A paradigm shift in sustainability: from lines to circles

• Autorzy: Morone Piergiuseppe , Yilan Gülşah

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.32933/ActaInnovations.36.1

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The concept of sustainability is attracting great attention as societies become increasingly aware of the environmental consequences of their actions. One of the most critical challenges that humankind is facing is the scarcity of resources, which are expected to reach their limits in the foreseeable future. Associated with this, there is increasing waste generated as a consequence of rapid growth in the world population (particularly inurban areas) and aparallel rise in global income. To cope with these problems, a linear strategy has been applied to increase efficiency by reducing the use of materials and energy in order to lessen environmental impacts. However, this cradle to grave approach has proven inadequate, due to a lack of attention to several economic and social aspects. A paradigm shift is thus required to re-think and innovate processes (as early as inthe design phase) in such a way that materials and energy are used more effectively within aclosed-loop system. This strategy, known as the cradle to cradle approach, relies on the assumption that everything is aresource for something else since no waste is ever generated in nature. In line with the cradle to cradle approach, the bio-inspired circular economy concept aims at eco-effectiveness, rather than eco-efficiency. While the circular economy has neither a confirmed definition nor a standardized methodology, it nonetheless carries significant importance, since it “is restorative and regenerative by design and aims to keep products, components, and materials at their highest utility and value at all times, distinguishing between technical and biological cycles,” in accordance with the goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Despite some controversial opinions that “circles are not spirals, and for growth to occur, spirals with ever-increasing radii are required,” the circular economy concept is taking a central role in the sustainable development debate and, for this reason, deserves attention. The aim of this paper is to shed light on this debate, pointing out the main features of the emerging circular paradigm along with sustainability transition theories and circularity evaluation tools.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

circular economy; circularity metrics; sustainability transition; paradigm shift

PL

gospodarka o obiegu zamkniętym; wskaźniki cykliczności; rozwój zrównoważony; zmiana paradygmatu

• Wydawca: Centrum Badań i Innowacji Pro-Akademia ; Ukrainian Academy of Sciences - Research and Development Centre for Industrial Problems of Development
• Czasopismo: Acta Innovations
• Rocznik: 2020
• Tom: no. 36
• Strony: 5--16
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 94 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Morone Piergiuseppe

• Bioeconomy in Transition Research Group Unitelma Sapienza University of Rome Uffici di Viale Regina Elena 291, 00161 Roma, Italy

autor

Yilan Gülşah

• Marmara University, Department of Chemical Engineering Gőztepe Kaműsű 34722, Istanbul, Turkey

