Here We Go Again…
Does anyone remember a paper published in 2017 by three researchers, Julian Kirchherr, Denise Reike and Marko Hekkert, titled ‘Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions’? The paper was quite topical at the time as it indicated what circular economy professionals needed to address — a lack of a common definition for the circular economy to realise its potential as a framework to address resource scarcity and to fill in the gaps in ESG and sustainability standards.
A common definition could be a unifying force that aligns all of us. Instead, circular economy professionals could not agree. Interestingly, and to my great surprise, in 2023, Kirchherr revisited his original paper, this time with a new cohort of researchers — Nan-Hua Nadja Yang, Frederik Schulze-Spüntrup, Maarten J. Heerink and Kris Hartley.
While multiple interpretations of the circular economy can enrich scholarly perspectives, differentiation and fragmentation can also impede consolidation of the concept.
So, why is the circular economy still considered a ‘ concept ‘? Here is the most glaring problem we face — the continued use of the word ‘concept’, a term we need to disassociate with the circular economy. Surely, it should be moving towards a measurable and tangible series of activities that contribute to resource management and resource efficiency. And it is, albeit slowly but still lacks the scale for real impact.
Kirchherr et al (2023) state the case for a consolidation very well, “As the circular economy grows in popularity, its interpretation and implementation by numerous actors can obscure and fragment its conceptualization. Indeed, a systematic analysis by Kirchherr et al. (2017) found 95 different circular economy definitions. Numerous scholarly efforts have investigated the prospects of a consensus conceptualization of the circular economy. However, no study since Kirchherr et al. (2017) published has systemically analysed whether such a consensus has been forged. This is the gap that the new study seeks to fill.
According to Kirchherr et al. (2017), “… knowledge accumulation regarding the circular economy is difficult if scholar A conceptualizes the ‘how-to’ of circular economy as recycling, while scholar B considers the ‘how-to’ as reducing, reusing and recycling.” Accordingly, a concept with multiple fragmented and often contested understandings may experience conceptual deadlock and eventual collapse.”
Institutional Definitions
The recently released ISO 59004 Vocabulary, Principles and Guidance for Implementation includes, naturally, an international definition, “Economic system that uses a systemic approach to maintain a circular flow of resources, by recovering, retaining or adding to their value, while contributing to sustainable development.
Resources can be considered concerning both stocks and flows. The inflow of virgin resources is kept as low as possible, and the circular flow of resources is kept as closed as possible to minimize waste, losses and release from the economic system.”
ISO 59004 continues “In line with the definition of a circular economy, an organisation that would like to develop circular solutions should adopt the following interlinked set of principles:
- Systems thinking
- Value creation
- Value sharing
- Resource availability
- Resource traceability
- Ecosystem resilience”
Accordingly, a concept with multiple fragmented and often contested understandings may experience conceptual deadlock and eventual collapse.”
The draft European Sustainability Reporting Standard (ESRS) E5 Resource Use and Circular Economy writes, “Circular economy means an economic system whereby the value of products, materials and other resources in the economy is maintained for as long as possible, enhancing their efficient use in production and consumption, thereby reducing the environmental impact of their use, minimising waste and the release of hazardous substances at all stages of their life cycle, including through the application of the waste hierarchy.
The goal is to maximise and maintain the value of the resources, products and materials by creating a system that allows for renewability, long life optimal use or re-use, refurbishment, remanufacturing, recycling and biodegradation.”
Both definitions are valuable and provide different pathways to achieve the same goal — resource management.
Why Is A Single Definition Important?
The concept of a circular economy has gained traction in recent years, inspiring environmentalists, governments and businesses alike. Once a fringe topic, circularity is now acknowledged globally as the most promising solution to our planet’s looming sustainability issues. However, many diverging definitions and understandings of circular economy exist. For the circular economy to scale requires government intervention and a regulatory framework. Up until ISO 59004 and ESRS E5, most definitions were from companies providing circular economy services and academics. Although a small number of countries have passed circular economy legislation there is still no uniform interpretation of the circular economy, creating legal uncertainty for domestic and international trade.
Other barriers to a circular economy span such issues as a lack of technical skills among the SME workforce, the current limitations of recycling (some materials cannot be recycled indefinitely), and the considerable transition costs associated with research and development, asset investments, and subsidy payments to promote new business models.
The Circular Economy is Evolving
There is no doubt we need a circular economy. We need a set of principles and a verifiable framework to manage our finite primary raw materials — thankfully ESRS E5 provides this framework. We also need unity around a common agreement as to what are the objectives of the circular economy.
We need scale. And skills to deliver on the Circular Rs. Given the urgency to manage our resources, we also need to improve our relationship with domestic corporations and multinationals to inspire and support scalable circular initiatives.
Conclusion
The conclusion comes from Kirchherr et al 2023 paper, “Finally, the importance of a consensus definition of the circular economy is clear for policymaking. It provides a common basis of assumptions and targets on which policymaking can be developed, strengthening the ability to integrate policy efforts across political jurisdictions (e.g., states, countries, and regions), industries (e.g., construction, textiles, and technology), and across life-cycle stages and other issue areas (e.g., extraction, processing, and end-of-life management).
A consensus understanding can also assist companies in aligning circular economy adoption activities with those of other partners and suppliers and also provides researchers with a basis on which to build research that interacts discursively across contexts, industries, and disciplines. Given that the scale of a circular economy transition is fundamentally broad, it is crucial that differing and contested understandings of the concept do not create barriers to implementation and definitional refinement.”
I commend Kirchher for revisiting his original 2017 paper. We need to see how far we have come and how far we have yet to go. This article may read like a rehash of an old theme. Some forecasts suggest that by 2030, Asia could be home to a middle class of almost 3.5 billion people, all aspiring to a high level of consumption from a finite pool of primary raw materials we do not have. Resource management is a matter of urgency. The circular economy can deliver — we just need to be aligned to a single goal. Now!
***************************
Ms Adrienna Zsakay is the Founder and CEO of Circular Economy Asia Inc, and this article represents her opinions on the circular economy. Circular Economy Pick of the Week is brought to you by Circular World™ Media — a brand owned by Circular Economy Asia Inc.
**************************
References
‘Circular Economy — What is it and how does it work?’ published by RTS (Recycle Track Systems), 2021.
‘The Indo–Pacific will create opportunity’ from a 2017 Australian Government Foreign Policy White Paper
Originally published at https://www.linkedin.com.
