Circular Economy Realities: Critical Perspectives on Sustainability

Deutz, Pauline (Ed.); Vermeulen, Walter J.V. (Ed.); Baumgartner, Rupert J. (Ed.); Ramos, Tomás B. (Ed.); Raggi, Andrea (Ed.) Book Circular Economy Realities: Critical Perspectives on Sustainability Routledge/ISDRS Series in Sustainable Development Research Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Deutz, Pauline (Ed.); Vermeulen, Walter J.V. (Ed.); Baumgartner, Rupert J. (Ed.); Ramos, Tomás B. (Ed.); Raggi, Andrea (Ed.) (2025) : Circular Economy Realities: Critical Perspectives on Sustainability, Routledge/ISDRS Series in Sustainable Development Research, ISBN 978-1-040-10133-9, Routledge, Oxford, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003295631 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/312723 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This book addresses the realities of the circular economy, a resource efficiency concept that has risen to global prominence in academic, policy and business circles over the last decade. Considered an approach to sustainable growth, the volume critically analyses how sustainable emerging applications of a circular economy are in practice. The book stems from an international, interdisciplinary project exploring the discourses, policies, implementation and impacts of the circular economy across public, private and third sector accounts. It draws on a wide range of case studies, from the UK, Portugal, Austria, Italy, the Netherlands, France, Chile, China, Nigeria, Taiwan and Vietnam, highlighting how experiences both shaped and were shaped by the places in which they were happening. It provides a guide to researching a complex phenomenon such as a circular economy, which involves both collaboration and competition between multiple stakeholders across different sectors and places. Synthesising the multiple perspectives employed in the project, the book makes recommendations for circular economy implementation in different contexts, including the assessment of sustainability implications, whilst indicating the limited potential for circular economy activity to bring social and economic benefits without explicit motivation for those to happen. Benefitting from extensive empirical research, this critical assessment of sustain ability in the context of the circular economy will appeal to a broad readership of academics, upper-level students, practitioners and policy-makers in sustainable development, business, economics, geography, sociology and environmental engineering. Pauline Deutz is Professor of Circular Economy and Sustainability in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of Hull, UK. Walter J.V. Vermeulen is Associate Professor in the Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development at Utrecht University, the Netherlands. Rupert J. Baumgartner is Professor of Sustainability Management in the Department of Environmental Systems Sciences at the University of Graz, Austria. Tomás B. Ramos is Professor of Sustainability Assessment and Planning in the Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering at the NOVA School of Science and Technology, NOVA University Lisbon, Portugal. Andrea Raggi is Full Professor of Industrial Ecology and related issues in the Department of Economic Studies at ‘G. d’Annunzio’ University of Chieti–Pescara, Italy. CIRCULAR ECONOMY REALITIES Routledge/ISDRS Series in Sustainable Development Research Series Editors: Peter Dobers (pr[email protected]) and Gyula Zilahy ([email protected]g) The Routledge/ISDRS Series in Sustainable Development Research is the publishing platform of the wide community of 2500+ researchers engaged in multi-, interand transdisciplinary research on the need for and experiences with the transformation to a sustainable society. The International Sustainable Development Research Society aims to disseminate knowledge on sustainable development practices in all spheres of society which enables the acceleration of sustainability initiatives: cities, communities, production, innovation, consumption, biodiversity and ecosystem services, agriculture, climate, renewable energy. This series welcomes submissions for high-level cutting-edge research books that push thinking about sustainability in new directions by challenging current conceptualizations and developing new ones. The series offers theoretical, methodological, and empirical advances that can be used by professionals and as supplementary reading in courses in sustainability science, environment and sustainability, development studies, planning, and a wide range of academic disciplines. Good Governance and the Sustainable Development Goals in Southeast Asia Edited by Rasyikah Md Khalid and Ainul Jaria Maidin Gender and the Sustainable Development Goals Infrastructure, Empowerment and Education Edited by Astrid Skjerven and Maureen Fordham Circular Economy Realities Critical Perspectives on Sustainability Edited by Pauline Deutz, Walter J.V. Vermeulen, Rupert J. Baumgartner, Tomás B. Ramos, and Andrea Raggi For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/RoutledgeISDRS-Series-inSustainable-Development-Research/book-series/RISSD CIRCULAR ECONOMY REALITIES Critical Perspectives on Sustainability Edited by Pauline Deutz, Walter J.V. Vermeulen, Rupert J. Baumgartner, Tomás B. Ramos, and Andrea Raggi Designed cover image: Stakeholder Perspectives on a Circular Economy © Bianca Gainus, beevisual.biz The cover image comprises a digital recording of a facilitated discussion on stakeholder perspectives on a circular economy on day two of the end-of-project conference held on 16 December 2021. First published 2025 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2025 selection and editorial matter, Pauline Deutz, Walter J.V. Vermeulen, Rupert J. Baumgartner, Tomás B. Ramos, and Andrea Raggi; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Pauline Deutz, Walter J.V. Vermeulen, Rupert J. Baumgartner, Tomás B. Ramos, and Andrea Raggi to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The Open Access version of this book, available at www.taylorfrancis.com, has been made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license. This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 765198. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Deutz, Pauline, editor. Title: Circular economy realities : critical perspectives on sustainability / edited by Pauline Deutz, Walter J.V. Vermeulen, Rupert J. Baumgartner, Tomás B. Ramos, and Andrea Raggi. Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2024. | Series: Routledge/ISDRS series in sustainable development research | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2024016479 (print) | LCCN 2024016480 (ebook) | ISBN 9781032281841 (hardback) | ISBN 9781032281810 (paperback) | ISBN 9781003295631 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Circular economy. | Sustainable development. Classification: LCC HC79.E5 C5375 2024 (print) | LCC HC79.E5 (ebook) | DDC 338.9/27--dc23/eng/20240503 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2024016479 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2024016480 ISBN: 978-1-032-28184-1 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-28181-0 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-29563-1 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003295631 Typeset in Times New Roman by KnowledgeWorks Global Ltd. List of figures vii List of tables ix List of contributors x Foreword xvi Acknowledgements xviii 1 Introduction: Exploring the sustainability implications of a circular economy 1 Pauline Deutz, Walter J.V. Vermeulen, Rupert J. Baumgartner, Tomás B. Ramos and Andrea Raggi 2 Approaches to circular economy research 13 Pauline Deutz, Sandra Caeiro, Erik Roos Lindgreen, Kaustubh Thapa, Anna M. Walker and Małgorzata Pusz 3 Navigating diverse understandings of a circular economy 45 Walter J.V. Vermeulen, Martin Calisto Friant, Kieran Campbell-Johnston and Natacha Klein 4 Exploring the role of companies in transitioning to a sustainable and circular future: Insights and reflections 64 Rupert J. Baumgartner, Pauline Deutz, Estephania Delgadillo, Tomas Santa-Maria, Anna M. Walker and Tatiana Reyes CONTENTS Anna Diaz, Aodhan Newsholme, Erik Roos Lindgreen, vi Contents 5 Assessment approaches and methods for a circular economy 96 Andrea Raggi, Hinrika Droege, Katelin Opferkuch, Erik Roos Lindgreen, Anna M. Walker, Sandra Caeiro, Tomás B. Ramos and Roberta Salomone 6 Socio-spatial dimensions of a circular economy 123 Pauline Deutz, Andrew E.G. Jonas, Sabrina Brullot, Martin Calisto Friant, Małgorzata Pusz, Aodhan Newsholme, Santiago Perez, Heather A. Rogers and Kaustubh Thapa 7 Emerging indications of employment in a circular economy: A synthesis of European case studies 149 Natacha Klein, Katelin Opferkuch, Aodhan Newsholme, Andrew E.G. Jonas and Tomás B. Ramos 8 Policy considerations for a circular economy 173 Walter J.V. Vermeulen, Martin Calisto Friant, Kieran Campbell-Johnston, Pauline Deutz, Aodhan Newsholme, Małgorzata Pusz, Natacha Klein, 9 Conclusions: Emerging understandings of circular economy realities 203 Pauline Deutz, Walter J.V. Vermeulen, Rupert J. Baumgartner, Tomás B. Ramos and Andrea Raggi Index 214 Pauline Deutz, Heather A. Rogers, Anna Diaz, Tomás B. Ramos, Anna Diaz and Kaustubh Thapa 1.1 Organisations and the circular economy 10 1.2 Place and policy in a circular economy 10 2.1 Stakeholder engagement in the research process to enable team building and problem exploration, system understanding and co-creation of solutions, and application of knowledge 29 3.1 Hierarchy of value retention options: The 10 R’s 46 3.2 Findings of the ‘Global Circular Economy Perception Survey’ showing the most and least preferred visions of circularity, n = 932 56 4.1 CE practices implemented or planned by respondents, n = 141 67 4.2 Company goals to be achieved through CE practices, ranked and weighted, n = 134 68 4.3 Society goals to be achieved through CE practices, ranked and weighted, n = 134 69 4.4 Respondents’ perceived importance of CE drivers to respondents, on a scale of 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important), ‘I don’t know’ responses were excluded, n = 105 70 4.5 Respondents’ perceived importance of CE barriers to respondents, on a scale of 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important), ‘I don’t know’ responses were excluded, n = 105 70 4.6 Data structuration and analysis process, following the Gioia method, which allowed the researchers to group the 26 identified best practices for CBMI into 12 microfoundations of dynamic capability, and the three main dynamic capability categories 72 4.7 The Circular Sprint framework. The figure contains the process phases, its 12 activities and a proposed timeframe, which could be adapted according to the use case 74 FIGURES xiv Contributors including indicators and reporting, circular economy, impact assessment, stakeholder engagement and transdisciplinary collaborative approaches. He is Executive Editor of the Journal of Cleaner Production and Editor-in-Chief of the journal Cleaner Production Letters. Tatiana Reyes is Professor at the Arts et Métiers and co-leader of the Institute of Chambéry, following her time at the University of Technology of Troyes. In addition, she has coordinated several research projects. Outside her activities in the university, she is involved in national (G.I.S Smart and Eco-design of Systems for Sustainable Development network) and international research networks (Sustainable design SIG – Design Society). She has been a visiting professor at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (Argentina). In terms of research interests, she works on the integration of sustainable criteria on the design process, the evolution of sustainable knowledge and values in industrial system, low-tech approaches, and the evolution of pedagogical methods to integrate sustainability in the engineering curriculum. Heather A. Rogers is a research fellow pursuing the final stages of her PhD at the University of Hull. Her research explores aspects of employment in the circular economy, with a focus on the repair service sector. Heather holds an MA in Strategic Leadership towards Sustainability from the Blekinge Institute of Technology (Sweden), and a BA in Regional and Urban Planning from the University of Saskatchewan (Canada). Her previous work has included industry research in sustainable urban agriculture and circular economy for the organic waste industry. Erik Roos Lindgreen, PhD, is a sustainability researcher from the Netherlands. His key interest lies in how to balance scientific completeness and practical feasibility when designing sustainability measurement methods. He previously worked as an LCA consultant at CE Delft. He then spent four years in Italy, where he obtained his PhD at the University of Messina as part of the H2020 EU-funded project Cresting. Currently, he works independently for research institutes such as the Copernicus Institute (Utrecht University), NGOs such as Footprints Africa and the private sector to better understand how sustainability measurement could be made more accessible, while remaining scientifically sound. Roberta Salomone is Full Professor of Commodity Science at the Department of Economics, University of Messina (Italy). She participates in various research groups, also as a national coordinator and she is the author of more than 190 publications including national and international scientific journals, books and conference proceedings. Her main research themes are related to sustainability, circular economy, industrial ecology and industrial symbiosis, and environmental management and assessment, with reference to Life Cycle Thinking methods. Contributors xv Tomas Santa-Maria is Assistant Professor at the Business Sustainability Center of the Faculty of Economics and Business at University of Desarrollo (Chile). He obtained a PhD in Sustainability and Innovation Management from the University of Graz where he explored processes of business model innovation for the circular economy. His current research deals with sustainability-oriented corporate-startup strategic alliances, regenerative organisations and data-driven circular business models. Kaustubh Thapa’s current transdisciplinary research at Radboud University (Netherlands) focuses on achieving high-integrity voluntary climate action. For his PhD at Utrecht University, he investigated sustainable and circular governance of European plastic waste and second-hand electronic and electrical equipment trade to Nigeria, China and Vietnam. He has an MA in environmental science, policy, and management from Central European University (Hungary) and a BA in philosophy, economics and political science from Westminster College (USA). Walter J.V. Vermeulen is based at the Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development of Utrecht University. Walter focuses on analysing progress in implementing sustainability practices in business in many different countries, both inside companies and in their socio-economic networks. He focuses in particular on private governance in (international) supply chains and on practices of circular economy, both in Europe as well as in supplier countries worldwide. Assessing the performance of these forms of value chain collaboration is enabled with the Oiconomy Pricing approach, revealing the hidden costs of unsustainability. He is former President of the International Sustainable Development Research Society. Anna M. Walker is a Project Officer in the Fair and Sustainable Economy Unit at the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission in Seville (Spain). Her applied research for policy input revolves around the environmental and social impact of circular economy practices in European industries. She obtained her PhD at the ‘G. d’Annunzio’ University of Chieti–Pescara, where she analysed different methodologies for assessing the impact of circular business practices on sustainability factors. She holds a BA in International Affairs from the University of St. Gallen (Switzerland) and an MA in Standardization, Social Regulation, and Sustainable Development from the University of Geneva. The concept of the circular economy (CE), which advocates for resource efficiency, has gained global prominence as a policy initiative aimed at fostering sustainable growth within the business sphere, and as a way to get away from an unsustainable linear growth. Entities ranging from multinational corporations or international organisations like the United Nations to local municipalities and educational institutions such as university campuses are eager to adopt their own CE frameworks. There exists an assumption that the principles and outcomes of circularity align inherently with those of sustainability. However, given the contentious nature of each concept, the potential synergies resulting from their integration warrant a more comprehensive analysis than has been previously presented. This book is an important contribution to a more comprehensive analysis of the underpinnings and potential of a CE. This book consolidates findings from a unique, international, interdisciplinary endeavour known as the Cresting project (Circular Economy: Sustainability Implications and Guiding Progress, based on funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie SkłodowskaCurie grant agreement No 765198). The Cresting initiative enlisted 15 early stage researchers with the objective of providing them with advanced training in systematic analysis and methodologies pertaining to CE-related endeavours and initiatives across diverse geographic and economic contexts. The overarching goal was to facilitate the translation of critical assessments into actionable insights aimed at guiding the management of the transition towards a CE. This important work represents a novel and rigorous endeavour in scrutinising the emergent circular economy paradigm within its social and spatial contexts, emphasising the value of combining different perspectives. The text highlights the urgency of environmental benefits from CE practices in achieving net zero carbon FOREWORD Foreword xvii emissions, contrasting this with the current slow pace of transformation towards a CE. It emphasises the need for enhanced policy ambition to drive a more holistic approach towards the implementation of a CE, acknowledging the constraints posed by economic priorities and logistical complexities within the global economy. While the social aspects of a CE remain elusive, the book is an important first step in highlighting the need to define and explore individual experiences, the cultural, gender, age and class influences of a CE, and to consider the perspectives of citizens, activists and voters alongside consumers in CE research, including inherent changes that may come with such perspectives. Furthermore, it underscores the transformative societal implications of a fully realised CE, suggesting that achieving widespread adoption of practices like repair and reuse requires politicaleconomic shifts and greater social ambition, particularly among academics and individuals. Peter Dobers, Sjors Witjes and Gyula Zilahy Book Series Editors This book is the culmination of a number of years work drawing on the support and input of a number of groups and individuals. We cannot list everyone by name, but the following gives an indication of the level of collaboration involved in a project on this scale. Everyone’s input is much appreciated. We are grateful to the European Commission for funding to this project (Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 765198) and the support of our project officers from the Research Executive Agency Marie Skłodowska-Curie Innovative Training Networks team. Project partners were indispensable in hosting secondments, co-designing/ distributing surveys, providing access to data and/or making staff available for interviews and/or workshops: APTAR Italia SpA, Ecoinnovazione srl, Environmental and Management Solutions Ltd, the General Secretary of the Portuguese Ministry of the Environment, Idée Alsace, iPoint-systems GmbH, Kingston upon Hull City Council, Mangiatorella SpA, Rijkswaterstaat (Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment), Professor Zengwei Yuan, Nanjing University, China, Office of the Government of Styria, Waste Management and Sustainability section, Saubermacher Dienstleistungs AG, Taiwan Circular Economy Network, Dr. Olawale Olayide of the University of Ibadan, Nigeria, and WRAP (Waste Resources Action Programme). The advisory board members were very generous with their time, insights and support for the early stage researchers and their research: Carmen Jaca, University of Navarra, Spain, Christoph Scharff, who has held a number of positions in the waste industry and is currently an external lecturer for the Vienna Technical University, Walter Stahel, founder-director of the Product-Life Institute, Switzerland, and Andrew Woodend, UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Many thanks to colleagues who have contributed their time and expertise to research supervision: Julia Affolderbach, Alberto Simboli, Nguyễn Hồng Quân and ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Acknowledgements xix Olawale Olayide, Ernst Worrell and Sjors Witjes. Research, finance teams and department heads from our institutions are gratefully thanked. Thanks to all the speakers and other participants at our workshops and conference who provided training, led workshops, gave talks, hosted site visits and took part in discussions. We are grateful to the Royal Geographical Society-IBG and the International Sustainable Development Research Society which supported our end of project conference. Thanks too to Stéphanie Heckman and Bianca Gainus, our digital recorders, whose work you can see in this volume. Thanks to the panellists for the discussion sessions on day one of the conference. Fiona Charnley, Walter Stahel, Nancy Bocken, Hans-Christian Eberl and Zengwei Yuan responded to our presentations on organisations. Adam Read, Patrick Schroder, Kersty Hobson and Olawale Olayide responded to presentations on place and policy. Many other people participated as survey respondents, interviewees and focus group or workshop participants. We are very grateful to all these people for sharing their time and generously providing their views on the circular economy. A special thank you to Claire Lea, our project manager, for her calm professionalism and cheerful friendliness throughout. We thank Matthew Shobbrook, Aimée Crickmore and their teams at Routledge for their support and patience regarding the book. We offer our appreciation too to the International Sustainable Development Research Society, which was the context in which this network was created, expanded and nurtured, as well as for accepting our contribution to this book series. The support and forbearance of family is also much appreciated. This has been a long road, one which started back in 2016. DOI: 10.4324/9781003295631-1 This chapter has been made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. 1 INTRODUCTION Exploring the sustainability implications ofacircular economy Pauline Deutz, Walter J.V. Vermeulen, Rupert J. Baumgartner, Tomás B. Ramos and Andrea Raggi 1.1 Introduction Since the passage of the European Union’s (EU) Circular Economy Action Plan in 2015, the concept of a circular economy (CE) has taken hold in an extraordinary way as a policy for resource management (with some social expectations) and in a truly phenomenal way as an object for academic research. Since 2018, the Cresting project (Circular Economy: Sustainability Implications and Guiding Progress) has been researching the progress of the CE in a range of settings, as well as looking at the wider effects and developing strategies and practices for implementation thereof. The uptake of the field rather underscores the need to devote some critical energy to considering the implications of what is happening, or what it is hoped may be happening – a challenge that others have also taken up during this time. The same time period has also seen a global pandemic, wars and an extraordinary uptick in the number of people taking the search for sustainability into their own hands rather than waiting for it to come to them. Climate change has reached a point of influencing weather patterns on a scale difficult to miss, although ironically this has not consolidated public opinion in favour of action. Into this maelstrom we offer the present volume as a critical appraisal of the progress and potential of a concept that offers sustainability benefits (e.g. reductions in carbon emissions, resource security, economic competitiveness, job creation). Members of the project team have been productive with their contributions to academic publications and policy recommendations. The present volume draws on our body of interrelated work to identify and explore a bigger and more holistic picture of the reality of developing a CE, and the implications thereof, than can be accomplished through individual research studies that by necessity focus solely on a specific aspect. 2 P. Deutz, W. J. V. Vermeulen, R. J. Baumgartner et al. In this chapter, we outline our definitions of a CE and sustainability, provide a brief overview of their development and outline the project behind the research. We also provide a summary of the chapters that follow. 1.2 What is a circular economy? The meaning, or meanings, of a (or the) circular economy(ies) and its relationship(s) with actually existing implementation(s) was one of the major research questions for the project and will be a recurring theme throughout the book. We need to establish a common understanding, or ontology, of the topic of discussion, however, to decide what is it that we deem should be included in or relevant to the discussion. For this, we favour Geissdoerfer et al.’s (2017) definition of a 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’ (p. 757). This definition captures the intentions and practicalities of the policy approach which was established by the EU Action Plan. The terminology of loop closing is an analogy to nutrient cycling in biological ecosystems. A loop can be created by diverting some waste from disposal (e.g. landfill, incineration) back into production through a process of recycling. These loops can occur at different spatial and temporal scales – with shorter, slower loops being more favourable (assuming that less energy is needed, and other pollution avoided, to keep an item in use for longer than it would be take in order to collect, process and manufacture it into something else). Similarly, although the spatial element of CE activity is often overlooked, the local scale has been proposed by Stahel (2013), for example, as environmentally favourable and also offering potential benefits such as widely dispersed job creation. The strategies for loop closing prominently comprise the 10 Rs (Refuse, Reduce, Reuse/Resell, Repair, Refurbish, Remanufacture, Repurpose, Recycle materials, Recover energy, Re-mine) (Reike et al., 2018). These R strategies are a combination of activities that in some cases long pre-date environmental initiatives (such as Repair or Reuse), but are now enjoying a share of policy and public attention; they have increased in prominence as a result of environmental and economic drivers in recent decades (such as recycling, energy recovery and remanufacturing). Two important terms not directly included on the list are sharing and design. Design is a significant element in the CE as it signals a firm’s shift from the ‘end of pipe’ solutions (i.e. tidying up the environmental consequences of production and consumption). Rather, CE is about intentionally avoiding some of the associated environmental impacts. Sharing is a means to ‘refuse’ to purchase or a route for maximising the use of an item and brings a connotation of a different approach or opting out of consumerism – or possibly just changing its form (Hobson and Lynch, 2016). How far policymakers have grappled with the potential consequences of policies like the Right to Repair, and how the public might respond, remain uncertain. A resource-focused definition of a CE is neutral as regards the social outcomes of implementations thereof, which is largely reflected in the approach of the early Introduction 3 academic work responding to the European uptake of the CE (Kirchherr et al., 2017). However, with the rapid growth of the field overall, by 2023 there had been a notable increase in understandings of CE incorporating an expectation of, or aspiration for, social benefits (Kirchherr et al., 2023). Desirable as they may be, we are not starting out with the assumption that they would follow from the implementation of a CE, or indeed that they are necessarily the intention of, or understood by, those implementing a CE. Determining the social and economic distribution of benefits from environmental policies, even historic ones, is not easy; it cannot be assumed that any benefits will be evenly distributed either socially (e.g. Jaffe, 1995; Fullerton, 2011) or geographically. The spatial distribution of benefits is likely to favour some places more than others; new areas of environmental investment introduce new aspects to competition between places, subject to the constraints of capitalism (Deutz, 2014) including the influences of market-oriented relationships (Siderius and Zink, 2022). Who might benefit from a CE (both socially and spatially) is very much an empirical question for the research – as, furthermore, is the question of who is doing the implementing (of what exactly)? We also consider the relationship(s) between theoretical, aspirational and policy definitions and the reality of implementations emerging. In research terms many pre-existing fields of endeavour have been incorporated within the CE (e.g. Lieder and Rashid, 2016). Prominent among those are industrial ecology, which itself is a broad term incorporating industrial symbiosis, ecodesign, dematerialisation and approaches such as life cycle thinking. These fields all had their own range of approaches incorporating more technical, modelling or social science research such as regional development or social network analysis (see Deutz and Ioppolo, 2015). Other fields of research re-energised by the CE include sustainable business models and considerations of corporate social responsibility, supply chain management, environmental (including waste) governance and sustainability appraisals. Most members of the team initiating the Cresting project were veterans of earlier studies relevant to the field, with the already multidisciplinary team widened to include others with backgrounds relevant to emerging issues (such as the urban context or CE options drawing on ‘alternative’ economic approaches). This points to the key question regarding the idea of the CE which was driving our project. To what extent, and under what circumstances, can the CE contribute to sustainability? 1.3 Sustainability and sustainable development Our approach to the CE is that its value lies in it being a means to the end of sustainability. Being circular in some respect is not desirable if, for example, more emissions, or abusive employment practices, are generated by a process of recovery than would have been needed to make an alternative. This raises many uncertainties, of course, not least around the geographies of production and consumption. 10 P. Deutz, W. J. V. Vermeulen, R. J. Baumgartner et al. Hull, UK, and the Port of Strasbourg, France. The policy discussion included an international multi-stakeholder study of extended producer responsibility implementation. It considered both how to drive compliance beyond ‘end of pipe’ approaches and to address the implications of policies beyond their geographic jurisdiction. FIGURE 1.1 Organisations and the circular economy Source: Digital recorder: Stéphanie Heckman, www.stephanieheckman.com, 15 December 2021. FIGURE 1.2 Place and policy in a circular economy Source: Digital recorder: Stéphanie Heckman, www.stephanieheckman.com, 15 December 2021. Introduction 11 References Bishop, G., Styles, D. and Lens, P.N. (2020) Recycling of European plastic is a pathway for plastic debris in the ocean. Environment International, 142: 105893. doi:10.1016/j. envint.2020.105893 Bolis, I., Morioka, S.N. and Sznelwar, L.I. (2014) When sustainable development risks losing its meaning: Delimiting the concept with a comprehensive literature review and a conceptual model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 83: 7–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2014.06.041 Brandt, W. (1981) North–South: A Programme for Survival: Report of the Independent Commission on International Development Issues, London: Pan. Cecchin, A., Salomone, R., Deutz, P. Raggi, A. and Cutaia L. (2021) What is in a name? The rising star of the circular economy as a resource-related concept for sustainable development. Circular Economy and Sustainability, 1(1): 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s43615-021-00021-4 Deutz P. (2014) A class-based analysis of sustainable development: Developing a radical perspective on environmental justice. Sustainable Development, 22: 243–252. http:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.1528/pdf (published online February 2012). Deutz, P. and Ioppolo, G. (2015) From theory to practice: Enhancing the potential policy impact of industrial ecology. Sustainability, 7: 2259–2273. doi:10.3390/su7022259 (open access at http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/2/2259) Deutz, P., Lyons, D. and Jun, B. (eds) (2015) International Perspective on Industrial Ecology. Cheltenham and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. http://www.e-elgar.com/shop/ international-perspectives-on-industrial-ecology Dicken, P. (2011) Global Shift: Mapping the Changing Contours of the World (6th edn). London: SAGE. European Commission (2015) Closing the Loop: An EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy. Brussels: European Commission, p. 614. Fullerton D. (2011) Six distributional effects of environmental policy. Risk Analysis, 31: 923–929. Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N.M.P. and Hultink, E.J. (2017) The Circular Economy: A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143: 757–768. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048 Graff, H.J. (2015) Undisciplining Knowledge: Interdisciplinarity in the Twentieth Century. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hobson, K. and Lynch, N. (2016) Diversifying and de-growing the circular economy: Radical social transformation in a resource-scarce world. Futures, 82: 15–25. Jaffe, A.B., Peterson, S.R., Portney, P.R. and Stavins, R.N. (1995) Environmental regulation and the competitiveness of US manufacturing: What does the evidence tell us? Journal of Economic Literature, 33(1): 132–163. Kirchherr, J., Reike D. and Hekker, M. (2017) Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 127: 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005 Kirchherr, J., Nan-Hua, N.Y., Schulze-Spüntrup, F., Heerink, M.J. and Hartley, K. (2023) Conceptualizing the circular economy (revisited): An analysis of 221 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 194: 107001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec. 2023.107001 Lieder, M. and Rashid, A. (2015) Towards circular economy implementation: A comprehensive review in the context of manufacturing industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 115: 36–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.042 Murdoch, J. (1993) Sustainable rural development: Towards a research agenda. Geoforum, 24(3): 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7185(93)90018-D 12 P. Deutz, W. J. V. Vermeulen, R. J. Baumgartner et al. Reike, D., Vermeulen, W.J.V. and Witjes, S. (2018) The circular economy: New or refurbished as CE 3.0? Exploring controversies in the conceptualization of the circular economy through a focus on history and resource value retention options. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 135: 246–264. Schmidt, J.C. (2007) Towards a philosophy of interdisciplinarity. Poiesis Prax, 5: 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-007-0037-8 Schroeder, P., Anggraeni, K. and Weber, U. (2019) The relevance of circular economy practices to the Sustainable Development Goals. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23(1): 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12732 Siderius, T. and Zink, T (2022) Markets and the future of the circular economy. Circular Economy and Sustainability, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-022-00196-4 Sotiropoulou, I. and Deutz, P. (2022) Understanding the bioeconomy: A new sustainability economy in British and European public discourse. Bio-based and Applied Economics, 10(4): 283–304. https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-9534 Stahel, W.R. (2013) Policy for material efficiency: Sustainable taxation as a departure from the throwaway society. Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 371, 20110567. Thompson Klein, J. (2017) Typologies of interdisciplinarity: The boundary work of definition. In Frodeman, R. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity (2nd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198733522. 013.3 World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.4324/9781003295631-2 This chapter has been made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. 2 APPROACHES TO CIRCULAR ECONOMY RESEARCH Pauline Deutz, Sandra Caeiro, Erik Roos Lindgreen, Kaustubh Thapa, Anna M. Walker and Małgorzata Pusz 2.1 Introduction This book comprises a contribution to understanding the current state of progress towards circularity and the extent to which outcomes are indeed environmentally and socially sustainable. In this chapter we present the assumptions behind, and the approaches used in, our research both to enable readers to assess the findings presented in the following chapters, and as a guide for future circular economy (CE) research. For a CE to fulfil its potential, the principles of circularity need to be thoroughly engrained across society, involving new collaborations, different practices and forms of assessment, as will be shown in the following chapters (see also Cowan et al., 2023; Schultz et al., 2023). To support this progress, data are needed on products, processes, environmental/social impacts, costs, risks and behaviour relating to all types of companies and other organisations. Businesses of all sizes, public sector bodies and governmental agencies, non-governmental and non-profit organisations will need data to be able to relate to themselves and each other in order to progress collaboration. Attitudes of the public, consumers and citizens are likewise relevant. Some of those individuals and organisations (e.g. city administrations, local branches of companies or charities) will have a focus on particular places, while others will not. These groups will have very different interests, besides potentially wanting to prioritise different aspects of a CE (they might be trying to minimise costs, maximise growth, or provide, or indeed limit, public services). Sustainability challenges have been characterised as ‘wicked’ problems, i.e. they do not have a clear definition, nor are there any simple interventions or demonstrably right or wrong solutions – only those that are more or less preferable depending on one’s particular perspective (Brown et al., 2010). There are also 14 P. Deutz, S. Caeiro, E. R. Lindgreen et al. power discrepancies between organisations, i.e. they have different levels of ability to implement their plans and/or to influence others. Research cannot overcome different priorities or power dynamics but it can at least contribute to an informed compromise. When different organisations and individuals are discussing the CE, it is relevant to ask what they understand by that and include in the conversation what they recognise as being relevant information (or indeed assume to be relevant) on which to base decisions. Academics refer to these issues respectively as ‘ontology’ (what is relevant) and as ‘epistemology’ (how can I learn about it). There is, however, no one academic response. The answers to ‘what’ and ‘how’ vary considerably between different disciplines, many of which are already involved in CE-related research, while others are likely to become involved in it in future. In this chapter we are deliberately limiting the use of academic terminology, but the ideas contained herein are immensely important to ensure that debates on developing a CE, as well as the actual development thereof, are based on a sharable evidence base. Research fundamentally involves the collection, or generation, of data to address specific questions. In social science research the intention is to study the views and/or practices of social actors and other stakeholders (individuals and organisations with a role and/or interest in the phenomenon of interest). Based on previous research experience related to CE, critical realism was selected as a suitable framework for Cresting project. Critical realism was formulated as a compromise between major schools of thought in social science (Bhaskar, 1975). Making no disciplinary assumptions, it is a suitable framework for interdisciplinary research (Dickens, 2003). By seeking the causal factors underlying observations, critical realism provides a foundation not only for understanding the present, but also for bringing about change (Sayer, 1982; Schoppek, 2021). Critical realism acknowledges that academia does not have a monopoly on the generation of knowledge and incorporating other knowledges can add significantly to the value and utility of findings (Sayer, 1982). An important choice within the research, therefore, is how to engage with the relevant social actors. One of the richly developed forms of incorporating non-academic views concerns transdisciplinary research, wherein stakeholders are involved in the co-design of the project and the co-creation of data (Witjes and Vermeulen, 2021). While critical realism does not proscribe methods for stakeholder engagement, the selection needs to be well considered to address any questions at hand that are justified by the circumstances. The involvement of non-academic partners was important to Cresting to underpin the relevance of the research. Different projects built on these connections in different ways; mostly not in a transdisciplinary manner in the strictest sense of co-designing the research, but in some cases by co-producing solutions to specific problems (whether product or policy design, assessment frameworks), or in other cases by collecting data to examine perspectives on a particular topic. In this chapter we first outline critical realism and explain its usefulness to CE research. Next, we outline the range of approaches to stakeholder engagement used Approaches to circular economy research 15 by the Cresting project. We then present the stakeholder engagement and methods of four projects. Finally we offer some conclusions. 2.2 Critical realism as a philosophy for CE research Working across and between different academic disciplines is important, if not essential, for CE research. This does not simply broaden the range of topics that can be knowledgeably addressed, but brings assumptions about the nature of reality (ontology) and what constitutes a valid approach to gaining knowledge relating to that reality (epistemology) (c.f. Schmidt, 2007). Critical realism was formulated as a compromise between major schools of thought in the social sciences which are otherwise difficult to reconcile (Archer et al., 1998). For a more specialised discussion of critical realism, readers should consult Sayer (1982 or 2000) and Archer et al. (1998). Previous applications of critical realism to CE-related research (e.g. Deutz and Gibbs, 2008; Deutz et al., 2013; Deutz, 2014) provide examples for the following section. Critical realism seeks to explain the causal mechanisms and relationships underlying observed events and patterns; it involves consideration of which factors might be necessary to a certain outcome, as well as those factors that might be helpful, hinderances or irrelevant contingent upon circumstances (Sayer, 1982). This may sound useful without being exceptional, but the underlying assumptions are distinguishing. While critical realism is attuned to the information and insights from empirical findings, it contends that they do not present a complete picture of reality (Bhaskar, 1975). Helpfully expressed as an ‘iceberg’ by Fletcher (2017), only a small part of reality is observable to empirical effort (Bhaskar’s ‘domain of the empirical’). Explanations drawing solely on that domain might appear to be ‘common sense’ but can be deeply flawed (Sayer, 1982). Below the proverbial waterline, however, are the actual and real levels. The domain of the actual comprises experiences as well as events, which are happening whether we are aware of them (let alone studying them) or not. Our knowledge is not perfect: research, and indeed experience of living, will have captured certain patterns and perspectives but we know there may be relevant information or ideas that are missing (perhaps reflecting a gap in the data collection, biases in perspectives of participants, or just the impossibility of capturing every salient point). Finally, there is the domain of the real, which includes mechanisms of change as well as events and experiences. Mechanisms (sometimes ‘causal mechanisms’) are the factors causing events to happen, whether or not those events are experienced (Schoppek, 2021). The mechanisms themselves are social products and can also be the objects of research (Fletcher, 2017). For example, the outcomes of attempted eco-industrial park projects in the US reflected local circumstances (e.g. access to funding for pollution clean-up for former military bases). At the real level, though, a strong influence on their success was the overall attractiveness of the location to companies, which were only marginally influenced in location decisions by environmental 16 P. Deutz, S. Caeiro, E. R. Lindgreen et al. considerations (Deutz and Gibbs, 2008). At different times, and in different places, the combination of mechanisms in operation and their relative significance can be highly variable; nonetheless, there is more in common between diverse examples than might appear at first sight. A distinction can be drawn between what is necessary to support an outcome and what is contingent on circumstances (Sayer, 2000). Recognition that circumstances that appear particular or unique (whether relating to a certain place, product or process) are nonetheless responding to wider influences enables critical realism to make connections and generalisations not open to other approaches, thereby emphasising its unique characteristics. Critical realism is therefore better suited to identifying approaches to CE both for specific circumstances and for wider relevance. A pertinent example of this is industrial symbiosis (a strategy for CE using residues from one entity as inputs for another) (Chertow, 2000). Definitions of industrial symbiosis can include an assumption of a local scale. However, the spatial scale of exchanges is better thought of as a contingent circumstance than a definitional characteristic, even though it matches some experiences of industrial symbiosis (Deutz, 2014). Proximity can help to achieve a synergy but openness to arrangements on a larger scale increases opportunity (Sterr and Ott, 2004). Additionally, discussions about industrial symbiosis refer somewhat interchangeably to waste and by-products. However, these terms have spatially variable legal definitions, which are also liable to change over time. We can infer that regulations will influence industrial symbiosis outcomes, but what happens in a certain place will be contingent on the prevailing regulations (which are national rather than local in scope) and other local circumstances. Furthermore, factors such as the price and availability of raw materials, which follow global constraints, may be a limiting factor at some times or an encouraging factor at others and will be influential to different degrees in different places according to the particular conditions (reflecting, for example, the mix of industry present locally or national incentives for different materials/technologies). A further significant aspect of critical realism is the combination of the realist (objective) ontology with a relative epistemology (acknowledging subjectivity) (Archer et al., 1998). The realist ontology relates to the assumption characteristic of the natural sciences (following a so-called positivist methodology) that there is a reality to study that is independent of the observer (not so trivial a point as might be imagined; see Collier, 1994). Positivist, or objectivist, approaches to the social sciences are seeking to maintain the natural science goal of objectivity in research (so that a different observer would achieve the same results). Researchers in this school would acknowledge that humans may be less consistent or predictable in their behaviour than other objects of research, but seek to minimise the impact of that human variability through the use of large data sets or surveys with enough respondents to be representative of a wider population (albeit that qualitative data might also be used in so far as objectivity can be asserted, or as a prelude to quantitative corroboration) (Crotty, 1998). Objectivists are looking for statistical Approaches to circular economy research 17 regularities and generalisations as a guide to explanations which ideally approach the generality of the ‘laws’ of natural science. This is in contrast to the spectrum of ‘constructionist’, or relational approaches (interpretivism, social constructionism, subjectivism) (Crotty, 1998) according to which our knowledge of ‘reality’ is socially constructed, i.e. irretrievably influenced by human perceptions and biases so that an objective assessment is simply not possible (in extreme approaches the idea of ‘reality’ itself might be questioned). Ethnographic research (in-depth studies of just a few subjects) would be the norm; little of interest around the human experience would be expected to come from trying to reduce complex perceptions/ behaviour to numbers. Given the individuality of experience and circumstances, generalisation is difficult and not of value. Such studies risk appearing hopelessly biased or ‘anecdotal’ to objectivists, potentially of some interest but not yielding insights easily extrapolatable into policy or practice. Critical realists concur with the principle that our knowledge of the world is filtered through experience and interpretation, i.e. that knowledge is socially constructed, can contain errors or be swayed by one’s theoretical or political assumptions (Schoppek, 2021). Importantly, though, some knowledge, or social explanations, are closer to the objective reality than others, and we return to this point below. There is no philosophical bias to different types of data for critical realist research. Types of data, ways of interpreting them and methods of data collection (intensive/extensive) are selected on the basis of their ability to best answer the questions at hand (Sayer, 1982). Critical realism grants that our knowledge of the social world is derived through the subjectivity of respondents, or the perspectives/ assumptions behind documents (images, texts, sounds) and is influenced by the researcher’s own positionality. Positivists might question the reliability of an interview as a source of data, as representing one person’s opinions. But interviewees are not seen as sources of facts, so much as they are valued for their interpretation of a situation. What a company representative says about eco-design, for example, is not necessarily a guide to best practice, but it does indicate what a company thinks about the field and what might be influencing their approach (Deutz et al., 2013). Quantitative data is useful to provide a description of circumstances and for indicating areas of interest for further analysis, which might be apparent trends/ correlations, or they might be the outliers or exceptions (Sayer, 1982). Even this kind of data comes with assumptions, though. To give a CE-related example, a life cycle assessment (LCA), is an objectivist approach – an effort to quantify (and necessarily simplify), a large volume of information as a decision-making tool to avoid unintended consequences from environmentally motivated changes. Broadening the scope to include other aspects more difficult to quantify (e.g. implications for experience or quality of life) is not just a technical challenge but a potentially contentious move to reducing the objectivity. A critical realist would concur that a LCA is not truly objective as decisions are required as to what to include and the desired data may not be available (Miettinen and Hämäläinen, 1997); there is no fundamental objection to incorporating explicitly subjective criteria which might 18 P. Deutz, S. Caeiro, E. R. Lindgreen et al. contribute to a better understanding of potential impacts. Broadening of the LCA methodology to incorporate social and economic aspects may increase the subjectivities involved. One might also question who has the decision-making powers and what their priorities are. As mentioned above, while accepting the subjectivity of knowledge relating to society, critical realism’s adherence to both independent and layered reality distinguishes it from other subjective approaches. As noted, a critical realist approach lends itself to the identification of causal mechanisms which may be shared between different circumstances, despite differing contingent outcomes. The independent reality further implies that while there may be many interpretations of observations and experiences, some will more closely match the objective reality than others (Sayer, 1982). The advantage of this is that research can build understanding and explanations of the present that provide a foundation for planning change – this does not preclude differences of opinion, or politically motivated preferences, but concurs that there is a reality that we can strive to both explain and change. This is as opposed to facing a range of seemingly disconnected circumstances each of which might have many interpretations and potentially a view that comparing and choosing are not even reasonable steps to take. The critical realist can try to disentangle contrasting views to better explain what is producing observed patterns and relationships and arguably offer insight to the likely future success of different CE approaches (Schoppek, 2021). Critical realists refer to the ‘rational judgement’ alongside the realist ontology and relational epistemology (Archer et al., 1998). Progressing from the philosophical assumptions of critical realism to a specific approach to research involves making decisions. Methods may be selected to best address the questions to be asked, but framing the questions involves defining some aspect of reality for study. The archetypal laboratory scientist can construct controlled experiments to isolate the effects of specific variables within systems designed and controlled to be closed. That is, the components of the system can be precisely identified, their impacts on each other isolated and studied. Depending on the nature of the system, there may be external effects, but these are considered distinct from the system itself. Social systems, however, are not closed; the definition of a system is arbitrary. So, for example, the global-level influences on industrial symbiosis mentioned above are not external to local conditions. They are operating on a different spatial scale to other mechanisms but are part of the same reality. Therefore, while a ‘system’, or case study (which could be a process, or product, or policy, or place, or organisation, or scale, or a CE strategy – or a possible combination of all of these), needs to be defined to establish the empirical scope of the research, it must be remembered that the case study boundaries are strictly conceptual – they do not apply at the actual or real levels. The choice of case study, however, will influence what is observed, casting other aspects to the ‘actual’ (happening but not experienced) level and influencing the ability to discern causal mechanism at the real level (Ollman, 2003). In this way, for example, a Approaches to circular economy research 19 focus on a specific spatial scale (e.g. regional, national) may give an undue significance to that scale in the interpretations (Jessop et al., 2008). To take the argument one stage further, critical realism is concerned with the relationships between ‘objects’ of whatever kind (Sayer, 1982; Collier, 1994). What happens in one place is not independent of what happens elsewhere (Pierce et al., 2011). For example, the development of environmental industries in Europe from 2022 cannot be understood without considering the influence of the US Inflation Reduction Act which creates financial incentives for environmental technology companies to (re)locate in the US; consumers imply producers, and vice versa; a given strategy for the CE is defined as an alternative to disposal and is only viable if certain conditions are in place, which are influenced by multiple relationships that can be global in scale. Of course, everything cannot be studied all at once, especially on the 3–4-year timescale of, for example, a PhD. The task is to justify the choice and be aware of the influences and relationships extending beyond the case study. Finally, as the objects of study for social science are people and organisations comprising people and the relationships between them, there is a possibility (even probability) of a two-way exchange of knowledge between researcher and researched that may not be available to other fields (Sayer, 1982). Researchers can choose the level of engagement with their research objects, which might vary from a reliance on secondary data collected by others (e.g. provided to a regulatory or industry body) or publicly accessible documents, to a close relationship where the academic and the stakeholder(s) are working together to ‘co-create’ the data or even the design of the project itself (i.e. transdisciplinarity). These options are reviewed in the following section. 2.3 Stakeholder engagement Stakeholders can be defined as individuals or organisations which have a direct influence on the matter of interest (Freeman and Reed, 1983), and more inclusively can also include those who may be impacted by the matter even if they have no influence (Bryson et al., 2002). The expression ‘stakeholder’ comes from the management literature, where it is used from the point of view of how might this diverse group be managed to achieve a company’s objectives (e.g. Ackerman and Eden, 2011). Stakeholders for a CE transition would include a large and diverse group redesigning business practice, cooperation (or coercion) across supply chains; planning public infrastructure; collaboration in specific territories; policymakers seeking to influence behaviour and outcomes; organisations changing their own behaviour; the public modifying their behaviour either proactively or in response to available options). The list is reduced to a somewhat more manageable number through the choice of case study. The term ‘stakeholder’ has become a shorthand expression for the population of potential research participants for a social science study as the relevant collection of individuals and organisations whose perspectives are considered of interest (e.g. Ho et al., 2023). 26 P. Deutz, S. Caeiro, E. R. Lindgreen et al. Erik Roos Lindgreen CE measurement; sustainability measurement; private sector; LCA. Case study; survey and semi-structured interviews; expert panel survey and focus groups. CE businesses (end-users), CE measurement experts from academia and consultancies, businesses. Experts from academia and sustainability/ CE consultancies provided feedback to the proposed framework, end-users (CE businesses) validated the application in focus groups. Different interpretations of CE lead to a variety of understandings of what CE measurement should be; available impact assessment methods (such as LCA) are often considered as complex while simpler methods (CE metrics) do not capture an accurate estimation of all impacts. Anna Walker Understanding company approaches to CE as a guide to the design of assessment approaches; the Netherlands and Italy. Online survey, semi-structured interviews. Companies from CE networks, CE network coordinators in countries where collaborating researchers are based. Worked with network coordinators on questionnaire design; survey distributed by networks; online interviews carried out with volunteer companies from the survey. Circulated updates and articles. Response rate helped by engagement with networks – built up a connection with the coordinators and subsequently with the interviewees. Linguistic abilities of the team used to best advantage (Dutch, English and Italian). Katelin Opferkuch Development of a framework for corporate disclosure of circular CE. Online survey, semi-structured interviews, focus groups. Companies from CE networks. Stakeholders help to develop recommendations that support the integration of CE within corporate sustainability reports. Survey was not conducted in Taiwan and Portugal due to the COVID-19 pandemic and difficulties with contacting companies. TABLE 2.1 (Continued) Researcher Focus Methods Stakeholders Engagement Issues Approaches to circular economy research 27 be hijacked by the powerful parties to the research. The researcher needs to navigate these challenges fairly while balancing academic roles, being accountable to the research funder, and managing stakeholders’ expectations, all while constantly checking one’s biases in order to stay critical (Thapa et al., 2022a). Within Cresting, Thapa’s research (see Table 2.1 and section 2.4.1 below) employed a transdisciplinary approach. If research is not transdisciplinary, there is still a range of possible levels of stakeholder engagement. Different types of stakeholders allow different possibilities. At one extreme, governmental bodies and other interest groups produce copious documents that can be studied for a representation of their views without any direct contact with the authors. Large companies and business organisations can have a significant online presence which can be a useful guide to how they want to be seen. Quantitative data can be accessed from databases providing a number of respondents and/or a timeseries far beyond the practicalities of research defined by the duration (or budget) of for example a PhD (i.e. secondary data). Public documents and data sets yield information without the complexities of directly engaging with stakeholders, but can nonetheless provide rich insights from the analysis and comparison of interest to the stakeholders as well as the researchers (Calisto Friant, 2021, 2023; Newsholme et al., 2022; Opferkuch et al., 2022; see Chapter 3 in particular and also Chapters 5 and 6 in this volume), and can be a guide to subsequent primary data collection. Some types of stakeholders have a much smaller digital footprint, so the researcher will need to collect the data directly (i.e. primary data) to capture their views and experience. In any case, collecting primary data allows the researcher to customise the research questions and to solicit opinions from stakeholders who may be happier to share anonymously than they are to report in public documents (e.g. why certain actions were undertaken, what were the challenges, what might they have tried that was not successful). Most Cresting ESRs used a combination of methods including interviews (primarily semi-structured) as a data source (Table 2.1). Several researchers additionally, or alternatively, used a form of workshop or focus group as a means to either co-creating data or testing CE assessment of action on potential users (Table 2.1 and discussed below). In all these approaches there is a direct meeting of researcher and research participant (in some cases online because of public health restrictions). An intermediate level of engagement comes with questionnaire surveys, where individual respondents are aware of the research but generally are not in direct communication with the researchers. In some cases, partners facilitated the distribution of online surveys e.g. to governmental colleagues or, at the other end of the power scale, to members of the public. Surveys can be a gateway to a closer level of communication, e.g. with the possibility to volunteer to be interviewed or to receive follow-up information. The COVID-19 pandemic had notable effect on the research. The governmentenforced lockdowns in 2020–2021 considerably reduced engagement, especially face to face. Secondments and other participatory experiences were reduced along 28 P. Deutz, S. Caeiro, E. R. Lindgreen et al. with use of face-to-face workshops that could have been excellent occasions for personal network building for all involved. Conversely, the switch to online activities, especially for focus group activity, broadened participation allowing participation from different regions and locations. However, while large organisations (public and private sector) remained accessible for interviews, small organisations and individuals were more difficult to reach than might have been the case in person. This does impact on the balance of perspectives obtained. We try to make some allowance for the impact in our analysis, but equally we endeavour to avoid over-interpreting the minority perspectives obtained. The following section provides an insight to the methods and stakeholder engagement of four projects. For full details of the methods employed by the various projects, publications and/or theses can be consulted. Table 2.1 provides a summary of all the approaches used across Cresting. Each chapter briefly indicates the methods used for the relevant work. 2.4 Examples of stakeholder engagement and data collection 2.4.1 The case for just and circular management of the EU’s exported e-waste in Nigeria This research aimed to understand the practices and challenges posed by used electronic and electric equipment (UEEE) imported to Nigeria from the European Union. ‘Reuse’ is a circular value retention option that offers major environmental benefits through minimal processing and extends the functionality and, thus, the durability and lifespan of products (Reike et al., 2018). The research aimed to assess the extent to which these benefits apply when items for reuse are being transferred to a different spatial context and to understand the environmental and social implications of such international-scale trade for reuse. Together with stakeholders, researchers explored this UEEE value chain and mapped actors and policies to get an overview of its governance. The study used a transdisciplinary approach to integrate interdisciplinary scientific knowledge with the knowledge of the societal actors to co-create solutions (Brown et al., 2010; Vermeulen and Witjes, 2020; Thapa et al., 2022a), which could be useful for navigating sustainability challenges (Brown et al., 2010; Vermeulen and Witjes, 2020; Thapa et al., 2022a), in addition to change-making (Gibbons et al., 1994; Leavy, 2011). Various transdisciplinary principles (Witjes and Vermeulen, 2021) and insights from the transboundary waste movement literature (Thapa et al., 2023a) guided the research. Using the emergent transdisciplinary process, we relied on hunches to adapt the research to contextual needs and challenges whenever necessary (van Breda and Swilling, 2018, Thapa et al., 2022a). Hunches are a culmination of researchers’ intuition and positionality, past knowledge and experiences, theoretical knowledge and embeddedness in the research context that guides the research forward – equivalent to retroduction in critical Approaches to circular economy research 29 realist terminology (see Fletcher, 2017 for an example). Researchers took on multiple roles as the need arose, including facilitator, coordinator, mediator, co-learner and researcher. Rather than imposing non-contextual solutions, this fairness-driven research aimed to foster a safe space for collaborative engagement, learning and collectively envisioning a circular and just future within the specific context. The research can be divided into four phases (see Figure 2.1). The vision and strategy phase, writing and securing a grant to start the Cresting project and hiring a PhD, enabled other phases. Phase 2 involved a month-long exploratory field visit to Nigeria in August 2019 to immerse in the research context and to identify stakeholders and build relationships. This consisted of interactions with government, businesses, formal and informal recycling centres and academic institutions in Ibadan, Abuja and Lagos and a short internship with the Basel Convention Coordinating Centre for the African Region responsible for e-waste management in West Africa. Phase 3 lasted from June 2020 to December 2022, during which time the COVID-19 pandemic rendered it impossible to return to Nigeria to undertake the originally planned fieldwork. Thus, we adapted the research online to engage with stakeholders. Three Delphi (Dalkey and Helmer, 1963) rounds (n = 24) and three Art of Hosting guided workshops (n = 16, 8, 5) facilitated multiple consultations and confirmation rounds. In addition to academic knowledge creation, this research phase was designed to foster consensus among stakeholders, aiming to generate both social and scientific legitimacy. Guided by these legitimacies, Phase 4 of the research involved taking the co-created knowledge and solutions to society for the generation of actionable measures. This took the form of (a) a petition co-written with stakeholders to recommend and demand necessary changes (Thapa et al., 2021), (b) a policy brief for policymakers advocating change (Thapa et al., 2022b), and (c) a YouTube video (Utrecht University, 2021), a press release (Utrecht University, 2022), and articles and interviews to inform a wider audience about the research, its findings and the implications thereof. Looking back, this fairness-driven transdisciplinary approach enabled us to address an unequal trade scenario where influential actors exploit structural inequalities. FIGURE 2.1 Stakeholder engagement in the research process to enable team building and problem exploration, system understanding and co-creation of solutions, and application of knowledge Source: Figure 1 in Thapa et al. (2023b: 35) used under CC 4.0. 