Bibliografia

• [1] European Commission (2010) Critical Raw Materials for the EU. Report of the Ad-hoc Working Group on Defining Critical Raw Materials. European Commission, Enterprise and Industry. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/raw-materials/specific-interest/critical_en [accessed May 31, 2020].
• [2] McElroy CR, Constantinou A, Jones LC, Summerton L, Clark JH. Towards a holistic approach to metrics for the 21st century pharmaceutical industry. Green Chemistry 17 (2015), 3111-3121.
• [3] Massari S, Ruberti M. Rare earth elements as critical raw materials: Focus on international markets and future strategies. Resources Policy 38 (2013), 36-43.
• [4] Mcdonough W, Braungart M. Design for the triple top line: New tools for sustainable commerce. Corporate Environmental Strategy 9 (2002), 251-258.
• [5] McDonough W, Braungart M, Anastas PT, Zimmerman JB. Applying the principles of green engineering to cradle-to-cradle design. Environmental Science and Technology 37 (2003), 434A-441A.
• [6] Braungart M, McDonough W, Bollinger A. Cradle-to-cradle design: Creating healthy emissions A strategy for eco-effective product and system design. Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007), 1337-1348.
• [7] United Nations General Assembly (2015) Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, A/RES/70/1. Available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/57b6e3e44.html [accessed March 11, 2020]
• [8] Kalmykova Y, Sadagopan M, Rosado L. Circular economy - From review of theories and practices to development of implementation tools. Resources Conservation and Recycling 135 (2018), 190-201.
• [9] Âvila-Gutierrez MJ, Martin-Gomez A, Aguayo-Gonzâlez F, Córdoba-Roldśn A. Standardization framework for sustainability from circular economy 4.0. Sustainability 11 (2019), 6490.
• [10] Korhonen J, Honkasalo A, Seppalâ J. Circular economy: The concept and its limitations. Ecological Economics 143 (2018), 37-46.
• [11] Pesce M, Tamai I, Guo D, Critto A, Brombal D, Wang X, Cheng H, Marcomini A. Circular economy in China: Translating principles into practice. Sustainability 12 (2020), 832.
• [12] D'Adamo I, Falcone PM, Gastaldi M, Morone P. A social analysis of the olive oil sector: The role of family business. Resources 8 (2019), 151.
• [13] Ladu L, Imbert E, Quitzow R, Morone P. The role of the policy mix in the transition toward a circular forest bioeconomy. Forest Policy and Economics 110 (2020), 101937.
• [14] Morone P, Sica E, Makarchuk O. From waste to value: Assessing the pressures toward a sustainability transition of the Ukrainian waste management system. In: Innovation Strategies in Environmental Science, Elsevier, 2020.
• [15] Morone P. The times they are a-changing: Making the transition toward a sustainable economy. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 10 (2016), 369-377.
• [16] Schot J, Geels FW Niches in evolutionary theories of technical change: A critical survey of the literature. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 17 (2007), 605-622.
• [17] Svensson O, Nikoleris A. Structure reconsidered: Towards new foundations of explanatory transitions theory. Research Policy 47 (2018), 462-473.
• [18] Markard J, Truffer B. Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective: Towards an integrated framework. Research Policy 37 (2008), 596-615.
• [19] The British Standards Institution (2017) BS 8001:2017 Framework for implementing the principles of the circular economy in organizations.
• [20] CEN-CENELEC Joint Technical Committee 10 on Energy-related products - Material Efficiency Aspects for Ecodesign (CEN-CLC/JTC 10) (2019) EN 45558:2019 General method to declare the use of critical raw materials in energy-related products.
• [21] CEN-CENELEC Joint Technical Committee 10 on Energy-related products - Material Efficiency Aspects for Ecodesign (CEN-CLC/JTC 10) (2019) EN 45559:2019 Methods for providing information relating to material efficiency aspects of energy-related products.
• [22] European Commission (2020) Circular Economy Action Plan. A European Green Deal. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en [accessed March 19, 2020].
• [23] Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2015) Circularity Indicators. An Approach to Measuring Circularity. Available at:https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/insight/Circularity-Indicators_Project-Overview_May2015.pdf [accessed March 11, 2020].
• [24] Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2019) Circulytics - measuring circularity. Available at: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/resources/apply/circulytics-measuring-circularity [accessed March 11, 2020].
