Overlapping concepts and domains
In this book we address three separate yet overlapping thematic concepts and domains of knowledge, practice and discourse: sustainable lifestyles, livelihoods and the circular economy. Each of these concepts offers contributions to the overall transition to sustainable production and consumption systems and better lives for all. Common to these different concepts is the desire to provide for human needs and improve the quality of life while reducing social and environmental harm and creating pathways to sustainability (Leach, Scoones and Stirling, 2007).
The concept of circular economy (CE) focuses on a set of principles that offer an operational vision of concrete paths to sustainable production and consumption systems and thus to a sustainable economy. The CE approach highlights the importance of changing the current linear model into a system that is regenerative and restorative by design (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015). This can be achieved by redirecting energy and material flows from a linear to a circular direction, transforming waste into productive inputs, and reducing pollution, greenhouse gases and their impacts on health and environment. This involves systems thinking approaches that include changes in value systems, ambitious policies to internalise externalised costs, and new approaches to production, distribution, consumption and investment within each sector of the economy (Stahel, 2016).
Lifestyles is a term used to describe the behavioural codes and cognitive frames enabling decision-making for actions and choices consistent with one’s social identity and role within a particular community. This includes roles as consumers of products and services, producers (i.e. workers, managers, shareholders, service providers) and investors. Lifestyles are increasingly complex given that people tend to belong and identify with not one but a cluster of communities. Lifestyles are considered more or less sustainable to the degree that the actions and choices associated with different roles and identities are guided by sustainability values (Leiserowitz, Kates and Parris, 2006).
Livelihoods, in turn, shape lifestyles in relation to the roles people play in acquiring the means of living, whether as construction workers, farmers, professors, managers or artists. The concept of sustainable livelihoods relates to a wide set of issues that encompass the relationships between poverty and environment (Chambers and Conway, 1992). This includes concerns with work and employment, poverty reduction, broader issues of adequacy, security, well-being and capability, and the resilience of livelihoods and the natural resource base on which they depend (Scoones, 1998; Scoones 2015).
The following sections discuss each of these three concepts in more detail, and explore how they relate to each other.
Circular economy definitions– unity in diversity
The circular economy is today a term that means different things to different people. There is a wide range of circular economy thought-schools, including those who associate the term with cradle-to-cradle design, industrial ecology, performance economy, regenerative design and even biomimicry. The roots of the concept of ‘circular economy’ go back to classical political economists (e.g. Ricardo, Smith, Quesnay) who saw the system of production and consumption as a circular process which ‘stands in striking contrast to the view presented by modern theory, of a one-way avenue that leads from “factors of production” to “consumption goods”’ (Sraffa, 1960:93). Others cite Kenneth Boulding’s 1966 paper ‘The economics of the coming spaceship earth’ or more recently the work of David Pearce and Kerry Turner (1990) as antecedents of the term. Moving beyond strict adherence to neoclassical economic precepts, CE has been described as a framework for re-designing the economy by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, which has been championing the concept globally since 2010 (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015).
According to this contemporary school of thought, the CE concept is grounded in the study of non-linear, particularly living systems (Webster, 2017) and refers to an industrial economy that is restorative by design and relies on renewable energy, minimises, tracks, and hopefully eliminates the use of toxic chemicals, and eradicates waste through careful design. Imitating living systems, the CE approach works to optimise systems rather than components (i.e. ‘design-to-fit’). This is done through attention to material and energy flows, which according to McDonough and Braungart (2002) can be classified into two kinds: biological nutrients, useful to the biosphere, and technical nutrients, useful to the technosphere, i.e. the systems of industrial production. These definitions of a CE are based on a synthesis of ideas and concepts such as ‘cradle to cradle’ (McDonough and Braungart, 2002), biomimicry (Benyus, 1997) and the performance/sharing economy (Stahel, 2016), and include insights from industrial ecology. A recent definition by Geissdoerfer et al. (2017), who view the CE as a potential new sustainability paradigm, summarise the main elements of the CE as ‘a regenerative system in which resource input and waste, emission, and energy leakage are minimised by slowing, closing, and narrowing material and energy loops. This can be achieved through long-lasting design, maintenance, repair, reuse, remanufacturing, refurbishing, and recycling.’
Overall, there is little consensus and convergence on the definition of the circular economy, and current definitions have a number of limitations (Homrich et al., 2018). Despite the breadth of the concept and related practices of the circular economy, it is becoming increasingly popular among policymakers. Circularity has been adopted as national policy by China in 2009 (see Chapter 8 of this book) and Finland in 2016. The Netherlands adopted a government-wide programme aimed at developing a circular economy in the Netherlands by 2050. According to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, the approach of making optimal use of raw materials and resources contrasts with the currently dominant linear economy that operates on a ‘take-make-dispose’ logic, assuming access to unlimited resources and thereby producing products to be discarded after use. A circular economy, on the other hand, ‘centres around the reuse of products and raw materials, and the prevention of waste and harmful emissions to soils, water and air, wherever possible’, thus closing the loop (PBL, 2017).
In 2015 the European Commission adopted the circular economy concept as part of the EU’s 2020 strategy initiative ‘to modernise and transform the European economy, shifting it towards a more sustainable direction’ (EC, 2015). According to the EU,
The transition to a more circular economy, where the value of products, materials and resources is maintained in the economy for as long as possible, and the generation of waste minimised, is an essential contribution to the EU’s efforts to develop a sustainable, low carbon, resource efficient and competitive economy. Such transition is the opportunity to transform our economy and generate new and sustainable competitive advantages for Europe.
In support of the transition to a circular economy, the EU package includes legislative proposals on waste, with long-term targets to reduce landfilling and increase recycling and reuse. In closing the loop of product lifecycles, the package includes ‘an Action Plan to support the circular economy in each step of the value chain– from production to consumption, repair and manufacturing, waste management and secondary raw materials that are fed back into the economy’ (EC, 2015).
While there is much excitement about the promise of CE, in assessing the potential for and transition pathways from a linear to a CE, it is important to acknowledge the different capacities, opportunities and pressures at different levels and stages of the process. As Potting et al. (2017) point out,
the actual circular economy transition should lead to closing cycles at the level of individual products, i.e. in the related product chains. The transition process may differ across products and between circularity strategies, where lower circularity strategies are still closer to a linear economy and higher circularity strategies are closer to the circular economy.
Technological innovation, they note, is mainly relevant for lower circularity strategies, whereas
socio-institutional changes become more important for higher circularity strategies increasingly involve transforming the whole product chain (i.e. systemic changes). Socio-institutional changes refer to differences in how consumers relate to products, how all actors in a product chain cooperate to achieve circularity, and all institutional arrangements needed to facilitate this.
Further, researchers have argued that proponents of the circular economy could learn from the social and solidarity economy, as well as from institutional economics, by embedding the CE in relations of power, more explicit value systems and solidarity principles (Moreau et al., 2017). Towards this end, more consideration could be given to the institutional conditions necessary for setting rules that differentiate profitable from non-profitable activities in a circular economy, and guaranteeing high labour standards. Additionally, questions remain as to whether the circular economic model should contribute to ‘alternatives to growth’, i.e. a sharing rather than for-profit model involving changes to both production and consumption patterns, or simply to an alternative model of growth which would only involve changing forms of production and business models.