Accelerating the implementation of circular economy

CHAPTER THREE

Accelerating the implementation of circular economy 3.1 Introduction After illustrating the unsustainability and numerous serious limitations of the current linear economic model in the first chapter, and after justifying the need to shift to the most mature sustainable economic model, Circular Economy (CE), the logical next step is to start developing innovative procedures, and taking incentive measures to facilitate and accelerate this critical transition phase toward the global implementation of CE. Basically, the transition to the CE model implies: (i) maintaining the value of resources and derived products in the economy for as long as possible, along with (ii) minimizing the generation of unsafe, non-useful and low-value waste. Accelerating the implementation of related strategies, legislations, and processes is a key endeavor to accomplish the objectives sought from CE in the first place, that the development is sustainable, low carbon, resource efficient and competitive economy [1]. Thus, accelerating the implementation of CE on a global scale is a real and effective “catalyst” to attain many of the sustainable devolvement goals (SDGs) set by the United Nations, including reduced poverty and hunger, promoted economic growth and jobs, affordable and clean energy and water supplies, responsible production and consumption, etc. [2,3]. Considering the wide and valuable opportunities for growth offered by CE, and in order to enable and accelerate the effective implementation of these opportunities, it is very important that the holistic nature of the CE concept is captured by all. Thus, scientists, industrialists, stakeholders, policymakers, and all potential contributors need to find common platforms to identify common interests, explore new opportunities, exchanges novel ideas and jointly determine the best solutions to the various challenges slowing down the implementation of CE. This joint effort can be promoted by developing new business models and including CE messages at all levels of education. The role and impact of policymaking in this regard is crucial, through well-tailored policies and regulation measures to support these “circular” opportunities [4]. The Circular Economy ISBN: 978-0-12-815267-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815267-6.00003-7

© 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

69

j

70

The Circular Economy

Overall, the main aim of this transition phase is to ensure that investors, producers, consumers, and decision makers can, easily and quickly, capture the value of the multiple CE principles. According to a report published by the World Economic Forum (WEF), in collaboration with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and McKinsey & Company, such crucial effort will trigger action to implement innovative business models and create new job opportunities. Economic value and environmental gain can be tapped as a result [5]. As we shall see in this chapter, all involved parties can contribute to accelerating the transition phase toward CE, and harness its economic, environmental, and societal benefits.

3.2 Conceptual change: “rethinking the wheel” Change is the single keyword summarizing this very important transition era in the history of humanity. This might seem too exaggerated, but it is not. Too much is already at stake because we kept doing business as usual and we did not jointly and efficiently react to serious and recurrent alarming signs including extreme climatic events, transgressed planetary boundaries, and serious geopolitical complications related to the control of finite resources, etc. [6e8]. We were, some would say, still blinded by our impulsive pursuit of economic growth, at the expense of the environment, and ultimately at our own expense. From a psychological perspective, most people tend to be afraid of change, and they can even furiously oppose any fundamental change in their lives. This fear of change is deeply lodged in the psyche of individuals, societies, and some “conservative” companies, which makes the replacement of an economic model with a novel one is a challenging task facing CE, and it will remain so despite the fact that CE is a sustainable concept developed to replace a clearly unsustainable one. To be pragmatic, the current linear and fossil-based economic model is still effective in generating economic growth. Thus, no alternative economic model will be able to take over, no matter how “green” it is, until it becomes equally effective, or at least shows unmistakable signs of it. This is the only way to overcome this intrinsic fear of change, capable of considerably slowing down the implementation of CE, if not giving the appropriate consideration through both incentive and punitive measures. Overall, when it comes to any paradigm shift, some of us are willing to make minor concessions for some time, but none of us will be willing to make serious

Accelerating the implementation of circular economy

71

concessions most of the time, and involved players in CE need to take this seriously especially in the policy-making process, and the education and media sectors.

3.2.1 From linearity to circularity No more take-make-dispose in the future is at the heart of the CE concept, simply because we are running out of resources to “sustain” this unsustainable economic model. Since the dawn of the industrial revolution, the economy remained fundamentally based on a unidirectional concept where a company A extracts and/or harvests resources, a company B uses those resources as feedstock to manufacture products, and a company C sells the product to a consumer X. At the end of the service life of the product, X dumps it. Ultimately, the resources used to make this product vanishes from the supply chain, and thus, company A extracts more of it until signs of resource depletion start to be visible. Then, increased fears of resource scarcity starts to build up, and leads to aggravated volatility of commodity prices. Eventually, consumer X cannot buy the product anymore because it has become too expensive, and since the economy growth was seriously affected, he is now worried about losing his job, and companies A, B, and C are struggling to stay in business. Thus, moving away from this linear concept makes perfect sense, especially if we know that around 65 billion tons of raw materials entered the global economy in 2010, and this figure is predicted to increase to 82 billion tons in 2020 [9]. Thus, if we keep doing business as usual, the potential of resources is just staggering. Moving away from the linear economy concept means moving toward a diametrically opposed economic model, a non-linear one, namely CE, enabling the recovery of recourses and reusing/recycling products and materials. For how long? For as long as our ingenuity will allow and facilitate. We shall explore these innovative features in more details in the present and the next chapters, including new circular business models (CBMs) and innovative “circularity-enabling” procedures and technologies. The real benefit from such fundamental shift toward a global CE is to catalyze a steady decoupling of what we are always expecting from our economy (that is growth, new jobs, prosperity, social welfare, etc.) from what we do not control (finite resources, most times in foreign countries), and only couple it with what we can control (renewable resources and wastes).

The Circular Economy

72

In order to reach this objective on a global scale, first, CE strategies need to be adopted to local economies, and then globally extended through the implementation of various measures targeting the sustainable and efficient management of resources and products [10]. • For resources: reducing the use of finite or pristine raw materials, valorizing existing assets, and reducing the output of waste. • For materials: promoting recovery and reuse schemes, lifetime extension, sharing and service models, circular design, and digital platforms. The following Fig. 3.1 is contrasting the linear economy and CE concepts, where the LE (left) underestimates (to say the least) the environmental impacts of its resource consumption and waste disposal schemes, leading to more pressure on pristine resource, the “wasteful” emission of wastes, and the generation of pollution. In contrast, the CE concept (right) moves resources and products in closed loops, thus reducing the pressure on resources, and limits the generation of wastes and emission of pollution, to manageable levels.

3.2.2 From skepticism to conviction As stated in Section 2.3.2.3, debates over the CE are still going on in government, business, and academic circles, although several experts, are emphasizing the fact that the CE concept is mature enough for wider implementation scenarios. Why is that? Simply because we have key players in various sectors, particularly in the entrepreneurial and political arenas,

Figure 3.1 Conceptual difference between linear and circular economy [11].

Accelerating the implementation of circular economy

73

who are still skeptical about this new concept and its potentialities to “deliver” the high expectations promoted by scientists and other experts. Some skeptics would say that although recycling products and recovering resource is a “good thing,” but we need infrastructure, facilities, and resources to achieve these objectives, which in turn would also consume resources and generate harm to the environment. Others will start enumerating the various internal and external limitations to CE, put forward in the first place by scientists and researchers in order to focalize the R&D effort on those challenges and fix them. Hardcore skeptics would dismiss any novelty about the CE concept altogether by saying that the CE protagonists are trying to “sell” an old concept which has been going on and off since the 1960s without a clear breakthrough [12]. More articulate skeptics will tell that leading companies are already seizing most of the economically attractive opportunities to recycle, remanufacture, and reuse. Aiming at higher levels of circularity, would, therefore, incur substantial economic costs [13]. In the academic circles, some scientists also have doubts about the successful implementation of CE on the ground, but in a constructive manner (kind of an active skepticism). Thus, they always tend to publicize their concerns and highlight any serious shortcoming. On a related matter, Brocken et al. published an interesting research article entitled “The Circular Economy e Exploring the Introduction of the Concept Among S&P 500 Firms” [14]. In this article, the authors analyze the press releases from 101 companies listed on the Standard & Poors (S&P) 500 stock index during the period 2005e14. The main objective was to identify their priorities for materials management. For the completed bibliometric analysis including over 90,000 documents, the terms “maintenance” and “recycle” (i.e., recycle, recycled, recycling, etc.) were counted 6850 and 4326 times, respectively. Surprisingly, other CE defining terms such as “refurbish,” “reduce waste” and “remanufacture” appeared 392, 126 and 80 times, respectively. Other terms such as “closed loop” and “zero waste” were only counted 48 and 19 times, respectively. The only conclusion from these numbers is that the corporate world is approaching CE the wrong way. Indeed, while the rudimentary hierarchy of CE is “reduce, reuse, recycle,” industries tend to go the opposite way and prioritize what they are more acquainted with, recycling. Overall, this skepticism about CE remains a normal behavior, and is far from being all bad. Indeed, although from short term perspectives, skeptics can slow down the global implementation of CE, and this impact may be influenced by the position of those skeptics in the decision-making process.

74

The Circular Economy

In the long-term, however, what might appear now as an obstacle to CE, will turn out to be a real advantage because it has contributed to further maturing and strengthening the concept. Thus, rather than considering the still skeptical minds as adversaries to CE, we should consider them as “guardrails” who will safeguard CE from any potential negative impacts from overpessimism, often echoed in most CE-related literature. In this regard, the article published in 2018, by Korhonen et al. [15], entitled “Circular Economy: The Concept and its Limitations” is an illustrative example. The authors, well aware of the “popularity” of CE in the EU, and among governmental and business circles, rightfully noticed that the scientific and research content of the CE concept is still “superficial and unorganized.” Therefore, they focused their concern on the critical analysis of CE from the perspective of environmental sustainability. Thus, several challenges were highlighted, including thermodynamics limits and loose definition of the boundaries and challenges in the governance and management of the CE-related interorganizational and intersectoral material and energy flows. Interestingly, after revealing the limitations of CE, the authors concluded their paper by clearly stating that “Circular economy has a great inspirational strength and equipped with critical sustainability assessment it can be important for global net sustainability.”

3.2.3 Concept of “zero waste” cities In theory, zero waste city is a very inspiring concept aimed at recycling ALL municipal solid wastes and recovering ALL included resources. In practice, reaching these objectives is a challenging endeavor for many reasons, including • The enormous amounts of generated wastes in “overconsuming” and/or “overpopulated” cities, • Waste management systems have not received as much attention in the city planning process as other sectors like water or energy. Therefore, gaps can be observed in waste management in current city planning. • Most products are still manufactured to be used and disposed, with little effort to inherently enable future recycling or recovering options. Conscious about the prospects of zero waste cities and their role in local and global sustainability, several research studies were conducted to analyze the challenges, threats, and opportunities to transform traditional waste management systems toward zero waste systems [16,17]. Related investigations,

Accelerating the implementation of circular economy

75

generally, start by analyzing the key elements governing municipal waste management schemes, then providing selected principles enabling the conversion of current cities into zero waste cities. These principles include both short and long-term strategies [18e20]: • Short-term strategies: • Extended producer and consumer responsibility • Legislation related to zero landfill and incineration • innovative industrial design • Long-term strategies: • Behavior change and sustainable consumption • 100% recycling of municipal solid waste • Awareness, education, and systems thinking In a related research study, and after suggesting similar principles of the “zero waste city,” the prolific authors in the field of zero waste management, Atiq Uz Zaman and Steffen Lehmann, provided various drivers enabling the conversion of current cities into zero waste cities, as depicted in Fig. 3.2. The same authors also developed a “zero waste index” (ZWI). According to the authors, the need for such index is highly justified because most cities are using waste diversion rate as a tool to measure the performance of their waste management systems. Nevertheless, within the zero waste

Figure 3.2 Drivers to transform “wasteful” linear cities into “zero waste” circular cities [21].