30 P. Deutz, S. Caeiro, E. R. Lindgreen et al. In this case, Nigeria’s reliance on UEEE imports for digitalisation results in the externalisation of toxic e-waste from the Global North to a less equal country already struggling with domestic waste management. Despite European producers being responsible for their waste through Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policy, about one-third of all EU-shipped UEEE is e-waste in disguise, and the rest becomes e-waste after a relatively short lifespan, disproportionately affecting poor and marginalised workers in the informal waste sector and causing socio-ecological harm in Nigeria. In this context, transdisciplinary research enabled us to integrate interdisciplinary perspectives of justice and equity into the CE transition research through facilitated collaboration with various value chain stakeholders globally for changemaking, and thereby being guided by local social, cultural, economic and political contexts. This contextual and nuanced understanding with scientific and social legitimacy guided the co-creation of recommendations such as ensuring that the EU exclusively trades functional and durable UEEE; integrating circular opportunities like repair, reuse and refurbishment across the value chain; holding European producers accountable for their UEEE exports through circular and ethical policy, as discussed in Ultimate Producer Responsibility (UPR); and incorporating consideration for global socio-ecological impacts of the EU’s circular economy transition in discourse, policies and practices. UPR and its aspects are incorporated in university lectures, UN reports, politicians’ and policymakers’ discussions, and government and non-governmental actors’ programmes. Without the transdisciplinary ethos which emphasises the societal impact of academic research, it is likely that the research output would be limited to the thesis chapter and academic publications. Implementation, however, requires uptake by the Global North parties at least implicitly benefiting from the current arrangements. Relationship building including trust is fundamental to engagement with stakeholders for co-creation. In our case, we had to navigate different cultural and sociopolitical contexts first. For this, we partnered with the University of Ibadan in Nigeria for the research collaboration, which hosted us and helped us to build legitimacy and trust. Adapting the research online enabled wider participation and flexibility. However, the embeddedness of the researcher in the research context was virtual, which compromised enabling qualities for transdisciplinary research like trust building and using abductive reasoning. The researchers consider in-person month-long field visits essential for the co-created solutions (see Thapa et al., 2023) and doubt that the research would be rich and socially legitimate without the relationship built during the month-long field visit. The output could have been more robust if some of the stakeholders were in the informal sector, to whom some of European waste management responsibilities are shifted unfairly. Even with an explicit focus on fairness, our research failed to incorporate the marginalised informal sector. Since most of the research work was adapted online during the COVID-19 pandemic, it posed a challenge to incorporate informal sector workers, who have limited access to technology. Without a physical presence, building relationships and trust online seemed impossible. Even though some stakeholders who closely worked with the Approaches to circular economy research 31 informal sector represented their voices, the research lacked their active participation. See Chapter 6 for further consideration of the findings from this research. For the benefit of fellow transdisciplinary researchers, we outline six interconnected challenges and lessons learned from this research. These encompass building trust, adapting to the research process, navigating institutional and academic epistemic cultures, balancing the researcher’s role, and monitoring progress and legitimacy (Thapa et al. 2022a). 2.4.2 The case of Dutch and Italian companies from circular networks A major task of the Cresting project was establishing and selecting the most suitable assessment procedures for circular inter-firm networks. Therefore, a literature review of the available approaches was conducted first (Walker et al., 2021c), featuring assessment approaches that were developed in the fields of circular supply chain management and industrial ecology, due to the conceptual proximity of the fields. In parallel, a survey was developed to capture the assessment approaches of companies in CE networks in Italy and the Netherlands. The aim was thereby to juxtapose academic propositions with actual practice. This research has a normative motivation which is to facilitate the assessment processes in companies. Companies therefore had the role not only of providing the information to help to develop the assessment process, but also to understand how they would approach using it. As part of this research process, companies were surveyed for their understanding of CE and its relationship to sustainability, which provides a more general insight to their attitudes and constraints that can be useful to contribute to our understanding of the causal mechanisms influencing them (i.e. an analytical goal alongside the normative one). This level and form of stakeholder engagement is not a transdisciplinary approach as there was no joint setting of questions or analysis (Vermeulen and Witjes, 2021), albeit that such engagement can be a useful preliminary to a more collaborative phase of research. When interacting with companies, special attention was attributed to the style of communication (bi-directional or unidirectional/formal and informal) as proposed by Jolibert and Wesselink (2012). Below, the stakeholders as well as the ways of interacting with them are presented. The research combined both quantitative and qualitative approaches: a semiquantitative survey and semi-structured interviews. The questionnaire survey gauged how companies perceive the relationship between CE and sustainability; how they assessed these two concepts in their operations and products; and what barriers and drivers to CE they observed. Purposive sampling was used to identify companies actively engaged with CE practices in Italy and the Netherlands (Hibberts et al., 2012). Thus, only companies that were members of existing national and international CE networks were included, as it was assumed that these companies engaged with CE. Web-based surveys distributed via pre-defined lists have been shown to have the highest respondent rates, as following up with reminders is facilitated and invitations can be personalised (Lozar Manfreda et al., 32 P. Deutz, S. Caeiro, E. R. Lindgreen et al. 2008). Drawing on the language capabilities of the team, the survey was delivered in English, Italian and Dutch through the online survey tool SurveyMonkey (2021), with personalised email invitations and was open for three months in 2019. To distribute the survey, contact was established with the coordinators of the CE networks. A total of 155 valid responses were received, a response rate of 19%. Certain features were added to make the online survey more accessible: an official letter of invitation, signed by two professors, and a brief introduction, structured in short paragraphs, underlining the main aims of the survey, the information required from the respondents as well as data confidentiality, complemented with a data privacy form (Manzo and Burke, 2012). In keeping with the ethical guidelines that Cresting followed, respondents could skip any questions that they did not wish to answer, which furthermore reduced the chances of people pre-emptively abandoning the survey (ibid.). It is likely that the overall and individual question response rates were supported by the relevance of the survey to the target group (Albaum and Smith, 2012); automatised reminders sent two weeks later also elicited further responses. At the end of the survey, respondents had the option to stay informed about the results of the research (i.e. including insights from their business peers) which probably provided a further incentive for participation (Andrews et al., 2003), as well as comprising a step towards direct engagement between the stakeholders and the researchers. The qualitative research comprised interviews with survey respondents who volunteered via the survey. This phase of the research provided insight to the survey responses, which helped to identify the underlying reasons for responses (Flick, 2009). It was important to understand how companies perceived the relationship between CE and sustainability, how they assessed these two concepts in their operations and products, and what barriers to and drivers of CE they observed. The interview sample (n = 43) consisted of a subset of the survey respondents, i.e. all those who, at the end of the survey, opted in for an interview. These interviews were conducted during a two-month period in 2020 through video calls. Drawing on the language strengths of the research team, interviews were held in English, Dutch and Italian. Loubere’s (2017) Systematic and Reflexive Interviewing and Reporting method was therefore applied. This method requires scholars to hold frequent meetings to discuss the findings and impressions of the individual interviews, instead of writing and analysing full transcripts. To avoid interviewerrelated errors, the interview recordings were then revisited, and the notes revised, if necessary, and translated into English. Thereafter, the notes were jointly analysed and coded inductively, while quotes which encapsulated the major themes emerging were selected. These ad verbatim quotes were then verified with the interviewees, creating another point of interaction through email. This research process provides a good example of two-way exchange with research subjects (Sayer, 1982) The survey provided the pretext for the researchers to get in contact with CE network coordinators as well as their members, building relationships through preliminary meetings and offering the survey respondents updates on the progress of the research. During the interviews researchers Approaches to circular economy research 33 were able to form closer relationships with the companies. Many companies were interested in the final research results and reiterated their wish to stay informed. Therefore, the survey has established a communication channel to directly provide the companies with updates on CE and sustainability assessment research. Some respondents have also become personal contacts on LinkedIn. They are informed periodically when a new research output becomes available, such as an interim survey report, a blogpost on CE companies and COVID-19, as well as scientific articles (Roos Lindgreen et al., 2022; Walker et al., 2021b, 2021a). This research has also enlarged the pool of potential case study companies for the next research steps or members of focus groups as discussed in the following section. Chapter 4 in this volume includes a discussion of the results. 2.4.3 The case study CE assessment framework: SCEIA One of the Cresting projects (see Roos Lindgreen in Table 2.1) undertook to design and validate an assessment framework that guides companies with the measurement of their CE impacts. The basis of the Strategic Circular Economy Impact Assessment (SCEIA) framework was established through a critical literature review on the links between CE and sustainability, also utilising strategic decision-making literature. A set of five framework objectives were formulated, and appropriate methods selected that made it possible to fulfil these objectives. These five objectives were (1) to facilitate a holistic (multidimensional) assessment; (2) to prevent burden shifting to other parts of the supply chain or life cycle (life cycle perspective); (3) to provide flexibility in terms of (a) scale and (b) sustainability maturity; (4) to build on existing assessment tools such as LCA; and (5) to assist in strategic decision-making processes. For this stage of the research, a more active kind of stakeholder engagement was needed. A fundamental aspect of the design of the framework was, as is reflected in the framework’s objectives, to guarantee methodological soundness and practical feasibility. In other words, the challenge was to balance the tension between giving an accurate picture of sustainability impacts, while remaining usable for companies. We aimed to incorporate these principles through validating the preliminary framework through two forms of collecting qualitative data on its practical usefulness through dual triangulation, thereby enhancing its effectiveness (Cornwall and Jewkes, 1995): an expert panel survey and focus groups. A survey was designed to collect feedback from a specific group of knowledgeable participants: an expert panel of private sector and academic experts in CE assessment at corporate level (Blessing, 2002; Kravchenko et al., 2021). The four private sector experts had experience of designing and applying CE assessment frameworks for consultancy companies, while the seven university experts had been involved with building the scientific foundation of CE and sustainability assessment through the publication of scientific articles. The feedback process focused on the methodological set-up of the framework, and was structured according to the expert panel validation steps as described in 34 P. Deutz, S. Caeiro, E. R. Lindgreen et al. Beecham et al. (2005): (1) defining the objectives of the assessment framework; (2) designing the validation instrument, namely a written survey that presented the framework and allowed the participants to provide feedback; (3) composing a relevant expert panel; (4) providing the participants with the survey and an ‘information package’; (5) collecting and analysing the responses; (6) interpreting the expert survey results to gain an impression of the strengths and weaknesses of the framework, and adjusting the framework accordingly. The expert survey itself consisted of three parts. First, a covering letter explained the research objective of the project and the expected role of the expert survey participants. Then, the CE assessment framework itself was detailed in a PDF of the ‘information package’. The survey was presented in Microsoft Excel and sent by email. It contained open fields to collect expert’s comments or amendment proposals related to the proposed methodology for each of the application steps. The closing part of the survey was designed to collect feedback on the five objectives of the framework. All the collected feedback was evaluated, and suggestions were incorporated when indicated by a majority (>50%) of participants. In the second triangulation step, the revised framework was validated using feedback from its envisioned end-users through focus groups: a selection of five companies motivated to assess their CE impacts. They delivered their considerations to the different parts of the framework through various online focus group sessions (Nyumba et al., 2018). This method comprises a form of ‘consultative participation’, as practitioners are asked for their opinions and are consulted by researchers before interventions are made (Cornwall and Jewkes, 1995). The focus group approach was conceived as a strategy to bridge scientific research and ‘local’ knowledge, with local referring to companies that might be interested in applying the framework (Nyumba et al., 2018). The companies that were selected are both European (Italy and France) and African (Tanzania, Ghana). They consisted of a mix of limited and wide experience with CE and sustainability assessment. For practical reasons, the online focus groups were divided over different sessions, each with 1–2 participating companies. Before each focus group, 30to 60-minute interviews were held with each company to better understand their business context and assessment experience. The focus group consisted of the following parts: (1) 15-minute introduction and context; (2) 5-minute explanation of the objectives of the framework; (3) 20-minute outline of the framework’s application steps and test case example; (4) 15-minute clarification questions; (5) 15-minute discussion of the objectives of the framework; (6) discussion of the framework’s feasibility; and (7) round-up and conclusion. The sessions were recorded and viewed afterwards to complement the coding notes taken during the focus groups. The results were obtained by applying thematic analysis on two levels (Guest et al., 2014; Massey, 2011): using (i) articulated data and (ii) emergent data. The first level of data was acquired by asking the participants direct questions related to the framework. These questions focused on the framework’s clarity, its ability to respond to the set objectives, and the company’s Approaches to circular economy research 35 barriers to application of the framework – and of CE and sustainability assessment in general. The answers to these questions were addressed directly and then coded for analysis. The second level of data, emergent data, was acquired through analysing and interpreting the information provided by the companies ‘in between’ the direct questions that were asked – through, for example, stories and anecdotes. Emergent data therefore capture themes that are important to the participants, but that are invisible prior to the study (Massey, 2011). Chapter 4 in this volume includes further discussion of the framework. As stated above, the validation exercise was undertaken with companies which had at least limited (in some cases extensive) experience of assessment and a prior interest in CE. While that was important in refining the framework, further work is needed consider support for inexperienced companies and to produce a selfassessment process to assist companies in understanding which capabilities they need to develop further. 2.4.4 Contribution of social enterprises to the CE This project sought to examine the actual and potential contribution of social enterprises to CE activity using the city of Hull, UK, as the case study location (Pusz, 2023). 2.4.4.1 Social Network Analysis Social Network Analysis (SNA) seeks to identify and study, both qualitatively and quantitatively, complex relationships among organisations (Wasserman and Faust, 1994). Complementary to the critical realist approach, SNA can enable researchers better to investigate (through a combination of extensive and intensive methods) causal relationships and power structures underpinning networks for the CE, knowledge of which can result in more informed policymaking. Following Sayer (1982), extensive methods seek to identify patterns and properties (typically drawing on quantitative approaches, providing concise data on multiple examples). Intensive research seeks addresses ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions, for which qualitative methods are preferred as they provide greater in-depth insight from typically fewer examples than extensive research. Whereas extensive research enabled Pusz et al. (2023) to identify general patterns and characteristics of the mapped social circular enterprise ecosystem landscape in Hull, intensive research enabled them to identify causal relationships behind particular attributes of organisations in that ecosystem. Intensive research also enabled them to uncover the contingent conditions prompting those organisations to undertake activities aimed at fostering local development of the CE. SNA hence provides an additional route to engage stakeholders in research relating to the application of CE principles in particular organisations. In Pusz (2023) and Pusz et al. (2023) SNA involved a combination of semistructured interviews with a visual method of mapping inter-organisational flows 42 P. Deutz, S. Caeiro, E. R. Lindgreen et al. Newsholme, A., Deutz., P., Affolderbach, J. and Baumgartner, R.J. (2022) Negotiating stakeholder relationships in a regional circular economy: Discourse analysis of multi-scalar policies and company statements from the North of England. Circular Economy and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00143-9 Nyumba, T.O., Wilson, K., Derrick, C. J. and Mukherjee, N. (2018) The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9(1): 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X. 12860 Ollman. B. (2003) Dance of the Dialectic: Steps in Marx’s Method. Champaign: University of Illinois Press. Opferkuch, K., Caeiro, S., Salomone, R. and Ramos, T. (2022) Circular economy disclosure in corporate sustainability reports: The case of European companies in sustainability rankings. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 32, 436–456. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.spc.2022.05.003 Phillipson, J., Lowe, P., Proctor, A. and Ruto, E. (2012) Stakeholder engagement and knowledge exchange in environmental research. J. Environ. Manage., 95: 56–65. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.10.005 Pierce, J., Martin, D.G. and Murphy, M.T. (2011) Relational place-making: The networked politics of place. Trans. Inst. British Geographers, 36: 54–70. doi:10.1111/j.1475-5661. 2010.00411.x Polk, M. (2015. Transdisciplinary co-production: Designing and testing a transdisciplinary research framework for societal problem solving. Futures, ‘Advances in transdisciplinarity 2004-2014’, 65: 110–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.11.001 Pusz, M. (2023) Social Enterprise-led Local Development of the Circular Economy: Sociospatial Networks and Value-Impact Scaling Pathways (doctoral thesis). University of Hull. Pusz, M., Jonas, A.E.G. and Deutz, P. (2023) Knitting circular ties: Empowering networks for the social enterprise-led local development of an integrative circular economy. Circular Economy and Sustainability. Rana, P., Evans, S., Bocken, N. and Short, S. (2013) A value mapping tool for sustainable business modelling. Corporate Governance, 13(5), 482–497. Reike, D., Vermeulen, W.J. and Witjes, S. (2018) The circular economy: New or refurbished as CE 3.0? Exploring controversies in the conceptualization of the circular economy through a focus on history and resource value retention options. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 135: 246–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.027 Roos Lindgreen, E., Opferkuch, K., Walker, A.M., Salomone, R., Reyes, T., Raggi, A., Simboli, A., Vermeulen, W.J.V. and Caeiro, S. (2022) Exploring assessment practices of companies actively engaged with circular economy. Bus. Strategy Environ., 31: 1414–1438. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2962 Sayer, A. (1982) Methods in Social Science: A Realist Approach. London: Hutchinson University Libra. Sayer, A. (2000) Realism and Social Science. Sage: London. Schmidt, J.C. (2007) Towards a philosophy of interdisciplinarity. Poiesis Prax, 5: 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-007-0037-8 Schoppek, D.E. (2021) How do we research possible roads to alternative futures? Theoretical and methodological considerations. Journal of Critical Realism, 20(2): 146–158. doi:10.1080/14767430.2021.1894908 Schultz, F.C., Valentinov, V., Kirchherr, J., Reinhardt, R.J. and Pies, I. (2023) Stakeholder governance to facilitate collaboration for a systemic circular economy transition: A qualitative study in the European chemicals and plastics industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 1–20. doi:10.1002/bse.3592 Soja, E.W. (2010) Seeking Spatial Justice, Globalisation and Community, Vol. 16 (1st edn). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Approaches to circular economy research 43 Staicu, D. and Pop, O. (2018) Mapping the interactions between the stakeholders of the circular economy ecosystem applied to the textile and apparel sector in Romania. Management & Marketing, Challenges for the Knowledge Society, 13(4): 1190–1209. Sterr, T. and Ott, T. (2004) The industrial region as a promising unit for eco-industrial development: Reflections, practical experience and establishment of innovative instruments to support industrial ecology. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12: 947–965. Thapa, K., Vermeulen, W.J.V., Olayide, O., Deutz, P., Alex, O.O., Ohajinwa, C.M., Maphosa, V. and Okeke, C. (2021) Make European producers responsible for the management of their e-waste internationally. Avaaz (17 December). https://secure.avaaz. org/community_petitions/en/government_of_nigeria_and_european_comission_make_ european_producers_responsiblele_for_the_management_of_their_e_waste_internationally/? cvwFLsb&utm_source=sharetools&utm_medium=copy&utm_campaign=petition1372765-make_european_producers_responsiblele_for_the_management_of_their_e_ waste_internationally&utm_term=cvwFLsb%2Ben (accessed 9 August 2022) Thapa, K., Vermeulen, W.J.V. and Deutz, P. (2022a) Science with society: Challenges of early-stage researchers engaging with transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Sustainable Development, 30(6): 1562–1572. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ 10.1002/sd.2328 Thapa, K., Vermeulen, W.J.V., Olayide, O. and Deutz, P. (2022b) Policy Brief: Blueprint for Ultimate Producer Responsibility. Utrecht: Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5957809 Thapa, K., Vermeulen, W.J., Deutz, P. and Olayide, O. (2023a) Transboundary movement of waste review: From binary towards a contextual framing. Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy, 41(1): 52–67. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0734242x221105424 Thapa, K., Vermeulen, W.J., Deutz, P. and Olayide, O. (2023b) Ultimate Producer Responsibility for e-waste management: A proposal for just transition in the circular economy based on the case of used European electronic equipment exported to Nigeria. Business Strategy and Development, 6(1): 33–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.222 United Nations (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights. https://www.un.org/en/ about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights (accessed 9 August 2022) Utrecht University (Faculty of Geoscience) (2021) Three Inconvenient Truths about Circular Economy #3: Circular Economy Beyond Borders is Ignored [Video]. YouTube (10 December). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUfE_eUot68. Utrecht University (2022) Extended Producer Responsibility wrong approach to circular waste management: Scientists from Utrecht University and University of Ibadan call for Ultimate Producer Responsibility. PR Newswire (26 April). https://www.prnewswire. co.uk/news-releases/extended-producer-responsibility-wrong-approach-to-circularwaste-management-scientists-from-utrecht-university-and-university-of-ibadan-callfor-ultimate-producer-responsibility-856155509.html (accessed 9 August 2022) van Breda, J. and Swilling, M. (2018) The guiding logics and principles for designing emergent transdisciplinary research processes: Learning experiences and reflections from a transdisciplinary urban case study in Enkanini informal settlement, South Africa. Sustainability Science, 14(3): 823–841. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0606-x Vermeulen, W.J.V. and Witjes, S. (2021) History and mapping of transdisciplinary research on sustainable development issues: Dealing with complex problems in time of urgency. In M.M. Keitsch and S. Witjes (eds), Transdisciplinarity for Sustainability. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 6–26. Walker, A.M., Opferkuch, K., Roos Lindgreen, E., Raggi, A., Simboli, A., Vermeulen, W.J.V., Caeiro, S. and Salomone, R. (2021a) What is the relation between circular economy and sustainability? Answers from frontrunner companies engaged with circular economy practices. Circ. Econ. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00064-7 Walker, A.M., Opferkuch, K., Roos Lindgreen, E., Simboli, A., Vermeulen, W.J.V. and Raggi, A. (2021b) Assessing the social sustainability of circular economy practices: Industry 44 P. Deutz, S. Caeiro, E. R. Lindgreen et al. perspectives from Italy and the Netherlands. Sustain. Prod. Consum., 27: 831–844. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.01.030 Walker, A.M., Vermeulen, W.J.V., Simboli, A. and Raggi, A. (2021c) Sustainability assessment in circular inter-firm networks: An integrated framework of industrial ecology and circular supply chain management approaches. J. Clean. Prod., 286: 125457. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125457 Walsh, J.P. and Ungson, G.R. (1991) Organizational memory. Acad Manag Rev 16(1): 57–91. https://doi.org/10.2307/258607 Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (1994) Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Witjes, S. and Vermeulen, W.J.V. (2021) Transdisciplinarity for sustainability. In M.M. Keitsch and W.J.V. Vermeulen (eds), Transdisciplinary Research Approaches and Methodological Principles (1st edn). Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 27–49. DOI: 10.4324/9781003295631-3 This chapter has been made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. 