new economy, same challenges: is circular economy enabling...

Master thesis in Sustainable Development 2019/43

Examensarbete i Hållbar utveckling

New economy, same challenges:

Is Circular Economy enabling a

sustainable and holistic transition

in Europe?

Céline Karina E. Ubbelohde

DEPARTMENT OF

EARTH SCIENCES

I N S T I T U T I O N E N F Ö R

G E O V E T E N S K A P E R

Master thesis in Sustainable Development 2019/43

Examensarbete i Hållbar utveckling

New economy, same challenges:

Is Circular Economy enabling a

sustainable and holistic transition in Europe?

Céline Karina E. Ubbelohde

Supervisor: Tiina Häyhä

Subject Reviewer: Ana Paula Aguiar

II

Content Abstract ................................................................................................................................................ III

Summary ...............................................................................................................................................IV

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................ V

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................VI

List of Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................... VII

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Background ..................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Sustainable Development: the concept and global policies ........................................................... 3

2.2 Circular Economy and the European Union .................................................................................. 4

3. Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................................. 6

3.1 Social-ecological systems perspective to sustainability ................................................................. 6

3.2 The role of Circular Economy for sustainability ............................................................................ 7

3.3 Circular Economy framework from a social-ecological systems perspective ............................... 8

4. Method .......................................................................................................................................... 12

4.1 Qualitative content analysis ......................................................................................................... 12

4.2 Material ........................................................................................................................................ 15

5. Results ........................................................................................................................................... 17

5.1 Classification into the SDGs ........................................................................................................ 17

5.1.1 Environment .......................................................................................................................... 18

5.1.2 Economy ............................................................................................................................... 19

5.1.3 Social ..................................................................................................................................... 20

5.1.4 Global Partnerships ............................................................................................................... 21

5.2 Circular Economy principles and the EU reports......................................................................... 22

6. Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 26

6.1 How are the Sustainable Development Goals addressed in the European Union’s Circular

Economy policies? ............................................................................................................................. 26

6.2 What is missing to Circular Economy to make it holistic and an enabler of the SDGs? ............. 28

6.3 Implications for future research and limitations of the study....................................................... 30

7. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 31

8. Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 32

9. References ..................................................................................................................................... 33

Appendix A ........................................................................................................................................... 38

III

New economy, same challenges: Is Circular Economy enabling a sustainable and holistic transition in Europe?

CELINE UBBELOHDE

Ubbelohde, C., 2019: New economy, same challenges: Is Circular Economy enabling a sustainable and holistic transition in Europe? Master thesis in Sustainable Development at Uppsala University, No. 2019/43, 89 pp, 30 ECTS/hp

Abstract:

Circular economy has emerged as a new economic paradigm to solve problems of natural resource scarcity and

environmental pollution by using resources more efficiently and designing products to minimize waste. This study

examines the potential of circular economy to enable the achievement of sustainable development and the

Sustainable Development Goals in Europe. This thesis, through a qualitative content analysis of four overarching

European reports related to circular economy strategies, uses a social-ecological systems perspective to: (a) analyze

how the three aspects of sustainable development are addressed in the reports and (b) pointing out at missing

elements in the European circular economy project that could hinder the realization of the Sustainable

Development Goals. Circular economy is a good start to change habits in terms of recycling, reusing and repairing

but it also raises awareness about the link between our level of consumption and production and its impact on the

environment. However, the results of this study show that the link between Sustainable Development Goals and

circular economy is weak and that the economic aspects are highlighted in all the reports to the detriment of environmental and social aspects. As a consequence, the current application of circular economy in Europe does

not provide systemic and structural changes, fails to address the root of the problem and reflects a weak vision of

sustainability.

Keywords: Sustainable Development, Circular Economy, European Union, Content analysis,

Sustainable Development Goals, social-ecological systems

Céline Ubbelohde, Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavägen 16, SE- 752 36 Uppsala,

Sweden

IV

New economy, same challenges: Is Circular Economy enabling a sustainable and holistic transition in Europe?

CELINE UBBELOHDE

Ubbelohde, C., 2019: New economy, same challenges: Is Circular Economy enabling a sustainable and holistic transition in Europe? Master thesis in Sustainable Development at Uppsala University, No. 2019/43, 89 pp, 30 ECTS/hp

Summary:

Pressures on ecological, social and economic systems caused by our (over)consumption are becoming increasingly

pressing, complex and interconnected. Circular economy is becoming more and more popular among countries,

regions and companies because it has the potential to address environmental, social and economic issues. Indeed,

circular economy is based on the idea of a closed loop, where materials are expected to stay for as long as possible

in the economy and where waste and new resources extraction are diminished. Therefore, by implementing circular

economy, actors can expect to grow their economy and profits while at the same time diminish their impacts on

the environment. This study aims to link both sustainable development and circular economy, two main priorities

in the European developmental agenda and explores how the latter could enable the achievement of Sustainable

Development Goals in Europe. To do that, qualitative content analysis is the chosen method. The content of four

overarching reports is analyzed to draw conclusions on how the EU reports position themselves in the sustainable

development paradigm. This thesis applies a social-ecological systems perspective to study how the three aspects

of sustainable development are addressed in the reports. The study’s findings point at several missing elements

that could jeopardize the successful implementation of circular economy. These include the lack of strong

sustainability perspective and missing social aspects and to some smaller extent missing environmental aspects.

To conclude, circular economy in Europe does not address the three aspects of sustainable development as

suggested by the social-ecological systems perspective and thus risks failing to come up with radical changes to

the current linear system.

Keywords: Sustainable Development, Circular Economy, European Union, Content analysis,

Sustainable Development Goals, social-ecological systems

Céline Ubbelohde, Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavägen 16, SE- 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden

V

List of Figures

Figure 1 The Sustainable Development

Goals

p.3

Figure 2 Weak VS. Strong sustainability p.6

Figure 3 Coding categories: the SDGs p.12

Figure 4 Coding categories: The Circular Economy principles

p.12

Figure 5 First part of the classification process

p.13

Figure 6 Second part of the classification

process

p.13

Figure 7 Summary and interpretation of

the results

p.25

VI

List of Tables

Table 1 Link between the SDGs targets and the EU Circular

Economy reports

p.14

Table 2 Results from the content analysis linking the

‘Environmental’ SDGs’ targets and the reports

p.16

Table 3 Results from the content analysis linking the ‘Economic’ SDGs’ targets and the reports

p.17

Table 4 Results from the content analysis linking the ‘Social’ SDGs’ targets and the reports

p.18

Table 5 Results from the content analysis linking the

SDG 17 targets and the reports

p.19

Table 6 Summary of the Circular Economy Principles p.20

VII

List of Abbreviations

CE Circular Economy

EAP Environmental Action Programme

EU European Union

EP European Parliament

GDP Gross domestic product

GHG Greenhouse gases

MDGs Millenium Development Goals

OECD The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

SC Sustainable Consumption

SD Sustainable Development

SDGs Sustainable Development Goals

UN United Nations WCED World Commission on Environment and Development

1

1. Introduction

“We must continue on this path, but the path must be stepped up to ensure a sustainable Europe

by 2030. We cannot afford passing the responsibility to next generations, and our margin of

time is becoming even smaller” (European Commission, 2019).

The global challenges concerning natural and human systems are becoming increasingly pressing,

interconnected and complex. While the humanity is realizing the urgency of the global threats on the

environment, the society and the economy, there is a need to accelerate change. Inequalities regarding

wealth, power and gender are rising and are remaining a great concern (United Nations, 2015).