76

The Circular Economy

concept, the sole assessment of the amount of wastes diverted from being landfilled is not a reliable tool. In this context, the proposed ZWI tool was developed to tackle this issue and give a holistic assessment of the zero waste performance of a city by forecasting the amount of virgin materials, energy, water, and greenhouse gas emissions substituted by the resources that are recovered from waste streams. From a conceptual perspective, “circular” objectives on zero waste cities such as 100% recycling, zero emissions, and responsible producers and consumers, might seem too optimistic for some and even impossible to achieve for others. To avoid these misperceptions, often linked with visionary concepts like zero waste city, we need to be pragmatic and start with easily implemented objectives to generate concrete impacts of the ground, build momentum, and then aim for more challenging objectives. Starting with objectives that are highly inspiring but difficult to apply (still maturing technologies or skeptic mindsets) could backlash and hinder the gradual implementation of this concept and weaken any industrial and/or governmental networks aimed at reaching such highly challenging, but vital, objectives. Overall, “zero waste” is a catchy notion, but industrialists and city officials struggling with waste management issues on a daily basis, tend to perceive zero wastes and zero emissions as “utopian” notions detached for the reality. To deal with such perceptions, researchers and scientists promoting these green concepts (circularity, zero wastes, zero emissions, etc.) need to do it pragmatically using simple, clear, and perceptible lexicons. How so? For example, when the EU sets a target for “zero recyclables or biodegradable waste by 2025 in landfill” [22], it makes more sense to everyone than just using the wide, and thus, the confusing notion of “zero waste,” although we are talking about the same thing.

3.2.4 Circular business models (CBMs) Inherently, CE is a knowledge-based, innovation-intensive concept; hence, the decisive role of scientific research and development in its successful implementation and expansion. According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF), innovation is “the aspiration to replace one-way products with goods that are ‘circular by design’ and create reverse logistics networks and other systems to support the circular economy” [23]. Such aspiration is a key driving force to stimulate the emergence of new ideas developing in various CE-related fields. To ensure a continuously innovative CE concept, we need to move beyond “end-of-pipe” solutions, aiming at mitigating this and reducing

Accelerating the implementation of circular economy

77

that (often to avoid fines) and focus on developing and applying innovative practices and technologies embedded carefully throughout the entire valuechain transformations [24]. Many scientists are concurring in their assessment that innovation in CE is a decisive factor in enabling the development and implementation of a genuinely sustainable concept [25e27], which fundamentally entails: • the recirculation of resources in close or open loops via various reuse, refurbishment, remanufacturing schemes. • a novel perception of the recycling strategies, as green and profitable tools enabling the “reconstruction” of inputs and “reshaping” of outputs. • The use of renewable resources and clean energy supplies, avoid the landfilling and incineration of resources-loaded wastes, and ultimately the elimination of wastes. Overall, innovation-intensive CE should, therefore, include and always aim at higher rates of technological development, improved materials recovery, more renewables, highly skilled workforce, optimum energy efficiency, and more innovative frugal and disruptive business models for companies. Selected CBMs are described in the following paragraphs. The rest of the innovative aspects in CE will be discussed in Section 3.3, and throughout this book. Regarding the innovative business models in CE, several frugal and disruptive concepts were reported in the related literature. Right off the bat, most of the proposed business models to generate circular growth are based on five major strategies [28]: i. Circular supply chain ii. Recovery and recycling iii. Product life extension iv. Sharing platform v. Product as a service Basically, a business model is the compilation of specific strategic decisions set by companies’ stakeholders with the ultimate purpose of creating, transferring, and capturing value, internally, according to their activities, and externally, through relationships with suppliers and customers [29,30]. Many experts are reporting that the actual emergence of the concept of the business model started in the 1990s with the development of new revenue mechanisms associated with the emergence of e-commerce platforms. In this context, the emerging concept of business model, back then, was mainly used to pitch simple but comprehensive business ideas to investors within a short time frame [31,32].

78

The Circular Economy

In most strategic management studies, business models are debated as a means to shape or reshape the strategy of companies. Hence, in the related literature, business models are often considered as drivers of competitiveness. Therefore, choosing and adopting the “right” business model is a vital decision for the company that defines how much competitive edge it can have, compared to competitors. Overall, most managers would consider the design of the business model as a strategic priority for their companies [33]. During the emergence of the CE concept, adopting CBMs was perceived as either a bold or crazy idea. The tricky aspect of such strategic decisions for companies resided in the following dilemma: • should we “capitalize” on novel promising business models, still emerging and not fully mature? and what would be the extent of such “introduction.” • or should we continue managing our activities-based strategic decisions from established and still profitable business models? The big question though is for how long will it remain so? and what if competing companies jump into this new robust, but still slow “circular wagon”; we will be behind for sure when it increases its speed? The simple thought of being behind is not acceptable for some companies, rich ones of courses. That is why most of them have embarked into the CE “wagon” and have taken bold decisions to adopt CBM (often partially or gradually). Other small-sized companies were pioneers, and still are, in their fields because they have adopted disruptive business models when others did not dare to. Such companies are operating either autonomously or, in most cases, under the sponsorship of larger corporations. We shall go into more details about this important subject in Chapter 4. From industrial and market perspectives, the implementation of CE principles depends on a well-planned and smooth transition. The transition phase itself necessitates the adoption of systemic changes in the ways companies follow in order to generate value, and do business [34]. From the institutional perspective, the transition toward adopting CBMs could be enabled through various regulative, normative, and cognitive processes [35]. In the following Fig. 3.3, the key features characterizing CBMs are depicted, in comparison with traditional and sustainable business models. In this transition phase to adopt CBMs, experimentation is an important facilitating endeavor aimed at improving innovative business model activities while limiting risks and resources through continuous and collective learning with stakeholders. In a recent study, the process and role of business model experimentation were analyzed, and a circular business

Accelerating the implementation of circular economy

79

Figure 3.3 Comparison of sustainable and circular business models [36].

experimentation framework was developed and applied [37]. Eight case companies aiming at becoming a sustainable business were targeted as study cases. By focusing on CE as a “driver for sustainability,” it was found that experimentation: • helps creating internal and external engagement to initiate business sustainability transitions. • allows rigorous testing of various assumptions in every “building block” of the entire business model. • Enables collaboration with external partners. In this regard, the authors also reported that since experimentation is an iterative procedure that requires constant learning and regular sustainability checks, more research studies need to be carried out in this field, especially on how to integrate sustainability targets in the experimentation process. Overall, in the context of CBMs, companies, and institutions are required to collaborate and work closely within an “ecosystem” of stakeholders and other potential contributors. Such symbiotic partnerships will gradually enable involved parties to shift from a “firm-centric” logic to an “eco-systemic” mindset [38] and “systems thinking” [39]. Thus, this transition toward CE and sustainability necessitates companies, established and emerging ones alike, to rethink and redesign their current business models in a radical manner through various grassroots, frugal, and disruptive innovations [28,40e42].

80

The Circular Economy

3.2.5 Economic incentives: catalyzing change In order to speed up the full implementation of circular principles in our procurement, manufacturing, and consumption patterns, the CE concept should rely on economic incentives to ensure that the production and consumption loops are closed and that the entire economic system functions as an “ecosystem.” In layman’s term, encouraging less waste and penalizing wasteful practices. Such an approach is necessary and well justified, especially during the current transition phase toward circularity and sustainability. Nonetheless, several obstacles are still hindering CE in this respect. One of these obstacles is the profitability factor. Indeed, despite the continuous development in the manufacturing process, usually it is still more expensive to produce “circular goods” (i.e., long lasting and eco-friendly products) than the cheaper, quickly produced, and readily disposable counterparts. As well, many experts are highlighting the wide gap between the “good intentions” from relatively few incentive measures to promote CE and the actual achievements on the ground. For instance, it was reported that despite the high expectation that the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) would be a strong economic incentive to incite manufacturers to design products and packaging for CE, the current system fails to promote a zero waste design [43]. Nevertheless, despite the practical obstacles in the current situation, national and international authorities need to continue to incentivize circularbased supply procurement practices, manufacturing processes and waste management strategies, along with the related enabling technologies and business models. Various economic instruments, including diverse taxes and financial incentives, can ensure this role. To what extent? This is the real challenge. Although for obvious reasons, producers are more easily “targeted” than consumers (lesson learned for decades-long effort in promoting recycling), the need to send clear price signals to both producer and consumer is often emphasized. This way, “CE-friendly business models are more likely to emerge and become mainstream faster [44]. In this regard, many experts are stating that the shift from linear to CE profoundly relies on the ability of those incentive measures to change the current model where the regulatory framework overall favors business-asusual over circular products and services. Thus, various potential solutions were proposed to accelerate the implementation of CE and make it the mainstream economic model through economic incentives including

Accelerating the implementation of circular economy

81

integrating externalities (related to the environment, health and other societal issues) to the cost of production and consumption of the goods, internalize it in the price paid by the consumers [11]. A business manifesto jointly prepared with a large coalition of EU business associations representing thousands of companies also highlighted some solutions to improve the CE regulatory framework, including economic incentives for CBMs [45]. Among the proposed solutions were: • The adjustment of European value-added tax (VAT) regulations in order to allow member states to choose for VAT rate differentiation on the basis of circularity. Such “flexibility” will incites consumers to buy circular products and services. • The introduction of a tax shift from labor to resources. • The extension and enhancement of EPR schemes by rewarding producers of circular products with lower costs, and allocating substantial funds to invest in innovative waste management schemes. • The promotion of research and pilots to develop the concept of “precycling” as a prerequisite for the future development of EPR. Overall, a key principle of CE is to redesign and re-engineer the resource-flow systems, and in this context, experts agree that there is no point designing a product for disassembly if “take-back” infrastructure and mechanisms are missing or ineffective. Thus, alongside new incentives policies and market levers, greater attention to transparency across supply chains is also required to facilitate the tracking and recovery of end-of-life products and materials in an effective manner. The success of such an integrated approach necessities investments in innovative technologies, organization, education, financial tools, and government policies [46].