3 NAVIGATING DIVERSE UNDERSTANDINGS OF ACIRCULARECONOMY Walter J.V. Vermeulen, Martin Calisto Friant, Kieran Campbell-Johnston and Natacha Klein 3.1 Introduction The meaning of the circular economy (CE) has recently become an important facet of the sustainability debate. It proposes a new economic model, in which material resources are circulated with various aims and intentions for those involved, including ecological balance, economic prosperity and social fairness. However, the CE concept is not a new one, as we will elaborate in section 2. Instead, the CE is to be understood as an evolutionary concept. Various authors have described at least three historical periods with specific interpretations of the concept (Blomsma and Brennan, 2017; Reike et al., 2018; Schöggl et al., 2020). The current framings of the CE build on various interrelated aspects of waste management and product policy over the past 30–40 years. These framings also vary in relation to their practical manifestation of the CE at the macro, micro and meso level (Ghisellini et al., 2016). Commonly a distinction is made between the macro-level CE, e.g. a city, province, region or nation, where we see zero waste programmes, municipal and national solid waste strategies, among others; the meso-level CE, e.g. the interplay between multiple firms in a defined geographical location or territory, often through industrial symbiosis exchanges, e.g. energy, waste and water in ecoindustrial parks; and the micro-level CE, with a focus on products, the producing companies and consumers, with topics like circular eco-design and cleaner production practices, cradle-to-cradle design, and consumer behaviours. One can ask whether this distinction is adequate or not; for example, where specifically do we put the global flows of waste and to-be-recycled materials and products from the global-scale metabolism? But the key point here is that an understanding of what the CE is depends on (i) where one looks in the complex socio-economic ecological system and (ii) which disciplinary perspective one takes (Reike et al., 2018). 46 W. J. V. Vermeulen, M. C. Friant, K. Campbell-Johnston et al. These are the key themes for this chapter (Chapter 6 in this volume addresses the relevance of places and in particular the complexities of scale drawing on interactions with a range of stakeholders). Efforts have been made to synthesise the views on the wide range of practices now considered to comprise the CE. In their review, Reike et al. (2018) combined the diverse practices from various related disciplines into the hierarchy of the 10 Rs (Refuse, Reduce, Reuse/Resell, Repair, Refurbish, Remanufacture, Repurpose, Recycle materials, Recover energy, Re-mine), ten strategies for potential action by producers and consumers (see Figure 3.1). Conceptualising the CE as comprising these diverse activities, which previously were seldom considered to be closely related, helps to progress the transition to a CE by acknowledging its roots. One of their main observations is that attention so far has been focused on mass material recycling, often in the form of downcycling (R7, R8), and that more attention on the shorter and slower loops is needed (R0, R1, R2, R3). We address this further below, and discuss the framework created for the Cresting project in section 3.2. The diversity in historical, contextual and ontological starting points in CE analysis further explains the extensive diversity in the definitions of a CE. According to Kirchherr et al. (2017, 2023), currently there are 221 definitions. One can say that the concept is confusing, vague and/or contested. This does not help companies and governments to take substantial steps in the right direction and to develop coherent strategies and practices (a similar problem exists with comparable concepts, such as sustainable development; see Vermeulen, 2018, p. 60). One of the most wellknown definitions of a CE stems from the context of advising the business world R0 = Refuse R1 = Reduce R2 = Resell, reuse R3 = Repair Short loops Long loops Hierarchy of CE options for consumers and business R0 R9: Middle-long loops R4 = Refurbish R5 = Remanufacture R6 = Re-purpose R7 = Recycle materials R8 = Recover energy R9 = Re-mine FIGURE 3.1 Hierarchy of value retention options: The 10 R’s Source: Reike et al. (2018). Navigating diverse understandings of a circular economy 47 (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013). This definition focuses on material cycles, emphasising the closing, slowing and narrowing of material and energy loops and the potential economic gains (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). Other definitions, often from academic communities, more explicitly connect the CE to sustainability, including economic, social and environmental considerations (Kirchherr et al., 2017; Korhonen et al., 2018; Leipold et al., 2023; Murray et al., 2015; Prieto-Sandoval et al., 2018). This connection between sustainable development and the CE has been examined widely, with researchers arguing that both concepts emphasise notions of intraand intergenerational equity as a consequence of environmental hazards (Genovese and Pansera, 2021; Padilla-Rivera et al., 2020; Thapa et al., 2023, 2024; Velenturf and Purnell, 2021). Views on both sustainable development and the CE emphasise the role of regulation and private actors as essential for driving change. But dominant CE discourses have focused on closing resource and material loops in value chains (R4–R9), at the risk of neglecting the broader goals of sustainable development. The benefits of mainstream CE approaches are framed in a narrative of economic and environmental ‘win-wins’, while sustainable development is inherently more holistic regarding its three social, environmental and macroeconomic pillars (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). Consequently, these approaches have been criticised for failing to explore the basic assumptions, values, societal structures, cultures and underlying worldviews that underpinned the discursive and practical manifestations that call themselves the CE (Korhonen et al., 2018). This has led others to focus on the social and institutional contexts that shape CE practices (Moreau et al., 2017). In this chapter, we present recent developments on understanding the CE in this broader context based on a discourse analysis of documents representing nationaland city-scale public and private sector perspectives. We also report on a global survey of public opinion on the CE. The discussion connects the CE discourse to broader sustainability issues and issues of social justice. 3.2 The four main views of the circular economy In the introduction to this chapter we claimed that the notion of the CE is not new. One can indeed state that for the large part of humanity’s presence on Earth we have lived in circular societies, where material and energy flows circulated sustainably, in harmony with the natural cycles of the Earth. It was only during the Industrial Revolution, and more intensely after the Second World War, that this balance was broken through the creation of growth-dependent economic structures and the increasing use of fossil fuels. Shortly after the end of the Second World War, scholars started to investigate the consequences of industrial capitalism on the Earth and its human and natural ecosystems. This is when the modern precursors to the CE concept emerged, with 48 W. J. V. Vermeulen, M. C. Friant, K. Campbell-Johnston et al. key publications such as Economy of Permanence (Kumarappa, 1945), The Limits to Growth (Meadows et al., 1972), Small is Beautiful (Schumacher, 1973), Postscarcity Anarchism (Bookchin, 1971) and Tools for Conviviality (Illich, 1973). Barry Commoner’s The Closing Circle (1971) is perhaps the first book in which the idea of a circle is used to illustrate a sustainable society, one where material and resource flows circulate in an environmentally sustainable and socially equitable way. Another key historical period for the development of the CE was the 1990s, especially with the emergence of the field of industrial ecology (Frosch and Gallopoulos, 1989). During this period new concepts were established, such as industrial symbiosis (Chertow, 2000), biomimicry (Benyus, 1998), product-service system (Goedkoop et al., 1999), reverse logistics (Rogers and Tibben-Lembke, 1998), and extended producer responsibility (Lindhqvist, 2000). This literature emerged at the same time as neoliberal economic thinking, therefore most of these concepts connected to market-driven approaches and gave little attention to key social justice and equity considerations. Nonetheless, they brought important insights into new technologies and innovations to recover industrial and household waste and to improve the environmental performance of products and services. During the 2000s many new CE concepts emerged, with a more holistic and socially inclusive approach to consumption and production such as the natural step (Robèrt, 2002), performance economy (Stahel, 2010), cradle to cradle (McDonough and Braungart, 2002), degrowth (Latouche, 2009), permacircular economy (Arnsperger and Bourg, 2017), symbiotic economy (Delannoy, 2017), simple living (Alexander, 2015), buen vivir (Gudynas and Acosta, 2011), ecological swaraj (Kothari et al., 2014) and doughnut economics (Raworth, 2017). Considering the above history and diversity, the CE can be best understood as an umbrella concept, which combines and embraces many key elements of sustainability thinking. To help navigate this plurality in CE thinking, Calisto Friant et al. (2020) developed a 2×2 typology of circularity discourses (see Table 3.1). This typology divides circularity discourses in two main criteria. First, it distinguishes segmented discourses, which focus on the technical and business components of circularity, from holistic discourses, which include social justice and political empowerment. Second, it divides optimistic and sceptical perspectives regarding the possibility of decoupling environmental degradation from economic growth (eco-economic decoupling). Different combinations of these two criteria lead to four main circularity discourse types: • Reformist Circular Society (RCS) (optimistic and holistic) discourses such as cradle to cradle (McDonough and Braungart, 2002), the blue economy (Pauli, 2010), natural capitalism (Hawken et al., 1999) and doughnut economics (Raworth, 2017), which seek to create an inclusive and sustainable circular future through a combination of innovative business models, social policies and technological breakthroughs. Navigating diverse understandings of a circular economy 49 TABLE 3.1 Circularity discourse typology Technological innovation and ecological collapse Approach to social, economic, environmental and governance considerations Holistic Segmented Optimist Reformist Circular Society (RCS) • Assumptions: eco-economic decoupling is possible and social justice and democracy is key for a circularity transition. • Goals: human prosperity and wellbeing within the biophysical boundaries of the Earth. • Means: Technological breakthroughs and social policies that benefit humanity and natural ecosystems. • Examples of concepts: natural capitalism, cradle to cradle, the performance economy, the natural step, the blue economy, regenerative design. • Proponents: International organisations, large foundations and some governments. Technocentric Circular Economy (TCE) • Assumptions: eco-economic decoupling is possible and social justice and democracy are not key for a circularity transition. • Goals: economic prosperity and development without negative environmental externalities. • Means: economic innovations, new business models and unprecedented breakthroughs in CE technologies. • Examples of concepts: industrial ecology, reverse logistics, biomimicry, industrial symbiosis, cleaner production, bioeconomy. • Proponents: corporations, some national and city governments, and international organisations. Sceptical Transformational Circular Society (TCS) • Assumptions: eco-economic decoupling is impossible and social justice and democracy are key for a circularity transition. • Goals: a world of conviviality and frugal abundance for all, while fairly distributing the biophysical resources of the Earth. • Means: complete reconfiguration of the current socio-political system and a shift away from productivist and anthropocentric worldviews. • Examples of concepts: conviviality, steady-state economics, permacircular economy, degrowth, social ecology, Buddhist economics, Buen vivir, Ubuntu. • Proponents: social movements, bottom-up circular initiatives and indigenous movements. Fortress Circular Economy (FCE) • Assumptions: eco-economic decoupling is impossible and social justice and democracy are not key for a circularity transition. • Goals: maintain geostrategic resource security in global conditions where widespread resource scarcity and human overpopulation cannot provide for all. • Means: innovative technologies and business models combined with rationalised resource use and migration and population controls. • Examples of concepts: the tragedy of the commons, the population bomb, overshoot, disaster capitalism, capitalist catastrophism. • Proponents: geostrategic think tanks and state policies. Source: adapted from Calisto Friant et al. (2020) under Creative Commons CC-BY license. 50 W. J. V. Vermeulen, M. C. Friant, K. Campbell-Johnston et al. • Technocentric Circular Economy (TCE) (optimistic and segmented) discourses such as cleaner production (Baas, 1995), reverse logistics (Rogers and TibbenLembke, 1998) and industrial ecology (Frosch and Gallopoulos, 1989), which seek to reconcile economic development with ecological sustainability through innovative business models and technologies. • Transformational Circular Society (TCS) (sceptical and holistic) discourses such as degrowth (Latouche, 2009), buen vivir (Gudynas and Acosta, 2011) and steady-state economics (Daly, 1977), which seek to re-localise, democratise and redistribute power, wealth and knowledge to create a sustainable post-capitalist future, in which humanity and nature coexist in mutual harmony. • Fortress Circular Economy (FCE) (sceptical and segmented) discourses such as the tragedy of the commons (Hardin, 1968), the population bomb (Ehrlich, 1968) and overshoot (Catton, 1980), which seek to ensure biophysical stability and geostrategic resource security through top-down migration control, technological innovations and economic rationalism. This typology has proved to be useful in analysing discourses on the CE in various fields (Arai et al., 2023; Melles, 2021a; Palm et al., 2022). 3.3 An analysis of the way the circular economy is perceived inspecific contexts In this section we present the main findings from various CE case studies to examine which circularity discourse types and value retention options (the 10 Rs) are prevalent in these contexts. In some studies the typology has been applied explicitly, while other studies can be reviewed retrospectively, identifying the dominant views of the actors in these studies. We applied this to various contexts, namely European and national governments, industry and the general public. 3.3.1 Circular economy perceptions in (inter)national contexts 3.3.1.1 The European Union We first discuss policies adopted by the European Union (EU). The EU has taken many actions on the CE since the implementation of its CE action plan in 2015 (European Commission, 2015). The Juncker Commission (2014–2019) enacted ten communications, seven directives and eight regulations on the CE, making the EU a global frontrunner on the topic. A review of the content and CE vision portrayed by these policies reveals that the Juncker Commission has a rather holistic discourse on the CE with some social elements in its language regarding a just, collaborative and inclusive circularity transition (Calisto Friant et al., 2021). However, its concrete CE policy measures, directives and regulations lack social components and instead focus on segmented technological solutions and resource efficiency. Navigating diverse understandings of a circular economy 51 There is thus a dichotomy between the EU’s discourse and actions on the CE. The CE discourse and actions of the EU are also characterised by a strong focus on decoupling economic growth from environmental degradation thanks to new CE technologies and innovations. The Juncker Commission’s discourse on the CE is thus clearly optimistic and holistic regarding growth, thereby falling in the RCS discourse type, while the EU’s actions are optimistic and segmented, which places them in the TCE discourse type. A second EU CE Action Plan was enacted in 2020 by the Von der Leyen Commission, as a key component of the European Green Deal (European Commission, 2020). The new action plan takes a more holistic and integrated approach than its predecessor, by including many biodiversity conservation, social justice, consumer empowerment and climate neutrality proposals. On the other hand, it remains strongly growth optimistic as it still seeks to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation and focuses strongly on generating greater competitiveness for EU businesses. Its vision and language thus seem to fit well with a RCS discourse type. However, so far very few CE-related directives and regulations have been implemented by the Von der Leyen Commission. Thus, it is too early to judge the actual policy direction taken by the new action plan. 3.3.1.2 The Netherlands The Netherlands is often seen an early mover in earlier versions of the CE, with the introduction of initiatives such as landfill prevention and recycling practices from the 1970s and the development of waste prevention programmes (Vermeulen, 2002) and extended producer responsibility policies in the 1990s (Vermeulen and Weterings, 1997). The Dutch national government adopted the term CE in 2016 and outlined a government-wide programme entitled ‘A Circular Economy: The Netherlands by 2050’ (Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment and Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2016). This strategy connected various topics to the necessity of a CE, linking it to reducing carbon dioxide emissions, reducing dependency on raw materials from other countries and the broader issue of a global increase in material consumption and, finally, the economic opportunities presented by a CE. The benefits have been displayed in terms of job creation, climate policy, and start-up opportunities for actors involved in CE activities. The Dutch CE approach prioritises five specific sectors: biomass and food; plastics; manufacturing; the construction sector; and consumer goods. An interim objective of a 50% reduction in the use of primary raw materials (minerals, fossil fuels and metals) by 2030 has been established. With this objective for the use of raw materials, the Netherlands will raise its ambitions to one of the highest levels of all countries. This policy is evaluated regularly. In the most recent assessment of material resource use, its effects and the transition focus, the Dutch Environment Assessment Agency observed that many CE activities focus on recycling, with little focus on socio-economic reform to make production and consumptions chains circular, and with limited attention 58 W. J. V. Vermeulen, M. C. Friant, K. Campbell-Johnston et al. reductions in humanity’s socio-ecological footprint in a socially fair and equitable manner (Zwiers et al., 2020). Efforts to continue increasing circular literacy are hugely important, considering the rising impacts of climate breakdown and biodiversity collapse caused by the over-consumption of planetary resources by the wealthiest inhabitants of the Earth (Chancel et al., 2022). More systemic, redistributive and post-growth circular visions are thus imperative to ensure the wellbeing of current and future generations and to prevent the collapse of the biosphere. Our findings suggest that more democratic deliberations about the CE and greater participation of citizens and scientists in the construction and implementation of CE policies could lead to more transformative actions than those that are currently being implemented. Indeed, pluralism and diversity in the CE debate is largely lacking and this is hampering a democratic and free discussion about the shape of the CE transition. 3.6 Conclusions In this chapter we examined discourses about the meaning of the concept of the CE. The CE has been conceptualised in academic and policy discourses, at both the national and international level. These discourses initially focused on the material resource inputs of products, services, regions and businesses. More recently, they have expanded to pay more attention to the wider contexts in which these resource use processes take place (Campbell-Johnston et al., 2020) and broader societal discussions concerning justice, equity and fairness (Calisto Friant et al., 2020). Capturing the core points of agreement and disagreement on the meaning of a CE requires a systematic analysis of the academic and public debate. Various frameworks have been developed for this. In this chapter we have taken the framework developed by Calisto Friant et al. as a starting point and looked to what extent the four discourse types could be recognised in other research undertaken by the Cresting project. We see a dominance of the TCE views and to a lesser extent of the RCS approach. In section 3.1 we observed that this was particularly the case for the EU’s Juncker Commission, showing a dominance of the TCE views while the more recent von der Leyen Commission includes more elements and policies of the RCS vision. We also saw this mixture in the recent Dutch policies and practices applying extended producer responsibility. In section 3.2 research on perceptions among the Portuguese public sector also showed a rather technocentric view of the CE, with smaller elements of a RCS. Reviewing some of the studies in industry in section 3.4, the analysis showed for this actor group a stronger dominance of the TCE views in discourses and practices concerning plastic packaging and the recycling of passenger car tyres. Another vital source of information has been a global survey of public opinion. The results of this are more nuanced. The dominance of the TCE view was not so evident, as people showed a slight preference for socially inclusive discourses such as to TCS and RCS approaches compared to technocentric discourses. This Navigating diverse understandings of a circular economy 59 suggests that the views of individuals are somewhat out of step with the preferences of policymakers. Our research work shows that the typology of CE discourses is very helpful when analysing and comparing the CE discourses in policy and in economic practices. It has enabled us to identify the dominance of a TCE view in policy and market initiatives. We also see social justice considerations discussed through RCS discourses, but they are usually not thoroughly implemented and followed through (as in the EU, Amsterdam and Glasgow). Moreover, there is a clear focus on growth-promoting approaches to the CE such as TCE and RCS discourses. This reliance on growth can be problematic, and it has been posited that decoupling economic growth from environmental degradation is realistic and would occur on a scale sufficient to reverse the strong ecological decay (Haberl et al., 2020; Wiedenhofer et al., 2020). One of the key challenges is whether and how CE initiatives will be more practically connected to the sustainable development agenda with its clear social fairness and shared prosperity aspirations, (expressed in the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals), as many scholars have suggested, or if it will remain a narrower, mainly economic and environmental concept. In many ways, the contested and diverse nature of CE discourses means that they can easily be instrumentalised by public and private actors to mean whatever fits their social, political and economic goals. This is why further research on CE practices and policy actions in the private and public sphere is important to unmask the real sustainability implications of different CE discourses and practices. In this chapter we presented the typology of CE discourses which has proved to be very suitable for ex post as well as ex ante critical evaluations of CE policies at all levels and can guide scholars navigating the discourses around the concept of a CE. References Alexander, S. (2015) Sufficiency Economy: Enough, for Everyone, Forever. Simplicity Institute Publishing. Arai, R., Calisto Friant, M. and Vermeulen, W.J.V. (2023) The Japanese circular economy and sound material-cycle society policies: Discourse and policy analysis. Circular Economy and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-023-00298-7 Arnsperger, C. and Bourg, D. (2017) Écologie intégrale: Pour une société permacirculaire. PUF. Baas, L.W. (1995) Cleaner production: Beyond projects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 3(1–2): 55–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-6526(95)00042-D Benyus, J.M. (1998) Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature. Quill. Berry, B., Farber, B., Rios, F.C., Haedicke, M.A., Chakraborty, S., Lowden, S.S., Bilec, M.M. and Isenhour, C. (2021) Just by design: Exploring justice as a multidimensional concept in US circular economy discourse. Local Environment, 0(0): 1–17. https://doi. org/10.1080/13549839.2021.1994535 Blomsma, F. and Brennan, G. (2017) The emergence of circular economy: A new framing around prolonging resource productivity. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(3): 603–614. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12603 60 W. J. V. Vermeulen, M. C. Friant, K. Campbell-Johnston et al. Bookchin, M. (1971). Post-Scarcity Anarchism. Black Rose Books. Calisto Friant, M., Lakerveld, D., Vermeulen, W.J.V. and Salomone, R. (2022a) Correction: Calisto Friant et al. Transition to a Sustainable Circular Plastics Economy in the Netherlands: Discourse and Policy Analysis. Sustainability 2022, 14, 190. Sustainability, 14(21): 14326. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114326 Calisto Friant, M., Lakerveld, D., Vermeulen, W. and Salomone, R. (2022b) Transition to a sustainable circular plastics economy in the Netherlands: Discourse and policy analysis. Sustainability, 14(1): 190. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010190 Calisto Friant, M., W.J.V. Vermeulen, L. Campos Bernal, S. Bauer (2022c) How do you imagine a Circular Economy? Survey Report, Utrecht University & Revolve Circular. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7308057 Calisto Friant, M., Reid, K., Boesler, P., Vermeulen, W.J.V. and Salomone, R. (2023) Sustainable circular cities? Analysing urban circular economy policies in Amsterdam, Glasgow, and Copenhagen. Local Environment, 28(10): 1331–1369. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13549839.2023.2206643 Calisto Friant, M., Vermeulen, W.J.V. and Salomone, R. (2020) A typology of circular economy discourses: Navigating the diverse visions of a contested paradigm. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 161(May): 104917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec. 2020.104917 Calisto Friant, M., Vermeulen, W.J.V. and Salomone, R. (2021) Analysing European Union circular economy policies: Words versus actions. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27(337): 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.11.001 Campbell-Johnston, K., Calisto Friant, M., Thapa, K., Lakerveld, D. and Vermeulen, W.J.V. (2020) How circular is your tyre: Experiences with extended producer responsibility from a circular economy perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 270: 122042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122042 Campbell-Johnston, K., de Munck, M., Vermeulen, W.J.V. and Backes, C. (2021) Future perspectives on the role of extended producer responsibility within a circular economy: A Delphi study using the case of the Netherlands. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(8): 4054–4067. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2856 Campbell-Johnston, K., Vermeulen, W.J.V., Reike, D. and Brullot, S. (2020) The circular economy and cascading: Towards a framework. Resources, Conservation & Recycling: X, 7(March), 100038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcrx.2020.100038 Catton, W. R. (1980) Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change. University of Illinois Press. Chancel, L., Piketty, T., Saez, E. and Zucman, G. (2022) World Inequality Report 2022. World Inequality Lab. Chertow, M.R. (2000) Industrial symbiosis: Literature and taxonomy. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 25(1): 313–337. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy. 25.1.313 Commoner, B. (1971) The Closing Circle: Nature, Man, and Technology. Bantam Books. Daly, H. E. (1977) Steady-State Economics. W.H. Freeman. Delannoy, I. (2017) L’économie symbiotique: Régénérer la planète, l’économie et la société. Actes Sud. Ehrlich, P.R. (1968) The population bomb. In The Future of Nature: Documents of Global Change. Ballantine Books. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013) Towards the circular economy. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 1, 1–96. https://doi.org/10.1162/108819806775545321 European Commission (2015) Closing the loop: An EU action plan for the circular economy. In European Commission: Vol. COM(2015). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 European Commission (2020) A New Circular Economy Action Plan. https://www.un.org/ sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-consumption-production/ Frosch, R.A. and Gallopoulos, N.E. (1989) Strategies for manufacturing. Scientific American, 261(3): 144–152. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0989-144 Navigating diverse understandings of a circular economy 61 Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N.M.P. and Hultink, E.J. (2017) The Circular Economy: A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143: 757–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048 Genovese, A. and Pansera, M. (2021) The circular economy at a crossroads: Technocratic eco-modernism or convivial technology for social revolution? Capitalism Nature Socialism, 32(2): 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2020.1763414 Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C. and Ulgiati, S. (2016) A review on circular economy: The expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 114: 11–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007 Glasgow City Council (2020) Circular Economy Route Map For Glasgow-2020. https:// onlineservices.glasgow.gov.uk/councillorsandcommittees/viewSelectedDocument. asp?c=P62AFQDNDX0GUT81Z3 (accessed 5 April 2024). Goedkoop, M.J., van Halen, C.J.G., te Riele, H.R.M. and Rommens, P.J.M. (1999) Product Service Systems, Ecological and Economic Basics. Amersfoort: Pré Consultants. Gudynas, E. and Acosta, A. (2011) The renewal of the criticism of development and harmonious coexistence as an alternative [La renovación de la crítica al desarrollo y el buen vivir como alternativa]. Utopia y Praxis Latinoamericana, 16(53): 71–83. Haberl, H., Wiedenhofer, D., Virág, D., Kalt, G., Plank, B., Brockway, P., Fishman, T., Hausknost, D., Krausmann, F., Leon-Gruchalski, B., Mayer, A., Pichler, M., Schaffartzik, A., Sousa, T., Streeck, J. and Creutzig, F. (2020) A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part II: Synthesizing the insights. Environmental Research Letters, 15(6). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab842a Hardin, G. (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859): 1243–1248. https://doi. org/10.1126/SCIENCE.162.3859.1243 Hawken, Paul., Lovins, A.B. and Lovins, L.H. (1999) Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution. Little, Brown and Co. Illich, I. (1973) Tools for Conviviality, ed. Ruth Nanda Anshen. Harper & Row. Kirchherr, J., Reike, D. and Hekkert, M. (2017) Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 127: 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005 Kirchherr, J., Yang, N.H.N., Schulze-Spüntrup, F., Heerink, M.J. and Hartley, K. (2023) Conceptualizing the circular economy (revisited): An analysis of 221 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107001 Klein, N., Deutz, P. and Ramos, T.B. (2022) A survey of Circular Economy initiatives in Portuguese central public sector organisations: National outlook for implementation. Journal of Environmental Management, 314(July), 114982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvman.2022.114982 Klein, N., Ramos, T.B. and Deutz, P. (2021) Advancing the circular economy in public sector organisations: Employees’ perspectives on practices. Circular Economy and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00044-x Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A. and Seppälä, J. (2018) Circular economy: The concept and its limitations. Ecological Economics, 143: 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017. 06.041 Korhonen, J., Nuur, C., Feldmann, A. and Birkie, S.E. (2018) Circular economy as an essentially contested concept. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175: 544–552. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.111 Kothari, A., Demaria, F. and Acosta, A. (2014) Buen Vivir, Degrowth and Ecological Swaraj: Alternatives to sustainable development and the Green Economy. Development, 57(3–4): 362–375. https://doi.org/10.1057/dev.2015.24 Kumarappa, J.C. (1945) Economy of Permanence: A Quest for a Social Order Based on Non-violence. Sarva Seva Sangh Prakashan. Latouche, S. (2009) Farewell to Growth. Polity. 