• [25] Enel Sp.A. (n.d.) CirculAbility Model. Available at: https://corporate.enel.it/en/circular-economysustainable-future/performance-indicators [accessed March 11, 2020].
• [26] Skene KR. Circles, spirals, pyramids and cubes: Why the circular economy cannot work. Sustainability Science 13 (2018), 479-492.
• [27] Kalmykova Y, Sadagopan M, Rosado L. Circular economy - From review of theories and practices to development of implementation tools. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 135 (2018), 190-201.
• [28] D'Amato D, Droste N, Allen B, Kettunen M, Lâhtinen K, Korhonen J, Leskinen P, Matthies BD, Toppinen A. Green, circular, bio economy: A comparative analysis of sustainability avenues. Journal of Cleaner Production 168 (2017), 716-734.
• [29] Geisendorf S, Pietrulla F. The circular economy and circular economic concepts A literature analysis and redefinition. Thunderbird International Business Review 60 (2018), 771-782.
• [30] Prieto-Sandoval V, Jaca C, Ormazabal M. Towards a consensus on the circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production 179 (2018), 605-615.
• [31] Leal Filho W, Tripathi SK, Andrade Guerra JBSOD, Gine-Garriga R, Orlovic Lovren V, Willats J. Using the sustainable development goals towards a better understanding of sustainability challenges. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 26 (2019), 179-190.
• [32] Bjǿrn A, Diamond M, Owsianiak M, Verzat B, Hauschild MZ. Strengthening the link between life cycle assessment and indicators for absolute sustainability to support development within planetary boundaries. Environmental Science and Technology 49 (2015), 6370-6371.
• [33] Rotmans J, Loorbach D. Complexity and transition management. Journal of Industrial Ecology 13 (2009), 184-196.
• [34] Frantzeskaki N, Loorbach D, Meadowcroft J. Governing societal transitions to sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable Development 15 (2011), 19-36.
• [35] Schot J, Steinmueller WE. Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy 47 (2018), 1554-1567.
• [36] Geels FW. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy 31 (2002), 1257-1274.
• [37] Schlaile MP, Urmetzer S. Transitions to Sustainable Development. In Leal Filho W. (Ed.). Decent Work and Economic Growth, Springer International Publishing, 2019.
• [38] Pyka A. Dedicated innovation systems to support the transformation towards sustainability: Creating income opportunities and employment in the knowledge-based digital bioeconomy. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 3 (2017), 27.
• [39] Cajaiba-Santana G. Social innovation: Moving the field forward. A conceptual framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 82 (2014), 42-51.
• [40] Patterson J, Schulz K, Vervoort J, van der Hel S, Widerberg O, Adler C, Hurlbert M, Anderton K, Sethi M, Barau A. Exploring the governance and politics of transformations towards sustainability. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 24 (2017), 1-16.
• [41] Sorrell S. Explaining sociotechnical transitions: A critical realist perspective. Research Policy 47 (2018), 1267-1282.
• [42] Wesseling JH, Lechtenböhmer S, Âhman M, Nilsson U, Worrell E, Coenen L. The transition of Energy intensive processing industries towards deep decarbonization: Characteristics and implications for future research. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 79 (2017), 1303-1313.
• [43] Kivimaa P, Kangas H-L, Lazarevic D. Client-oriented evaluation of 'creative destruction' in policy mixes: Finnish policies on building energy efficiency transition. Energy Research and Social Science 33 (2017), 115-127.
• [44] Rogge KS, Schleich J. Do policy mix characteristics matter for low-carbon innovation? A survey-based exploration of renewable power generation technologies in Germany. Research Policy 47 (2018), 1639-1654.
• [45] Schot J. Confronting the Second Deep Transition through the Historical Imagination. Technology and Culture 57 (2016), 445-456.
• [46] Walrave B, Raven R. Modelling the dynamics of technological innovation systems. Research Policy 45 (2016), 1833-1844.
• [47] Rip A, Kemp R. Technological Change. In: Rayner S, Malone EL. (Eds) Human Choice and Climate Change, Battelle, Columbus, OH, 1998.
• [48] Geels FW, Schot J. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy 36 (2007), 399-417.
• [49] Grin J, Rotmans J, Schot J. Transitions to Sustainable Development: New Directions in the Study of Long Term Transformative Change, Routledge, New York, 2010.
• [50] Hosseinifarhangi M, Turvani EM, van der Valk A, Carsjens JG Technology-driven transition in urban food production practices: A case study of Shanghai. Sustainability 11 (2019), 6070.