3.3 Materialistic change: “reinventing the wheel” 3.3.1 Raw material shift The shift from unsustainable linear economy model toward “inherently” sustainable CE requires conceptual and technological changes to make it a de facto sustainable economic model, starting with the decoupling of global economic development from finite resources. In practice, the implementation of the CE concept on the ground could be carried out through various strategies. In this regard, alongside closing loops through local (closed) or global (open) schemes, the shift from fossil resources to recovered and/or renewable raw materials is also a strategic endeavor to promote circular and sustainable development.

82

The Circular Economy

The term “raw material” refers to “unprocessed organic or inorganic materials or substances used as feedstock for the primary production of energy, fuels and various intermediates and end products” [47]. Thus, the raw material shift in CE is of paramount importance to enable this highly anticipated change in global economies. Such shift will have substantial impacts from local decisions to national strategies and international regulatory policies. Securing a constant supply of raw materials at reasonable prices is and will remain, the prime objective of countries and corporations, and a constant challenge to supply management teams. As the competition over resources became fierce, whether between industries or between countries, the focus became more and more on the price of raw materials, and much less on from where it comes and at what environmental or societal cost. For many decades, and in order to ensure the economic success and development of their firms or countries, executive officers and government officials resorted to the “back then” cheap but finite resources (mainly fossil fuels, metals, and minerals). Disastrous environmental and societal repercussions soon followed throughout the entire supply chain, from extraction to disposal, and even the projected economic development and growth turned out to be momentary and discriminatory. Hence, one of the key missions of CE is to provide financial, technological, infrastructural, and legal “tools” to effectively and efficiently enable: ➢ the sustainable management of raw materials (valid for both nonrenewable and renewable ones), and ➢ the sustainable management of wastes (both biological and technological ones)

3.3.2 Sustainable management of raw materials 3.3.2.1 Nonrenewable resources Linking the concept of sustainability to nonrenewable resources does not make sense for many of us, and is an obvious contradiction for some, especially in CE circles. The following section may convince them otherwise, and reveal new perspectives, proposed by researchers and other experts from around the world, on how to manage finite (and highly critical for economic development) resources, in a sustainable and efficient manner. To this end, we will analyze and discuss this subject by targeting critical finite resources after grouping them into two main groups: the first one includes nonrenewable minerals, metals, and hydrocarbons (MMHs), and the second focuses on groundwater resources.

Accelerating the implementation of circular economy

83

At this point, it is worth clarifying a key principle in CE, which is decoupling economic growth from finite resources. Some of us think that “decoupling” means “getting rid” of nonrenewables and replacing them with renewables. Such perception coming from CE fervent sympathizers actually plays against CE as a holistic concept. Indeed, willingly discarding valuable resources for the supply chains of various industrial activities, because they are nonrenewable, is simply in full disagreement with the CE philosophy. From a conceptual perspective, CE was established and is still being developed, to precisely “deal” with serious and complicated issues like the management of nonrenewable resources. We can all agree that supplies of MMH resources are very important especially nowadays where most of the modern conveniences we use (transport vehicles and infrastructure, building materials, fertilizers, laptops, solar panels, etc.) depend on this or that mineral, metal or fuel. In order to further illustrate this point, let us consider the case of solar energy. This is indeed a renewable energy source, and its harvesting necessitates the use of photovoltaic solar panels. If we carefully check those panels, we find protective front and back sheet films as the outermost layer of the photovoltaic module, which are used in the related industry to protect the inner components from weathering and to act as electrical insulators [48]. Many of those protective films are mainly made from ethylenetetrafluoroethylene (ETFE), polyvinyl fluoride (PVF) or polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and petroleum-derived thermoplastic polymers. In addition, solar cells contain layers of encapsulants made from copolymer ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA), polyvinyl butyral (PVB) or thermoplastic polyurethanes, all petrochemical compounds [49]. Overall, considering this point and the general agreement among scientists that resources are renewable only if they do not exceed their regenerative capacities [50], we stress on the need to pragmatically develop wise and efficient management strategies of both renewable and nonrenewable resource. Decoupling economic growth from finite resources starts by developing and implementing such management schemes because the issue with nonrenewable resources is by far more challenging and influencing on economies, societies, and the environment. i. Managing nonrenewable MMH resources: Most of the nonrenewable MMHs resources are critical feedstocks for various economic sectors, including primary ones such as agriculture, mining, forestry, and secondary ones covering manufacturing, engineering, and construction.

84

The Circular Economy

In the last few decades, the decreasing availability of many natural resources led to a growing concern in the key economic sectors, especially that such decrease coincided with a surge in the global demand for resources mainly from developing and highly populated countries. The obvious consequence was the huge increase in material turnover and commodity prices. As a response to such serious issue of global proportion, countries and big corporations alike, instinctually strived to intensify the exploitation of known deposits and the exploration of new reserves. Soon after such approaches showed obvious limitations (sustainability wise), then plans for higher efficiency in resources utilization were proposed, and with various breakthroughs in the scientific and technological fields, new strategies for recycling of materials and substitution of finite raw materials with renewable ones or easily recoverable ones quickly emerged (or re-emerged to be accurate), and were widely implemented to mitigate the alarming scenarios of raw material shortages on economies and societies all over the globe. As far as nonrenewable resources are concerned, we need to look into this serious matter from a CE perspective because this will fundamentally change how the world is going to deal with the remaining reserves of finite resources. In the linear economy, nonrenewable resources are simply lost at the end of the value chain. Slung with the obvious and substantial economic loss from such “waste,” threats to the environment and human health can occur from the unsafe release or discharge of spent MMH resources into the various ecosystems (seas, lakes, lands, etc.) [51e53]. In CE, however, loosing or wasting resources is an oxymoron, and it is not because some of them are finite, fossil, or nonrenewable that we are to going to push them aside. To the contrary, we need to develop strategies and technologies to maintain them within supply chains and keep benefiting from such resources, regularly within a strict framework. In this context, and for the case of mineral resources, it was justly reported that considering the development of such valuable resources as unsustainable is true “only if we ignore the complex interaction of economic growth, social development, and the environment” [54]. The author also stated that, despite the environmental impacts of their extraction and production, minerals would continue to be a key component to ensure the economic well-being of societies, if we manage those resources in a holistic framework taking into consideration the interactions between humans and the ecosystem. In practical terms, reinvest the

Accelerating the implementation of circular economy

85

capital generated from using nonrenewable resources in economic, societal, and environmental activities, which, according to the author, will reconcile mineral resource development with sustainability. The same idea was also reiterated in the scientific discourse around the sustainable management of fossil fuels. Indeed, it was reported that since the exploitation of finite resources in a location can force out other production activities (divert potential investments and monopolize skilled workforce for example), expenditure plans need to be implemented through a balanced allocation of oil royalties between social expenditure and production investments [55]. According to the authors, this would pave the way toward a regional-scale sustainable development strategy. Overall, some would agree with such a “trade-off” strategy and see it as a gradual approach toward sustainability. Others, however, would strongly disagree and compare it to “money laundering-like” tactics. Back to the research effort on the sustainable management of finite resources, several studies highlighted the need to simultaneously implement efficient utilization practices and resource recovery technologies, especially for critical materials such as rare earth elements (REEs). In this regard, an interesting study addressed the research gap in the challenges related to the assessment of the potential for closing loops for REEs, specifically from risk and value perspectives [56]. In general, metals are in principle an infinitely recyclable resource. In practice, however, this is not the case due to several inefficient practices and irresponsible behaviors. The limiting factors include [57,58]: • Products designs making the recovery of the metal content, or any other resource for that matter, a challenging and costly task. • Recycling technologies needing further optimization to reach higher recovery rates in a cost-effective manner. • The thermodynamics of separation, and the related limits of removing the impure elements from target metals. Despite the current fact that we are still, from a global perspective, far away from a closed-loop material system, and many limitations (economic, technological, and behavioral ones) will continue impeding the complete closure of the materials cycle [59], several research studies were conducted with the objective of enhancing the recovery rates of common, specialty, and precious metals [60e62]. The main related actions focused on: • Increasing the collection rates of discarded products. • Improved design for recycling. • Deploying enhanced recycling methodology.

86

The Circular Economy

For the management of fossil fuels, the matter is more challenging because too much is at stake, including the obvious economic growth and climate change. The future scenarios based on continuing business, as usual, are very alarming. Even the outlooks of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases to mitigate global warming, emphasized by many international organizations [63,64] and agreed upon by 196 countries in the highly mediatized Paris agreement on climate change [65], are believed by many scientists to be only sufficient to decrease the growth of CO2 emissions, and not enough to stop it [66]. In this regard, the role of established and emerging technologies for carbon capture and storage (CCS) is still mitigated since experts are still divided between the ones who believe that CCS “can help meet ambitious CO2 emission reduction targets, while fossil fuels remain part of the energy systems” [67], and others, however, have some doubts about the efficiency and concrete impact of CCs considering the global scale of this problem and the various obstacles facing the full deployment CCS including the absence of a clear business case for CCS investment and economic incentives to support high capital and operating costs of the entire CCS process [68,69]. To this is added the geopolitical tensions around this subject [70,71]. In the cold war, it was about who will disarm first, the United States or USSR; Now it is about who will effectively reduce emissions first, the United States or China? Can you tell? ii. Groundwater resources: Groundwater resources are water sources which, “at present, are not part of the hydrologic cycle since neither precipitation nor infiltration provides recharge” [72]. Nonrenewable groundwater resources are mainly found in the semi-arid and arid zones in the Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, and Southern Africa. Most countries in these regions, especially in The Middle East and North Africa (MENA), are among the world’s most water-stressed countries [73,74], where the intensive use of nonrenewable groundwater is still a common practice mainly for agricultural purposes. Although already in an alarming situation, the expected increase of population will put more pressure on an already high demand for drinking water. Diverting potable water by the industrial and leisure industries, the impact of climate change and various actual (or potential) contamination scenarios are worsening the problem. In such a precarious situation, well-planned sustainable management of groundwater resources is

Accelerating the implementation of circular economy

87

not only urgent and necessary, it is simply a matter of life or death for hundreds of millions of people around the world. So, what is sustainable groundwater management? Broadly speaking, it refers to the various preventive, mitigating, and remediating actions, planned and implemented at local, regional, national or international scales, to preserve and enhance the quantitative and qualitative properties of groundwater resources. The objective of such a management scheme is to satisfy our current needs for clean water without compromising the needs of future generations for this vital resource. The need for sustainable groundwater management was strongly emphasized by scientists and other experts as a key strategy to deal with serious threats occurring worldwide such as droughts, flooding, and poor drinking water quality [75,76], and also to manage multiple and frequent use of groundwater resources in the same location, often seen in cases where the same groundwater is used as drinking water supply and for agriculture and/or industrial activities [77]. Several key elements linking groundwater management schemes to sustainability were reported [78], including: • Integrating the societal, environmental, and economic aspects, which is at the core of sustainable development. • Considering both quantity and quality aspects. • Alerting decision makers and the general public about the value of the natural capital and its potential uses. • Involving stakeholders. • Addressing the adequate scale levels • Prioritizing prevention over treatment, in case of pollution and other stressors. In particular, the sustainable management of groundwater starts by extending the “useful life” of the water by using it as effectively as possible. Eventually, this will lead to the depletion of the water source, but the point of this extension of useful life is to give researchers more time to test and develop new strategies and technologies to provide good quality water, and thus, fulfill the increasing global demand. The question now is, can new economically and ecologically viable methods be developed in such timeframe and under such public pressure? The reply is yes, we can. Indeed, current achievements in these fields and promising technologies and processes are already giving good signals. This includes solar or wind energy-powered desalination technologies of seawater and brackish waters [79,80], artificial