Moreover, our planet and its ecological system as well as its biodiversity are changing irreversibly

(United Nations, 2015; European Parliament and Council, 2013; Costanza et al., 2014). Over the past decades, sustainable development has become a way of thinking that could possibly solve those global

issues by making sure that “no one is left behind, whilst truly respecting the limits of our planet and

securing it for future generations” (European Commission, 2019, p.8). While the current problems we

are facing simultaneously affect the environment, the society and the economy, they will also influence

the livelihoods of future generations.

To tackle some of these challenges, circular economy (CE) started to become popular traction in the

sustainability scene in the last few years. Frequently associated with the Industrial Ecology approach,

circular economy is a new economic paradigm that is based on reducing, reusing, recycling and

recovering materials in the production and consumption processes (Korhonen et al., 2018b; Kirchherr et al., 2017; Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Van Buren et al., 2016). This new model replaces the ‘take-make-

dispose’ model of production and consumption. Moreover, circular economy is viewed as a mean to

reach sustainable development by creating economic prosperity, reducing environmental impacts and

meeting social equity (Kirchherr et al., 2017, p.225). Circular economy is applied by different businesses across the world but also promoted by several countries such as China and more recently by the

European Union (Korhonen et al., 2018a). In 2015, shortly after the Paris Agreement, the European

Union adopted the Circular Economy Package “Closing the loop - An EU Action Plan for the Circular

Economy” (European Commission, 2015). The action plan outlines which actions the European Union

is going to take to implement circular economy in its policies and in reality. Four years later, tackling

excessive resource extraction and transitioning to sustainable production and consumption are still one

of the top priority for the EU (European Commission, 2019).

Circular economy has gained grounds these past years and more and more research is being conducted

on the topic by academia as well as corporations. Since the concept is used in a variety of contexts, many

researchers point to the lack of consensus on the definitions of circular economy and so it can also hinder

the momentum of circular economy (Kirchherr et al., 2017; Korhonen et al., 2018b; Murray et al., 2015).

Indeed, circular economy can be seen as a contested concept (Kirchherr, et al., 2017; Korhonen et al., 2018b). Even though circular economy seems to address the three pillars of sustainable development:

economy, environment and social and looks promising from a holistic and ‘Sustainable Development Goals’ (SDGs) perspective, many scholars are arguing that the concept is missing the social dimension

(Murray et al., 2015, p. 376; Moreau et al., 2017; Sauvé et al., 2016). In fact, there is a research gap in

the social aspects of circular economy. It is still not clear how circular economy is going to affect social

equity, inter- and intra-generational equity and the societies in general (Murray et al., 2015, p.376). If

the social aspects are not considered then this could represent a barrier to the development of circular

economy (Moreau et al., 2017, p.498) and could lead to an unsustainable implementation of the concept

(Kirchherr et al., 2017, p.227). Indeed, the social dimension is an explicit aspect of sustainable

development and relates to concept of inter- and intra-generational equity, social justice (Murray et al., 2015, p.376; Leach et al., 2018). By not considering all the aspects of sustainability, circular economy

could fail to implement radical and structural changes. If policymakers believe in the positive contribution of circular economy to the current global challenges and to change the system, the concept

requires to consider all aspects of sustainable development and possibly the circular economy

framework needs to be complemented with other actions and should use a more holistic system

perspective (Ahlström, 2019; Sjåfjell et al., 2018).

2

In this study, I focus on the European implementation of circular economy. More specifically, I show

the link between the European Circular Economy project and the Sustainable Development Goals

agenda by analyzing the content of the following policy documents: The Circular Economy Package

launched in 2015 by the European Commission (European Commission, 2015), the 7th Environmental

Action Programme published in 2013 (European Parliament and Council, 2013), the resolution on

“Resource efficiency: moving towards a circular economy” adopted by the European Parliament in 2015

(European Parliament, 2015) and finally, the Reflection paper “Towards a sustainable Europe by 2030”

published in 2019 (European Commission 2019). I use a social-ecological systems perspective as a

theoretical framework to explore and analyze how the three dimensions of sustainable development

(environment, society, economy) are addressed in relation to circular economy in the selected

documents, and link these to the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

This project answers the following research questions:

1. How are the sustainable development aspects addressed in European Union’s Circular Economy policies?

2. As a new sustainability paradigm, what is still missing to the EU’s Circular Economy discourse to make it holistic and an enabler of the Sustainable Development?

This research project highlights the importance for the European Circular Economy project to consider

all three aspects of sustainable development. This project contributes to the field of sustainability science

by applying the socio-ecological perspective to circular economy. This analysis could help stakeholders

to consider promoting circular economy solutions that considers economic, environmental and social

aspects. It also contributes to critically assess the circular economy in Europe and to point out to potential

barriers for its successful implementation. This is done by exploring the literature on circular economy

from a sustainability perspective and by using a qualitative content analysis method on four EU reports. More broadly, this project could potentially contribute to EU’s policy processes on advancing the

circular economy agenda, in line with the Sustainable Development Goals.

3

2. Background

2.1 Sustainable Development: the concept and global policies

The challenges humanity is dealing with are worldwide issues that affect the people, the planet and the

prosperity (United Nations, 2015). Sustainable development, as a global concept, has rapidly evolved

into a mainstream paradigm to solve those global matters. The concept gained in popularity as a result

of rising global environmental risks such as resources’ depletion due to the increase of population and

consumption (Du Pisani, 2006, p.87). In 1972, the first UN meeting on international environmental

issues was held in Stockholm, Sweden which started the development of international environmental

politics. Later, in 1987, the sustainable development concept gained momentum after the publication of

the report titled Our Common Future (Du Pisani, 2006, p.92). This report was published by the World Commission on Environment and Development, also known as the Brundtland Commission, which

consisted of a group of 22 people commissioned by the United Nations “to identify long-term

environmental strategies for the international community” (Ibid). The authors defined sustainable

development as followed:

“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising

the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987).

Sustainable development is based on the intersection of the environment, society and economy which

are its three pillars (Giddings et al., 2002, p.187). The interactions between the three pillars can vary

depending on which perspective one has of sustainability. Either, the three dimensions can be seen as

separable or they can be dependent on each other, with the economy dependent on the society and the

environment and the society reliant on the environment (Ibid). More than a concept, sustainable

development has become a fundamental idea and an overarching goal for decision-makers to provide

effective and integrative solutions that comprise environmental, social and economic challenges the

humanity is facing (Hugé et al., 2013, p.187; Lafferty, 1999, p.123). In 2015, to guide the humanity to

a sustainable future, the United Nations set a new development agenda. This agenda is called Agenda

2030 and includes 17 Sustainable Development Goals as well as 169 associated targets with sustainable

development as core concept. Those goals are:

Figure 1: The Sustainable Development Goals (European Commission, 2019).

The Agenda 2030 doesn’t only focus on poverty and developing regions, it involves the three pillars of

Sustainable Development and concerns all the countries, developed and developing. In addition to being

universal, the SDGs are indivisible and interconnected (Weitz, 2018). This means that all the SDGs

4

should be pursued simultaneously and by making progress in one of the SDGs others might be

affected. Basically, the SDGs mainly affect 5 areas, known as the 5Ps: people, planet, prosperity, peace,

partnerships (United Nations 2015). Finally, the SDGs “address the systemic barriers to sustainable

development such as inequality, unsustainable consumption patterns, weak institutional capacity, and

environmental degradation that the MDGs (Millenium Development Goals) neglected” (ICSU & ISSC,

2015).

The European Union played an important role in the goal-setting process and strongly supports the SDGs

(Sjåfjell et al., 2018). “Sustainability is already recognized as a European brand” and an overarching goal (Sjåfjell et al., 2018, p.14) and it is also deeply rooted in the European project (European

Commission, 2019). However, the EU still fails to consider the SDGs in its policies (Demailly & Hege,

2018, p.4). Moreover, no single country in the world has reached all the objectives and efforts need to

continue to implement the global agenda (European Commission, 2019).

