Advertisement

Circular Economy – Reducing Symptoms or Radical Change?

  • Amsale TemesgenEmail author
  • Vivi Storsletten
  • Ove Jakobsen
Article

Abstract

In this article, we address why our management of the economy, community and business has led to global warming and we discuss the importance of worldviews, ontology, epistemology and axiology in the search for alternative paths of development. We do this by focusing on the concept of Circular Economy. Circular Economy is often presented as a solution to the problems of a globalized economy in the form of over-exploitation of resources, climate change and pollution of the environment. Within the mainstream economics paradigm, the aim is how to increase the effectiveness of resource extraction and utilization in order to maintain growth. We contrast this with the paradigm of Ecological Economics where the goal of the economy is to achieve and secure a higher quality of life. Circular Economy often side steps the deep ontological and epistemological questions we need to answer if we are to address the complex and interrelated environmental, economic and social problems we face today. This can be a limiting factor in the search for creative and long-term solutions. However, within the Circular Economy discourse, we find strands that critically engage with the foundations of mainstream Economics and so, innovative solutions for the society of the future are a possibility. We argue that to bring about a lasting solution to the interconnected social, economic and environmental problems, Circular Economy must engage with the ontological, epistemological and axiological foundations of mainstream economics. To further this argument, we apply Imre Lakatos’ ‘research program’ model to philosophy of science as our framework of analysis and draw lessons for business and communities.

Keywords

Circular economy Ecological economics Quality of life Lakatos 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest Statement