• [51] Kompella L. Barriers to radical innovations as stable designs: Insights from an IT case study. International Journal of Innovation Management 23 (2019), 1950047.
• [52] Lin X, Sovacool BK. Inter-niche competition on ice? Socio-technical drivers, benefits and barriers of the electric vehicle transition in Iceland. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 35 (2020), 1-20.
• [53] Geels FW. Socio-Technical Transitions to Sustainability, in: Oxford Research Encyclopedias Environmental Science, Oxford University Press, 2018.
• [54] Geels FW. Socio-technical transitions to sustainability: A review of criticisms and elaborations of the Multi-Level Perspective. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 20 (2019), 1-15.
• [55] International Organization for Standardization (2006) ISO 14044:2006 Environmental management - Life cycle assessment Requirements and guidelines.
• [56] Corona B, Shen L, Reike D, Rosales Carreón J, Worrell E. Towards sustainable development through the circular economy—A review and critical assessment on current circularity metrics. Resources Conservation and Recycling 151 (2019), 104498.
• [57] Lokesh K, Matharu AS, Kookos IK, Ladakis D, Koutinas A, Morone P, Clark J. Hybridised sustainability metrics for use in life cycle assessment of bio-based products: Resource efficiency and circularity. Green Chemistry 22 (2020), 803-813.
• [58] Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B. A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment. Part 1: Goal and scope and inventory analysis. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 13 (2008), 290-300.
• [59] Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B. A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment. Part 2: Impact assessment and interpretation. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 13 (2008), 374-388.
• [60] Curran MA. Life Cycle Assessment: A review of the methodology and its application to sustainability. Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 2 (2013), 273-277.
• [61] Dreyer LC, Hauschild MZ, Schierbeck J. A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 11 (2006), 88-97.
• [62] Guinee JB, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Zamagni A, Masoni P, Buonamici R, Ekvall T, Rydberg T. Life cycle assessment: Past, present, and future. Environmental Science and Technology 45 (2011), 90-96.
• [63] Heijungs R, Settanni E, Guinee J. Toward a computational structure for life cycle sustainability analysis: Unifying LCA and LCC. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 18 (2013), 1722-1733.
• [64] Heijungs R, Huppes G, Guinee JB. Life cycle assessment and sustainability analysis of products, materials and technologies. Toward a scientific framework for sustainability life cycle analysis. Polymer Degradation and Stability 95 (2010), 422-428.
• [65] Campos-Guzmân V, Garcfa-Cascales MS, Espinosa N, Urbina A. Life Cycle Analysis with Multi-Criteria Decision Making: A review of approaches for the sustainability evaluation of renewable energy technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 104 (2019), 343-366.
• [66] Hoogmartens R, Van Passel S, Van Acker K, Dubois M. Bridging the gap between LCA, LCC and CBA as sustainability assessment tools. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 48 (2014), 27-33.
• [67] Yilan G, Kadirgan MAN, Çiftçioğlu GA. Analysis of electricity generation options for sustainable Energy decision making: The case of Turkey. Renewable Energy 146 (2020), 519-529.
• [68] You F, Tao L, Graziano DJ, Snyder SW. Optimal design of sustainable cellulosic biofuel supply chains Multiobjective optimization coupled with life cycle assessment and input output analysis. AIChE Journal 58, (2012), 1157-1180.
• [69] Falcone PM, Gonzalez Garcia S, Imbert E, Lijó L, Moreira MT, Tani A, Tartiu VE, Morone P. Transitioning towards the bio-economy: Assessing the social dimension through a stakeholder lens. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 26 (2019), 1135-1153.
• [70] Yıldız-Geyhan E, Yılan G, Altun-Çiftçioğlu GA, Kadırgan MAN. Environmental and social life cycle sustainability assessment of different packaging waste collection systems. Resources Conservation and Recycling 143 (2019), 119-132.
• [71] Millward-Hopkins J, Busch J, Purnell P, Zwirner O, Velis CA, Brown A, Hahladakis J, Iacovidou E. Fully integrated modelling for sustainability assessment of resource recovery from waste. Science of the Total Environment 612 (2018), 613-624.
• [72] Antonino M, Gutierrez TN, Baustert P, Benetto E. Implementation of Agent-Based Models to support Life Cycle Assessment: A review focusing on agriculture and land use. AIMS Agriculture and Food 3 (2018), 535-560.