88

The Circular Economy

groundwater recharge by floodwaters, reclaimed wastewaters, or desalinized seawaters [81,82], along with the continuous breakthroughs in water reclamation from wastewaters [83e85]. The combined application of these technologies is highly expected to substantially contribute to avoiding long-term supply bottlenecks, serious disruption to various ecosystems, and latent geopolitical tensions. As a related matter, but from a legislative context, many scientists still perceive the current policies related to groundwater management as inadequate to meet current and future needs, qualitatively, and equally important, from a qualitative perceptive. For overcoming such problems, it was proposed that the goals from new policies and regulations targeting groundwater need to be formulated taking into account the costs and benefits of all the potential intervention schemes to relieve the previously mentioned pressuring factors on groundwater resources. The question is how groundwater policy can be formulated to meet future needs, including national and trans-boundaries regulations? The European Water Framework Directive [86] and Groundwater Directive [87] are representative examples of such legislative effort, aiming at establishing a “legal framework to protect and restore clean water across Europe and ensure its long-term, sustainable use” [88]. At the end of the discussion around this challenging issue of sustainable management of nonrenewable resources (MMHs and groundwater), let us consider a key business model in CE, which is the product life-extension. If we can extend the life of a product, why not also extend the life of the resources which made that product? 3.3.2.2 Renewable resources: “circular bioeconomy” After making it clear that nonrenewable resources need to be managed in a sustainable manner, and the fact that such endeavor is far from being an easy task, we also need to make it crystal clear that the CE concept needs to gradually and substantially increase the share of renewable resources in its various industrial activities. Let us first start by highlighting some intrinsic shortcomings in the current resources management schemes. Since the 18th century industrial revolution, economies heavily relied on the extraction of natural resources. These resources, referred to as primary raw materials, are often grouped into four main categories, including mineral resources (non-metallic), metal ores, biomass, and fossil energy resources [89]. Secondary raw materials, or wastes, can be derived from these primary materials during or after

Accelerating the implementation of circular economy

89

manufacturing or consuming the product. In this regard, it was estimated that around 20% of the raw materials extracted worldwide ends up as waste, corresponding to approximately 12 billion tons (Gt) of waste per year. The BRIICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia, China, and South Africa) nearly account for 60% (7 Gt) of global waste generation, and the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries account for about one-third (4 Gt) [90]. Ecofys, the international energy, and climate consultancy reported that around 60 billion tons of raw materials are extracted each year, and that about half of the currently extracted materials cannot be recovered either because they are combusted like fossil fuels or consumed like food and feed products that we eat [10]. It was also emphasized that a substantial share of the “unconsumed” resources is used in applications where they become “unavailable” for an extended period of time (decades or centuries). The best example of such resources are materials extracted for construction applications, including various minerals and metals. Most materials used in construction are physically “locked” in rigid and/or complex structures and thus are out of supply chains for long periods. Recirculating those resources back into the economy is definitely beneficial economically and environmentally [91]. In practice, however, such materials can only be recovered after the demolishing of housing building, bridges, old factories etc., and are in most cases “downcycled” to other applications such as the production of concrete, ceramic, pavement products, or insulation [92]. Although the issue of managing renewable resources seems less challenging than the management of nonrenewable ones, the matter remains very important and highly critical for the global expansion of the CE concept considering the undoubtable fact that renewable raw materials will be key components of various green industrial activities [93]. Basically, when it comes to renewable resources in CE, two major challenging objectives need to be simultaneously and successfully achieved, because the successful implementation of CE on a global scale is tightly linked to them: (i) the gradual replacement of fossil resources by renewable ones in key economy sectors, and (ii) the sustainable management of renewable raw materials. The use of fossil resources in numerous economic sectors (various industries, agriculture, transport, etc.) is still the most profitable option. However, with every scientific breakthrough and technological innovation, the use of renewable resources is gaining more solid ground since it enables connecting economic and environmental benefits. Many scientists emphasized the need

90

The Circular Economy

for this R&D effort to be pursued and prompted in order to make the shift from nonrenewables to renewables feasible and economically advantageous, thus appealing to stakeholders [94,95]. Key strategic objectives in this regard include decreasing the initial investment, quickening the profit generation phase, and stabilizing the profitability for a long period of time [96]. In practice, how can such shift be planned and implemented, especially in the industrial sector? Two major schemes are envisioned: ➢ Stakeholders who can cope with the financial burden of the slow and often costly implementation process of sustainable production units using renewables, until becoming profitable. High initial investments are necessary to enable the purchase and installation of highly efficient production units from the start. This costly “investment plan” is the price to pay to stay ahead of competitors deciding to continue business as usual. On a medium to long-term, the production yields are highly excepted to increase, and the operational costs will decrease, thus leading to an increased profitably tending toward stabilization when the production process reaches “maturity,” often coinciding with serious procurement issues for the nonrenewable counterparts [97,98]. For obvious reasons, such bold and costly strategy could be adopted and implemented by big companies, either genuinely committed to CE principles, or partly so often via a careful investment plan to diversify their portfolio, enhance the returns, and lowering the risks and overall volatility [99,100]. ➢ Most companies, even the ones willing to join the CE movement, cannot “tolerate” such high initial investment. Thus, scientists are recommending a gradual transition phase [101e103]. In practice, this means continuing with the already operating production facilities while gradually incorporating renewable raw materials in their supply chains. Such a strategy helps avoid high initial investment and leads over time to significant cost savings. These savings could be used to fund the acquisition of more efficient technologies and the hiring of more skilled personnel. Combining these technological and human factors is highly expected to lead to more sustainable and profitable exploitation and conversion schemes of renewable raw materials, and production procedures of recyclable/biodegradable goods, from which resources can easily be recovered [104]. For example, profitable industrial complexes like fossil-fuel power plants, petroleum refineries, and wood-based industries could be upgraded to the biorefinery concept, trading fossil resources for renewable ones and thus:

Accelerating the implementation of circular economy

•

91

benefiting from the economic, environmental, and societal advantage of the “circular bioeconomy” concept, related to the renewal of forest-based manufacturing [105], the production of various renewable and eco-friendly fuels [106], bio-based products from CO2 sequestration [107], etc. • avoiding serious future complications related to the current unsustainable management of inherently highly volatile fossil resources. Overall, the numerous advantageous aspects of using renewable resources including (but far from being limited to) renewability and availability at relatively low cost, will act as a magnet attracting governmental and private investment capitals to CE-based business models, wholly or partly relying on renewables. From an environmental perspective, the use of renewable resources, materials or energy, will generate less pollution and less carbon footprints, compared to industrial processes involved during the extraction and transformation of fossil resources [108]. In this regard, related taxation legislation and policies are highly anticipated to become more stringent [109,110], which will justify and promote investment plans aiming at increasing the share of renewable resources in key economic sectors. For obvious reasons, the energy sector is the most dynamic economic segment through the current global quest for alternative sources of energy [111e113]. Other sectors, especially in the various industrial activities, may not be in a precarious situation like the energy sector, nonetheless, if business is continued to be conducted, as usual, the same fate is waiting, Thus, it is wiser to take some initiatives, even if it entails additional expenditures, to increase the share of renewable resources in the chemical, textile, and agro-industrial sectors, to name a few [114e116]. Overall, there is a clear and genuine orientation in both the public and private sectors to gradually decouple economic growth from the use of fossil resources, out of necessity in most cases. This strategic and widely expected objective needs to be undertaken pragmatically. Indeed, such objectives necessitate, like we have discussed in this section, the development and implementation of highly efficient management schemes, targeting first, the most challenging issue of nonrenewable raw materials, and the equally important but lesser problematic issue of managing renewables. For renewable resources, one might think about how we can sustainably manage a “sustainable” renewable resources. We can by simply ensuring that the exploitation rates are much less than the resources regeneration rates. This practically means that the exploitation of renewable resources should

92

The Circular Economy

not only permit the “peaceful” regeneration of the natural resources itself but also avoiding any pressure on the entire ecosystem. Several research studies are being carried out to provide useful theoretical and analytical tools to help in the worldwide effort to ensure sustainable and efficient management of valuable renewable resources. This research effort includes surveying the applications of viability theory to the sustainable exploitation of renewable resources [117] and providing solutions to deal with the management of renewable resources in a seasonally fluctuating environment with restricted harvesting effort [118]. Although from a conceptual perspective, the task seems relatively easy because most of the “job” to produce raw materials is being done by nature, and we need to harvest it. Nonetheless, in practice, the highly competitive global race for resources is expected to make it a very challenging task, unless the CE philosophy is genuinely adopted in the minds and then start acting accordingly, as we shall see in Chapter 4.

3.3.3 Sustainable management of wastes A key principle in the CE concept is to minimize the generation of wastes through the efficient use of resources. Thus, when a product reaches the end of its service life, several CBMs, along with selected chemical, mechanical, and biological processes are applied to keep the product or its composed materials, otherwise known as waste, within the economy and retain their values. To what extent can this be achieved, quantity- and quality-wise? This is the real challenge for the currently operating, and the to be proposed, recycling and resources recovery processes and technologies. 3.3.3.1 Which waste? Wastes can be generated at all three stages: resources processing, production (in the form of emissions and solid waste), and consumption of goods. In general, wastes can be divided into two major groups [119]: / Materials-related group including wastes such as metals, glass, textiles, paper/cardboard, plastics/rubber, wood, and other biowaste. / Product-related group including packaging, electric/electronic wastes, end-of-life vehicles, mining, construction, and demolition wastes. Other potential classification categorizes waste into four categories: industrial, agricultural, sanitary, and solid urban wastes. The solid urban residues can be further divided into glass, paper/cardboard, plastics (mixed or separated), metals, organic matter, and other subdivisions [120].