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Arjoon, Surendra. 2010. An Aristotelian-Thomistic approach to management practice. Philosophy of Management 9 (2): 47–64.  https://doi.org/10.5840/pom20109211.Google Scholar
  2. Brahmachari, Deborshi. 2016. Neoclassical economics as a method of scientific research program. A review of existing literature. In Munich personal RePEc archive. India: IGNOU.Google Scholar
  3. Bruni, Luigino, and Luca Stanca. 2008. Watching alone: Relational goods, television and happiness. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 65 (3): 506–528.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2005.12.005.Google Scholar
  4. Capra, Fritjof, and Ove Daniel Jakobsen. 2017. A conceptual framework for ecological economics based on systemic principles of life. International Journal of Social Economics 44 (6): 831–844.  https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-05-2016-0136.Google Scholar
  5. Cooter, Robert, and Peter Rappoport. 1984. Were the Ordinalists wrong about welfare economics? Journal of Economic Literature 22 (2): 507–530.Google Scholar
  6. Costanza, Robert, John H Cumberland, Herman Daly, Robert Goodland, Richard B Norgaard, Ida Kubiszewski, and Carol Franco. 2014. An introduction to ecological economics. 2nd. Edtition. Aufl. CRC Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cullen, Jonathan M. 2017. Circular economy: Theoretical benchmark or perpetual motion machine? Journal of Industrial Ecology 21 (3): 483–486.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12599.Google Scholar
  8. Easterlin, Richard A. 2004. The economics of happiness. Daedalus 133 (2): 26–33.  https://doi.org/10.1162/001152604323049361.Google Scholar
  9. Easterlin, Richard A., Laura Angelescu McVey, Malgorzata Switek, Onnicha Sawangfa, and Jacqueline Smith Zweig. 2010. The happiness—Income paradox revisited. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107 (52): 22463–22468.Google Scholar
  10. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. 2012. Towards the circular economy: Economic and business rationale for an accelerated transition.Google Scholar
  11. European Commission. 2015. Closing the loop - an EU action plan for the circular economy. Brussels: EU.Google Scholar
  12. Gasper, Des. 2007. Human well-being: Concepts and conceptualizations. In Human well-being. Concept and measurement, ed. Mark McGillivray, 23–64. New York: United Nations University.Google Scholar
  13. George, Karen, and Petia Sice. 2014. The emergence of wellbeing in community participation. Philosophy of Management 13 (2): 5–18.  https://doi.org/10.5840/pom20141328.Google Scholar
  14. Georgescu-Roegen, Nicolas. 1971. The entropy law and the economic process. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Goodwin, Neva R. 1991. Overview essay. In Human well-being and economic goals (frontier issues in economic thought), ed. Frank Ackerman, David Kiron, Neva R. Goodwin, Jonathan Harris, and Kevin Gallagher. Washington DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  16. Guillen-Royo, Monica. 2010. Realising the ‘wellbeing dividend’: An exploratory study using the human scale development approach. Ecological Economics 70 (2): 384–393.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.09.010.Google Scholar
  17. Ingebrigtsen, Stig, and Ove Jakobsen. 2007. Circulation economics : theory and practice. Frontiers of business ethics. Oxford: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  18. IPCC. 2018. Global warming of 1.5 °C. An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Summary for policy makers.Google Scholar
  19. Kirchherr, Julian, Denise Reike, and Marko Hekkert. 2017. Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 127: 221–232.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005.Google Scholar
  20. Korhonen, Jouni, Antero Honkasalo, and Jyri Seppälä. 2018a. Circular economy: The concept and its limitations. Ecological Economics 143: 37–46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.041.Google Scholar
  21. Korhonen, Jouni, Cali Nuur, Andreas Feldmann, and Seyoum Eshetu Birkie. 2018b. Circular economy as an essentially contested concept. Journal of Cleaner Production 175: 544–552.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.111.Google Scholar
  22. Krausmann, Fridolin, Dominik Wiedenhofer, Christian Lauk, Willi Haas, Hiroki Tanikawa, Tomer Fishman, Alessio Miatto, Heinz Schandl, and Helmut Haberl. 2017. Global socioeconomic material stocks rise 23-fold over the 20th century and require half of annual resource use. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 114 (8): 1880.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1613773114.Google Scholar
  23. Lakatos, Imre. 1970. Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, ed. Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Latour, Bruno. 2014. On some of the effects of capitalism. Royal Academy, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  25. Latsis, Spiro J. 1972. Situational determinism in economics. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 23 (3): 207–245.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/23.3.207.Google Scholar
  26. Lukes, Steven. 1968. Methodological individualism reconsidered. The British Journal of Sociology 19 (2): 119–129.  https://doi.org/10.2307/588689.Google Scholar
  27. Max-Neef, Manfred A. 2005. Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecological Economics 53 (1): 5–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.01.014.Google Scholar
  28. Max-Neef, Manfred, and B. Smith Philip. 2011. Economics Unmasked: From power and greed to compassion and the common good. United Kingdom: Uit Cambridge.Google Scholar
  29. Murray, Alan, Keith Skene, and Kathryn Haynes. 2017. The circular economy: An interdisciplinary exploration of the concept and application in a global context.(report). Journal of Business Ethics 140 (3): 369.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2693-2.Google Scholar