As sustainable development concept interconnects environment, society and economy, applying

sustainable development should embrace a holistic view (Giddings et al., 2002) However, many times

the economy dominates the environment and the society and in practice, economic activities are prioritized (Giddings et al., 2002, p.190; Sjåfjell et al., 2018, p.104). From earlier on, sustainable

development was criticized for not questioning the economic growth (Du Pisani, 2006, p.93). It is even

said that sustainable development is an oxymoron as “development is associated with continuous growth

from the perspectives of industry, economy, agriculture and consumption: eternal growth cannot be

sustainable” (Sauvé et al., 2016, p.52). Moreover, sustainable development was a compromise between growth and conservation which lead to contradiction of the very meaning of sustainable development

(Du Pisani, 2006). Indeed, based on the definition of development and the definition of sustainability,

the two concepts are incompatible (Du Pisani, 2006, p.94). By only putting an emphasis on the economic

pillar, we would fail to have a full and detailed picture of what we have to tackle precisely (Sauvé et al., p.48; Giddings et al., 2002, p.192). By bringing various disciplines together and having a holistic view,

we would be equipped to tackle dynamic and complex global challenges (Sneddon et al., 2006, p.264).

Despite the numerous criticisms sustainable development and Agenda 2030 still remain relevant in

current environmental and socio-economic affairs and as a guiding-principle and concrete policy goal

(Sneddon et al., 2006, p.254; Schneider et al., 2019).

2.2 Circular Economy and the European Union

With a growing concern about increasing natural resources’ depletion and exceeding planetary

boundaries, circular economy appears to offer a solution to those global challenges. The linear economic

model, the ‘take-make-dispose’ scheme, began with the industrial revolution and quickly progressed

into an overexploitation of resource which made it unsustainable (Prieto-Sandoval et al., 2018, p.609;

Esposito et al., 2017). Global population is growing as well as consumption and thus non-renewable resources are depleted. As a consequence, waste management issues are also rising. circular economy

comes under consideration as an answer to the linear model of production and consumption.

Linked to the global agenda, circular economy gained in popularity among private companies,

governments and academia in Europe and in other parts of the world (Schroeder et al., 2018). To put it

simply, circular economy is about turning goods that are in end of life into new products (Stahel, 2016).

In practice this means the resources stay in the economy for as long as possible. Furthermore, in circular

economy, wastes become resources providing solutions for waste management problems (Skene, 2018,

p.482; Moreau et al., 2017; Schroeder et al., 2018). In this respect, CE principles are based on the wastehierarchy known as the 9R: refuse, reduce, reuse, repair, refurbish, remanufacture, repurpose, recycle,

recover (Van Buren et al., 2016, p.3; Kirchherr et al., 2017). Eventually, using resources longer and in

various new recycled products would decouple prosperity from resource extraction which is the aim of

circular economy (as discussed in detail in section 3.3) (Sauvé et al., 2016). Framed in the same way as

Industrial Ecology (Murray et al., 2015), circular economy is often associated to various approaches such as: eco-design, cradle-to-cradle, sustainable consumption, industrial symbiosis, life-cycle thinking,

waste-to-resources (Milios, 2018, p.864; Lazaveric &Valve, 2017).

5

Furthermore, the sustainable development agenda and the emergence of circular economy complete each

other. Indeed, CE applications have the potential to achieve Sustainable Development Goals (Schroder

et al., 2018). Particularly, regarding the transformation of the production and consumption system (Ibid).

While sustainable development defines clear goals to achieve (: the SDGs), it does not give any tools to

reach them. On the other hand, circular economy has a set of tools but no clear goals (Sauvé et al., 2016,

p.54). At the European level, the circular economy policies have been linked to SDG 6, SDG 7, SDG

8, SDG 9, SDG 11, SDG 12 and SDG 13 (European Commission, 2019a). The European Union and its

Member States have committed to implement the SDGs by 2030 and it is one of its number one priority

(European Commission, 2019). Additionally, in its last Reflection Paper “Towards A Sustainable

Europe by 2030” (Ibid), the European Commission reaffirmed its will to transition to a circular

economy. The circular economy policy area is subject to a strong political will, and important resources

are also being allocated to implement by 2030, the international commitment on sustainable

development (Ahlström, 2019, p.8). More broadly, the CE has the potential to answer to environmental

and developmental challenges (Schroeder et al., 2018).

The European Union became aware of its intensive use of resources as well as potential future challenges that would arise. Already in 2003, the European Commission launched the ‘Towards a Thematic

Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources’ (European Commission, 2003). The aim was to

reduce the impacts on the environment due to resources’ use and continue to economically grow

(European Commission, 2016). Later on, in 2011, Europe followed with a ‘Roadmap to Resource

Efficient Europe’ which was about transforming Europe’s economy and production and consumption to

make them more resource efficient (European Commission, 2011). The circular economy concept

became popular and in 2014, the European Commission introduced its programme for a zero waste

Europe. Finally, in 2015, after the withdrawal of the zero waste programme, the European Union

launched its Circular Economy Package that has a broader focus and include the whole supply chain of

production (European Commission, 2019b). In 2019, the European Commission announced that the

actions set under the Action Plan have already been implemented (European Commission, 2019c, p.1).

Currently, CE is high on the political agenda and is considered as a new socio-economic paradigm in

Europe (Merli et al., 2018; Ahlström, 2019)

Despite its growing popularity, circular economy is a contested concept (Korhonen et al., 2018b).

Indeed, some core elements of circular economy lack unanimous support from academia. More

precisely, circular economy is still considered as a relatively new field and as a consequence, there is a

lack of academic debates and CE still misses a consensus on its definition (Korhonen et al., 2018b;

Murray et al.,2015). This can be explained by the fact that CE has its roots in many other concepts. However, this makes it difficult to conduct research and build knowledge in the area of circular economy

(Kirchherr et al., 2017). Without proper scientific research, CE has been criticized by some scholars for

having over simplistic goals that lack holistic view which could produce unintended consequences on

the environment and the society (Murray et al., 2015; Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Prieto-Sandoval et al.,

2018; Hobson & Lynch, 2016). Moreover, some problems arise when circular economy is paired with

sustainable development as both of them are interpreted differently and have multiple definitions. To

overcome the conceptual and structural problems of CE, there is a need for a deeper scientific analysis.

With appropriate and useful research, CE goals could contribute to a more sustainable society and allow

real benefits for the environment and the society (Murray et al., 2015). Moreover, a consensus on the

definition and aims of circular economy could boost its implementation (Prieto-Sandoval et al., 2018; Korhonen et al., 2018b, p.551).

6

3. Theoretical Framework 3.1 Social-ecological systems perspective to sustainability

Sustainable development is commonly represented in the form of three interconnected circles. The

circles represent the social, economic and environmental pillar of the concept. This model faces a

common criticism which is that the three pillars are considered as separate entities where sustainability

is assigned to one of them (Thatcher, 2014; Folke et al., 2016, p.3). This leads to problems in the

interpretation of sustainability. Indeed, the separation of the pillars led to the economic pillar to take

over the society and the environment which are being exploited for economic benefits (Giddings et al.,

2002, p.191). While it has been recognized that the environment is changing rapidly, there is still a

common belief that the environment and the ecosystems will adapt to the changes imposed on them

(Johnston et al., 2007, p.61).

