakeholders promote or at least do not disapprove. This evidence coincides with the hypothesis and could potentially entail a line of conflict and ultimately constitute a barrier towards implementing a European CE. But this divergence does not have to stem from COs eager to make a profit or unwillingness to contribute to a European CE. It could be that COs value sustainable development but view these policy suggestions from a more pragmatic perspective. As already discussed, COs and BAs seem to base their perspectives on their own experience and it seems likely that this practical, business understanding constructs a more pragmatic perspective. This thought is supported by the following quote by VKI, an Austrian Consumer Association:

“Take-back schemes are often expensive for the retailer and take up precious retail space, for example because of collection bins or waste storage. Take-back schemes may also entail new registration obligations and, as such, more administrative burden.” (VKI, 2018)

This stakeholder was interpreted as a BA with a pursuit of sustainable development although this quote illustrates a pragmatic or perhaps rather critical perspective.

But COs lack of support for information as a solution further supports the idea of diverging interests between COs and EOs. As many as 80 % of the EOs suggested more information on products as a solution to enable a CE but this was only supported by 22 % of the COs and some even called for see less. This view was also supported by some BAs and is hence demonstrated with a quote from a BA called The Danish Chamber (PEF stands for Product Environmental Footprint and is a multi-criteria measurement of a product’s environmental performance):

“PEF will conflict with this transformation e.g. to much information and less products. PEF on consumer products will be seen as an administratively heavy burden and overload consumers with too much information.“ (The Danish Chamber, 2018)

The argument that too much information about the environmental performance of products will "overload consumers" sounds more like a sweeping reason for not having to inform consumers about their products. This can further be interpreted as inadequate support for product policy contributing to a CE. This argument stands in direct conflict with what many EOs and some NGOs proposed and this divergence is made visible with the following quote from the Dutch NGO Stichting Changing Markets:

“Information on chemical content in carpet materials is rarely passed on from manufacturers to consumers, and even more rarely to waste/recycling facilities. This lack of information makes it difficult to make informed buying decisions and to recycle carpet safely. It is recommended that carpet manufacturers work towards the use of an information exchange system, such as the Chemicals in Products

Programme, that enables all actors in a carpets supply chain to access and input material and chemical-related information” (Stichting Changing Markets, 2018)

The same theme pursues when looking at research, which is mentioned as a solution by 60 % of the EOs but not by a single CO. Research can, as an example, bring about new technical