62 W. J. V. Vermeulen, M. C. Friant, K. Campbell-Johnston et al. Leipold, S., Petit-Boix, A., Luo, A., Helander, H., Simoens, M., Ashton, W. S., Babbitt, C. W., Bala, A., Bening, C. R., Birkved, M., Blomsma, F., Boks, C., Boldrin, A., Deutz, P., Domenech, T., Ferronato, N., Gallego-Schmid, A., Giurco, D., Hobson, K., … Xue, B. (2023) Lessons, narratives, and research directions for a sustainable circular economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 27(1): 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13346 Lindhqvist, T. (2000). Extended Producer Responsibility in Cleaner Production: Policy Principle to Promote Environmental Improvements of Product Systems. Doctoral Thesis: Lund University McDonough, W. and Braungart, M. (2002) Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. North Point Press. Meadows, D., Meadows, D., Behrens, W. and Randers, J. (1972) The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. Universe Books. Melles, G. (2021a) Figuring the transition from circular economy to circular society in Australia. Sustainability, 13(19). https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910601 Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment & Ministry of Economic Affairs (2016) A Circular Economy in the Netherlands by 2050, 1–72. Moreau, V., Sahakian, M., van Griethuysen, P. and Vuille, F. (2017) Coming full circle: Why social and institutional dimensions matter for the circular economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(3): 497–506. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12598 Municipality of Amsterdam (2020) Amsterdam Circular Strategy 2020-2025. https://www. amsterdam.nl/en/policy/sustainability/circular-economy/ Municipality of Copenhagen (2019) Circular Copenhagen Resource and Waste Management Plan 2024. Murray, A., Skene, K. and Haynes, K. (2015) The circular economy: An interdisciplinary exploration of the concept and application in a global context. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2693-2 Mykkänen, J. and Repo, P. (2021) Consumer perspectives on arranging circular economy in Finland. Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy, 17(1): 349–361. https://doi.org/10. 1080/15487733.2021.1977500 Ortega Alvarado, I.A., Sutcliffe, T.E., Berker, T. and Pettersen, I.N. (2021) Emerging circular economies: Discourse coalitions in a Norwegian case. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 26: 360–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.10.011 Padilla-Rivera, A., Russo-Garrido, S. and Merveille, N. (2020) Addressing the social aspects of a circular economy: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 12(19). https://doi. org/10.3390/SU12197912 Palm, E., Hasselbalch, J., Holmberg, K. and Nielsen, T.D. (2021) Narrating plastics governance: Policy narratives in the European plastics strategy. Environmental Politics, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2021.1915020 Pauli, G. A. (2010) The Blue Economy: 10 Years, 100 Innovations, 100 Million Jobs. Paradigm Publications. Prieto-Sandoval, V., Jaca, C. and Ormazabal, M. (2018) Towards a consensus on the circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 179: 605–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2017.12.224 Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist. Random House. Reike, D., Vermeulen, W.J.V. and Witjes, S. (2018) The circular economy: New or refurbished as CE 3.0? — Exploring controversies in the conceptualization of the circular economy through a focus on history and resource value retention options. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 135: 246–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.027 Robèrt, K.-H. (2002) The Natural Step Story: Seeding a Quiet Revolution. New Society Publishers. Rogers, D.S. and Tibben-Lembke, R.S. (1998) Going Backwards: Reverse Logistics Trends and Practices. Reverse Logistics Executive Council. Navigating diverse understandings of a circular economy 63 Schöggl, J.P., Stumpf, L. and Baumgartner, R.J. (2020) The Narrative of Sustainability and Circular Economy: A Longitudinal Review of Two Decades of Research. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 163(April): 105073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. resconrec.2020.105073 Schumacher, E.F. (1973) Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered. Blond & Briggs. Stahel, W.R. (2010) The Performance Economy (2nd edn). Palgrave Macmillan. Thapa, K., Vermeulen, W.J., Deutz, P. and Olayide, O. (2023) Ultimate Producer Responsibility for e-waste management: A proposal for just transition in the circular economy based on the case of used European electronic equipment exported to Nigeria. Business Strategy and Development, 6, 33–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.222 Thapa, K., Vermeulen, W.J. V., De Waal, M.M., Deutz, P. and Nguyễn, H.Q. (2024) Towards a just circular economy transition: The case of European plastic waste trade to Vietnam for recycling. Circular Economy and Sustainability. doi: 10.1007/s43615-023-00330-w Velenturf, A.P.M. and Purnell, P. (2021) Principles for a sustainable circular economy. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27: 1437–1457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. spc.2021.02.018 Vermeulen, W.J.V. (2002) Greening production as co-responsibility. In P.P.J. Driessen and P. Glasbergen (eds), Greening Society: The Paradigm Shift in Dutch Environmental Politics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 67–90. Vermeulen, W.J.V. (2018) Substantiating the rough consensus on concept of sustainable development as point of departure for indicator development (accepted manuscript version). In S. Bell and S. Morse (eds), Routledge Handbook of Sustainability Indicators. Routledge, pp. 59–90. https://www.routledge.com/Routledge-Handbook-ofSustainability-Indicators/Bell-Morse/p/book/9781138674769 Vermeulen, Walter. J.V. and Weterings, R.P.M. (1997) Extended producer responsibility: Moving from end-of-life management towards public-private commitment to innovation in product life-cycles. Journal of Clean Technology, Environmental Toxicology and Occupational Medicine, 6(3): 283–298. Wiedenhofer, D., Virág, D., Kalt, G., Plank, B., Streeck, J., Pichler, M., Mayer, A., Krausmann, F., Brockway, P., Schaffartzik, A., Fishman, T., Hausknost, D., LeonGruchalski, B., Sousa, T., Creutzig, F. and Haberl, H. (2020) A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, Part I: Bibliometric and conceptual mapping. In Environmental Research Letters, 15(6). https://doi. org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab8429 Zwiers, J., Jaeger-Erben, M. and Hofmann, F. (2020) Circular literacy: A knowledge-based approach to the circular economy. Culture and Organization, 26(2): 121–141. https://doi. org/10.1080/14759551.2019.1709065 DOI: 10.4324/9781003295631-4 This chapter has been made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. 4 EXPLORING THE ROLE OF COMPANIES IN TRANSITIONING TO A SUSTAINABLE AND CIRCULAR FUTURE Insights and Reflections Rupert J. Baumgartner, Pauline Deutz, Estephania Delgadillo, Anna Diaz Tena, Aodhan Newsholme, Erik Roos Lindgreen, Tomas Santa-Maria, Anna M. Walker and Tatiana Reyes 4.1 Introduction: companies as contributors to a CE In recent years, the circular economy (CE) has emerged as a promising avenue for sustainable development (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Schroeder et al., 2019). Companies are a special form of social system with the goal to produce economic value by transforming tangible and intangible inputs to outputs for which customers will pay. Recent decades have seen the emergence of the ‘triple bottom line’ (Elkington, 1998) and other conceptualisations suggesting that companies also have social and environmental responsibilities (Baumgartner, 2014) (i.e. as part of a sustainability agenda and more recently specifically to help society to reach net zero). National and European Union (EU) policies set the regulatory context for companies, i.e. determining the minimum threshold of social and environmental standards they need to meet (see Chapter 9 in this volume for a discussion of CE policy). Companies may exceptionally take voluntary measures that exceed requirements, even to their own financial disadvantage (albeit potentially offset by reputational benefits) (Baumgartner, 2014). A further approach to implementing CE by companies, which has received much research attention, is how CE strategies can be incorporated with the core economic function of companies (Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2019), i.e. as part of the value generating proposition through which the company generates its profits. While the private sector has shown interest, the implementation of sustainable and circular approaches remains relatively low (Cristoni and Tonelli, 2018; OECD, 2019). Hence, it is still necessary to understand the factors that facilitate and hinder a wider adoption of a CE. Companies transitioning to a sustainable and circular future 65 The core element of a company is its business model. A business model is a coherent construct that synthesises what a firm does and for whom (value proposition), how it does it (value creation and delivery), and why it does it (value capture) (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010; Teece, 2010). Circular business models follow the principles of the CE, incorporating elements that slow, narrow or close the loop of resources, so that the resource input into the company and its value network is decreased and the resulting waste is minimised (Bocken et al., 2016). One of the main strengths of circular business models (CBM) is their potential to reduce dependence on finite resources and fostering innovation (Kennedy and Linnenluecke, 2022). Nevertheless, the initial investments that are often required (Bauwens 2021), the unfamiliarity of existing customers with new business models and the logistical complexity of their implementation often limit their applicability. Product service systems (PSS) are one specific type of circular business model consisting of value propositions oriented towards satisfying users through the delivery of functions or performance instead of products (Ceschin and Gaziulusoy, 2016). Since manufacturers maintain the ownership of the products and only offer the performance to customers, they have an economic motivation to enhance their resource utilisation. Examples of existing PSS involve the provision of mobility solutions instead of individual vehicles or lighting systems instead of lightbulbs (Ceschin and Gaziulusov, 2016). Consequently, complementing existing products with new services has drastic implications for the processes involved in designing the products in the first place, namely the product development process. In particular, the selection of new materials and design principles involved in the extension of product lifespans necessitates different revenue models and exchanges of information among new actors. As a result, some of the decisions involved in developing products for circularity are of a strong strategic nature, suggesting the need for additional insights into how design processes are reshaped (Baldassarre et al., 2020). Besides the incorporation of CE elements into core company activities (i.e. value generation), successful implementation also requires additional activities to be developed. Evidence of the environmental and social impacts of such strategies must be proven. The newly proposed SCEIA (Strategic Circular Economy Impact Assessment) framework is designed to guide companies throughout the process of measuring their impacts. We describe the framework’s objectives and its validation procedure in Section 4.3.4. A further consideration arising from CE approaches is the need for cooperation beyond the scale of the company (Deutz, 2009), and in particular in territorially defined approaches (e.g. when a public body such as a local authority is attempting to implement a CE within its jurisdiction (see Chapter 6 in this volume), or if a company seeks to incorporate priorities based on its location (i.e. territorial perspectives), then further stakeholders such as governmental bodies become relevant. These considerations 66 R. J. Baumgartner, P. Deutz, E. Delgadillo et al. present additional obstacles to the effective implementation of CE approaches, which we consider below. This chapter synthesises findings from research projects addressing specific aspects of the role of companies in the sustainable and circular transition (encompassing corporate implementation of the CE, CBM, PSS, product development, CE assessment and integration of territorial perspectives) in order to address the following questions: (1) what drivers and barriers do companies face regarding the implementation of CE approaches; (2) which approaches can be used by companies to innovate their business models and their products and services for a CE and to assess the environmental and social impacts of corporate CE activities; and (3) what is the relationship between companies and territory at the regional level? In the following section methods are presented, as well as the results of six research contributions. A discussion of these results and final conclusions provides implications for theory and practice. 4.2 Methods This chapter builds on the results of six PhD projects carried out by early stage researchers (ESRs) within the Cresting project, each addressing specific aspects of the role of companies in the sustainable and circular transition. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used and included case study research with companies, interviews, surveys, (focus group) workshops, systematic literature reviews, expert feedback and action design research (see Table 4.1). TABLE 4.1 Research contributions and methods employed in the study of companies’ approaches to the CE Location Perspective and focus Methods Italy, the Netherlands Company: barriers to and drivers for the CE Survey (n = 155) in three different languages with companies from different sectors Austria and the Netherlands Company: business model innovation Multiple case study (n = 10), action design research Austria Company: product and service design Interviews, participant observation, content analysis, morphological analysis Italy Company: CE assessment Expert panel survey, focus group workshops France, Switzerland, Taiwan Company and region: territorial business models Interviews, participatory social network analysis The United Kingdom, Austria Company and region: stakeholder and embeddedness Interviews, discourse analysis, observation, survey Companies transitioning to a sustainable and circular future 67 4.3 Cases addressing the business perspectives of a CE The results of the six research contributions are presented in this section. First drivers for and barriers to corporate CE practices are presented. Based on this general view of corporate CE practices the focus is on innovation at the company level, with first circular business model innovation (CBMI) and second product and service design for a CE. The fourth contribution addresses the assessment of CE performance at the company level. Finally, the fifth and sixth contributions address the embeddedness of companies in larger systems using the example of territorial business models and a regional perspective of companies in a CE. 4.3.1 Corporate CE practices: drivers and barriers While researching drivers for and barriers to the implementation of a CE an in-depth analysis of CE practices (strategies, solutions or business models) in companies across sectors located in Italy and the Netherlands was carried out in mid-2019. In a survey distributed in three languages 155 respondents from companies engaged with CE practices answered, among others, questions regarding their exact CE practices, the goal of pursuing these, as well as the drivers for and barriers to the implementation of a CE. Regarding the planned and implemented CE practices, the respondents were presented with a list of 15 CE practices identified by Kalmykova et al. (2018) from which they could select multiple answers. As depicted in Figure 4.1, the most commonly applied CE practice is the recovery of products, materials or energy from waste. This is followed by 4Rs to increase energy and material efficiency, which could be attributed to process optimisation. The least applied CE practice in the sample is providing a sharing platform for consumer goods, tailing behind repairing products, remanufacturing or refurbishing goods as well as PSS models. 9 20 24 26 30 35 38 41 43 44 51 59 62 71 77 0102030405060708090 Providing a sharing platform for consumer goods Repairing products Remanufacture or refurbish Product service system Active involvement of user community Product labelling Industrial symbiosis Buying used materials for production of goods Modular design Selling only circular products Reverse logistics Eco-design Application of green procurement requirements 4Rs to increase energy and material efficiency Recovery of products, materials or energy from waste Number of companies implementing practice FIGURE 4.1 CE practices implemented or planned by respondents, n = 141 74 R. J. Baumgartner, P. Deutz, E. Delgadillo et al. FIGURE 4.7 The Circular Sprint framework. The figure contains the process phases, its 12 activities and a proposed timeframe, which could be adapted according to the use case Source: Santa-Maria et al. (2022b) used under CC BY license 4.0. Companies transitioning to a sustainable and circular future 75 was only feasible once the product design had been completed, since only then did the product evaluation information become available. This issue has been previously reported and acknowledged as the eco-design paradox (Lettner et al., 2021). The result of these SPD practices prevents product planners from discussing systemic sustainability concerns or reconsidering value propositions, which could be delivered in some instances through an alternative ownership model arrangement or without the use of a physical product. Starting the conversations later in the design process results in only minor improvements towards sustainability. Second, while the CE literature has developed many indicators, it was found that these were not applied in product evaluation routines. Indicators are important metrics to monitor if the circular economy design traits are effectively engineered into product designs. The lack of indicator integration was partly aggravated by a concomitant lack of industrial standards on CE assessment in the context of manufacturing companies at the time the research was conducted. Thus, at best, practitioner-developed indicators such as the Material Circularity Indicator (MCI) (Ellen Macarthur Foundation, 2015) or the Circular Transition Indicator (CTI) (World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2021) were seldomly used in niche design projects. Third, a strong prevalence for cradle-to-gate lifecycle thinking was found when it comes to monitoring the sustainability impact of products. In practice, it was possible to find relatively mature information exchanges with actors belonging upstream in the value chain (such as suppliers or manufacturers of parts) and insufficient or non-existent FIGURE 4.8 The four lenses of sustainable innovation Source: authors’ elaboration, inspired by Brown (2008) and Shapira et al. (2017), in Santa-Maria et al. (2022a) and used under CC BY license 4.0. 76 R. J. Baumgartner, P. Deutz, E. Delgadillo et al. exchanges with actors belonging to the use phase or the end-of-life phase. This hinders the sustainability assessment of circular innovations due to the subsequent lack of transparency of assumptions and reliability of data in sustainability assessment efforts (Peña et al., 2020). The fourth and the fifth shortfalls are of an interpersonal nature. Transformative circular design strategies consider more than just material and architecture – they often innovate at the service or ecosystem level. Thus, SPD processes also need to involve inter-organisational actors (suppliers, users, end-oflife managers, outsourced service providers, and so on). Similarly, management actors need to be further engaged as well, due to the need to reconfigure elements pertaining to the corporate strategy such as a product’s revenue model. These new exchanges imply the use of a wide range of communication styles, background expertise to be deployed in new cross-functional dialogues and inter-organisational relationships. Exchanges with other market participants or questions about consumers’ linear expectations necessitate not only changes in the processes or the structure, but also a shift in organisational attitude. Thus, a strong requirement for these exchanges to take place is to align organisational cultures with new processes. In the second phase of research, it was investigated how companies were implementing a CE. For this, 24 instances of value retention strategy implementations were analysed to examine implementation patterns (Diaz et al., 2022). An overview of an aggregated implementation process can be found in Figure 4.9 (Diaz et al., 2022). An early observation points to the fact that developing products for a CE starts before product development and design, i.e. during product planning. In this regard, value retention strategies were found to play a two-fold role. During planning processes, they are part of the corporate competitive and sustainability strategies FIGURE 4.9 Overview of management factors influencing circular product design emerging at different stages of product planning and development and main interactions between them Source: Diaz et al. (2022) used under CC BY license 4.0. Companies transitioning to a sustainable and circular future 77 and thus need to deliver on corporate sustainability goals. This is an important step, since the integration of circularity will not always be economically favorable (Bauwens, 2021) and thus a balance between strategic trade-offs needs to be decided upon. A second observation is the fact that value retention strategies determine the stakeholder ecosystem surrounding the product. On the one hand, this includes stakeholders who directly interact with the physical product artifact (e.g. distribution, customers, end-of-life managers, etc.) and whose interventions and decisions largely determine the sustainability implications of circular functionalities embedded in products. The direct involvement of many of these lifecycle actors during product planning and development was observed, e.g. the customers. On the other hand, the involvement of a wider set of stakeholders is needed to secure a certain degree of societal embeddedness of a disruptive circular product innovation (e.g. cultural actors, political actors, regulatory actors and market actors). Managing these wider networks requires the involvement of a varied range of company functions (e.g. marketing, communications, management) and thus a strong element of cross-functional coordination. The main management factors and conditions needed to implement a CE during SPD processes were systematised in a management framework (Table 4.2). In addition, the framework was applied as a categorisation principle to explore value retention strategy implementation patterns across organisations, again confirming a strong correlation between sustainability strategies and the implementation of value retention strategies. In sum, value retention strategies need to be managed and integrated into product designs by formulating value retention-based functional requirements. These then need to be translated into design traits and working principles. To verify the effectiveness of a circular design strategy, product evaluation routines need to assess the extent to which the circular product can perform the functions for which it was first ideated (product quality) so that the organisation remains competitive in the market. To verify that corporate sustainability goals are met, sustainability assessments are part of product evaluations as well. It is therefore crucial to conduct thorough product evaluations aligned with circular design principles and sustainability assessments to ensure the product’s competitive edge and also to verify the organisation’s alignment with long-term sustainability goals. 4.3.4 Measuring circularity at the corporate level Companies are increasingly adopting CE practices to align with international sustainability agendas such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Opferkuch et al., 2021). However, a common thread is that the relationship between CE strategies and their sustainability impacts is quite ambiguous (Walker et al., 2021). The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report has corroborated this point, stating that ‘claims on the benefits of the circular economy for sustainability and climate change mitigation have limited evidence’ (IPCC, 2021). 78 R. J. Baumgartner, P. Deutz, E. Delgadillo et al. TABLE 4.2 Management framework for the integration of value retention options during SPD processes. The top row shows the number of managerial factors enabling the implementation of value retention strategies. The columns display the corresponding range of factor conditions observed. Sustainability values Value retention strategy DfX guideline focus Quality compromises System stakeholders Extended team Meaning-making Refuse Socio-technical system Performance Policymakers, media, non-profit, research Communication Impartiality Reduce Product ecosystem Features Market players Strategic management Competence Resell/Reuse Revenue model Reliability Suppliers Procurement Influence Repair Revenue model Conformance Distribution network Development and production Health Refurbish Service Durability Customers Logistics Biosphere physical degradation Remanufacture Architecture Serviceability Local depots, repair services Marketing and sales Anthropogenic substance accumulation Repurpose Material Aesthetics Local waste managers Aftersales Earth crust substance depletion Recycle Process Perceived quality Recover energy Re-mine Source: Diaz et al. (2022) used under CC BY licence 4.0. Companies transitioning to a sustainable and circular future 79 The reality of persisting global environmental and social crises has prompted an increased assessment of the sustainability impacts of CE strategies by companies (Corona et al., 2019). Such assessments will offer additional benefits in terms of both communication and internal impact improvements (Roos Lindgreen et al., 2022). However, CE assessments seem to be applied relatively infrequently (Das et al., 2022; Stumpf et al., 2021). Two reasons for this are a lack of understanding of company needs and capabilities for assessment, and the complexity of the currently available methods (Das et al., 2022). To address these issues, one research aim was to design a new CE assessment framework to assist with the strategic decision-making process of selecting the optimal CE solution. This framework is called the Strategic Circular Economy Impact Assessment (SCEIA). Here we summarise its design, validation and content. The applied research methodology consisted of three phases: (1) setting the objectives of the framework, determining its methodological content and its application routine; (2) validating the framework using an expert panel survey and a series of focus group sessions with practitioners; and (3) applying the framework in practice. See Roos Lindgreen (2022) for a detailed description of each phase. Following a critical assessment of the available literature on CE assessment, five objectives for the framework were formulated: • Enable a holistic (multidimensional) assessment: the CE is interpreted as a toolbox of resource-efficiency strategies to achieve positive impacts on the three dimensions of sustainable development. • Prevent burden shifting to other parts of the supply chain or lifecycle (lifecycle perspective): to avoid burden shifting to other parts of the supply chain, a lifecycle view of corporate sustainability is promoted. • Provide flexibility in terms of scale and sustainability maturity: the scale on which the framework can be applied is flexible and depends on the goal of the assessment (Ceschin and Gaziulusoy, 2016). The framework intends be feasible for companies with different levels of knowledge about assessment by being modular and adjustable to the sustainability maturity of the applying firm. • Build on existing assessment tools: the use of methods such as Material Flow Analysis and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to assess the CE, as recommended by several authors, is promoted in the framework. • Assist strategic decision-making processes: strategic decision-making in firms is characterised by high stakes and long-term repercussions (Bushan and Rai, 2004). The strategic level of decision-making is considered here to be particularly relevant due to urgency to move away from business-as-usual patterns of production and consumption. After defining the objectives and deciding on a preliminary application routine, the resulting preliminary framework was validated. Extensive stakeholder engagement, explained in Chapter 2 in this volume, involved both an expert panel survey (Kravchenko et al., 2021) and qualitative practitioner focus groups (Nyumba et al., 2018). 80 R. J. Baumgartner, P. Deutz, E. Delgadillo et al. Next, a brief overview of each of the different steps that form the SCEIA framework is presented, together with a visualisation of the framework (Figure 4.10). Step 1: point of departure. The company decides that a decision on CE must be made, and that assessment will play a role in this. The company formulates its (broad) sustainability goals and determines its starting point, following from its previous experience with assessment. Step 2: Identification. The company sets the scope for the assessment and identifies relevant stakeholders that play a part in collecting data and determining the included dimensions. Next the company collects data on resource and energy flows relevant to the set scope. Optionally, the company identifies impact areas important to its stakeholders through a materiality assessment. Step 3: Diagnosis. In the diagnosis step, the baseline assessment is undertaken. It can include an assessment of the environmental, social or economic impacts of the previously selected system. The diagnosis step will identify impact hotspots within the selected system’s value chain. The recommended methods are LCA, Life Cycle Costing and Social Life Cycle Assessment. Step 4: Development. In the development step, a CE strategy will be selected to target the previously identified impact hotspot(s). This can be done using an extensive list of available CE strategies, available as part of the framework. The appropriateness of a certain CE strategy is highly dependent on the company’s context. Step 5: Selection. In the optional selection step, a choice is made on which of the previously evaluated CE strategies is most preferred in terms of feasibility and impact. FIGURE 4.10 Overview of the SCEIA framework Source: developed by the authors based on Roos Lindgreen (2022). Companies transitioning to a sustainable and circular future 81 Finally, the framework was applied in a real-world setting, in collaboration with a company with the ambition to lower its environmental impacts through the implementation of CE strategies. Due to the modular nature of the previously designed and validated framework and feasibility, the primary focus of the application was the use of LCA in assessing the environmental impacts of to-be-introduced CE strategies. These scenarios were based on market conditions and meetings with the company’s management team. While the process of assessment is still challenged by the complexity of the available methods, the assessment of the sustainability impacts of the selected scenarios using the SCEIA framework provided the company with insights that supported its decision-making process. In a next phase of this work, the framework was used with a selection of CE companies in different African countries to further optimise its design and application. 