The separation of the three entities contributes to narrow approaches based on the belief of technological

fix which alludes to a weak application of sustainability (Giddings et al., 2002, p.187). Indeed, weak

sustainability is defined as allowing the three aspects of sustainability to be interchangeable (Biely et

al., 2018, p.225). This means that natural and manufactured capital are substitutable because the well-being they produce is similar (Pelenc & Ballet, 2015; Sauvé et al., 2016; Dedeurwaerdere, 2014).

Moreover, weak sustainability is based on short-term solutions founded on the future promise of

technological progress (Dedeurwaerdere, 2014, p.15). Technological progress is said to enable future

generations’ well-being with less resources (Biely et al., 2018, p.225). This poses a problem in the sense

that technological fixes rely on natural resources which are not taken into account in weak sustainability

(Dedeurwaerdere, 2014, p.15).

Figure 2: Weak VS. Strong sustainability framework

In the nested or embedded model of sustainability, the society is dependent on the environment, and the

economy is a dependent on the society and the environment (Lozano, 2008, p.1842; Giddings et al.,

2002, p.191; Folke et al., 2016). This means that the well-being of the society and the economy depends

primarily on the well-being of the environment (Thatcher, 2014). Additionally, contrary to the first

model, the economy depends on the society, for the labor and environment, for the resources and

Environment

Economy

Social Economy

Social

Environment

Common three interconnected

pillars model

Socio-ecological systems

perspective

7

ecosystems’ services (Folke et al., 2016; Giddings et al., 2002). The nested model highlights the

interconnectedness of the three dimensions of sustainable development. In this representation of

sustainability, the environment is the foundation for the economy and the society (Folke et al., 2016).

The nested model alludes to the concept of strong sustainability where all of its three aspects are

considered. Contrary to the weak sustainability, the three aspects are not interchangeable, and

technology is not considered as the only answer to solve global sustainability challenges (Biely et al., 2018, p.225). Strong sustainability is based on the principle of environmental conservation and argues

to keep environmental assets constant over time (Hediger, 1999, p.1125; Sauvé et al., 2016). The planetary boundaries framework and the definition of a safe operating space enter into this logic of

considering the three aspects of sustainability together and seeing the environment as the basis for the

well-being of the society and the economy (Folke et al., 2016). Strong sustainability is represented as a radical and structural change of the economy and more broadly, all parts of the system are considered,

meaning it is based on system thinking (Biely et al., 2018, p.225; Ahlström, 2019, p.2). Furthermore, the nested representation of sustainability refers to a socio-ecological systems approach where people

and economies are embedded in the biosphere and where they shape one another (Folke et al., 2016,

p.5). The socio-ecological approach ensures that the progress of human well-being does not weaken the biosphere (Fisher et al., 2015). Integrated approaches which consist of ecological, economic and social

practical solutions are needed to help foster sustainable development (Fisher et al., 2015; Dedeurwaerdere, 2014a, p.26).

Finally, these systems’ representations face several criticisms. First, the two models presented above are

highly anthropocentric (Lozano, 2008). Sustainable development itself can be seen an anthropocentric

concept as it only concerns current and future generation of humans (Sauvé et al., 2016). Indeed, the

concept fails to consider wider views of the environment by only focusing on the human needs and

perspectives (Giddings et al., 2002, p.188). Second, those models are “broad-brush model[s]” (Giddings

et al., 2002, p.192). Actually, the graphic representations seek to explain the complex concept of

sustainability in a simple manner (Lozano, 2008, p.1843). In reality, there is no sharp distinctions

between the three spheres (Giddings et al., 2002, p.192). Furthermore, these models could give the

impression of a static world (Ibid) as “they are centered on one point in time” (Lozano, 2008, p.1843) while, in fact “there are different economies, societies and environments which changed and are

changing over time” (Giddings et al., 2002, p.193). Considering the complexities of the challenges, the

fact that they are multi-layered and multi-faceted, the analysis of socio-ecological systems is difficult

(Dedeurwaerdere, 2014a, p.33). Additionally, sustainability is often criticized for being a blurry and

broad concept (Biely et al., 2018; Giddings et al., 2002). There are around 300 definitions of sustainability (Geissdoerfer et al., 2018, p.758) and this allows different stakeholders to imply different

things when referring to sustainability (Biely et al., 2018; Giddings et al., 2002). There are many

interpretations, no common philosophy of the concept nor any specific criteria to define what is and is

not considered as sustainable (Giddings et al., 2002, p.188; Du Pisani, 2006). Thus, the two models

presented, even though are commonly used, represent two views of sustainability among many others.

3.2 The role of Circular Economy for sustainability

The role of circular economy for sustainability has been debated in the literature. Some scholars see CE

as necessary to sustainability, others recognize that the two concepts are often linked (Geissdoerfer et

al., 2017; Merli et al., 2018). Moreover, it is often stated that CE principles and practices are tools to

achieve sustainable development and sustainability (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Merli et al., 2018;

Schroeder et al.., 2018; Sauvé et al., 2016). By reducing the use of raw virgin materials in the production, circular economy provides the future generations with the ability to meet their needs which directly

contributes to sustainability (Sauvé et al., 2016; Andersen, 2007). Circular economy can contribute to

transform systems of production and consumption, which is closely related to SDG 12 (Schroeder et al.,

2018). In fact, circular economy by considering a wide range of production and consumption activities

plays a significant role in limiting the environmental impacts to shift to other activities (Sauvé et al., 2016). Indeed, CE “internalize both the cost of using new material resources and energy, and their

release of contaminants that have negative impacts on the environment and human beings” (Ibid, p.55).

8

This can contribute to reach the SDGs. Even though, circular economy is not explicitly mentioned in

the targets, several authors believe in the positive contribution of circular economy to the fulfillment of

SDGs and their targets (Geng et al., 2013; Schroeder et al., 2018) because they both share a global

perspective, emphasize on inter- and intra-generational commitments and focus on the state of the

environment (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). Furthermore, some scholars think that circular economy can

replace sustainable development (Sauvé et al., 2016). Implemented within the linear economy and

system, some authors claim that this makes sustainable development and linear economy inseparable

(Ibid). In this context, circular economy goes further than sustainable development and suggests a new

economic paradigm that goes beyond the sustainability limitations (Ibid).

Despite the mutual beneficial relationship between the two concepts, the conceptual link between both

is still not clear (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). Indeed, Sustainable Development is defined at a macro-level

and encompasses the three aspects of environment, society and economy at large (Sauvé et al., 2016; Merli et al., 2018). Moreover, it consists of multiple goals addressed by various actors (Geissdoerfer et

al., 2017). Circular economy is mainly focused on the decrease of resources’ use benefiting economic

actors (Merli et al., 2018; Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). Unlike sustainable development, circular economy prioritizes economy with direct benefit to the environment and only implicit social improvements

(Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). This can represent a barrier to achieve sustainable development. Another difficulty to achieve sustainability is that circular economy might worsen climate change and increase

the greenhouses gases due to the technical challenges regarding closing the loop as well as the inability

of circular economy to maintain a constant level of consumption (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Andersen, 2007; Lukman et al., 2016). Currently, circular economy has narrow focus on the economy and the

environment and society rather than viewing challenges through a holistic lens (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017).

Moreover, circular economy is a movement towards weak sustainability as it does not integrate social

dimensions (Sauvé et al.., 2016). This is one of the major research gap concerning CE and also a barrier for circular economy to enable sustainability. However, several authors address that issue and provide

some explanations as to why circular economy does not explicitly provide social goals and

improvements. Circular economy is set in an industrial context which does not address social issues and

thus could explain the limited focus of CE (Merli et al., 2018). Another explanation is given by Sauvé

et al. (2016), which state that if CE principles are followed, those would necessarily lead to an improvement in well-being and therefore that would justify why CE does not include specific social

goals. Furthermore, it can also be said that it is very challenging to pursue a simultaneously the

environmental, economic and social goal (D’amato et al., 2017).