  30. Næss, Arne, David Rothenberg, and Arne Næss. 1989. Ecology, community and lifestyle: Outline of an ecosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. OECD. 2009. The financial crisis : Reform and exit strategies. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  32. Pena-López, José Atilano, José Manuel Sánchez-Santos, and Matías Membiela-Pollán. 2017. Individual social capital and subjective wellbeing: The relational goods. Journal of Happiness Studies.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9753-x.
  33. Phillips, David. 2006. Quality of Life : Concept, Policy and Practice. Florence: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Piketty, Thomas. 2014. Capital in the twenty-first century. Le capital au XXIe siècle. Cambridge: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  35. Pratten, Stephen. 2015. Social ontology and modern economics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Price, Jane L., and Jeremy B. Joseph. 2000. Demand management – A basis for waste policy: A critical review of the applicability of the waste hierarchy in terms of achieving sustainable waste management. Sustainable Development 8 (2): 96–105.Google Scholar
  37. Putnam, Hilary. 2004. The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy and other essays. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Rittel, H.W.J., and M.M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4 (2): 155–169.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730.Google Scholar
  39. Roberts, Alasdair. 2012. Why the occupy movement failed. Hoboken.Google Scholar
  40. Robeyns, Ingrid. 2005. The capability approach: A theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development 6 (1): 93–117.  https://doi.org/10.1080/146498805200034266.Google Scholar
  41. Rockström, Johan, Will Steffen, Kevin Noone, Åsa Persson, F. Stuart Chapin III, Eric F. Lambin, Timothy M. Lenton et al. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461 (7263):472.  https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a.
  42. Rotmans, Jan, and Derk Loorbach. 2009. Complexity and transition management. Journal of Industrial Ecology 13 (2): 184–196.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2009.00116.x.Google Scholar
  43. Ryan, Richard M., and Edward L. Deci. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist 55 (1): 68–78.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.Google Scholar
  44. Schäpke, Niko, and Felix Rauschmayer. 2014. Going beyond efficiency: Including altruistic motives in behavioral models for sustainability transitions to address sufficiency. Sustainability Science 10 (1): 29–44.Google Scholar
  45. Schlaile, Michael P., Sophie Urmetzer, Vincent Blok, Allan Dahl Andersen, Job Timmermans, Matthias Mueller, Jan Fagerberg, and Andreas Pyka. 2017. Innovation Systems for Transformations towards Sustainability? Taking the Normative Dimension Seriously. 9(12).  https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122253.
  46. Schlaile, Michael, Matthias Mueller, Michael Schramm, and Andreas Pyka. 2018. Evolutionary economics, responsible innovation and demand: Making a case for the role of consumers. Philosophy of Management 17 (1): 7–39.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-017-0054-1.Google Scholar
  47. Schröder, Enno, and Servaas Storm. 2018. Economic growth and carbon emissions: The road to ‘hothouse earth’ is paved with good intentions in INET Working Papers. New York: Institute for New Economic Thinking.Google Scholar
  48. Simonis, Udo E. 2013. Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth. International Journal of Social Economics 40 (4): 385–386.  https://doi.org/10.1108/03068291311305044.Google Scholar
  49. Söderbaum, Peter. 1999. Values, ideology and politics in ecological economics. Ecological Economics 28 (2): 161–170.Google Scholar
  50. Spash, Clive L. 2009. The new environmental pragmatists, pluralism and sustainability. Environmental Values 18 (3): 253–256.  https://doi.org/10.3197/096327109X12474739376370.Google Scholar
  51. Spash, Clive L. 2012. New foundations for ecological economics. Ecological Economics 77: 36–47.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.02.004.Google Scholar
  52. Spash, Clive L., and Anthony Ryan. 2012. Economic schools of thought on the environment: Investigating unity and division. Cambridge Journal of Economics 36 (5): 1091–1121.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bes023.Google Scholar
  53. Stanton, Elizabeth A. 2007. The Human Development Index: A History. In Workingpaper Series. Amherst, Massachusetts: Political Economy Research Institute.Google Scholar
  54. Steffen, Will, Katherine Richardson, Johan Rockström, Sarah E. Cornell, Ingo Fetzer, Elena M. Bennett, Reinette Biggs, et al. 2015. Sustainability. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science (New York, N.Y.) 347 (6223): 1259855.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855. Google Scholar
  55. The Guardian. 2018. The EU needs a stability and wellbeing pact, not more growth. Letters. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/16/the-eu-needs-a-stability-and-wellbeing-pact-not-more-growth. Accessed 10 October 2018.
  56. UNEP. 2006. Circular economy: An alternative for economic development. Paris: UNEP DTIE.Google Scholar
  57. Webster, Ken. 2015. The circular economy. A wealth of flows. United Kingdom: Ellen MacArthur Foundation Publishing.Google Scholar
  58. Weintraub, Roy E. 1993. Neoclassical Economics]. In The concise encyclopedia of economics. Library of Economics and Liberty.Google Scholar
  59. Wilkinson, Richard, and Kate Pickett. 2010. The spirit level : Why equality is better for everyone. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nord University Business SchoolNord UniversityBodøNorway

Personalised recommendations