4.3.5 Territorial circular business models Companies can design innovations for sustainability at different levels. Recent studies show how the innovations for sustainability have evolved from narrow technical product and process-centric processes towards large-scale system-level changes (Adams et al., 2016; Brezet, 1997; Ceschin and Gaziulusoy, 2016). Currently, sustainability and CE innovations in companies have focused exclusively on a limited range of innovation types (products and technologies), predominantly on environmental challenges (Adams et al., 2016). Therefore, to contribute to sustainability and CE transitions companies need to adopt a higher level of systems innovation, including developing PSS design strategies, sustainable organisation design strategies and sustainable collaboration design strategies (Baldassarre et al., 2020). PSS are integrated offerings of products and services which can have innovative potential, securing competitiveness while at the same time allowing companies to address environmental concerns (Annarelli et al., 2020). PSS are value propositions oriented towards satisfying users by delivering functions or performance instead of products (Ceschin and Gaziulusoy, 2016), e.g. from selling cars to selling mobility solutions, from selling light bulbs to selling lighting solutions. Since manufacturers retain the ownership of the products and deliver performance to their customers, they are economically incentivised to optimise their resource utilisation through improving resource efficiency, increasing product lifetime, or reducing the total number of products needed to provide that performance (Tukker, 2004, 2015; Vezzoli et al., 2015). Despite the sustainability potential of PSS, recent studies highlight that these offerings are not always sustainable (Boucher et al., 2016; Doualle et al., 2016; Pigosso and McAloone, 2016) nor contribute to the CE. Companies might adopt the business model for their economic interests without internalising environmental or social concerns. Thus, for PSS to contribute to the transition towards sustainability, they need to be carefully designed, developed and delivered for this purpose (Bertoni, 2019; Boucher et al., 2016; Ceschin, 2013). 82 R. J. Baumgartner, P. Deutz, E. Delgadillo et al. While gains in resource productivity are essential in designing a sustainable PSS offering, sustainable PSS design should integrate a systemic approach to attain a range of environmental and social performances (Kristensen and Remmen, 2019; Reim et al., 2015; Vezzoli et al., 2015). Therefore, the performance and potential value of the PSS should be understood from specific contexts, such as the sociotechnical systems and the territories and multiple stakeholders perspectives integrating customers, suppliers, employees and society (Costa Fernandes et al., 2020; Pezzotta et al., 2018; Yang and Evans, 2019). However, the current approaches to multi-stakeholder relations in PSS for sustainability and the CE studies do not explore their contextualisation, which poses obstacles to the design and implementation of PSSs as the environmental and social outcomes of these stakeholders’ relations are a matter of local interpretation (Cook, 2018, 2014). Moreover, sustainability does not fall evenly across space (Castree, 2005). Thus, successful PSS design and implementation need to consider stakeholder relations situated in space. For companies to develop PSS for sustainability, they must question whether their operations contribute to territorial resilience (Buclet, 2014). Therefore, it is vital for companies when developing a PSS not to focus solely on developing new PSS but also on understanding the contextual conditions that may favour or hinder the societal embedding of the PSS themselves (Ceschin, 2013; Cook, 2018). Without contextualising PSS solutions as part of the wider economic systems their sustainability potential remains unclear and jeopardised. In this study, territories are not only ‘neutral’ locations where economic activities are developed; they are also considered PSS coconstructors and resource providers (Allais and Gobert, 2019). The territory is an organisation inscribed in space and is socially constructed (Pecqueur, 2014). In order to ensure the territorial anchoring of the solution, PSS must provide integrative capabilities to companies moving towards integrated offerings of products and services while understanding users’ and society’s needs in a given context (Joore and Brezet, 2015). Thus, the research identified three main leverage points for practically supporting the integration of the territorial dimension in PSS designs for sustainability: 1 Support the understanding of complex systems for organisations and their particular PSS. PSS designs for territorial sustainability require a multi-level approach, in which companies need to identify and understand the socio-technical and territorial systems their PSS activities belong (Joore and Brezet, 2015; Pereno and Barbero, 2020). Without an understanding of these larger systems, companies might lack a clear understanding of their societal function (socio-technical system), and their interrelations with other systems in the territory, i.e. a bike-sharing offering needs to consider how this offering complements the local mobility (societal function) and wellbeing of citizens in a specific city or region (territorial system). Identifying higher system levels is vital for identifying specific territorial needs and challenges concerning societal function, key territorial actors and local capabilities. 2 Support the understanding of how the PSS can create societal and environmental values at the organisational, network and territorial level. The current Companies transitioning to a sustainable and circular future 83 narratives of the value of PSS in design are related to resource efficiency (Cook, 2018, 2014). This might reinforce PSS innovation design practices focused on technological fixes and insular innovation (Cook, 2018, 2014). This obstructs the reflection process of companies on how companies can innovate for transformations at higher system levels with their PSS offerings (Joore and Brezet, 2015). Thus, supporting companies in understanding the sustainable value opportunities and outcomes in PSS must be understood from multidimensional (economic, social and environmental) and multi-level (organisational, network and territorial) perspectives (Delgadillo et al., 2021). The use of immaterial capitals and territorial capitals facilitates an understanding of a broader range of value benefits of PSS (Allais and Gobert, 2016; Delgadillo et al., 2021), resulting in compelling narratives of the innovation benefits for stakeholder engagement and concept design discussions and assessment. 3 Develop concepts that tackle customer and territorial needs. The coupling of customer/user-focused (zooming in) and the systemic perspective of the territorial approach (zooming out) is an essential practice for enhancing the sustainability of business models (Hofmann and Jaeger-Erben, 2020). This process ensures that the business offerings are desirable, feasible, viable and correspond to the local sustainability challenges. The design and development of territorial PSS imply companies make efforts to think beyond their products and services as well as redefining their purpose in terms of how they function from an economic and operational standpoint. In addition, companies need to develop collaborations with different territorial actors from the private, public and civil spheres to identify local sustainability challenges and business opportunities. Therefore, the design and implementation processes need top-down policy changes and bottom-up initiatives (companies and citizens of the territories) and more democratic and participatory approaches. The role of governments is critical for developing local, regional and national programmes focused on developing platforms and resources for PSS adoption. Governments can enhance the creation of institutional environments in which local governments, businesses, academia and civil society actors come together to develop a PSS for their territory. Particularly for designers, it means adopting a systemic position that is also more critical. They must be able to engage with socio-political questions and frameworks to create the conditions for forming networks around sustainability issues (Forlano, 2016). 4.3.6 Business and the CE: a spatially defined approach As discussed in Chapter 6 in this volume, the relationship between companies and the places where they operate is rarely considered in a CE context. Focusing on a specific place, e.g. the territory of a city or region, introduces additional stakeholders, including local government and other public agencies, which requires collaboration between businesses and policymakers to transition to a regional CE. This research examined the perspectives of large companies on a potential regionally 90 R. J. Baumgartner, P. Deutz, E. Delgadillo et al. Notes 1 R0: Refuse, R1: Reduce, R2: Reuse, R3: Repair, R4: Refurbish, R5: Remanufacture, R6: Repurpose, R7: Recycle, R8: Recover, R9: Re-mine. 2 See Chapter 6 in this volume for further information on the case study areas. References Adams, R., Jeanrenaud, S., Bessant, J., Denyer, D. and Overy, P. (2016) Sustainabilityoriented innovation: A systematic review. International Journal of Management Review, 18, 180–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12068 Allais, R. and Gobert, J. (2016) A multidisciplinary method for sustainability assessment of PSS: Challenges and developments. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, 15, 56–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2016.04.007 Allais, R. and Gobert, J. (2019) Conceptual framework for spatio-temporal analysis of territorial projects. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 77, 93–104. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.eiar.2019.03.003 Annarelli, A., Battistella, C., Nonino, F., 2020. Competitive advantage implication of different Product Service System business models: Consequences of ‘not-replicable’ capabilities. Journal of Cleaner Production 247, 119121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2019.119121 Baldassarre, B., Keskin, D., Diehl, J.C., Bocken, N. and Calabretta, G. (2020) Implementing sustainable design theory in business practice: A call to action. Journal of Cleaner Production, 273, 123113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123113 Bassi, F. and Dias, J.G. (2019) The use of circular economy practices in SMEs across the EU. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 146, 523–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. resconrec.2019.03.019 Baumgartner, R.J. (2014) Managing corporate sustainability and CSR: A conceptual framework combining values, strategies and instruments contributing to sustainable development. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21, 258–271. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1336 Bauwens, T. (2021) Are the circular economy and economic growth compatible? A case for post-growth circularity, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 175, 105852. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105852 Bertoni, M. (2019) Multi-criteria decision making for sustainability and value assessment in early PSS design. Sustainability, 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11071952 Bianchini, A., Rossi, J. and Pellegrini, M. (2019) Overcoming the main barriers of circular economy implementation through a new visualization tool for circular business models. Sustainability, 11, 6614. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236614 Bocken N.M.P., Short S.W., Rana P. and Evans S. (2014) A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039 Boucher, X., Brissaud, D. and Shimomura, Y. (2016). Design of sustainable product service systems and their value creation chains. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, 15, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2016.09.005 Brezet, Hemel, V. (1997) Eco-design: A Promising Approach to Sustainable Production and Consumption. Paris: UNEP United Nations Publications. Brown, T. (2008) Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6): 84. Buclet, N. (2014) L’économie de fonctionnalité entre éco-conception et territoire: Une typologie. Développement durable Territ. 5, 0–17. https://doi.org/10.4000/developpementdurable. 10134 Bushan, N. and Rai, K. (2004) Strategic Decision-Making. London: Springer. Companies transitioning to a sustainable and circular future 91 Campagnaro, C. and d’Urzo, M. (2021) Social cooperation as a driver for a social and solidarity focused approach to the circular economy. Sustainability, 13, 10145. https://doi. org/10.3390/su131810145 Carlgren, L., Rauth, I. and Elmquist, M. (2016) Framing design thinking: The concept in idea and enactment. Creativity and Innovation Management, 25(1): 38–57. https://doi. org/10.1111/caim.12153 Castree, N. (2005) Nature. Abingdon: Routledge. Cecchin, A., Salomone, R., Deutz, P., Raggi, A. and Cutaia, L. (2020) Relating industrial symbiosis and circular economy to the sustainable development debate. In R. Salomone, A. Cecchin, P. Deutz, A. Raggi, and L. Cutaia (eds), Industrial Symbiosis for the Circular Economy: Operational Experiences, Best Practices and Obstacles to a Collaborative Business Approach, Strategies for Sustainability. Cham: Springer, pp. 1–25. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-36660-5_1 Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R., Chiaroni, D., Vecchio, P. and Del Urbinati, A. (2020) Designing business models in circular economy: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(4): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse. 2466 Ceschin, F. (2013) Critical factors for implementing and diffusing sustainable productservice systems: Insights from innovation studies and companies’ experiences. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45, 74–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.05.034 Ceschin, F. and Gaziulusoy, I. (2016) Evolution of design for sustainability: From product design to design for system innovations and transitions. Design Studies, 47, 118–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.09.002 Cook, M. (2014) Fluid transitions to more sustainable product service systems. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 12, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist. 2014.04.003 Cook, M. (2018) Product service system innovation in the smart city. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 19, 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1465750317753934 Cornwall, A. and Jewkes, R. (1995) What is participatory research? Social Science and Medicine, 41(12): 1667–1676. https://doi.org/10.2167/md073.0 Corona, B., Shen, L., Reike, D., Carreón, J.R. and Worrell, E. (2019) Towards sustainable development through the circular economy: A review and critical assessment on current circularity metrics. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 151, 104498. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104498 Costa Fernandes, S., Pigosso, D.C.A. and McAloone, T.C. (2020) Towards product-service system oriented to circular economy: A systematic review of value proposition design approaches. Journal of Cleaner Production, 257, 120507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2020.120507 Cristoni, N. and Tonelli, M. (2018) Perceptions of firms participating in a circular economy. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 7(4): 105–118. https://doi.org/10.14207/ ejsd.2018.v7n4p105 Das, A., Konietzko, J. and Bocken, N. (2022) How do companies measure and forecast environmental impacts when experimenting with circular business models? Sustainable Production and Consumption, 29, 273–285. de Jesus, A. and Mendonça, S. (2018) Lost in transition? Drivers and barriers in the ecoinnovation road to the circular economy. Ecological Economics, 145, 75–89. Delgadillo, E., Reyes, T. and Baumgartner, R.J. (2021) Towards territorial productservice systems: A framework linking resources, networks and value creation. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 28, 1297–1313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021. 08.003 Deutz, P. (2009) Producer responsibility in a sustainable development context: Ecological modernisation or industrial ecology? The Geographical Journal, 175(4): 274–285. 92 R. J. Baumgartner, P. Deutz, E. Delgadillo et al. Deutz P., Neighbour, G. and McGuire, M. (2010) Integrating sustainable waste management into product design: Sustainability as a functional requirement. Sustainable Development, 18 229–239. doi: 10.1002/sd Deutz, P., McGuire, M. and Neighbour, G. (2013) Eco-design practice in the context of a structured design process: An interdisciplinary empirical study of UK manufacturers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 39, 117–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.08.035 Deutz, P., Jonas, A.E.G., Newsholme, A., Pusz, M., Rogers, H.A., Affolderba ch, J., Baumgartner, R.J. and Ramos, T.B. (2024) The role of place in the development of a circular economy: A critical analysis of potential for social redistribution in Hull, UK. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society. doi: 10.1093/cjres/rsae002 Diaz, A., Schöggl, J.P., Reyes, T. and Baumgartner, R.J. (2021) Sustainable product development in a circular economy: Implications for products, actors, decision-making support and lifecycle information management. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 26, 1031–1045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.12.044 Diaz, A., Reyes, T. and Baumgartner, R.J. (2022) Implementing circular economy strategies during product development. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 184. https://doi. org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106344 Doualle, B., Medini, K., Boucher, X., Brissaud, D. and Laforest, V. (2016) Design of sustainable product-service systems (PSS): Towards an incremental stepwise assessment method. Procedia CIRP, 48, 152–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.04.074 Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J.A. (2000) Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11): 1105–1121. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21: 10/11<1105::AID-SMJ133>3.0.CO;2-E Elkington, J. (1998) Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of the 21st Century. Oxford: Capstone Publishing. Ellen Macarthur Foundation (n.d.). ‘MCI’. https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/materialcircularity-indicator Fonseca, L.M., Domingues, J.P., Pereira, M.T., Martins, F.F. and Zimon, D. (2018) Assessment of circular economy within Portuguese organizations. Sustainability, 10. https://doi. org/10.3390/su10072521 Forlano, L. (2016) Decentering the human in the design of collaborative cities. Design Issues, 32, 42–54. https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00398 Gaziulusoy, A.I. (2015) A critical review of approaches available for design and innovation teams through the perspective of sustainability science and system innovation theories. Journal of Cleaner Production, 107, 366–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2015.01.012 Gaziulusoy, I., Boyle, C. and McDowall, R. (2013) System innovation for sustainability: A systemic double-flow scenario method for companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45, 104–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.05.013 Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. and Hultink, E.J. (2017) The Circular Economy: A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 757–768. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048 Ghisellini, P. and Ulgiati, S. (2020) Circular economy transition in Italy: Achievements, perspectives and constraints. Journal of Cleaner Production, 243, 118360. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118360 Govindan, K. and Hasanagic, M. (2018) A systematic review on drivers, barriers, and practices towards circular economy: A supply chain perspective. International Journal of Production Research, 56, 278–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1402141 Gusmerotti, N.M., Testa, F., Corsini, F., Pretner, G. and Iraldo, F. (2019) Drivers and approaches to the circular economy in manufacturing firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 230, 314–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.044 Hofmann, F. and Jaeger-Erben, M. (2020) Organisational transition management of circular business model innovations. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29, 2770–2788. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2542 Companies transitioning to a sustainable and circular future 93 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2021) Working group III contribution to the IPCC sixth assessment report (AR6): Technical Summary. https://www.ipcc.ch/ report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_TechnicalSummary.pdf (accessed 7 July 2024) Jonker, J., Stegeman, H. and Faber, N. (2017) The Circular Economy: Developments, concepts, and research in search for corresponding business models. Nijmegen: Randbout University. Joore, P. and Brezet, H. (2015) A multi-level design model: The mutual relationship between product-service system development and societal change processes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, 92–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.043 Kalmykova, Y., Sadagopan, M. and Rosado, L. (2018) Circular economy: From review of theories and practices to development of implementation tools. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 135, 190–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.10.034 Kennedy, S. and Linnenluecke, M.K. (2022) Circular economy and resilience: A research agenda. Business Strategy and the Environment 31(6): 2754–2765. https://doi.org/10. 1002/bse.3004 Kolko, J. (2015) Design thinking comes of age. Harvard Business Review, September, 66–71. Kravchenko, M., Pigosso, D.C. and McAloone, T.C. (2021) A trade-off navigation framework as a decision support for conflicting sustainability indicators within circular economy implementation in the manufacturing industry. Sustainability, 13(1): 314. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su13010314 Kristensen, H. and Remmen, A. (2019) A framework for sustainable value propositions in product-service systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 223, 25–35. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.074 Lettner, M., Chebaeva, N., Wenger, J., Schöggl, J.-P., Holzer, D., Hesser, F. and Tobias, S. (2021) Dealing with the eco-design paradox in research and development projects: The concept of sustainability assessment levels. Journal of Cleaner Production, 281. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125232 Lüdeke-Freund, F., Gold, S. and Bocken, N.M.P. (2019) A review and typology of circular economy business model patterns. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23, 36–61. https://doi. org/10.1111/jiec.12763 Mura, M., Longo, M. and Zanni, S. (2020) Circular economy in Italian SMEs: A multimethod study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 245, 118821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2019.118821 Newsholme A. (2023) Developing a Circular Economy at the Regional Scale: A Case Study of Stakeholders in North Humberside, England and Styria, Austria [doctoral thesis]. University of Hull. Newsholme, A., Deutz, P., Baumgartner, R.J. and Affolderbach, J. (accepted) Building collaborations for a regional circular economy: A comparison of North Humberside, England with Styria, Austria. In S. Bourdin, E. van Leeuwen and A. Torre (eds), Cities, Regions and the Circular Economy: Theory and Practice. Cheltenham and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Nyumba, T.O, Wilson, K., Derrick, C.J. and Mukherjee, N. (2018) The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9(1): 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12860 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2019) Business Models for the Circular Economy. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/ g2g9dd62-en. Opferkuch, K., Caeiro, S., Salomone, R. and Ramos, T.B. (2021) Circular economy in corporate sustainability reporting: A review of organisational approaches. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30, 8. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2854 Ormazabal, M., Prieto-Sandoval, V., Puga-Leal, R. and Jaca, C. (2018) Circular Economy in Spanish SMEs: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 185, 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.031 94 R. J. Baumgartner, P. Deutz, E. Delgadillo et al. Osterwalder, A. and Pigneur, Y. (2010) Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers, vol. 1. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. Pecqueur, B. (2014) Esquisse d’une géographie économique territoriale. Espace Géographique 43, 198. https://doi.org/10.3917/eg.433.0198 Peña, C., Civit, B., Gallego-Schmid, A. et al. (2021) Using life cycle assessment to achieve a circular economy. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26, 215–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11367-020-01856-z. Pereno, A. and Barbero, S. (2020) Systemic design for territorial enhancement: An overview on design tools supporting socio-technical system innovation. Strategic Design Research Journal, 13, 113–136. https://doi.org/10.4013/SDRJ.2020.132.02 Pezzotta, G., Cavalieri, S. and Romero, D. (2018) Collaborative product-service systems engineering: Towards an active role of customers and stakeholders in value creation. 2017 International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC). Pieroni, M., McAloone, T. and Pigosso, D. (2019) Business model innovation for circular economy and sustainability: A review of approaches. Journal of Cleaner Production, 215, 198–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.036 Pigosso, D.C.A. and McAloone, T.C. (2016) Maturity-based approach for the development of environmentally sustainable product/service-systems. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, 15, 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2016.04.003 Pusz, M., Jonas, A.E.G. and Deutz, P. (2023) Knitting circular ties: Empowering networks for the social enterprise-led local development of an integrative circular economy. Circular Economy and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-023-00271-4 Ranta, V., Aarikka-Stenroos, L., Ritala, P. and Mäkinen, S.J. (2018) Exploring institutional drivers and barriers of the circular economy: A cross-regional comparison of China, the US, and Europe. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 135, 70–82. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.017 Reike, D., Vermeulen, W.J.V. and Witjes, S. (2018) The circular economy: New or refurbished as CE 3.0?: Exploring controversies in the conceptualization of the circular economy through a focus on history and resource value retention options. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 135, 246–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.027 Reim, W., Parida, V. and Örtqvist, D. (2015) Product-service systems (PSS) business models and tactics: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.003 Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å. et al. (2009) Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2): 32. Roos Lindgreen, E. (2022) Methods and Tools to Measure Sustainability and Circular Economy (CE) at the Company Level. PhD thesis for degree in Economics, Management and Statistics, Cycle XXXIV, University of Messina. Roos Lindgreen, E., Opferkuch, K., Walker, A., Salomone, R., Reyes, T., Raggi, A. and Caeiro, S. (2022) Exploring assessment practices of companies actively engaged with circular economy. Business Strategy and Environment 31(4): 1414–1438. https://doi. org/10.1002/bse.2962 Santa-Maria, T., Vermeulen, W.J.V. and Baumgartner, R.J. (2021) Framing and assessing the emergent field of business model innovation for the circular economy: A combined literature review and multiple case study approach. Sustainable Production and Consumption 26, 872–891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.12.037 Santa-Maria, T., Vermeulen, W.J.V. and Baumgartner, R.J. (2022a) How do incumbent firms innovate their business models for the circular economy? Identifying micro-foundations of dynamic capabilities. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(4): 1308–1333. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2956 Santa-Maria, T., Vermeulen, W.J.V. and Baumgartner, R.J. (2022b) The Circular Sprint: Circular business model innovation through design thinking. Journal of Cleaner Production, 132323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132323 Companies transitioning to a sustainable and circular future 95 Schöggl, J.-P., Rusch, M., Stumpf, L. and Baumgartner, R.J. (2023a) Implementation of digital technologies for a circular economy and sustainability management in the manufacturing sector. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 35, 401–420. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.11.012 Schöggl, J.-P., Stumpf, L. and Baumgartner, R. J. (2023b) The role of interorganizational collaboration and digital technologies in the implementation of circular economy practices: Empirical evidence from manufacturing firms. Business Strategy and the Environment. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3593 Schroeder, P., Anggraeni, K. and Weber, U. (2019) The relevance of circular economy practices to the Sustainable Development Goals. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23(1): 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12732 Sein, M.K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M. and Lindgren, R. (2011) Action design research. MIS Quarterly, 35(1): 37–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/23043488 Stumpf, L., Schöggl, J.-P. and Baumgartner, R.J. (2021) Climbing up the circularity ladder?: A mixed-methods analysis of circular economy in business practice. Journal of Cleaner Production, 316, 128158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128158 Teece, D.J. (2010) Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43, 172–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.003 Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/ (SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z Tukker, A. (2004) Eight types of product-service system: Eight ways to sustainability? Experiences from SusProNet. Business Strategy and the Environment 13, 246–260. https:// doi.org/10.1002/bse.414 Tukker, A. (2015) Product services for a resource-efficient and circular economy: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production 97, 76–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.049 Tura, N., Hanski, J., Ahola, T., Ståhle, M., Piiparinen, S. and Valkokari, P. (2019) Unlocking circular business: A framework of barriers and drivers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 212, 90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.202 Tyl, B., Vallet, F., Bocken, N.M.P. and Real, M. (2015) The integration of a stakeholder perspective into the front end of eco-innovation: A practical approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 543–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.145 Vezzoli, C., Ceschin, F., Diehl, J.C. and Kohtala, C. (2015) New design challenges to widely implement ‘Sustainable Product-Service Systems’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.061 Walker, A.M., Opferkuch, K., Roos Lindgreen, E., Raggi, A., Simboli, A., Vermeulen, W.J.V. and … Salomone, R. (2021) What is the relation between circular economy and sustainability? Answers from frontrunner companies engaged with circular economy practices. Circular Economy and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00064-7 World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2021) ‘Circular Transition Indicators’. https://www.wbcsd.org/Programs/Circular-Economy/Factor-10/Metrics-Measurement/ Circular-transition-indicators Yang, M. and Evans, S. (2019) Product-service system business model archetypes and sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 220, 1156–1166. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2019.02.067 Shapira, H., Ketchie, A. and Nehe, M. (2017) The integration of design thinking and strategic sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production 140, 277–287. DOI: 10.4324/9781003295631-5 This chapter has been made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. 