In a larger context, scholars do not agree on a common definition for circular economy and for

sustainable development and thus, concepts can be linked and compared in various ways (Sauvé et al., 2016). Moreover, a lack of common CE definition could hinder its momentum and the scope of CE’s

definition could affect its aim. For example, a narrow scope would not allow CE to set a new socio-

economic paradigm (Merli et al., 2018, p.718).

3.3 Circular Economy framework from a social-ecological systems perspective Based on the idea of a closed loop, circular economy has for aim to increase efficiency and eventually

achieve decoupling. This would renew the economy, increase jobs and employment and save the

environment. However, circular economy is not only perceived as a ‘win-win’ situation by the scholars.

Indeed, from a sustainability perspective, CE appears to offer limited solutions to today’s challenges

among which resource scarcity, global natural ecosystem and ecosystems’ services decline (Esposito et al., 2017, p.10; Korhonen et al., 2018a, p.38).

Circular economy, by relying on improving industrial processes, seems to directly solve the excessive

extraction of resources by using them efficiently, considering waste as resources and operating in a

9

closed system. Resource efficiency can refer to either, an increase in resource productivity or a reduction

of the resource intensity of the used materials such as metals, minerals, fuels, water, land, clean air and

biodiversity (Domenech & Bahn-Walkowiak, 2019, p.9). Several advantages result from being resource

efficient during the production process. A country or a region could rely less on the import of raw

materials for the production of products (Van Buren et al., 2016, p.3). It also creates more employment

opportunities and job growth by creating new markets such as recycling and reusing, which increase

resource productivity (Ibid). More generally, by being more resource efficient, the industry can reconcile and benefit economic and environmental objectives, but it also goes further and considers inter- and

intra-generational equity (Cooper, 2005). Even though, circular economy tries to pursue economic

growth with environmental challenges in a sustainable way, many scholars are uncertain about the real

impact of resource efficiency. Indeed, while it is important to lower the input and the impact of natural

resources, Akenji et al. (2016, p.5) states that it is not sufficient. This is due to the increasing demand of resources and goods which outpace the efficiency improvements (Ibid; Cooper, 2005; European

Parliament, 2015). When referring to nested model of sustainability in Figure 2, resource efficiency coupled with an increase in production and consumption fails to consider the environment as the

foundation of the well-being of the society and the economy.

Eventually, by reducing the amount of resources’ use, CE aims to decouple economic growth from

negative environmental effects. Absolute or relative decoupling refers to achieving economic growth

while at the same time reducing the impact on the environment and the resources’ use (Lazarevic &

Valve, 2017, p.64). Absolute decoupling means that resource consumption decreases while the economy

grows (Akenji et al., 2016, p.2). Relative decoupling means that resource consumption increases at a

lower rate than the economy (Ibid). It is envisioned, by some authors, as a win-win scenario that will benefit the environment and the economy (Lazarevic & Valve, 2017) and is one of the key concepts to

achieve sustainable consumption and production (Akenji & Bengtsson, 2014). Others question the

possibility to achieve decoupling as there are only a few examples of relative decoupling and none of

absolute (Akenji et al., 2016; Akenji & Bengtsson, 2014). However, from 2000 to 2014, “the EU-28 on

average experienced absolute decoupling” (the indicator used to calculate decoupling did not take into

account the “hidden flows” of the imported goods) (Domenech & Bahn-Walkowiak, 2019, p.8). More

generally, circular economy topics revolve around the concept of decoupling driven by the technological

innovation specifically recycling and eco-efficiency (D’Amato et al., 2017, p.721). Furthermore,

decoupling as used in policy discourse tend to give priority to economic growth and ecological concerns

take a back seat (Akenji et al., 2016, p.5). This alludes to a weak sustainability vision which refers to the three interconnected circles model. Even though, decoupling is an appealing concept, it does not

consider the economy as dependent on the environment and the society. Therefore, circular economy is

mostly based on relative decoupling and weak sustainability. (D’Amato et al., 2017, p.725).

One way of tackling the issue of resource depletion is to create innovations and technologies to change

our production and consumption patterns. In fact, policymakers tend to count on technologies to offer a

relief to current problems (Akenji et al., 2016, p.2). However, technologies and innovations can give the

impression that pressures on resources are too far ahead to be considered or even non-existent (Ibid,

p.3). While for some environmental problems, technology offered durable solutions such as elimination

of nitrate pollution by changing products composition, in many cases, technologies enabled the

acceleration of the production (Lorek & Spangenberg, 2014, p. 35). Westley et al. (2011) qualify the previous statements. On one hand, they explain that technologies and innovations are associated with

better quality of life for all but that on the other hand, technological innovations tend to carry on the

current production and consumption systems and ‘lock us’ in the current path (Westley et al., 2011,

p.763). Some scholars go even further and describe a negative relationship between technology and

consumption level (Vivanco et al., 2016, p.115). Up until now “innovation has occurred without

reference to ecological integrity, or complex systems interactions” (Ibid, p.774). Due to the growth of

the global population and consequently the growth of consumption and production, technological

innovations have not been able to offset their impacts (Vivanco et al., 2016, p.114). On top of growing

production and consumption, the environment will be further harmed. Even though technologies are

opportunities to design better products and also eventually, create employment, currently they do not

take into account a socio-ecological perspective and thus have small benefits for the environment. To

10

face and solve complex and global issues, innovations and technologies integrating ecological and social

challenges must be scaled up and accelerated (Ibid).

Absolute decoupling and the acceleration of technological fixes contributed to green consumerism and

the rebound effect (Vivanco et al., 2016). Indeed, while industries become more and more resource

efficient, the cost of production has been reduced leading to more produced goods and ultimately drove

the consumption up (Figge et al., 2014; Zink & Geyer, 2017). Additionally, goods produced from the

secondary resource market may be of insufficient quality or less desirable to the consumers than the

primary goods (Zink & Geyer, 2017). These mechanisms are known as the rebound effect. The rebound effect could jeopardize the implementation and limit the benefits of circular economy. In fact, consumers

are encouraged to buy more green products which fits in the mainstream economic paradigm based on

GDP growth (Akenji et al., 2016, p.2; Vivanco et al., 2016, p.122). This growing consumption questions

the benefits and the limits of circular economy in that it delivers limited sustainability outcomes (Geels

et al., 2015). Moreover, it does not address issues of fair distribution of resources and wealth and

inequality and therefore, offers limited benefits for the society. For circular economy to be successful,

the secondary production market has to outweigh the primary production (Zink & Geyer, 2017). If not, secondary and primary production impacts will accumulate and results in increasing environmental

impacts (Ibid). This could occur for several reasons: secondary products are less desirable or less quality than the primary products, prices of secondary products are higher than primary production ones (Ibid).