Accelerating the implementation of circular economy

93

In the CE concept, “waste” water is also considered as a valuable source of water, energy, nutrients, fertilizers, and other value-added products [121,122], to the remarkable extent that the reuse of wastewater “pollutants” is being investigated [123]. Most of the previously mentioned municipal and industrial wastes are well known, so let us just focus on two important related topics: the irrational magnitude of food wastes, and the issue of critical raw materials in wastes (CRMs). Nonetheless, if further details are needed on the other various wastes and their management, the selected following reports and scientific articles can be consulted [124e127]. • Regarding food wastes, the issue is of global and staggering proportions since we are throwing away around one billion tons of edible food waste every year. The total amount of waste in the food supply chain waste is estimated at several billion tons. The carbon value of such volumes of organic matter is comparable to that in all of the chemicals and plastics we use every year in society but with the obvious advantage that it is renewable [128]. In Europe (EU-28), around 90 million tons of food wastes are generated every year, with households generating the major part of it (42%). The associated costs of this wasteful behavior are very high and estimated at around 143 billion euros [129]. A systematic literature review was recently conducted with the objective of assessing food losses and waste estimates across the food supply chain in developed countries (Europe and North America). About 55 relevant studies were identified, and the compiled estimates revealed that most of the wastes in the food supply chain (about 43.6%) came from the consumption stage, with an annual average of 114.3 kg/capita/year. Throughout the entire food supply chain, the total amount of wasted foodstuff in the targeted developed countries amounted to around 199 kg/capita, each year [130], with significantly higher numbers for the North American estimates compared to the European ones. Putting aside the serious ethical issue around food waste in a world full of starving people, the valorization of such easily biodegradable waste is full of potential (feedstock for the production of value-added chemicals, fuels, and materials) [131], but due to complicated logistical and behavioral challenges [132], such potential is “wasted,” and in the best scenarios food wastes are used as either animal feed or in composting [133], i.e., downcycled in the CE lexicon. • As for the issue of critical raw materials (CRMs), including various metals or groups of metals, a great deal of research effort is being dedicated to

94

The Circular Economy

enhance the recovery rates of those valuable elements. For obvious economic reasons, CRMs are already recovered at the highest rates, compared to other elements, through a mature recycling infrastructure and processes [125]. Nonetheless, scientists, industrialists, and government officials are still emphasizing the need to further optimize those recycling/recovery rates. Among CRMs, REEs are a good example of materials of critical importance perceiving increasing attention in the last decade or so. REEs are key components of various products such as permanent magnets, chemical catalysts, alloys, and polishing and glass. Thus, a secure supply chain of REEs is critical to many industrial activities, including electronics, environmental and energy technology, metallurgy, and military technology [134]. Along with the obvious value of REEs in several economic sectors, the geopolitical factor seems to be another major driving force pushing toward optimizing the management schemes for REEs. This is currently very relevant for many developed countries in North America and Europe, as well as in Japan, because China is producing around 95% of the world supply of REEs, and is applying export restrictions [135]. The main issue with these complex group of wastes (food, CRMs, and others) is that the opportunities for reuse, recycling, or resources recovery substantially differ from one group to the other, and from one product to the other within the same group. For instance, several products are practically unrecoverable after use, which is the case of many chemical and petrochemical products (paints, lubricants, cleaning agents, etc.). Most of the products are practically recoverable, but the current waste management schemes and recycling/recovery technologies do not allow high recycling rates of many products which hinders their reutilization potential. In this context, several logistical issues in the reserve supply chain of various sectors such as the textile and construction industries are contributing to this loss of valuable resources, and so are the inadequate (sometimes completely missing) recycling-related economic incentives or penalties. Currently, although materials such as metals, glass, and plastics are recovered at relatively high rates, the global picture about waste is still gloomy since a mere 7% of the materials used by the global economy are recycled and reused [10]. Therefore, this is clearly one of the main priorities for CE, and bold (yet achievable) objectives to increase this meager 7% need to be established and gradually enforced on a global scale.

Accelerating the implementation of circular economy

95

Within the CE concept, resources could be managed basically in two major cycles or loops [136]: (i) the “biological materials,” often carbon-based ones, which can be decomposed by living organisms, and (ii) the “technical” materials, often circulating in industrial cycles such as metals and some polymers. In both cases, CE should aim at tightly closing related supply chains, continuously reducing the resources’ leakage, retaining their value or adding more value to the recycled materials and recovered resources. Groundbreaking R&D and well-crafted legislations are very important tools for achieving such objectives. 3.3.3.2 Circularity in waste management As we have previously seen in this chapter, the efficient use of resources and waste reduction in CE include practical measures such as maintenance/ repair, reuse/redistribute, refurbish/remanufacture, and ultimately recycle the existing materials and products. Various achievements on the ground and new developments in this regard will be presented and analyzed in the following Chapters 4 and 5, with selected study cases from all over the world. Through the application of these concepts, most of what used to considered as “waste” and destined to be dumped or incinerated in the linear economy model, is maintained in the economy as a valuable resource, to the best of what science and technology would allow, and regulations would specify. From a conceptual perspective, minimizing the generation of wastes is indeed a valuable endeavor toward substantiality with clear economic and environmental benefits related to substantial saving in feedstock procurement costs, and potential waste-related taxes [137,138]. Nonetheless, despite inspiring concepts in CE such as the “zero waste city,” the reality on the ground clearly shows that “waste” will remain a highly puzzling issue even within CE circles. Wastes are full of potential, we can all agree on that, but we need also to accept the fact that waste management will remain a serious challenge to companies, cities, and countries. To assess the extent of the issue, here are some cold facts that need to be considered if we genuinely think of CE as a holistic and global concept. It was reported that the global economy produces more than one billion tons of solid waste per year, mainly composed of paper, plastics, metals, organic wastes, along with other by-products [139].

The Circular Economy

96

Nowadays, humanity is generating more waste than ever before, and World Bank experts are predicting that the trend will continue increasing. Indeed, if the world cities are currently generating about 1.3 billion tons of solid waste on an annual basis, the volume is expected to increase to 2.2 billion tons by 2025 [140]. In the same report, it was predicted that the rates of waste generation would more than double over the next couple of decades in low-income countries. Regarding costs related to solid waste, today’s annual cost estimated at $205.4 billion will significantly increase to around $375.5 billion in 2025, corresponding to a fivefold increase in low-income countries, where the issue of solid wastes is the most problematic. Other report are predicting that the global waste generation will approximately be 27 billion tons per year by 2050, one-third of which will come from Asia, mainly, China and India [141]. In India, 31.6 million tons of waste were generated in 2001, 47.3 million tons in 2017, and recent estimates are predicting a staggering fivefold increase in urban India’s waste generation (161 million tons by 2041) [142]. In China, and as shown in Fig. 3.4, there is a clear trend for an increased generation of wastes (industrial wastes in this case) over the years. Recent studies are reporting the intensification of municipal solid waste disposal in the country [144].

3500

3228

3000 2500

2251

Increasing

2000

1756 1344

1500 1000

1004

1901

2039

1515

1084

500 0

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Figure 3.4 Trend of industrial waste generation in China [143].

Accelerating the implementation of circular economy

97

Does this constitute a big problem or a valuable future opportunity? Legislation, policies, and R&D efforts in the most populated countries in the world will soon make known. In poor regions and countries, the problem of waste management is further complicated for obvious economic, social, and political reasons, but the problematic aspect remains valid in rich countries also because, in most cities, the expenditure associated with municipal waste management is often the city’s largest budgetary item [145], which seriously hinders the ability of those cities to upgrade related infrastructure and facilities (let alone invest in new ones), and thus, postpones any objective of increasing the recovery rates of resources and recycling rates of materials and products. Although the implementation of the CE concept will substantially help in reducing the generation of wastes, and mitigating related economic, environmental, and sanitation burden, the issue of waste will remain as of now for decades to come. In this critical context, CE is currently promoted as the most reliable model to change the perception of waste from “problem” to “valuable resource.” Nonetheless, in most literature related to CE and waste, the concept is often portrayed as a preventive measure, which is a one-sided perception. Actually, both waste prevention and waste management are indivisible circular activities, simultaneously enabling a coherent and holistic approach, taking into account the efficient use of resources and the various recovery/recycling options at every stage of the product life cycle [124]. Thus, CE needs to “reinforce” its waste management arsenal and continuously develop new methods and technologies to maximize recycling and recovery rates, and most importantly to develop bespoken management schemes targeting wide arrays of toxic wastes in specific, and hazardous materials and chemicals in general. Debates over the circularity of hazardous materials were launched [146,147], and several R&D studies are being conducted to tackle this issue and try to reuse and retain the value of many “useful pollutants.” Capturing the value of a “benign waste” is easily perceived; capturing the value of a harmful material or chemical compound, on the other hand, is not much. In this regard, the development of alternative ecofriendly and nontoxic materials is one of the major focus areas. Several related investigations were conducted in various industrial sectors such as the chemical [148,149], medical and pharmaceutical [150,151], and fuel [152,153] industries. The most challenging endeavor, however, is how to keep hazardous substances in the economy and fully benefit from their potential, while “neutralizing”

The Circular Economy

98

their harmful impact? Researchers working in this emerging field need to be inspired by humanity’s expertise in developing the cure from the poison. Theoretically, the CE concept is the most suitable platform to deal with hazardous substances. The primary reflex is to put harmful substances in something closed, so why not in a closed loop. However, the single most important condition is that this loop is fully closed with no leakage whatsoever. If such a condition can be fulfilled, the notion of pollution can be reconsidered. Overall, in order to introduce circularity to waste management, several measures need to be implemented from the early stage of waste generation to the various recycling/recovery schemes, and even to the landfilling of nonrecyclable wastes (at least for now). This goes without saying that circular principles need to be implemented right from the design and manufacturing of the product itself, but in this section, practical recommendations are given to deal with numerous, still inevitable wastes. Table 3.1 compiles those suggestions. Table 3.1 Practical recommendations to improve waste management and induce more circularity [154]. Waste sorting and Waste generation Waste collection recovery

- Further improving the extended producer responsibility in all consumption product fields. - Extending the application of “duty of care” from hazardous wastes to other solid wastes. - Improving the source separated collection and treatment of specific waste generated by households and industrial/ commercial activities.

- Reducing emissions during waste transportation. - Enforcing the implementation of solid waste management processes in cities or eco-industrial parks. - Developing coordinated logistics within a city involving innovative collection and storage schemes. - Setting differentiated waste collection fees.

- Encouraging strategic regional planning for waste treatment facilities. - Promoting upstream sorting and letting the market guide the downstream sorting and recovery by choosing and applying the appropriate processes and technologies.