5 ASSESSMENT APPROACHES AND METHODS FOR A CIRCULAR ECONOMY Andrea Raggi, Hinrika Droege, Katelin Opferkuch, Erik Roos Lindgreen, Anna M. Walker, Sandra Caeiro, Tomás B. Ramos and Roberta Salomone 5.1 Introduction Both private and public sector organisations play a key role in the global uptake of the circular economy (CE). Businesses from many sectors are experimenting with CE business models, and one reason for this growing interest is probably connected to the concept’s promise of various financial benefits through innovation (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013). Beyond such financial returns, research has framed a wider set of advantages of CE activities for companies based on three domains of sustainable development, or the ‘triple bottom line’, namely planet, people, profit or prosperity (PPP). These include lowering environmental impacts and realising social improvements and the previously mentioned economic benefits, such as cost savings and the development of new markets (Laubscher and Marinelli, 2014; Korhonen et al., 2018). According to this frame, the potential of CE strategies lies in reducing negative sustainability impacts without jeopardising growth and prosperity (Ferasso et al., 2020). However, the actual sustainability implications of the CE have mostly been assumed rather than carefully assessed (Blum et al., 2020; Harris et al., 2021). Indeed, it is crucial to assess to what extent CE strategies actually contribute to solving global crises, such as climate change, biodiversity loss and economic inequality, while also taking into account potential effects at the regional and local level, such as acidification, eutrophication, ecosystem toxicity and local employment. Likewise, it is essential to improve the understanding of how to assess the potential impacts of the CE. However, doing so is at present beyond the scope of the current impact measurement and reporting methodologies. To evidence this promised reduction in sustainability impacts, research points to an increasing need for CE indicators and other assessment methods for business. Such Assessment approaches and methods for a circular economy 97 approaches can help organisations to evaluate their progress in the implementation of CE practices and the actual realisation of the expected environmental, social and economic benefits (Kristensen and Mosgaard, 2020). Getting data on such impacts is quite crucial, since for many CE strategies it is unclear whether, or to what extent, they actually lead to more sustainable outcomes across all the dimensions and aspects of sustainability (Kravchenko et al., 2019). Well-intended CE strategies might actually lead to increased impacts and/or burden shifting (Lonca et al., 2018; Corona et al., 2019; Walzberg et al., 2021). This chapter responds to this important gap in understanding by analysing the needs and challenges for private and public sector organisations seeking to assess the circularity and sustainability of their activities. A key requirement for companies to engage with assessing their sustainability impacts is the availability of the right methods and tools for the purpose. Indeed, as regards the metrics for CE assessment, there are multiple approaches and indicators to choose from, with a large number of review articles inventorying such CE assessment approaches for businesses (e.g. Corona et al., 2019; Kristensen and Mosgaard, 2020). Many of the existing assessment approaches are inventoried and categorised, mainly focusing on their connection to different sustainability dimensions and specific CE strategies. Research has found frequent inclusion of the environmental and economic domains, with less attention being given to social aspects (Oliveira et al., 2021). Overall, existing assessment approaches are extremely diverse. This might be caused by the complex nature – and limited understanding – of the relationship between the CE and sustainability (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Schroeder et al., 2019. There seems to be a lack of consensus on whether the CE and sustainability assessment are different or the same and whether one forms part of the other (Vinante et al., 2021; Walzberg et al., 2021). Hence, the need to bring order to the vast multitude of approaches and indicators available and to delve deeper into the relationships between circularity and sustainability and the related assessment processes, which were identified as objectives of this research. Notably, companies and other organisations do not exist in isolation but are part of networks (sometimes formally constituted, others less so). CE practices mostly take place within a network of companies (Batista et al., 2018), thus going beyond single firms. While both private sector and academic literature is emerging on how to assess the circularity of a company (Elia et al., 2017; World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2018; Vinante et al., 2021) and its impact on sustainability (Kravchenko et al., 2019; Kristensen and Mosgaard, 2020), limited literature has looked at the inter-firm level. Hence, the objective to create an overview of sustainability assessment approaches in circular inter-firm networks and to identify criteria of sound sustainability assessment in a CE context, while exploring their application in academia and practice. Additionally, the research sought to analyse the potential synergies between, as well as complementary features of, the CE and sustainability assessment approaches applicable to geographical contexts. A further area considered by the research was the need to develop communications for CE practices. CE assessment metrics, in fact, could be used to 98 A. Raggi, H. Droege, K. Opferkuch et al. transparently and reliably communicate to various stakeholders through sustainability reporting the circularity and sustainability progress in companies (DitlevSimonsen and Midttun, 2010; Lock and Seele, 2016; EC, 2021). If, in general, the range of reporting approaches available is quite wide (Thijssens et al., 2016), there is an extensive discussion on their ability to contribute to transparent and quality non-financial disclosures (Melloni et al., 2017; Cortesi and Vena, 2019; de Villiers and Sharma, 2020). More specifically, a lack of clarity and a need for further investigation emerged on how circularity should be communicated in sustainability reports and on what the benefits and challenges related to CE reporting are, also in light of the evolving relevant regulation. Therefore, there is a growing need for guiding principles for the inclusion of CE-related information in sustainability reports. From this arose the objective of examining the frameworks suggested in the literature and the existing approaches in order to guide companies in CE sustainability reporting. Both private and public sector organisations are considered key actors in the transition towards a CE (Kirchherr et al., 2017; Parchomenko et al., 2019). Public sector organisations are defined by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2019) as any organisation under government control that develops public goods or services. Their political nature distinguishes them from the market-driven private sector (Domingues et al., 2017). Public sector organisations are often characterised as bureaucracies with non-competitive (impersonal) hierarchies, rule-based management, functional speciality, division of labour and focused missions (Weber, 2008). Authors highlight that the different characteristics between private and public sector organisations need to be acknowledged in the development, implementation and execution of CE assessment approaches (e.g. Kristensen and Mosgaard, 2020). The public sector contributes significantly to the socio-economic system, for example as a regulator and policymaker, a role model or a significant consumer and purchasing power. Many governments have developed and implemented CE strategies and activities already (Klein et al., 2020). These activities can serve as a role model to other public sector organisations, non-governmental organisations, the private sector, as well as citizens (Domingues et al., 2017). Public sector organisations can impact sustainability, especially in areas such as procurement, internal operations (e.g. material consumption) and their ownership of many buildings, among others (Brammer and Walker, 2011). From an economic viewpoint, in the European Union (EU), for example, public sector expenditure accounts for 51.5% of gross domestic product (Eurostat, 2021). To further exploit the potential of the CE in the public sector, it is appropriate for public organisations to implement a CE assessment in their processes (Klein et al., 2020). Numerous public sector organisations have declared their support for CE performance evaluation; nevertheless, its implementation does not appear to be widespread (Ghisellini et al., 2016). Therefore, a further objective of this project was to analyse which factors hinder the implementation of CE assessments Assessment approaches and methods for a circular economy 99 in public sector organisations and to identify how to overcome these challenges, as well as to provide public organisations with a conceptual framework for assessing and reporting CE performance. Starting from the above-mentioned gaps and objectives, Cresting’s research investigated the topic of assessing the sustainability of the CE by understanding the main related methodological issues for both the private and public sectors. The results of the project work packages contain lessons on the tools, methods and indicators useful for measuring both the extent and effects of a CE towards sustainability, at different sectoral contexts and scales. Throughout the research, a dual perspective including theoretical contributions and end-user point of views (i.e. companies, practitioners and public sector organisations) was considered. The levels of analysis are summarised in Figure 5.1, in order of their appearance in the chapter: the firm level, the circular inter-firm networks (CIFN) level, the reporting and disclosure level and the level of public sector organisations. The dotted line indicates the boundaries of the private sector. The direction of reporting and disclosure takes place from the private sector to society and public sector organisations, while firms also communicate CE metrics between themselves. Measurement-related interactions between public sector organisations are summarised as procurement and policy interactions: this is explained in more detail later in the chapter. The next section starts by highlighting the main aims for businesses to assess circularity; then, the outcomes of a systematic analysis of key experiences of sustainability assessment for the CE are presented and briefly discussed, identifying the implemented methods and tools for different industry sectors, company dimensions, sustainability perspectives (environmental, economic, social), and key waste streams. In section 5.3 the urgent topic of strengthening inter-firm connections by applying both CE and sustainability assessment is presented. Section 5.4 is centred around the findings related to the use of assessment approaches for facilitating FIGURE 5.1 Different analysis levels of CE assessment applied in this chapter 106 A. Raggi, H. Droege, K. Opferkuch et al. Zinck et al., 2018) and their local contexts. One of the options is to use the epistemological lens of Actor Network Theory (ANT) to model end-of-life scenarios of a LCA and to contextualise its results. In this way, the assessment is viewed in its role as a calculative device and can be seen as performative, i.e. a tool to advocate for the implementation of one CE solution over the other, for example (Niero et al., 2021). Conducting more LCT-based assessments supported by sociological analyses is essential in a sustainable development context, because the results can direct companies towards potential levers of action (Baumann and Lindkvist, 2022). Besides the need to embed the LCA into a certain context, it is essential to understand the limitations of this calculative device, given it can only provide a partial (limited set of impact categories) and unidimensional (focusing on environment) picture of a system’s sustainability (Gasparatos and Scolobig, 2012; Niero et al., 2021). In addition, LCAs are being used and interpreted by other actors such as the companies commissioning the LCAs for decision-making and external communication (Pryshlakivsky and Searcy, 2021) and should thus not be viewed as a neutral methodology. In a similar vein, it is an assessment approach that mirrors the worldview of LCA practitioners through their modelling choices (Gasparatos, 2010). While a certain degree of subjectivity is unavoidable, and according to Freidberg (2018) even desirable, LCA practitioners should be transparent about these values. This is especially relevant given the status that LCA has acquired as a best practice assessment methodology in the CE context, which is bound to increase its application substantially (ISO, 2020; Roos Lindgreen, 2022). 5.4 CE assessment within sustainability disclosure andexternalcommunication As already mentioned, multiple assessment approaches for the CE have been proposed and reviewed both by academics (e.g. Saidani et al., 2019; Kristensen and Mosgaard, 2020), as well as by private initiatives (e.g. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2020; WBCSD, 2022). However, these approaches are generally designed to produce results/data for internal use, offering companies the opportunity to utilise assessment results for internal improvement and CE strategy optimisation. As regards external communication, given the scarcity of indications in the literature on CE data to be disclosed externally, as well as on the connections between CE assessment and corporate sustainability reporting, companies have to decide independently how and what to report in terms of circularity (Opferkuch et al., 2021, 2022). This, as Pauliuk (2018) suggests, could lead to companies reporting indicators for CE which best suit their narrative and thus open themselves up to claims of greenwashing. However, the recently accepted draft European Sustainability Reporting Standards, specifically the standard Resource Use and Circular Economy, will now guide companies to disclosing comparable CE data within their mandatory corporate sustainability reports (EFRAG, 2022). To comply with these reporting requirements, CE assessments will provide companies with sufficient and Assessment approaches and methods for a circular economy 107 relevant CE data to increase the transparency of their business activities and reduce potential claims of greenwashing (Opferkuch et al., 2022). Additionally, the use of CE assessment results can assist companies with the identification of relevant CE-specific risks and opportunities, as is required by their investors and external stakeholders. Overall, CE assessments can gather data relevant for inclusion within corporate disclosures; thus, the assessments themselves can help to facilitate and improve existing corporate sustainability reporting processes. 5.4.1 The need for businesses to report their progress towards circularity There are numerous reasons why companies should include CE content (including the results of any CE assessments) within their corporate sustainability reports. At a European level, the context of CE disclosure is rapidly moving from voluntary to mandatory disclosure. Following the publication of the EU’s Green Deal (EC, 2020), which cemented the CE as a priority approach to address a number of environmental issues, the CE has been included as a key environmental objective within relevant sustainable finance regulations, namely the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) (EC, 2021) and the EU Taxonomy Regulation (EC, 2020). What this means is that in the coming years there will be an increasing demand for (1) CE data within corporate sustainability reports and (2) the number of investments made to companies engaging with and reporting CE data. Companies that are already voluntarily conducting CE assessments and communicating this type of data will be at a clear advantage compared to those that will only do so when it becomes mandatory. In addition to this evolving climate of CE disclosure, early evidence suggests that companies are experiencing a number of benefits when externally communicating their CE activities (Opferkuch et al., 2023). Using semi-structured interviews, a sample of 43 companies engaged with the CE and operating in either Italy or the Netherlands were asked what benefits they experienced when they externally communicated their CE activities. Generally, companies had recorded a number of benefits. First, the CE is a powerful storytelling tool. Companies explained that framing the descriptions of their business activities using a life cycle approach enabled them to develop informative narratives which explain the life cycle of the materials being used and the products they produce. This in turn, helps consumers to understand exactly how the company’s products are being made and what the company’s values are. Second, companies described the CE as an important tool to promote sustainability education. A major challenge for companies intending to externally communicate CE data was a perceived low market awareness and consumer acceptance of ‘circular products’ (Opferkuch et al., 2023). These results show the difficulties companies have in selecting what CE content (both qualitative and quantitative) to externally communicate when their audience does not understand the advantages of CE strategies compared with existing linear strategies. Third, by externally communicating CE activities and the results of CE assessments, companies felt that they were 108 A. Raggi, H. Droege, K. Opferkuch et al. improving their own reputations and enabling eligibility for CE-specific financial incentives. Following on from the publication of the EU Taxonomy (EC, 2020) a number of financial institutions and governmental organisations have developed a variety of financial instruments related to the CE, e.g. private and public equity funds, venture capital, as well as CE-specific adaptations to current bank lending, insurance and project financing procedures (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2020). Therefore, companies that are conducting CE assessments and disclosing the results can potentially receive necessary investments in order to continue and advance their CE implementation. 5.4.2 Disclosing CE assessments in the private sector Looking forward, there are several factors that companies should keep in mind when selecting data from their CE assessments to be included within their corporate sustainability reports. Early evidence of a CE within corporate sustainability reports indicates that companies most often qualitatively describe their CE activities with an implicit connection to sustainability aspects and often unquantified indicators (Stewart and Niero, 2018; Opferkuch et al., 2022). Therefore, as proposed in Opferkuch et al. (2023), companies must find a balance between qualitative and quantitative CE data, tangible and intangible CE content, and shortand long-term CE visions. Through a content analysis of the sustainability reports of 94 sustainably ranked European companies, numerous shortcomings of current CE disclosure practices were identified (Opferkuch et al., 2022). Most often, companies were found to be reporting targets for the implementation of a CE that address higher-ranking CE strategies (as presented in Potting et al., 2017) such as targets which aim to eliminate and/or replace non-renewable resources within packaging. However, companies were rarely found to also report appropriate indicators which measure their progress towards achieving these targets. Most frequently, companies are reporting CE indicators which measure references to the linear economy, e.g. indicators showing the volume of waste being sent to landfill. Therefore, it is recommended that companies utilise the 10R-hierarchy, originally proposed by Potting et al. (2017) to develop targets and indicators for individual CE strategies, with the aim of disclosing higher-ranking strategies (where applicable). Finally, companies should pay close attention to the various ongoing developments in regulations and policies relevant to corporate sustainability reporting and communication, namely the CSRD (EC, 2021), the EU Taxonomy Regulation (EC, 2021, 2020) and the recent Green Claims Directive (GCD) (EC, 2023). In particular, the latter development which aims to reduce instances of greenwashing within both product and organisational level environmental claims, including those concerned with CE attributes. Within the GCD, the EC will require companies to meet a list of predetermined criteria before externally communicating any sustainability claims. These criteria focus on factors such as substantiation, scientific rigour and comparability, to name but a few (EC, 2023). This regulation will undoubtedly influence the Assessment approaches and methods for a circular economy 109 choice of assessment approaches companies can use to collect, measure and verify the data needed for environmental claims in order to comply with this regulation. Although these regulations are imposed at a European level, they will lay the foundations for integrating a CE, and other sustainability issues, within national-level sustainable finance regulations in countries around the world. For example, the integration of a CE as a key material disclosure topic can be seen in countries such as South Africa, through the ‘National Green Finance Taxonomy’ (National Treasury of the Republic of South Africa, 2021) and the People’s Republic of China, within the ‘Green Bond Endorsed Project Catalogue’ (People’s Bank of China et al., 2021). 5.5 CE assessment in the public sector To be able to design and prioritise circular policies and solutions that can contribute to sustainable development based on actual evidence, public sector organisations are starting to implement CE assessment initiatives and the topic is gaining attention in the literature (Corona et al., 2019; Droege et al., 2021a). The public sector assesses CE activities at different levels. At the macro level it assesses the progress and impact of CE policies. At the meso level, assessment initiatives emerge in circular supply chain management and circular public procurement (Xu et al., 2022). At the micro level, internal CE strategies and practices are assessed (Droege et al., 2021a). Due to the lack of a shared understanding and a standardised framework, a variety of CE measurement approaches exist in the public sector too, and the literature and practice are only starting to gain a deeper understanding of CE assessment. 5.5.1 Assessing the impact of CE regulations and policies CE regulations and policies intend to address the multifaceted issue of resource availability concerns and sustainable development at the macro level. The complexity of sustainability and circularity issues carries the risk of leading to CE policies that are not effective or even desirable. Measuring the impact of regulations and policies is a first step to make outcomes and potential repercussions transparent and to ensure that strategies and activities follow the intentions of the policymaker/ regulator. There is a significant body of literature on CE policies and policy assessment in China and Europe (e.g. Geng et al., 2012, McDowall et al., 2017). China was one of the first countries to release an indicator framework to track the progress of its ‘Circular Economy Promotion Law’ (Geng et al., 2012). The Chinese government introduced a target responsibility system which ties individual performance of civil servants against targets derived for the five-year-plan. In addition, the Chinese government assesses several CE pilot programmes to measure and compare progress of the different pilots (McDowall et al., 2017). Articles analysing CE assessment implementation in China have been subject to multiple publications (e.g. Geng et al. 2012, 2013). 110 A. Raggi, H. Droege, K. Opferkuch et al. In Europe, indicators are used to inform the policy debate and targets are set for the EU member states (McDowall et al., 2017). The first CE Action Plan drawn up in 2015 (EC, 2015) refers to existing indicator sets such as the Resource Efficiency Scoreboard and the Raw Materials Scoreboard (McDowall et al., 2017). Later, the EU released its own assessment frameworks and outputs such as ‘EU Circular Economy Indicators’ or the ‘impact assessment of circular economy policies on the labour markets’ (Eurostat, 2019). These CE assessments in use are facing criticism in the literature because they fail to grasp the complexity of the multifaceted CE concept; some of them lack specific goals and benchmarks and are not transparent in their methodology (e.g. Geng et al., 2012; MacDowell et al., 2017). Researchers have also highlighted that the assessment of environmental and economic topics, particularly those that are the focus of the private sector, is challenging (e.g. Pauliuk, 2018; Roos Lindgreen et al., 2021). However, the assessment of CE policies often excludes the social dimension, which, as already mentioned, is even more complex and often is more subjective than the environmental and economic aspects. 5.5.2 Assessing circular public procurement Public procurement is a fast-growing research field in the context of the CE. Procurement can help organisations and governments to achieve CE-related objectives connected to buying goods and services (Alhola et al., 2019. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) states that Circular procurement occurs when the buyer purchases products or services that follow the principles of the circular economy, supporting the assessment of designing, making, selling, reusing and recycling products to determine how to get the maximum value from them, both in use and at the end of their life (UNEP, 2021) Collaboration and transparency are key principles in public procurement activities as multiple parties are involved in the procurement procedures. Thus, CE assessments can play a central role by providing a standardised language to all parties involved leading to a more successful CE partnership (Ghisellini et al., 2020), while the lack of transparency and information is considered a key barrier to CE implementation (Kirchherr et al., 2018; Droege et al., 2021b). In a systematic review of the public procurement literature, Xu et al. (2022) found that a variety of assessment methodologies are adopted. LCA and eco-labels are widely implemented, and, for example, the EU procurement Directive 2014/24/EU is built upon it (Alhola et al., 2019). There are also procurement guidelines for emissions, packaging, environmental management systems and legal sourcing provided by public sector organisations at the supra-national, national, regional and local level (Kristensen et al., 2021). Assessment approaches and methods for a circular economy 111 5.5.3 Assessing CE in internal operations Existing CE assessments for organisations focus on the private sector and little progress has been made towards CE assessments addressing public sector organisations. Droege et al. (2021c) co-developed a CE assessment framework for public sector organisations. In a participatory case study with Portuguese public sector organisations, they developed a CE assessment framework that covers the following components: (i) a system definition; (ii) a definition of CE assessment elements; (iii) CE assessment targets; and (iv) CE indicators. The system definition included public procurement, resources, processes and operations, as well as employeerelated activities as important areas for CE assessment in public sector organisations. These areas were broken down further into 35 CE elements which were then detailed by allocating CE principles, a target as well as an indicator to assess the CE progress of each element. The authors showed that public sector organisations encounter difficulties when considering non-sector-specific frameworks, as they include indicators that are not relevant for CE assessment of a service-based organisation and/or require very complex assessment methods that are not feasible to be executed by most public sector professionals (Droege et al., 2021c). It also highlights the importance of stakeholder involvement to get sector specific insights, incorporate userfriendliness and the requirement for continuous development of CE assessments (Droege et al., 2021c). Thus, the developed framework gives these organisations specific guidance on how to assess their specific CE progress. 5.6 Key learnings for CE assessment in both the private andpublic sectors CE assessments need to be tailored to their context. What ‘CE performance’ is and how it should be addressed differs across sectors and organisations. However, cross-sector learning is very important to understand the experiences and innovative ideas which the public and private sectors can exchange with each other (Xu et al., 2022). First, as circularity is a complex multifaceted issue, it is valuable to include experts and stakeholders in the development and execution of CE assessments. For example, depending on the thematic focus of the public sector organisation, it might lack technical and specialised staff with expert knowledge of the CE. Thus, including experts and stakeholders can bridge this knowledge gap. While this challenge might not apply to big private corporations or more technical organisations, small and medium-sized enterprises might encounter similar difficulties as they potentially also lack trained staff and the financial resources to implement complex assessments (Droege et al., 2023). In addition, CE assessment in the private and public sectors still faces implementation challenges that need to be overcome. Bridging the findings from 112 A. Raggi, H. Droege, K. Opferkuch et al. the academic and grey literature with insights from practitioners can help to develop assessment approaches with low barriers for implementation. It can support the reduction of complexity and increase user-centricity, which improves user experience of CE assessments as the intended audience is directly addressed (Droege et al., 2023). Increased attention on shared learning between businesses, the public sector and academia will further improve the general understanding of needs and capabilities for assessment. Through such collaborations, assessment approaches that match business realities can be realised (Roos Lindgreen et al., 2022). Currently, CE assessment is not yet widespread and research identified multiple challenges that prevent implementation. In the public sector, Droege et al. (2021b) identified challenges across four main factors (cultural, structural, financial and technical) that are interrelated and partly drive each other. The most pressing barriers for CE assessment implementation in the public sector are cultural factors, a lack of public and political pressure and a resistance to change. Cultural challenges drive structural ones such as a lack of leadership commitment, the voluntary nature and lack of governance for CE assessment. Technical and financial challenges, contrary to previous findings of the literature, are not prioritised and are seen as a result of the cultural and structural challenges. For the private sector, barriers to CE assessment can be divided into internal and external barriers (Roos Lindgreen et al., 2022). The former include factors such as small company size, unclear use of CE assessments and the necessary acquisition of new skills by a business’s employees. The latter contains barriers such as a lack of definition of what a CE means, complexity of the supply chain under assessment and a lack of standardisation of CE measurement. 5.7 Future research avenues In line with these learnings, several suggestions for future research can be proposed. On the one hand, future research should focus on further adapting assessment approaches to a variety of different contexts, while on the other hand it should create knowledge to support companies in CIFNs and public sector organisations to actually implement these approaches. It is recommended that the academic sector increases its focus on building knowledge that supports organisations on their pathway towards sustainability, acknowledging that assessing circularity in itself does not necessarily lead to insights into an organisation’s sustainability impacts. This knowledge creation – and awareness – will strengthen the assessment capabilities of organisations to design assessment approaches that match company capabilities, while limiting the introduction of new methods to reduce so-called assessment fatigue. The design and application of assessment methods should be centred around both core as well as tailor-made indicators, thereby facilitating the comparability of performance and flexibility for context-specific aspects. Assessment approaches and methods for a circular economy 113 Overall, many organisations have already started to assess their circularity and sustainability impacts. Illuminating such best practices and sharing their lessons among organisations can demonstrate the efficacy of CE assessment and reporting practices, while also highlighting common pitfalls. Exchanging such information can facilitate the uptake of assessment methods, promoting the strategic change in organisations necessary to combat current sustainability challenges. It is strongly recommended to incorporate both the environmental as well as social dimensions of sustainability when assessing CE impacts. At a methodological level, in comparison to environmental LCA, it is expected that S-LCA is inherently more socially embedded due to the integral value discussions that need to take place during the assessment (Kühnen and Hahn, 2018). Yet, given that several CE practices are novel, future research should explore their social implications in the sectors where these circular innovations are most prevalent. Moreover, scholars should aim to also include the ‘use phase’ of the product or service, which is mostly omitted from the social assessment scope (UNEP, 2020). Special attention should be attributed to the fact that organisations must not become more circular at the expense of adverse social impacts, given the relative simplicity of circularity assessments. This key insight is in contrast with the recent GCD, which pertains only to product and organisational claims of environmental performance, excluding any considerations of social sustainability impacts (EC, 2023). This provides an opportunity for academia to collect evidence which can advocate for the development of the necessary social-specific criteria within the GCD, not only to reduce instances of greenwashing within social-related claims but to actually encourage firms to communicate substantiated claims of social sustainability. As the CE is being increasingly integrated within European and international sustainable finance policies (EC, 2020), studies should investigate the implications of CE implementation on existing risk identification and management processes. In particular, these implications should be connected to streams of research on sustainability trade-offs and due diligence processes. This will help to provide clarity on the assumption that circular practices are always sustainable. Another potential research strand could focus on the role of strategic partners for implementing assessment methods in CIFNs, including partners within the network and external knowledge partners, to better understand the process of organisational learning. Finally, the role of LCT-based assessment approaches itself can be more thoroughly analysed from a sociological perspective. Several scholars (e.g. Baitz et al., 2013; Freidberg, 2018; Niero et al., 2021; Pryshlakivsky and Searcy, 2021) have started to view the assessments as more than mere tools, and in fact as calculative devices with the power to convince other actors of the evidence-based superiority of a potential strategy. LCT assessment approaches have rightly been called the best methodologies available to evaluate sustainability aspects in a CE context. Yet to ensure their continued effectiveness and validity, it is crucial to also pay attention to how they are applied and talked about by practitioners. 