To be able to use waste as an input for the secondary production, several gradations for circularity known

as the 9R are applied. Those are: refuse, reduce, reuse, repair, refurbish, remanufacture, repurpose,

recycle, recover (Van Buren et al., 2016, p.3; Kirchherr et al., 2017). The European Union uses the 4R

framework: reduce, reuse, recycle and recover (Kirchherr et al., 2017). The 9R framework is a waste

hierarchy where refuse is the most desirable and recover the least desirable strategy. Among the

literature, scholars have different standpoints regarding the closed loop which challenges the core and

the promises of circular economy. For example, Van Buren et al. (2016, p.2) write that “products can be recovered and reused almost endlessly”. Others say that at some point, material loop and circulation

will reach its limits (Milios, 2018, p.865). Skene (2018, p.482) says that “nature’s economy does not

operate like this [i.e in a closed loop]” and that “the Earth is an open system, not a closed system”. The

circular economy waste hierarchy also faces criticisms and more precisely, recycling which most

policies are oriented towards (Kirchherr et al., 2017, p.226). Indeed, recycling is the most common component in the definitions followed by reuse and reduce (Kirchherr et al., 2017) despite the fact that

the two last ones are above recycling in the waste hierarchy. Promoting reduction of demand for material

is seen as a less attractive option for policy makers as this means decreasing consumption and economic

growth (Allwood, 2014; Kirchherr et al., 2017). Recycling has some limitations and policies lack to recognize them (Akenji et al., 2016, p.6). While recycling plays an important role in decreasing the depletion of finite natural resources and thus offers a solution to environmental and waste challenges, it

is not possible to achieve 100% recyclability due to thermodynamics and entropy law (Milios, 2018,

p.865). Moreover, recycling will always need energy and thus it won’t be possible to close the loop and

stop generating wastes (Korhonen et al., 2018a, p.42; Skene, 2018; Akenji et al., 2016; Van Buren et

al., 2016; Allwood, 2014). The CE principles might seem encompassing and face little critique from the policymakers but there is a need to carefully analyze the real environmental impact of CE projects

(Korhonen et al., 2018a, p.42) and acknowledge that CE goes far beyond than recycling (Mayer et al.,

2018). The idea to use wastes from one process for another does not mean that it automatically creates

environmental benefits (Zink & Geyer, 2017, p.595).

Circular economy fits in the larger context of green economy and green growth. The concept of green

economy is defined by the United Nations Environmental Program as “one that results in improved

human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological

scarcities” (Prieto-Sandoval et al., 2018, p.609). Moreover, the OECD defines green growth as follow:

“Green growth means fostering economic growth and development while ensuring that natural assets

continue to provide the resources and environmental services on which our well-being relies…Green

growth has not been conceived as a replacement for sustainable development, but rather should be

considered a subset of it” (Schmalensee, 2012, p.S3). Thus, green economy and green growth bring

together environmental concerns and social well-being and more precisely, poverty alleviation which

11

leads to sustainability and also alludes to a socio-ecological perspective of sustainability (D’Amato et

al., 2017, p.717; Borel-Saladin & Turok, 2013, p.211). Indeed, it is said that growth has lifted millions of people out of poverty, but it has been environmentally damaging (Borel-Saladin & Turok, 2013,

p.211). Now green growth is seen as being able to repair the environment while at the same time reduce

poverty through job creation (Ibid). Furthermore, some scholars even say that green growth sees climate

change as an opportunity, instead of a cost, for more investments in the environment and a driver for

increased growth (Vazquez-Brust et al., 2014). Overall, actors see green economy and green growth as structural changes that would enable to pursue growth and prevent environmental harm (Hallegatte et

al., 2011; Borel-Saladin & Turok, 2013). Nonetheless, the concept of green growth is also largely criticized because “in many cases, green growth is interpreted as free market environmentalism and used

to continue advocacy for neoliberal policy and governance tools” referring to income inequality, market

failures, lack of attention to social inclusion (Vazquez-Brust et al., 2014, p.40). Moreover, green economy and green growth tend to be associated with weak sustainability and technological fix which

does not refer to a holistic vision of sustainability and where economy operates without enough concern for the environment (Prieto-Sandoval et al., 2018; Lorek & Spangenberg, 2014, p.35; Vazquez-Brust et al., 2014).

12

4. Method 4.1 Qualitative content analysis The chosen method to look into the sustainable development aspects in the circular economy concept as

defined but the European Union was qualitative content analysis. Content analysis is a qualitative

research method that “focuses on the characteristics of language as communication with attention to the

content or the contextual meaning of the text” (Hshien & Shannon, 2005, p.1278). Qualitative content

analysis is done through systematization of findings classified into various and relevant coding

categories. “The aim [of qualitative content analysis] is to attain a condensed and broad description of

the phenomenon and the outcome of the analysis is concepts and categories describing the phenomenon”

(Elo & Kyngäs, 2008, p.108).

This particular method was selected because the aim of this study is to look into the environmental,

economic and social aspects that are addressed and included in various EU reports and documents.

Indeed, qualitative content analysis is “a research method for making replicable and valid inferences

from data to their context, with the purpose of providing knowledge, new insights, a representation of

facts and a practical guide to action” (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008, p.108). By using this research method,

conclusions can be drawn on how the EU reports position themselves in the sustainable development

paradigm.

Content analysis grew in popularity among research over the past decades (Neuendorf, 2002). This

method was particularly used in the field of communication, journalism, sociology and psychology

(Ibid). Therefore, there is a lack of firm definitions and procedures to conduct qualitative content analysis (Hshien & Shannon, 2005, p.1277). Nevertheless, through reading various scientific articles

using content analysis it was possible to note similarities in the procedure.

Qualitative content analysis is built on the following steps:

1) Formulate research questions that will be investigated through content analysis; 2) Define content categories to systematize the findings; 3) Code the data into categories; 4) Analyze the results and highlight shared meaning across the data.

The first step is thus to formulate research questions that will be investigated through this method. In

this research study, my goal is to answer two questions:

- How are the sustainable development aspects (social, environment, economic) addressed in EU’s Circular Economy policies?

- As a new sustainability paradigm, what is still missing to the EU’s Circular Economy discourse to make it holistic and an enabler of the Sustainable Development?

In the second step, the content categories are defined to systematize the findings. For this research study, the deductive approach was selected where categories are based on the knowledge of the researcher and

a literature review on the topic (Kirchherr et al., 2017). Moreover, by “using existing theory or prior

research the researcher should identify key concepts or variables” (Hshien & Shannon, 2005, p.1281).

The chosen categories are based on the three aspects of sustainable development namely the

environment, the social and the economic pillars and were constituted of the SDGs and their targets.

The SDGs and their targets (United Nations, 2015) were selected in order to link the concept of circular

economy and the Sustainable Development Agenda and to explore how one could enable the

implementation of the other. Moreover, circular economy principles were also chosen as categories. By

coding the data into the principles, general trends on how CE was applied could be deduced. Because

they are interdependent and interconnected, the process of defining each category was difficult. Indeed,

the three aspects of sustainable development are considered as nested and thus dependent on each other

which makes it difficult to neatly divide the data in categories. Moreover, the data was also classified in

the different targets to have a more accurate result as the SDGs themselves can be very broad.

13

Several authors suggested different categorizations of the SDGs. For analysis purposes, the

classification of the SDGs follows the categorization proposed by Folke et al. (2016). The Circular

economy principles i.e refuse, reduce, reuse, repair, refurbish, remanufacture, repurpose, recycle,

recover energy had their own categories.

Figure 3: Coding categories: the SDGs. (Modified from Folke et al., 2016)

Environment

Society

Economy

SDG 6 ‘Clean water and sanitation’

SDG 13 ‘Climate action’

SDG 14 ‘Life below water’

SDG 15 ‘Life on land’

SDG 1 ‘No poverty’

SDG 2 ‘Zero hunger’

SDG 3 ‘Good health and

well-being’

SDG 4 ‘Quality education’

SDG 5 ‘Gender equality’

SDG 7 ‘Affordable and clean

energy’

SDG 11 ‘Sustainable cities and

communities’

SDG 16 ‘Peace, justice and strong

institutions’

SDG 8 ‘Decent work and economic

growth’

SDG 9 ‘Industry, innovation and

infrastructure’

SDG 10 ‘Reduced inequalities’

SDG 12 ‘Sustainable production and

consumption’

SDG 17 ‘Global Partnerships’

Refuse Preventing the use of resources

Reduce Increase efficiency to reduce the use of resources

Reuse Reused by another customer, second-hand, sharing products

Repair Repair a product instead of discarding, make the product more durable

Refurbish Restore product

Remanufacture Use parts of old and unused products for new similar products

Repurpose Use parts of old and unused products for a different purpose

Recycle Process materials for reusing

Recover Incineration of discarded productsLinear

Economy

Circular

Economy

14

Figure 4: Coding categories: The Circular Economy principles (Table adapted from Kirchherr et al., 2017 and van

Buren et al., 2016)

The third step consists of organizing larger text into fewer content categories. “When classified into the

same categories, words, phrases and the like share the same meaning” (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008, p.108).