• [73] Niero M, Kalbar PP. Coupling material circularity indicators and life cycle based indicators: A proposal to advance the assessment of circular economy strategies at the product level. Resources Conservation and Recycling 140 (2019), 305-312.
• [74] Elia V, Gnoni MG, Tornese F. Measuring circular economy strategies through index methods: A critical analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production 142 (2017), 2741-2751.
• [75] Mesa J, Esparragoza I, Maury H. Developing a set of sustainability indicators for product families based on the circular economy model. Journal of Cleaner Production 196 (2018), 1429-1442.
• [76] Parchomenko A, Nelen D, Gillabel J, Rechberger H. Measuring the circular economy - A Multiple Correspondence Analysis of 63 metrics. Journal of Cleaner Production 210 (2019), 200-216.
• [77] Lazarevic D, Brandao M. Prospects for the circular economy and conclusions. in: Handbook of the Circular Economy, Edward Elgar, 2020.
• [78] Korhonen J, Nuur C, Feldmann A, Birkie SE. Circular economy as an essentially contested concept. Journal of Cleaner Production 175 (2018), 544-552.
• [79] Charonis G, Degrowth, steady state economics and the circular economy: Three distinct yet increasingly converging alternative discourses to economic growth for achieving environmental sustainability and social equity. in: World Economic Association Sustainability Conference, 2012.
• [80] Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2015) Growth within: A Circular Economy Vision for a Competitive Europe. Available: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications/growth-within-a-circular-economy-visionfor-a-competitive-europe [accessed June 6, 2020].
• [81] Kovacic Z, Strand R, Völker T. The Circular Economy in Europe: Critical Perspectives on Policies and Imaginaries, Routledge, 2020.
• [82] European Commission (2014) Towards a circular economy: A zero waste programme for Europe. Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:aa88c66d-4553-11e4-a0cb-01aa75ed71a1.0022.03/DOC_1&format=PDF [accessed June 6, 2020]
• [83] Youn C, Kim SY, Lee Y, Choo HJ, Jang S, Jang Jl. Measuring retailers' sustainable development. Business Strategy and the Environment 26 (2017), 385-398.
• [84] Ruiz-Real JL, Uribe-Toril J, Gäzquez-Abad JC, Valenciano J de P. Sustainability and retail: Analysis of global research. Sustainability 11 (2018), 14.
• [85] Schindehutte M, Morris MH, Kocak A. Understanding market-driving behavior: the role of entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management 46 (2008), 4-26.
• [86] Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2020) The Covid-19 recovery requires a resilient circular economy. Available at:https://medium.com/circulatenews/the-covid-19-recovery-requires-a-resilient-circular-economye385a3690037 [accessed June 2, 2020].
• [87] Bergek A, Jacobsson S, Carlsson B, Lindmark S, Rickne A. Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis. Research Policy 37 (2008), 407-429.
• [88] Hekkert MP, Suurs RAA, Negro SO, Kuhlmann S, Smits REHM. Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 74 (2007), 413-432.
• [89] Jacobsson S, Bergek A. Innovation system analyses and sustainability transitions: Contributions and suggestions for research. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 1 (2011), 41-57.
• [90] Hacking N, Pearson P, Eames M. Mapping innovation and diffusion of hydrogen fuel cell technologies: Evidence from the UK's hydrogen fuel cell technological innovation system, 1954-2012. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 44 (2019), 29805-29848.
• [91] van Welie MJ, Truffer B, Yap X-S. Towards sustainable urban basic services in low-income countries: A Technological Innovation System analysis of sanitation value chains in Nairobi. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 33 (2019), 196-214.
• [92] Sawulski J, Gałczyński M, Zajdler R. Technological innovation system analysis In a follower country – the case of offshore wind in Poland. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 33 (2019), 249-267.
• [93] Bilali H-E. Transition heuristic frameworks in research on agro-food sustainability transitions. Environment, Development and Sustainability 22 (2020), 1693-1728.
• [94] Kushnir D, Hansen T, Vogl V, Âhman M. Adopting hydrogen direct reduction for the Swedish steel industry: A technological innovation system (TIS) study. Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020), 118185.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa Nr 461252 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2021).