114 A. Raggi, H. Droege, K. Opferkuch et al. 5.8 Conclusions The path towards circular processes and systems has recently taken on an increasingly important role, both for private sector companies and public organisations, and is often equated with a path towards sustainability. However, it has been highlighted that circular practices might not translate into improvements in all aspects of the various dimensions of sustainability (economic, social, environmental and institutional/governance). Hence, there is a need for adopting ad hoc assessments of the sustainability of each specific circular system before promoting its diffusion. Therefore, alongside the approaches for measuring circularity as such, often based on technical indicators of efficiency of use and recovery of materials, it is necessary to adopt sustainability assessment methods that are based on the LCT, such as LCA and related methods. These are recognised as adopting holistic and multi-criteria approaches that allow users to avoid problem shifting from one aspect of sustainability to another, from one type of impact to another, and from one phase of the life cycle of a product or process to another. These reliable and accurate methods are consolidated and are also well suited to the evaluation of circular systems in the context of inter-firm networks, as also revealed through a survey conducted among a sample of Italian and Dutch companies at the cutting edge of the implementation of circular practices. From this survey, it also emerged that social assessment is less widespread because of a lack of expertise and standards. The adoption of LCT assessment approaches is also facilitated by the existence of relationships of mutual trust and collaboration between organisations in a supply chain or circular network. Although, on the one hand, these methods generally meet the various criteria identified for sound sustainability assessment, on the other hand they are particularly resource-requiring, and therefore are not always within the reach of any organisation. Precisely to encourage companies to adopt evaluation approaches for their CE strategies, a specific holistic and multidimensional SCEIA framework was developed (see Chapter 4 in this volume). LCT assessment should be embedded in local contexts by supporting them with sociological analyses, e.g. using the ANT to model end-of-life scenarios. Furthermore, LCT-based methods should be acknowledged as calculation devices in decision-making processes. It is essential to be transparent about their limitations, including the fact that they consider a predefined, albeit relatively broad, range of impact categories and the fact that they present elements of subjectivity linked to the modelling choices of practitioners. Most of the proposed circularity assessment approaches are oriented towards internal uses in organisations, such as strategic improvement. Regarding the external communication of these results, the connection between CE assessment and corporate sustainability reporting is less studied. Recently there has been an evolving climate of CE disclosure due to increasing regulation in this area, especially at the European level. Furthermore, early evidence suggests that companies are experiencing a number of benefits when externally communicating their CE activities. Assessment approaches and methods for a circular economy 115 However, companies disclosing their CE activities in sustainability reports most often describe them qualitatively and do not make clear connections with sustainability. In other words, CE is often only implicitly linked to sustainability aspects, revealing an opportunity for reporting trends to improve. In addition, there is a need to educate consumers about the advantages and importance of the CE within an organisation’s products and operations. Alongside the private sector, the assessment of CE activities is also becoming increasingly popular in the public sector, where it can take place at the macro, meso and micro level. Specifically, as regards the micro level, unlike what happens in private companies, there are still too few tools to support public organisations. To overcome this gap, a specific and easy-to-implement evaluation framework has been developed by the Cresting project through a participatory approach. That framework, which considers various components, including the definition of the evaluation system and elements, the identification of CE targets and related indicators, can support public administration organisations on their journey towards circularity. However, even in this area, there is still a need to verify the sustainability of the circular solutions adopted, as well as the need to understand the relationship between CE assessment and sustainability assessment. Additionally, involving stakeholders to obtain a sector-specific perspective of CE assessment and addressing their views, knowledge and needs will contribute to a user-friendly and acceptable assessment. This collaborative involvement should be a fundamental pillar of the assessment initiatives. Whatever the reference sector, circular systems are complex and highly contextdependent systems, which involve different actors and organisations. Furthermore, their relationship to sustainability aspects is not always obvious and clearly defined. We therefore need suitable approaches and methods to capture such complexity while assessing circularity and its impacts on sustainability. Those methods should, on the one hand, guarantee reliability and accuracy; however, on the other hand, they may require technical skills, human and financial resources, as well as an adequate cultural attitude, that are not always present in organisations. It is therefore desirable to develop synergies, through collaboration among stakeholders, to demonstrate the effectiveness of these assessment and reporting practices, promoting their understanding, as well as for the development of simplified tools, while maintaining an adequate degree of reliability. References Alghababsheh, M. and Gallear, D. (2020) Socially sustainable supply chain management and suppliers’ social performance: The role of social capital. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04525-1 Alhola, K., Ryding, S.O., Salmenperä, H. and Busch, N.J. (2019) Exploiting the potential of public procurement: opportunities for circular economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23(1), 96–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12770 Baitz, M., Albrecht, S., Brauner, E., Broadbent, C., Castellan, G., Conrath, P., Fava, J., Finkbeiner, M., Fischer, M., Fullana i Palmer, P., Krinke, S., Leroy, C., Loebel, O., 122 A. Raggi, H. Droege, K. Opferkuch et al. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (2018) Circular Metrics - Landscape Analysis. https://www.wbcsd.org/Programs/Circular-Economy/MetricsMeasurement/Resources/Landscape-analysis World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (2019) Reporting Matters. https://www.wbcsd.org/resources/reporting-matters-2019/ (Accessed 7 July 2024) Weber, M. (2008) Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, vol. 2. Wiley, pp. 24–37. Xu, L., Jia, F., Yan, F. and Chen, L. (2022) Circular procurement: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 365, 132845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2022.132845 Zinck, S., Ayed, A.-C., Niero, M., Head, M., Wellmer, F.-W., Scholz, R.W. and Morel, S. (2018) Life cycle management approaches to support circular economy. In E. Benetto, K. Gericke and M. Guiton (eds), Designing Sustainable Technologies, Products and Policies: From Science to Innovation. Springer International Publishing, pp. 3–9. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-319-66981-6_1 DOI: 10.4324/9781003295631-6 This chapter has been made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. 6 SOCIO-SPATIAL DIMENSIONS OFACIRCULAR ECONOMY Pauline Deutz, Andrew E.G. Jonas, Sabrina Brullot, Martin Calisto Friant, Małgorzata Pusz, Aodhan Newsholme, Santiago Perez, Heather A. Rogers and Kaustubh Thapa 6.1 Introduction Interest in the transformative potential of a circular economy (CE) has emphasised economic and environmental benefits with relatively little attention paid to how the changes anticipated might be distributed either spatially or socially. Given that economic activity is socially constructed in and across space – in specific places and regions as well as globally – it follows that activities contributing to a CE always operate within, and are shaped by, different socio-spatial contexts. Yet the difference that place and space make to the development of a CE rarely receives explicit attention in the literature. There are calls for ensuring a regionally ‘just’ transition (Stevis and Felli, 2020), e.g. from the European Commission (2019), with assurances which imply recognition of socio-spatial inequalities. There has also been growing interest in the role of the CE in global development (e.g. de Souza Campos et al., 2023), but likewise largely without an explicitly geographic focus. The social dimensions of the CE have started to receive significant theoretical attention (Mies and Gold, 2021; Valencia et al., 2023), but so far there is a lack of significant empirically based research to support the increasing association of the CE with social ambition in academic definitions (Kirchherr et al., 2023). Environmental policies can indeed bring social and economic benefits, but with uncertain redistributive impacts – effects on different social groups will vary (Fullerton, 2011). Furthermore, there are uneven socio-spatial outcomes, with an emerging economic focus (such as CE or bioeconomy) generating a new area of competition between places while reproducing rather than removing the contradictory interests between employers and employees characteristic of the global capitalist economy (Deutz, 2014). Moreover, while academics may have social aspirations for a CE, this is not necessarily the focus of policymakers (see Chapter 3 in this volume). 124 P. Deutz, A. E. G. Jonas, S. Brullot et al. Furthermore, the impacts of national-scale policies need to be examined at smaller scales (Bourdin et al., 2022); more attention is needed to understand the effects of and relationships with CE policies at a larger scale (Gregson et al., 2015). The complexity of socio-spatial effects, including cross-scalar influences, relating CE policies and practices has been neglected in CE research, which tends to be routed in specific territories. Here we counteract that shortcoming by drawing on a number of Cresting studies. This chapter describes and examines examples of CE policies and practices in particular places and their relationship to the wider regional, national and global political economy. We thereby seek to uncover how local or place-specific factors are influencing, or are influenced by, the CE; how in turn those factors may be influenced by processes at work at wider scales; and to assess socio-spatial redistribution across and between scales. The chapter draws on project case studies of plans and proposals for the implementation of a CE in diverse places and regional settings. In so doing, the chapter addresses four spatial scales relating to the different contexts: neighbourhood-scale short-loop CE practices (Hull, United Kingdom, Graz, Austria, and Santiago, Chile); city-scale policies for the CE (comparing Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Glasgow); regional policies for long-loop CE and industrial engagement (the UK, France, Austria); and global-scale impacts of European-scale extended producer responsibility policies (Nigeria and Vietnam). 6.2 Space, place and the circular economy For geographers, places often have material significance and meaning extending well beyond their immediate territorial boundaries. Place and territory have a complicated relationship with each other insofar as the residents of a place will have material and meaningful attachments reflecting the experience both of living there and their connections with other places (Massey, 1991; Cresswell, 2014). Businesses and organisations, including territorially defined organisations such as local government bodies, likewise have complex interests in, and perspectives on, places. These reflect views of their different branches and of their employees as well as those relating to institutional memory and similar ‘untraded interdependencies’ (Storper, 1995). Perspectives may in turn reflect connections across space and scale (Cox and Mair, 1998; Coe et al., 2008). Even the physical boundaries of a place can vary according to different local and regional functions (Warnaby, 2009). Places are thus simultaneously influenced by societal (and natural) processes both within and extending beyond their immediate territory, including state policies at different scales (Jonas, 2024). When considered together, place, territory and scale are discrete yet overlapping concepts that are often used interchangeably to describe the complexity of societal processes operating within, around and through space (Jessop et al., 2008). While the specific combination of more or less global societal processes and circumstances seldom maps uniformly onto different specific places, territories and Socio-spatial dimensions of a circular economy 125 scales (especially at the global scale), the underlying societal issues, conditions and constraints can be similar – and these in turn can be illuminated by a detailed study of particular places (Cox, 2021). Spatial context influences socio-environmental outcomes notwithstanding their technical similarities (e.g. Deutz et al., 2015). Spatial analyses of CE tend to focus on the territory or scale of the place in question as delimited by jurisdictional boundaries (be these urban, regional or potentially national or supranational in the case of the European Union – EU; see, for example, Colombo et al., 2019; Johansson and Henriksson, 2020; Williams, 2023). This approach, however, underplays the multi-scalar operation of societal processes as addressed in the geographic literature on place, territory and scale (Jonas, 2024), thus contributing to the problem of ‘methodological territorialism’ (Jessop et al., 2008) wherein one scale (e.g. the local) is analytically privileged at the expense of knowledge of the workings of another (e.g. the global). Gregson et al. (2015), for example, consider how EU policy for the CE has implications beyond the Union given international waste flows that the policies seek to end by promoting loop closing within the bloc. Likewise, CE literature (e.g. Stahel, 2013) that idealises the local scale for closing loops tends to underplay the role of wider (e.g. regional) collaborative networks for achieving such a transition. Conversely, focusing on a given scale (especially national or above) can overlook spatial variations at smaller scales. This calls into question the prospects for implementing a more socially and spatially encompassing ‘just transition’ to a CE. Within the field of CE research there is emerging interest in approaches focused on cities and/or regions. Scholars have highlighted the important role that cities and urban planning and governance can play in developing CE initiatives and adapting to climate change (Petit-Boix and Leipold, 2018; Campbell-Johnston et al., 2019). Much of this work examines the potential challenges and barriers that cities (urban administrations) and their stakeholders face when transitioning to a CE. Notably, city CE policies tend to focus on the types of initiatives relating to existing functions of cities (such as waste management, public health and supportive of company-facing economic development) (Petit-Boix and Leipold, 2018; Fratini et al., 2019). Similarly, regionally focused work is also emerging (Tapia et al., 2021; Bourdin et al., 2022) that examines challenges facing policymakers, such as recruiting companies to participate in industrial symbiosis (exchange of pre-consumer residues between different entities (Chertow, 2000; Rincón-Moreno et al., 2022). The scalar focus of this work reflects the limited scope to directly impact approaches beyond the spatial scale of the territory, but also exhibits limited reflection on unintentional impacts. City-focused as well as regional CE research tends to concentrate on what can be termed top-down approaches. These consist of institutional change, such as strategy and policy decisions from public bodies focused on projects concerned with developing and facilitating market initiatives (Ghisellini et al., 2016; Lieder and Rashid, 2016). Conversely, bottom-up change describes company collaborations within supply chains and also social movements such as sharing schemes 126 P. Deutz, A. E. G. Jonas, S. Brullot et al. (Hobson and Lynch, 2016). The shorter-loop resource recovery options such as repair, reuse and sharing options (Stahel, 2013) are commonly overlooked, or underemphasised, in city-regional approaches to the CE (e.g. Petit-Boix and Leipold, 2018). Nevertheless, these strategies are starting to attract research attention, sometimes under the heading of ‘diverse’ (not financially driven) economic approaches (GibsonGraham, 2008; see, for example, Hobson and Lynch, 2016; Lekan and Rogers, 2020) rather than in mainstream urban or regional analyses. This chapter reports on aspects of the Cresting project that have sought to analyse the socio-spatial dimensions of the CE. The intention is that by carrying out spatially situated analyses of the local and regional development of different aspects of the CE we can uncover the structures, mechanisms and contingent conditions that would, or could, be of more general applicability to knowledge of the development of the CE at wider scales including the global. 6.3 Methods In this chapter we draw on Cresting research conducted under both ‘place’ and ‘policy’ headings that utilise a range of primarily qualitative methods including document analysis, stakeholder interviews, workshops and the Delphi method. Following a critical realist philosophy, we seek to separate the underlying causal mechanisms and contingent conditions (those that are place-specific as well as those that operate across multiple scales; Sayer, 2000). Using this approach we can strive to understand general patterns from the experiences of specific places and regions; itself a well-established approach in geographical research (Cox, 2021). Furthermore, working with multiple scales enables us to gain an understanding of their interrelationships without prejudice to one over another (Ollman, 2003; Jessop et al., 2008). Some comparisons are made between case studies conducted by the same person, while others draw on case studies conducted as separate research studies. Table 6.1 shows the different aspects of the CE, along with their scales, places and territories of operation, which are included in the studies considered in this chapter. There is no space here to provide details about the methods used so references are provided instead. Given the large number of different places involved, contextual information is provided in section 6.4 alongside a discussion of the findings. 6.4 Findings and discussion These are presented in terms of the four scales of the CE considered, which broadly correspond to the scales of policymaking and the underlying generative conditions (neighbourhood scale, urban scale, regional policies, and global implications of national/supranational policies) with multiple examples compared at each scale. Although each scale provides a discrete analytical entry point into the CE, the examples also explore inter-scalar connections. Socio-spatial dimensions of a circular economy 127 6.4.1 Neighbourhood-scale: community-embedded short-loopCEstrategies This section examines ‘actually existing’ CE initiatives, which, in contrast to the policies discussed below, are not necessarily self-defined as CE initiatives. They tend to emerge from already existing neighbourhood-based projects, organisations and/or social enterprises embedded in their communities. What the organisations in this section have in common is that they are engaging with short-loop CE strategies (repair, reuse, repurpose – and to some extent recycling). Some of these organisations engaging in CE activities are not independent of local government influence, as will be shown, but they are engaging in CE practices because they suit the organisations’ purposes and capacities, rather than responding to a city plan (i.e. they comprise bottom-up initiatives). The cities used for this aspect of the research are Hull, UK, Graz, Austria and Santiago, Chile. Both Graz and Hull are manufacturing cities surrounded by a rural agricultural economy. Hull (population 267,010 in 2021; Hull City Council, 2022), is a maritime port city with an industrial heritage linked to water as a means to import, export and dispose of waste. While Graz (estimated population 305,404; World Population Review, 2023a) is the capital of the region of Styria, Hull is a standalone local authority as the UK does not have a regional scale of governance. The third city, Santiago, was selected as a contrast. It is the national capital of Chile with a much TABLE 6.1 Scales and approaches to the CE presented in this chapter, with methods used and references for further information CE aspect and scale Places and territories Methods Reference Communityembedded shortloop approaches (repair, reuse, repurposing) Hull, UK, Graz, Austria, Santiago, Chile Interviews Pusz, 2023 Rogers et al., 2024 Urban-scale CE policies Amsterdam, Netherlands, Copenhagen, Denmark, Glasgow, UK Policy analysis Secondary data to characterise the cities Calisto Friant et al., 2023 Regional-scale collaborations for CE development North Humberside, UK, Styria, Austria, Strasbourg, France Document analysis, semistructured interviews Newsholme, 2023; Perez et al., 2020 Global-scale material flows Vietnam, Nigeria Documents, interviews, workshops, observations Thapa et al., 2023; 2024 128 P. Deutz, A. E. G. Jonas, S. Brullot et al. larger population than the other two cities (estimated population 6,903,392; World Population Review, 2023b) and is the dominant urban centre within the Chilean economy. Hull notably includes some of the most deprived neighbourhoods in the UK, with a thriving voluntary and community sector. By contrast, Graz benefits from the greater social protections in Austria (scoring 13.3% compared to the UK’s 18.6% poverty rate; World Population Review, 2023c), and is missing the extensive and embedded poverty found in Hull, where there are families with multiple generations of worklessness. The overall level of prosperity in Austria may contribute to the relatively high per capita production of waste for the EU. However, it does not indicate an absence of underprivileged residents, albeit that they may be comparatively hidden and potentially therefore missing out on support to which they may be entitled (Eisfeld and Seebauer, 2022). Although a high-income country since 2012 by World Bank definitions, Chile has a much lower per capita income than the UK or Austria and a higher Gini co-efficient indicating the social shortcomings of apparent economic development in recent years1 (World Bank, 2023). The city is strongly segregated along class or income lines, with some neighbourhoods exhibiting deep and firmly entrenched poverty re-enforced by institutional arrangements (Dockemdorff et al., 2000). Frustrations with this spatially uneven development resulted in an outbreak of social unrest across Chile known as the ‘Estallido Social’ (Laing et al., 2019). 6.4.1.1 Institutional arrangements for community organisations/ socialenterprises Many, though not all, of the organisations considered in this section broadly fall into the category of social enterprises (SEs). This term encompasses a range of legal arrangements and organisational forms in different countries, which have developed since the early 2000s as a new form of organisation alongside more traditional charities. We adopt the academic definition of a SE as a mission-driven organisation that may have a ‘business arm’ for the generation of income, but which invests that income in a social and/or environmental cause of benefit to local communities (Longhurst et al., 2016). In exchange for their investment to the common good, organisations may enjoy tax privileges and other simplifications of the barriers to business in comparison to regular companies. In Chile and Austria, there have been deliberate initiatives to encourage environmentally driven SEs; by contrast in the UK there are tax incentives for regular (i.e. profit-driven) companies to invest in organisations delivering social benefits (Pusz, 2023). Other organisations, notably the small-scale repair companies in Hull, do not necessarily have the motivation of community or environmental benefit, though these may be present (Rogers et al., 2024); nonetheless, they are embedded in neighbourhoods across the city. Organisations studied in Chile are primarily led by entrepreneurs trying to launch businesses drawing on CE strategies, such as Socio-spatial dimensions of a circular economy 129 upcycling. These organisations are protected by the status of SE under Chilean terms (i.e. for their environmental benefits). They are not setting out with altruistic motives, albeit that they may have intentions of addressing social issues in the future. Crucially, while there are many examples of more ‘altruistic’ SEs in Chile, the researchers primarily engaged with those Chilean SEs that target financially privileged consumers, with the aim of cross-fertilising ideas across different sociospatial contexts (e.g. proposing new business ideas/circular activities to be implemented by SEs in Hull; Pusz, 2023). 6.4.1.2 Circular activities An overview of spaces where circular activities are taking place, circulating materials and (co)producers) for each city is shown in Figure 6.1. This demonstrates the wide range of neighbourhood and social contexts involved, ranging from individuals’ homes to institutional settings such as prisons and schools, allotments and community spaces. Some of these are providing public services; others are community driven (albeit that they are sanctioned by local authority policy, as in the case of allotments). Likewise, the individuals participating represent a wide range of social groupings – some are explicitly disadvantaged (prisoners, ex-offenders, the mentally disadvantaged, the homeless), others are defined by characteristics that might imply a level of need depending on their circumstances (the elderly, ethnic minorities, women) and still others who are apparently in certain categories by choice (artisans, students). Finally, a wide range of materials are reused, conserved or recovered by these groups. Sometimes these activities (arts and crafts) are undertaken for their own sake, sometimes for support, or to provide local cost options (such as food). In Graz, a detailed case study was made of heidenspass – a project run by an association established to provide work for unemployed youth. A range of CE activities are undertaken, including the preparation of meals for staff and customers from the unsold surplus of a large retailer, or repurposing/upcycling a range of materials (including vehicle parts, clothes and furniture) into goods with aesthetic and economic value (Lekan et al., 2021). In addition to the environmental benefits of preventing materials from going to landfill, the SE provides work experience and skills to disadvantaged youth. Notably, the latter comprise a low-cost workforce, which alongside the fact that many of the inputs are donated, help to keep heidenspass financially viable. Not all of the resources/customers are local – many of its retrieved/remade/resold goods are products of global production systems. The SE’s relationship to the city of Graz is via social services, i.e. with respect to the workforce. Relationships surrounding material supplies largely occur with companies (other goods being donated). Those companies are also the key customers (in line with the ambitions of Chilean entrepreneurs), paying, on a businessto-business basis, prime prices for the image of environmental and social care conveyed in remanufactured/upcycled goods. 130 P. Deutz, A. E. G. Jonas, S. Brullot et al. FIGURE 6.1 An overview of circular spaces of (reand co-)production, circulating materials and (co-)producers, and generated items in the context of case study SEs in Hull (UK), Graz (Austria) and Santiago (Chile) Source: Designed by co-author (Pusz, 2023, p. 128). Socio-spatial dimensions of a circular economy 131 By way of comparison, in Hull 31 participating organisations were studied ranging from locally predominant SEs operating multiple retail outlets (i.e. charity shops in UK terminology) to those that are heavily dependent on a key individual. The SEs typically function in more than one field, but variously focus on food (six); furniture (five); clothing and other textiles (five); arts and crafts (four); hygiene (one); electronics (two); construction/housing (six); mixed (two) sectors (Pusz et al., 2023). Of these, two of the arts and crafts organisations are defined primarily by their target beneficiaries (i.e. the elderly and autistic people). These organisations work with a wide range of social groups, sometimes more than one, namely the elderly, the disabled, the mentally struggling, the homeless, ex-offenders, prisoners, vulnerable youth, refugees and asylum seekers. As with heidenspass, there are SEs with close relationships to large corporations. In the case of Hull, this also includes a large commercial waste management company enabling one SE to capture reusable items from a waste recycling centre, and local authorities. While companies act as sources of unwanted products (rather than as customers), local authorities offer SEs contracts to provide a service (although many are filling in gaps in service delivery of their own accord, possibly with financial support). There is a level of competitiveness and distrust between organisations, which are protective of both their geographic space in the town and their remit. The CE is typically a means to an end (e.g. providing affordable food or consumer goods, cheap materials for craft or similar activities, or raising money for social ends by selling to the public). SEs in Hull may also deliver social-circular value across the city through concessionary leases or ‘liability transfers’, whereby local authorities rent their premises (i.e. surplus public sector assets) to mission-driven SEs for a peppercorn rent provided that those properties are not used for profit. Nonetheless, such properties in Hull are often in poor condition, entailing high maintenance and repair costs. Property leasing from companies thus seems to be a more viable alternative for financially constrained SEs, especially in case those companies can cover any repair/refurbishing costs. A further group of five self-employed repairers were interviewed in Hull (Rogers et al., 2024). Having been working in their respective fields for up to 25 years, these individuals were not motivated by the concept of the CE, but were nonetheless providing a service that is arguably the ideal of a CE (Stahel, 2013), namely extending product life and not just keeping the products in use but with the same owner (minimising both energy and transaction costs) and keeping both the product and the economic opportunity arising from the CE in the same locality. Notably, however, these individuals already had the possibility of taking on more business than they could manage, but nonetheless were operating at the edges of financial viability and were either too busy or too far removed from their skill set to contemplate taking on staff to expand their business. This is in contrast to creative and usually young entrepreneurs from Santiago, albeit that they were engaged in sectors other than repair, who were looking to develop their businesses.