The coding process was done manually and not with the help of a computer software. Manual coding

can reduce the risks of misinterpretation (Kirchherr et al., 2017). Only one coder had coded the data into

categories and this consists of a limitation of this study. For optimal results and reliability, it is

encouraged to have more than two coders (Kirchherr et al., 2017; Neuendorf, 2002). Moreover, if other coding categories were chosen to analyze the same documents, the results could vary.

The classification process was divided in two parts. The first classification consisted of reading each of

the selected reports and classifying their contents in the different SDGs. The SDGs include key words

related to the title. For example, SDG 2 included words such as: ‘food’, ‘hunger’. Different colors were

assigned to different results.

Figure 5: First part of the classification process

This classification gave preliminary results and showed the different SDGs addressed in the data. In a

second time and for the purpose of having a more accurate and detailed representation of which SDGs

were included in the data, a second classification was done where the data was classified into the 169 SDGs targets (United Nations, 2015). Table A.1 presents the results of the content analysis for each

SDG target and reports. Due to time constraint, only direct and explicit mentions to the SDGs and SDGs

targets were considered.

Does the data mention

SDGs?

Yes

What is mentioned is

part if the SDGs

targets?

YesHow many targets are mentioned?

Less than 50%

50%

More than 50%

No

No

15

Figure 6: Second part of the classification process

4.2 Material

In this research project, I analyze four main policy documents (and sections of reports) published by the

European Union on Circular Economy. Those documents are:

1. “Circular Economy Package “Closing the loop - An EU action plan for the Circular Economy” published by the European Commission in December 2015 (from page 1 to

21) (European Commission, 2015);

2. The “Reflection Paper: Towards A Sustainable Europe by 2030” published by the European Commission in January 2019 (from page 1 to 16) (European Commission,

2019);

3. The European Parliament resolution “Resource efficiency: moving towards a circular economy” adopted in July 2015 (from page 1 to 14) (European Parliament, 2015);

4. The decision of the European Parliament and the Council on the “General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 ‘Living well, within the limits of our planet’”

more commonly known as the 7th Environmental Action Program to 2020 published in

December 2013 (from page 176 to 178 and from page 182 to page 186) (European

Parliament and Council, 2013).

In this study, I also use the United Nations report on Agenda 2030 where the Sustainable Development

Goals and their targets were described (United Nations, 2015).

The oldest document is the 7th Environmental Action Programme, which was published in 2013. The

document is an overarching ‘framework’ paper that defines the environmental strategy of the European

Union until 2020 and beyond. The circular economy strategy is thoroughly presented in the second

thematic priorities called ‘To turn the Union into a resource-efficient, green and competitive low-carbon

economy’. As circular economy was framed as one of the objectives for Europe, in 2015 the European

Parliament adopted a resolution on ‘Resource efficiency: moving towards a circular economy’

(European Parliament, 2015). Couple months later, the European Commission published the ‘EU Action

Does the data mention SDGs targets

Yes

Less than 50 %

50%

More than 50%Yes but it is not linked to

Circular Economy

No

16

plan for the Circular Economy’ also known as the Circular Economy Package. This document sets out

the main strategies and actions that Europe is to take to achieve its ambitious goal of transitioning to a

“sustainable, low-carbon, resource efficient and competitive economy” (European Commission, 2015).

Finally, the analysis ‘Reflection Paper: Towards A Sustainable Europe by 2030’ published in 2019

brings a broader view to how Europe is doing in the field of sustainability in general.

These documents were chosen because each of them is an overarching report that shapes the Circular

Economy project in Europe. Indeed, the 7th EAP frames the environmental strategy for Europe until

2020. The European Parliament’s resolution offers a perspective from another European body. The

Circular Economy Package is the main report that shapes the circular economy strategy and defines the

actions that EU is going to take to implement the circular economy. Finally, the Reflection Paper was

chosen because it offers a broader perspective on the EU and its implementation of the SDGs.

17

5. Results

5.1 Classification into the SDGs

Table 1 represents the results from the content analysis conducted on the four documents and shows

how the SDGs are represented and addressed in the reports on Circular Economy.

Table 1: Link between the SDGs targets and the EU Circular Economy reports. The SDGs presented in this table

pertain to Agenda 2030 and can be found in United Nations, 2015.

Key

The SDG is not

addressed in the

reports

The SDG is

addressed in the

report but it is

not linked to CE

The report

mentions more

than 50% of the

targets

The report

mentions

50% of the

targets

The report

mentions less

than 50% of the

targets

Texts 7th EAP, 2013

EP resolution,

2015

CE Package,

2015

Reflection

paper, 2019

Coding

categories SDG

Environment

SDG 6: Clean

water and

sanitation

Environment

SDG 13: Climate

action

Environment

SDG 14: Life

below water

Environment

SDG 15: Life on

land

Economy

SDG 8: Decent

work and

economic growth

Economy

SDG 9: Industry,

innovation and

infrastructure

Economy

SDG 10: Reduced

inequalities

Economy

SDG 12: Sustainable

consumption and

production

Social

SDG 1: No

poverty

Social

SDG 2: Zero

hunger

Social SDG 3: Health and well-being

Social

SDG 4: Quality

education

18

Social

SDG 5: Gender

equality

Social

SDG 7: Affordable

and clean energy

Social

SDG 11:

Sustainable cities

and communities

Social

SDG 16: Peace,

justice and strong

institutions

Sustainable

Development

SDG 17:

Partnerships for

the goals

5.1.1 Environment The environment coding category included four SDGs according to the classification made by Folke et al. (2016). Those SDGs are SDG 6 ‘Clean water and sanitation’, 13 ‘Climate action’, 14 ‘Life below

water’, 15 ‘Life on land’. The table below shows which SDG targets were addressed in the different

reports. The red cell means that none of the targets were mentioned. The targets mentioned in the reports

but not linked to CE were put in parenthesis. Most of the documents address the environmental aspects

of Sustainable Development Goals. Similar targets are cited in all the four documents. Table 2: Results from the content analysis linking the ‘Environmental’ SDGs’ targets and the reports (See appendix

for detailed results)

Texts 7th EAP, 2013 EP resolution,

2015

CE Package,

2015

Reflection paper,

2019

SDG6 Target 6.3; 6.4; (6.6) 6.3 ; 6.4

SDG13 13.2; (13.1) 13.2 13.2 13.2

SDG14 (14.1); (14.2); (14.3); (14.4); (14.5);

(14.6) 14.1 14.1 (14.1)

SDG15 (15.1); (15.5) (15.5)

Regarding SDG 6 ‘Water and sanitation’, mainly two targets were mentioned: target 6.3 and target 6.4

which refer to the improvement of water quality and increase water efficiency. Those targets are

mentioned and linked to the CE by the 7th EAP and the Circular Economy Package. Target 6.6 which

relates to the protection and restoration of water-related ecosystems, is mentioned by the 7th EAP but

not linked to the Circular Economy project. The European Parliament’s resolution and the Reflection

Paper do not mentioned SDG 6 in relation to the CE implementation in Europe.