Accelerating the implementation of circular economy

99

3.4 Conclusions Resource efficiency is definitely at the core of the CE concept. Countries and companies will endeavor to find alternative raw materials to the depleting fossil resources, and continue developing and applying innovative and disruptive business models. Consumers, at the end of the “forward” supply chain and the start of the “reverse” ones, will have a key role in enabling the various recycling/recovery options, and thus, making a significant contribution toward the successful implementation of CE, providing deep behavioral changes. Basically, like any economic model, the creation or expansion of markets could be “catalyzed” by promoting demand and/or supply [155]: - Demand can be stimulated by sending a clear message about favoring circular products in public procurement, and by educating consumers that purchasing these kinds of commodities will support CE and sustainability. - Supply, on the other hand, can be stimulated by sustaining an opportune investment environment around CE-based activities. Promoting innovative R&D and upgrading the infrastructure to facilitate the execution of CE principles on the ground (especially the reserve flow of materials and resources) are also key enabling factors. In CE, and when it comes to the critical issue of managing natural resources or waste, countries and corporations will need to make extra efforts not only locally, but also on the international scene. In this regard, key objectives according to the OECD should be further improving the resource efficiency and material productivity of economies (at all stages of the material life-cycle) and avoiding waste of resources. Decisions and action plans to realize these objectives necessitate the involvement of various policy areas, including economy, trade, innovation, and technology development, natural resource, and environmental management, as well as human health [90]. At the end of this section, we need to emphasize the undeniable fact that CE, although full with potential, is currently far from being perfect. Indeed, several internal and external limiting factors, gaps, and barriers are slowing down the full and global implementation of CE, as reported by scientists from various disciplinary backgrounds [15,156e158]. A related bibliometric analysis compiled the various CE barriers reported in the academic literature [159]. The main limiting factors were technical (35%), institutional/regulatory (23%), economic/financial/market (22%), and social/cultural (20%) obstacles, which need to be seriously and dealt with timely in order to ensure the implementation of an efficient, resilient, and sustainable CE model.

100

The Circular Economy

Finally, all the assets and challenges should be equally considered as driving forces to continue working on perfecting the CE concept, facilitating its implementation, and accelerating the global transition for linearity to circularity in various economic sectors, as we shall see in the next chapter.

References [1] EU Commission. Closing the loop e An EU action plan for the Circular Economy. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions COM, 614 final. 2015. Available online at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource. html?uri¼cellar:8a8ef5e8-99a0-11e5-b3b7-01aa75ed71a1.0012.02/DOC_ 1&format¼PDF. [2] United Nations. Sustainable development goals. Available online at: http://www.un. org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/. [3] Kopnina H, Shoreman-Ouimet E, editors. Sustainability: key issues. Abingdon, UK: Routledge; 2015. 410 pp. [4] Wu HQ, Shi Y, Xia Q, Zhu WD. Effectiveness of the policy of circular economy in China: a DEA-based analysis for the period of 11th five-year-plan. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2014;83:163e75. [5] World Economic Forum. Towards the circular economy: accelerating the scale-up across global supply chains. 2014. Available online at: http://www3.weforum.org/ docs/WEF_ENV_TowardsCircularEconomy_Report_2014.pdf. [6] Beniston M, Stephenson DB. Extreme climatic events and their evolution under changing climatic conditions. Global and Planetary Change 2004;44(1e4):1e9. [7] Rockstr€ om J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin III FS, Lambin E, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, Nykvist B. Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society 2009;14(2):32. [8] Humphreys M. Natural resources, conflict, and conflict resolution: uncovering the mechanisms. Journal of Conflict Resolution 2005;49(4):508e37. [9] Potocnik J. Raw materials: not just about economics but physics! In: 3rd annual European raw materials conference Brussels, March 19, 2013. Available online at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-242_en.htm. [10] Blok K, Hoogzaad J, Ramkumar S, Ridley A, Srivastav P, Tan I, Terlouw W, de Wit M. ECOFYS e implementing circular economy globally makes Paris targets achievable. White paper published in June 28, 2016. Available online at: https://www. ecofys.com/files/files/circle-economy-ecofys-2016-circular-economy-white-paper. pdf. [11] Sauvé S, Bernard S, Sloan P. Environmental sciences, sustainable development and circular economy: alternative concepts for trans-disciplinary research. Environmental Development 2016;17:48e56. [12] Sorensen PB. The basic environmental economics of the circular economy. Department of Economics, University of Copenhagen; 2017. Available online at: http:// www.econ.ku.dk/Kalender/seminarerepru/17112017/paper/Circular_Economy_ general_model.pdf. [13] Murphy C, Rosenfield J, editors. The circular economy: moving from theory to practice. McKinsey Center for Business and Environment Special Edition; 2016. Available online at: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Business% 20Functions/Sustainability%20and%20Resource%20Productivity/Our%20Insights/ The%20circular%20economy%20Moving%20from%20theory%20to%20practice/ The%20circular%20economy%20Moving%20from%20theory%20to%20practice.ashx.

Accelerating the implementation of circular economy

101

[14] Bocken NM, Ritala P, Huotari P. The circular economy: exploring the introduction of the concept among S&P 500 firms. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2017;21(3): 487e90. [15] Korhonen J, Honkasalo A, Sepp€al€a J. Circular economy: the concept and its limitations. Ecological Economics 2018;143:37e46. [16] Fujita K, Hill RC. The zero waste city: Tokyo’s quest for a sustainable environment. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 2007;9(4):405e25. [17] Zaman AU, Lehmann S. Urban growth and waste management optimization towards ‘zero waste city’. City, Culture and Society 2011;2(4):177e87. [18] Hoornweg D, Bhada-Tata P, Kennedy C. Environment: waste production must peak this century. Nature News 2013;502(7473):615. [19] Zaman AU, Lehmann S. Challenges and opportunities in transforming a city into a “zero waste city”. Challenges 2011;2(4):73e93. [20] Zaman AU. A comprehensive review of the development of zero waste management: lessons learned and guidelines. Journal of Cleaner Production 2015;91:12e25. [21] Zaman AU, Lehmann S. The zero waste index: a performance measurement tool for waste management systems in a ‘zero waste city’. Journal of Cleaner Production 2013; 50:123e32. [22] European Commission - DG Environment. Towards a circular economy: a zero waste programme for Europe. 2014. Available online at: https://www.oecd.org/ env/outreach/EC-Circular-econonomy.pdf. [23] Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Towards the circular economy e economic and business rationale for an accelerated transition. Cowes, UK: Ellen MacArthur Foundation Publishing; 2013. 98 pp. Available online at: https://www.ellenma carthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/Ellen-MacArthurFoundation-Towards-the-Circular-Economy-vol.1.pdf. [24] Kemp R. Eco-Innovation: definition, measurement and open research issues. Economia Politica 2010;27(3):397e420. [25] Clark JH, Farmer TJ, Herrero-Davila L, Sherwood J. Circular economy design considerations for research and process development in the chemical sciences. Green Chemistry 2016;18(14):3914e34. [26] Stahel WR. The circular economy. Nature News 2016;531(7595):435. [27] Geng Y, Sarkis J, Ulgiati S. Sustainability, well-being, and the circular economy in China and worldwide. Science 2016;6278(Supplement):73e6. [28] Lacy P, Rutqvist J. Waste to wealth: the circular economy advantage. UK: Palgrave Macmillan; 2015. 264 pp. [29] Osterwalder A, Pigneur Y. Business model generation: a handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. Hoboken, New Jersey, United States: John Wiley & Sons; 2010. 288 pp. [30] Urbinati A, Chiaroni D, Chiesa V. Towards a new taxonomy of circular economy business models. Journal of Cleaner Production 2017;168:487e98. [31] Osterwalder A, Pigneur Y, Tucci CL. Clarifying business models: origins, present, and future of the concept. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 2005;16(1):1e25. [32] Zott C, Amit R, Massa L. The business model: recent developments and future research. Journal of Management 2011;37(4):1019e42. [33] Chesbrough H. Business model innovation: opportunities and barriers. Long Range Planning 2010;43(2e3):354e63. [34] de Padua Pieroni M, Pigosso DC, McAloone TC. Sustainable qualifying criteria for designing circular business models. Procedia CIRP 2018;69:799e804.

102

The Circular Economy

[35] Stål HI, Corvellec H. A decoupling perspective on circular business model implementation: illustrations from Swedish apparel. Journal of Cleaner Production 2018; 171:630e43. [36] Geissdoerfer M, Morioka SN, de Carvalho MM, Evans S. Business models and supply chains for the circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production 2018;190:712e21. [37] Bocken NMP, Schuit CSC, Kraaijenhagen C. Experimenting with a circular business model: lessons from eight cases. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 2018;28:79e95. [38] Aminoff A, Valkokari K, Antikainen M, Kettunen O. Exploring disruptive business model innovation for the circular economy. In: International conference on sustainable design and manufacturing. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2017. p. 525e36. [39] Bocken NM, de Pauw I, Bakker C, van der Grinten B. Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering 2016;33(5):308e20. [40] Charter M, Keiller S. Grassroots innovation and the circular economy. The Centre for Sustainable DesignÒ University for the Creative Arts; 2014. Available online at: https://www.research.ucreative.ac.uk/2722/1/Survey-of-Repair-Cafes-andHackerspaces.pdf. [41] Lev€anen J, Hossain M, Lyytinen T, Hyv€arinen A, Numminen S, Halme M. Implications of frugal innovations on sustainable development: evaluating water and energy innovations. Sustainability 2015;8(1):4. [42] Antikainen M, Valkokari K. A framework for sustainable circular business model innovation. Technology Innovation Management Review 2016;6(7):5e12. [43] Rodrigo A. Europe must design economic incentives fit for a circular economy. Zero waste Europe’s press release on 10/11/2017. Available online at: https:// zerowasteeurope.eu/2017/11/europe-must-design-economic-incentives-fitcircular-economy/. [44] The European Environmental Bureau. Economic instruments for a circular economy. 2012. Available online at: https://euagenda.eu/upload/publications/untitled88054-ea.pdf. [45] ten Wolde A. Global Economic Symposium e strengthen circular economy package with economic incentives. 2015. Available online at: http://www.global-economicsymposium.org/knowledgebase/re-assessing-waste-management-and-the-circulareconomy/solutions/solution.2016-07-06.6079158669. [46] European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (EASAC). Circular economy: a commentary from the perspectives of the natural and social sciences. November 2015. Available online at: https://www.easac.eu/fileadmin/PDF_s/reports_ statements/EASAC_Circular_Economy_Web.pdf. [47] Sillanp€a€a M, Ncibi C. Bioeconomy: the path to sustainability. In: A sustainable bioeconomy. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2017. p. 29e53. [48] Willeke GP, Weber ER. Advances in photovoltaics: Part 2. Massachusetts: Academic Press; 2013. [49] Schulze S, Pander M, Naumenko K, Altenbach H. Analysis of laminated glass beams for photovoltaic applications. International Journal of Solids and Structure 2012;49: 2027e36. [50] Alcoforado F. Planet earth and its limits on use of natural resources. Opinion piece published by Word Resources Forum in July 8, 2015. Available online at: https:// www.wrforum.org/opinion/planet-earth-limits-natural-resources/. [51] Wuana RA, Okieimen FE. Heavy metals in contaminated soils: a review of sources, chemistry, risks and best available strategies for remediation. ISRN Ecology 2011; 2011:1e20.

Accelerating the implementation of circular economy

103

[52] Luo C, Liu C, Wang Y, Liu X, Li F, Zhang G, Li X. Heavy metal contamination in soils and vegetables near an e-waste processing site, south China. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2011;186(1):481e90. [53] Conley DJ, Paerl HW, Howarth RW, Boesch DF, Seitzinger SP, Havens KE, Lancelot C, Likens GE. Controlling eutrophication: nitrogen and phosphorus. Science 2009;323(5917):1014e5. [54] Nooten GA. Sustainable development and nonrenewable resourcesda multilateral perspective. In: Proceedings for a workshop on deposit modeling, mineral resource assessment, and their role in sustainable development; August 2000. p. 36. Available online at: https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2007/1294/circ1294.pdf?bcsi_scan_1fe59ba8c 561fa18¼yHESOROVYxG#page¼43. [55] Viccaro M, Rocchi B, Cozzi M, Romano S. The sustainability of non-renewable resources use at regional level: a case study on allocation of oil royalties. In: The sustainability of agro-food and natural resource systems in the Mediterranean basin. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2015. p. 225e41. [56] Machacek E, Richter JL, Lane R. Governance and riskevalue constructions in closing loops of rare earth elements in global value chains. Resources 2017;6(4):59. [57] Reuter M, van Schaik A. Thermodynamic metrics for measuring the “sustainability” of design for recycling. JOM 2008;60(8):39e46. [58] Nakajima K, Takeda O, Miki T, Nagasaka T. Evaluation method of metal resource recyclability based on thermodynamic analysis. Materials Transactions 2009;50(3): 453e60. [59] Reck BK, Graedel TE. Challenges in metal recycling. Science 2012;337(6095): 690e5. [60] Graedel TE, Allwood J, Birat JP, Buchert M, Hagel€ uken C, Reck BK, Sibley SF, Sonnemann G. What do we know about metal recycling rates? Journal of Industrial Ecology 2011;15(3):355e66. [61] Lu X, Hiraki T, Nakajima K, Takeda O, Matsuabe K, Zhu HM, Nakamura S, Nagasaka T. Thermodynamic analysis of separation of alloying elements in recycling of end-of-life titanium products. Separation and Purification Technology 2012;89: 135e41. [62] Charles RG, Douglas P, Hallin IL, Matthews I, Liversage G. An investigation of trends in precious metal and copper content of RAM modules in WEEE: implications for long term recycling potential. Waste Management 2017;60:505e20. [63] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC. 4th assessment report: climate change. 2007. Available online at: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf. [64] International Energy Agency (IEA). Key world energy statistics 2017. Available online at: https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld 2017.pdf. [65] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Adoption of the Paris agreement. 2015. Available online at: https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/ cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf. [66] Schirone L, Pellitteri F. Energy policies and sustainable management of energy sources. Sustainability 2017;9(12):2321. [67] Foster S, Elzinga D. The role of fossil fuels in a sustainable energy system. UN Chronicle 2013;52(3):17e9. [68] Leung DY, Caramanna G, Maroto-Valer MM. An overview of current status of carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2014;39:426e43. [69] Rahman FA, Aziz MMA, Saidur R, Bakar WAWA, Hainin MR, Putrajaya R, Hassan NA. Pollution to solution: capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide

104

[70]

[71] [72]

[73] [74] [75]

[76] [77]

[78] [79] [80]

[81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86]

The Circular Economy

(CO2) and its utilization as a renewable energy source for a sustainable future. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2017;71:112e26. Gillis J, Popovich N. The US is the biggest carbon polluter in history. It just walked away from the Paris climate deal. The New York Times; 2017. Available online at: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/01/climate/us-biggest-carbonpolluter-in-history-will-it-walk-away-from-the-paris-climate-deal.html. Bradsher K, Friedman L. China’s emissions: more than U.S. plus Europe, and still rising. The New York Times; 2018. Available online at: https://www.nytimes. com/2018/01/25/business/china-davos-climate-change.html. Polak M, Klingbeil R, Struckmeier W. Strategies for the sustainable management of non-renewable groundwater resources. Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources, commissioned by German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development; 2007. Available online at: https://www.bgr.bund.de/EN/ Themen/Zusammenarbeit/TechnZusammenarb/Politikberatung_GW/ Downloads/pbgw_strategies_nrgw.pdf?__blob¼publicationFile&v¼2. Kuper M, Amichi H, Mayaux PL. Groundwater use in North Africa as a cautionary tale for climate change adaptation. Water International 2017;42(6):725e40. Lezzaik K, Milewski A. A quantitative assessment of groundwater resources in the Middle East and North Africa region. Hydrogeology Journal 2018;26(1):251e66. Shah T, Molden D, Sakthivadivel R, Seckler D. The global groundwater situation: overview of opportunities and challenges. IWMI Books, Reports H025885. International Water Management Institute; 2000. Available online at: http://publications. iwmi.org/pdf/H025885.pdf. Gorelick SM, Zheng C. Global change and the groundwater management challenge. Water Resources Research 2015;51(5):3031e51. van den Brink C, Zaadnoordijk WJ, van der Grift B, de Ruiter PC, Griffioen J. Using a groundwater quality negotiation support system to change land-use management near a drinking-water abstraction in the Netherlands. Journal of Hydrology 2008; 350(3e4):339e56. Tuinstra J, van Wensem J. Ecosystem services in sustainable groundwater management. Science of the Total Environment 2014;485:798e803. Fujiwara M, Kikuchi M. Solar desalination of seawater using double-dye-modified PTFE membrane. Water Research 2017;127:96e103. Mahmoudi H, Spahis N, Goosen MF, Sablani S, Abdul-wahab SA, Ghaffour N, Drouiche N. Assessment of wind energy to power solar brackish water greenhouse desalination units: a case study from Algeria. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2009;13(8):2149e55. Al-Assa’d TA, Abdulla FA. Artificial groundwater recharge to a semi-arid basin: case study of Mujib aquifer, Jordan. Environmental Earth Sciences 2010;60(4):845e59. Fournier ED, Keller AA, Geyer R, Frew J. Investigating the energy-water usage efficiency of the reuse of treated municipal wastewater for artificial groundwater recharge. Environmental Science and Technology 2016;50(4):2044e53. Yuan H, He Z. Integrating membrane filtration into bioelectrochemical systems as next generation energy-efficient wastewater treatment technologies for water reclamation: a review. Bioresource Technology 2015;195:202e9. Siegrist RL. Introduction to decentralized infrastructure for wastewater treatment and water reclamation. In: Decentralized water reclamation engineering. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2017. p. 1e37. Ghernaout D. Increasing trends towards drinking water reclamation from treated wastewater. World Journal of Applied Chemistry 2018;3(1):1e9. Official Journal of the European Union. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the community action in the field

Accelerating the implementation of circular economy

[87]

[88] [89] [90]

[91]

[92]

[93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102]

105

of water policy. Available online at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html? uri¼cellar:5c835afb-2ec6-4577-bdf8-756d3d694eeb.0004.02/DOC_1&format¼ PDF. Official Journal of the European Union. Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of December 12, 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration. Available online at: http://eur-lex.europa. eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri¼OJ:L:2006:372:0019:0031:EN:PDF. European Commission (DG Environment). Water notes on the implementation of the water framework directive. 2008. Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/ environment/water/participation/pdf/waternotes/water_note1_joining_forces.pdf. European Commission. Eurostat, Environmental Data Centre on Natural Resources, Natural Resources. Raw materials. Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/ environmental-data-centre-on-natural-resources/natural-resources/raw-materials. OECD Green Growth. Resources, productivity and the environment e key findings. Available online at: http://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/MATERIAL%20RES OURCES,%20PRODUCTIVITY%20AND%20THE%20ENVIRONMENT_ key%20findings.pdf. Dahlbo H, Bachér J, L€ahtinen K, Jouttij€arvi T, Suoheimo P, Mattila T, Sironen S, Myllymaa T, Saram€aki K. Construction and demolition waste management e a holistic evaluation of environmental performance. Journal of Cleaner Production 2015; 107:333e41. Ferriz-Papi JA, Thomas S. Recycled aggregates from construction and demolition waste in the production of concrete blocks. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, International Journal of Architectural and Environmental Engineering 2017;11(10):1397e402. Manninen K, Koskela S, Antikainen R, Bocken N, Dahlbo H, Aminoff A. Do circular economy business models capture intended environmental value propositions? Journal of Cleaner Production 2018;171:413e22. Ahmad S, Tahar RM. Selection of renewable energy sources for sustainable development of electricity generation system using analytic hierarchy process: a case of Malaysia. Renewable Energy 2014;63:458e66. Park E. Potentiality of renewable resources: economic feasibility perspectives in South Korea. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2017;79:61e70. Zilberman D, Kim E, Kirschner S, Kaplan S, Reeves J. Technology and the future bioeconomy. Agricultural Economics 2013;44:95e102. Lee B, Preston F, Kooroshy J, Bailey R, Lahn G. Resources futures, Vol. 14. London: Chatham House; 2012. Available online at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/ download?doi¼10.1.1.357.4912&rep¼rep1&type¼pdf. Kikuchi Y, Kimura S, Koyama M. Present status of Japan’s energy. In: Energy technology roadmaps of Japan. Tokyo: Springer; 2016. p. 23e32. Tietenberg TH, Lewis L. Environmental and natural resource economics. 10th ed. Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge; 2016. Cancino-Sol orzano Y, Paredes-Sanchez JP, Gutiérrez-Trashorras AJ, XibertaBernat J. The development of renewable energy resources in the State of Veracruz, Mexico. Utilities Policy 2016;39:1e4. Ghisellini P, Cialani C, Ulgiati S. A review on circular economy: the expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. Journal of Cleaner Production 2016;114:11e32. Heshmati A. A review of the circular economy and its implementation. International Journal of Green Economics 2017;11(3e4):251e88.

106

The Circular Economy

[103] Genovese A, Acquaye AA, Figueroa A, Koh SL. Sustainable supply chain management and the transition towards a circular economy: evidence and some applications. Omega 2017;66:344e57. [104] Sillanp€a€a M, Ncibi C. Bioeconomy: the path to sustainability. In: A sustainable bioeconomy e the green industrial revolution. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2017. p. 29e53. [105] Antikainen R, Dalhammar C, Hildén M, Judl J, J€a€askel€ainen T, Kautto P, Koskela S, Kuisma M, Lazarevic D, M€aenp€a€a I, Ovaska JP. Renewal of forest based manufacturing towards a sustainable circular bioeconomy. 2017. Available online at: https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/186080. [106] Zabaniotou A. Redesigning a bioenergy sector in EU in the transition to circular waste-based bioeconomy e a multidisciplinary review. Journal of Cleaner Production 2017;177(10):197e206. [107] Mohan SV, Modestra JA, Amulya K, Butti SK, Velvizhi G. A circular bioeconomy with biobased products from CO2 sequestration. Trends in Biotechnology 2016; 34(6):506e19. [108] Schandl H, Hatfield-Dodds S, Wiedmann T, Geschke A, Cai Y, West J, Newth D, Baynes T, Lenzen M, Owen A. Decoupling global environmental pressure and economic growth: scenarios for energy use, materials use and carbon emissions. Journal of Cleaner Production 2016;132:45e56. [109] Spratt S. Environmental taxation and development: a scoping study. IDS Working Papers 2013;433:1e52. [110] Blumenschein F, Brandi C, Carin B, Flores R, Gruenig M, Helgenberger S, Kraemer RA, Mathur A, Ott H, Quitzow R, Ruet J. Green shift to sustainability: co-benefits & impacts of energy transformation on resource industries, trade, growth, and taxes. 2017. Available online at: http://www.g20-insights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/green-shift-sustainability-co-benefits-impacts-energy-transformationresource-industries-trade-growth-taxes-1496164781.pdf. [111] Mundaca L, Richter JL. Assessing ‘green energy economy’ stimulus packages: evidence from the US programs targeting renewable energy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2015;42:1174e86. [112] Abdmouleh Z, Alammari RA, Gastli A. Review of policies encouraging renewable energy integration & best practices. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2015;45:249e62. [113] Gasparatos A, Doll CN, Esteban M, Ahmed A, Olang TA. Renewable energy and biodiversity: implications for transitioning to a Green Economy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2017;70:161e84. [114] Marion P, Bernela B, Piccirilli A, Estrine B, Patouillard N, Guilbot J, Jér^ ome F. Sustainable chemistry: how to produce better and more from less? Green Chemistry 2017;19(21):4973e89. [115] Alay E, Duran K, Korlu A. A sample work on green manufacturing in textile industry. Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy 2016;3:39e46. [116] Gao Y, Li J, Song Z, Song J, Shang S, Xiao G, Wang Z, Rao X. Turning renewable resources into value-added products: development of rosin-based insecticide candidates. Industrial Crops and Products 2015;76:660e71. [117] Oubraham A, Zaccour G. A survey of applications of viability theory to the sustainable exploitation of renewable resources. Ecological Economics 2018;145:346e67. [118] Srinivasu PDN, Zawka SD. Renewable resource management in a seasonally fluctuating environment with restricted harvesting effort. Mathematical Biosciences 2018; 301:1e9. [119] Bourguignon D. Understanding waste streams: treatment of specific waste e Briefing. European Parliamentary Research Service; 2015. Available online at: http://www.

Accelerating the implementation of circular economy

[120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125]

[126] [127]

[128] [129]

[130] [131]

[132] [133]

[134]

107

europarl.europa.eu/EPRS/EPRS-Briefing-564398-Understanding-waste-streamsFINAL.pdf. Clark JH, Matharu AS. Waste to wealth using green chemistry. In: Hester RE, Harrison RM, editors. Waste as a resource. London, United Kingdom: Royal Society of Chemistry; 2013. p. 66e82. Uhlenbrook S, Connor R, Koncagul E, Ortigara A. Closing the water cycle-the key role of water and wastewater management in a circular economy. In: EGU general assembly conference abstracts, Vol. 19; April 2017. p. 14388. Sgroi M, Vagliasindi FG, Roccaro P. Feasibility, sustainability and circular economy concepts in water reuse. Current Opinion in Environmental Science and Health 2018;2:20e5. Li WW, Yu HQ, Rittmann BE. Chemistry: reuse water pollutants. Nature News 2015;528(7580):29e31. Hoornweg D, Bhada-Tata P. What a waste: a global review of solid waste management. 2012. Pdf file. Available online at: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/ handle/10986/17388. Lee P, Sims E, Bertham O, Symington H, Bell N, Pfaltzgraff L, Sj€ ogren P, Wilts CH, O’Brien M. Towards a circular economy: waste management in the EU; study. European Parliamentary Research Service; 2017. Available online at: http://www. europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/581913/EPRS_STU%282017% 29581913_EN.pdf. Gregson N, Crang M. From waste to resource: the trade in wastes and global recycling economies. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 2015;40:151e76. Iacovidou E, Millward-Hopkins J, Busch J, Purnell P, Velis CA, Hahladakis JN, Zwirner O, Brown A. A pathway to circular economy: developing a conceptual framework for complex value assessment of resources recovered from waste. Journal of Cleaner Production 2017;168:1279e88. Luque R, Clark JH. Valorisation of food residues: waste to wealth using green chemical technologies. Sustainable Chemical Processes 2013;1:10. Åsa S, Jensen C, Quested T, Moates G, Buksti M, Cseh B, Juul S, Parry A, Alessandro P, Redlingshofer B, Scherhaufer S. Estimates of European food waste levels. Sztokholm: Fusions; 2016. Available online at: http://www.eu-fusions.org/ phocadownload/Publications/Estimates%20of%20European%20food%20waste% 20levels.pdf. van der Werf P, Gilliland JA. A systematic review of food losses and food waste generation in developed countries. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers e Waste and Resource Management May 2017;170(2):66e77. Lin CSK, Pfaltzgraff LA, Herrero-Davila L, Mubofu EB, Abderrahim S, Clark JH, Koutinas AA, Kopsahelis N, Stamatelatou K, Dickson F, Thankappan S. Food waste as a valuable resource for the production of chemicals, materials and fuels. Current situation and global perspective. Energy and Environmental Science 2013;6(2): 426e64. Thyberg KL, Tonjes DJ. Drivers of food waste and their implications for sustainable policy development. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2016;106:110e23. Salemdeeb R, zu Ermgassen EK, Kim MH, Balmford A, Al-Tabbaa A. Environmental and health impacts of using food waste as animal feed: a comparative analysis of food waste management options. Journal of Cleaner Production 2017;140: 871e80. Mancini L, Sala S, Recchioni M, Benini L, Goralczyk M, Pennington D. Potential of life cycle assessment for supporting the management of critical raw materials. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2015;20(1):100e16.

108

The Circular Economy

[135] Mancheri NA. World trade in rare earths, Chinese export restrictions, and implications. Resources Policy 2015;46:262e71. [136] Braungart M. C2C design concept. Available online at: http://braungart.epeahamburg.org/en/content/c2c-design-concept. [137] French ML. Improving sustainability through effective reuse of product returns: minimizing waste in a batch blending process environment. Journal of Cleaner Production 2008;16(15):1679e87. [138] Dinan TM. Economic efficiency effects of alternative policies for reducing waste disposal. In: The economics of residential solid waste management. Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge; 2017. p. 65e79. [139] Romero-Hernandez O, Romero S. Maximizing the value of waste: from waste management to the circular economy. Thunderbird International Business Review 2018; 60:1e8. [140] Hoornweg D, Bhada-Tata P. What a waste: a global review of solid waste management. World Bank’s Urban Development Series. 2012. Available online at: https:// siteresources.worldbank.org/INTURBANDEVELOPMENT/Resources/3363871334852610766/What_a_Waste2012_Final.pdf. [141] Modak P, Jiemian Y, Hongyuan Y, Mohanty CR. Municipal solid waste management: turning waste into resources. In: Shanghai manual: a guide for sustainable urban development in the 21st century; 2010. p. 1e36. Available online at: http://www. un.org/esa/dsd/susdevtopics/sdt_pdfs/shanghaimanual/Chapter%205%20-% 20Waste_management.pdf. [142] Kumar S, Smith SR, Fowler G, Velis C, Kumar SJ, Arya S, Kumar R, Cheeseman C. Challenges and opportunities associated with waste management in India. Royal Society Open Science 2017;4(3):1e11. 160764. [143] Song Q, Li J, Zeng X. Minimizing the increasing solid waste through zero waste strategy. Journal of Cleaner Production 2015;104:199e210. [144] Hong J, Chen Y, Wang M, Ye L, Qi C, Yuan H, Zheng T, Li X. Intensification of municipal solid waste disposal in China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2017;69:168e76. [145] Brunner PH, Rechberger H. Waste to energy e key element for sustainable waste management. Waste Management 2015;37:3e12. [146] Bocken NM, Olivetti EA, Cullen JM, Potting J, Lifset R. Taking the circularity to the next level: a special issue on the circular economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2017;21(3):476e82. [147] Goldberg T. What about the circularity of hazardous materials? Journal of Industrial Ecology 2017;21(3):491e3. [148] Hussin MH, Samad NA, Latif NHA, Rozuli NA, Yusoff SB, Gambier F, Brosse N. Production of oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) fronds lignin-derived non-toxic aldehyde for eco-friendly wood adhesive. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 2018;113:1266e72. [149] Nurioglu AG, Esteves ACC. Non-toxic, non-biocide-release antifouling coatings based on molecular structure design for marine applications. Journal of Materials Chemistry B 2015;3(32):6547e70. [150] Somers P, De Somer F, Cornelissen M, Bouchez S, Gasthuys F, Narine K, Cox E, Van Nooten G. Genipin blues: an alternative non-toxic crosslinker for heart valves? Journal of Heart Valve Disease 2008;17(6):682e8. [151] Royo B. Transfer hydrogenation with non-toxic metals for drug synthesis. In: Sustainable synthesis of pharmaceuticals. London, United Kingdom: Royal Society of Chemistry; 2018. p. 105e38. [152] Demirbas A. Importance of biodiesel as transportation fuel. Energy Policy 2007;35(9): 4661e70.

Accelerating the implementation of circular economy

109

[153] Park SH, Lee CS. Applicability of dimethyl ether (DME) in a compression ignition engine as an alternative fuel. Energy Conversion and Management 2014;86:848e63. [154] Pinjing H, Fan L, Hua Z, Liming S. Recent developments in the area of waste as a resource, with particular reference to the circular economy as a guiding principle. In: Hester RE, Harrison RM, editors. Waste as a resource. London, United Kingdom: Royal Society of Chemistry; 2013. p. 144e61. [155] Confederation of Finnish Industries. How can we speed up circular economy?. March 2015. Available online at: https://ek.fi/wp-content/uploads/How-can-we-speedup-circular-economy.pdf. [156] Fellner J, Lederer J, Scharff C, Laner D. Present potentials and limitations of a circular economy with respect to primary raw material demand. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2017;21(3):494e6. [157] Kirchherr J, Piscicelli L, Bour R, Kostense-Smit E, Muller J, Huibrechtse-Truijens A, Hekkert M. Barriers to the circular economy: evidence from the European Union (EU). Ecological Economics 2018;150:264e72. [158] Govindan K, Hasanagic M. A systematic review on drivers, barriers, and practices towards circular economy: a supply chain perspective. International Journal of Production Research 2018;56:278e311. [159] De Jesus A, Mendonça S. Lost in transition? Drivers and barriers in the ecoinnovation road to the circular economy. Ecological Economics 2018;145:75e89.