SDG 13 is mentioned by all the reports but here only one of the target is mentioned and linked to Circular

Economy namely target 13.2 “Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and

planning” (United Nations, 2015). The documents relate to cutting down greenhouses gases emissions

and finding alternatives to fossil-fuel based products. The 7th EAP also links indirectly target 13.1

“Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all

countries” (United Nations, 2015) by stating that technological innovations are needed.

19

SDG 14 ‘Life below water’ is mainly mentioned when talking about marine litter which concerns target

14.1. The EP resolution, the CE Package and the Reflection paper highlight the contribution of CE to

the goal of marine litter reduction. Other targets, target 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, 14.4 and 14.5, were mentioned

by the 7th EAP but none were linked to the CE.

Finally, target 15.5 about habitats and ecosystems loss and protection and conservation is mentioned in

the 7th EAP and the Reflection paper, however it is not linked to CE. The two documents recognize the

urgency of taking action to stop global warming and loss of biodiversity. Moreover, target 15.1 which

refers to “conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems

and their services” (United Nations, 2015) is mentioned in the 7th EAP but not linked to CE. The EP

resolution and the Circular Economy Package do not mention or linked any SDG 15 targets to CE.

5.1.2 Economy The coding category included SDG 8 ‘Economic growth and decent work’, SDG 9 ‘Industry, innovation

and infrastructure’, SDG 10 ‘Reduced inequalities’ and SDG 12 ‘Sustainable production and

consumption’. The table below shows the targets that were addressed in the four documents.

Concerning, the economic SDGs’ targets, more of them are addressed and linked to Circular Economy

throughout the four reports compared to the environmental and social SDGs. Table 3: Results from the content analysis linking the ‘Economic’ SDGs’ targets and the reports (See appendix for

detailed results)

Texts 7th EAP, 2013 EP resolution, 2015 CE Package, 2015 Reflection paper, 2019

SDG8

Target 8.1; 8.2; 8.5;

(8.3); (8.4) 8.1; 8.2 ; 8.3; 8.4; 8.5; 8.8

8.1; 8.2; 8.3; 8.4; 8.5;

8.8 8.1: 8.2 ; (8.3); (8.4); (8.5)

SDG9 9.4; 9.5 9.4; 9.5 9.3; 9.4; 9.5 (9.4); (9.5)

SDG10 (10.3)

SDG12

12.3; 12.4; 12.5; 12.7;

(12.8)

12.2; 12.3; 12.4; 12.5; 12.7;

12.8; 12.C

12.2; 12.3; 12.4; 12.5;

12.7; 12.8

12.2; 12.5; 12.7; 12.8;

(12.3); (12.C)

SDG 8 ‘Economic growth and decent jobs’ is thoroughly mentioned in the four documents. More

specifically, target 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, and 8.5 which all related to economic growth and productivity as

well as resource efficiency and job creation are directly linked to the CE implementation. Furthermore,

target 8.8 “Protect labor rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers,

including migrant workers, in particular women migrants, and those in precarious employment” (United

Nations, 2015) is mentioned and linked to the Circular Economy by the EP resolution and the Circular

Economy Package

For the SDG 9 ‘Industry, innovation, infrastructure’, mainly two targets are mentioned: target 9.4 and

target 9.5 which relate to upgrading infrastructure and increasing technological research. The 7 th EAP,

the EP resolution and the Circular Economy Package link them to CE but not the Reflection Paper.

Target 9.3 “Increase the access of small-scale industrial and other enterprises to financial services”

(United Nations, 2015) is mentioned and linked to CE by the Circular Economy Package.

SDG 10 ‘Reduced inequalities’ and its targets are not mentioned and linked to the CE project by any of

the four documents. However, the Reflection Paper highlights and acknowledge that income and

20

employment inequalities are still too large, and that EU needs to continue to make effort to reduce

inequalities which refers to target 10.3 (European Commission, 2019).

Finally, SDG 12 ‘Sustainable consumption and production’ has many links with the CE project in

Europe. Indeed, all targets are mentioned by the four reports except for target 12.6 which refers to the

integration of sustainability information into the reporting cycle of the companies. All the targets

mentioned allude to waste and food waste reduction, safe management of chemical wastes, sustainable

management of the resources, awareness raising and were for most of them linked to the CE project.

5.1.3 Social The social coding category includes 8 SDGs: SDG 1 ‘No poverty’, SDG 2 ‘Zero hunger’, SDG 3 ‘Good

health and well-being’, SDG 4 ‘Quality education’, SDG 5 ‘Gender equality’, SDG 7 ‘Affordable and

clean energy’, SDG 11 ‘Sustainable cities and communities’, SDG 16 ‘Peace, justice and strong

institutions’. Similarly, to the environmental SDGs, very specific targets are addressed across the four

documents. Moreover, the two social SDGs are not cited at all in the documents. Table 4: Results from the content analysis linking the ‘Social’ SDGs’ targets and the reports (See appendix for

detailed results)


SDG1 Target 1.2

SDG2 (2.4) 2.4 2.4

SDG3 (3.9) 3.9 3.9

SDG4 4.7 4.7 4.4; 4.7 (4.7)

SDG5

SDG7 7.2; (7.3) 7.1; 7.2; 7.3 7.3 (7.1); 7.2

SDG11 (11.5) 11.5 11.5

SDG16

SDG 1 ‘Zero poverty’ is only mentioned through target 1.2 “Reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national

definitions” (United Nations, 2015) by the 7th EAP which links and green economy to poverty

eradication. The other documents do not refer to SDG 1 and its targets.

Similarly, to other targets, SDG 2 ‘End hunger’ is only mentioned very specifically with target 2.4

“Ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices” (United

Nations, 2015) by the EP resolution, the Reflection paper and indirectly with the 7th EAP. The Circular

Economy Package do not mention per se SDG 2 but do mention food waste issues which could

contribute to end hunger.

When mentioning SDG 3 ‘Health and well-being’, the reports are mainly referring to target 3.9

“Substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and

soil pollution and contamination” (United Nations, 2015). Circular Economy could potentially reduce

21

the amount of toxic release of products through eco-design and new waste management projects. The

7th EAP do not linked any targets to CE.

For SDG 4 ‘Quality education’, target 4.7 about knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable

development is the main focus of the 7th EAP, the EP resolution and the Circular Economy Package.

The Reflection paper did not link it specifically to the CE project but more broadly to the resilience of

our societies. Similar to the SDG 8, target 4. 4 refers to the “Increase the number of youth and adults

who have relevant skills for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship” (United Nations, 2015) is

only mentioned in the CE Package but directly fits the EU employment and jobs goal.

SDG 7 is frequently linked to CE. Mainly, target 7.2 which relates to the share of renewable energy.

Moreover, energy efficiency and affordability, target 7. 3 and 7.1 are mentioned by the 7th EAP, the EP

resolution, the Circular Economy Package and the Reflection paper. This also goes hand in hand with

SDG 13 ‘Climate Action’.

SDG 11 ‘Sustainable cities and communities’ was mentioned with target 11.6 which refers to the quality of air and waste pollution in cities. This target can be paired with SDG 3 which also mentions health

and well-being issues related to chemical and waste pollution. The EP resolution and the Circular

Economy Package include target 11.6 and link it to CE. The 7th EAP did not directly linked it to the

implementation of CE.

Finally, two social SDGs are not mentioned at all: SDG 5 ‘Gender equality’ and SDG 16 ‘Peace, justice

and strong institutions

5.1.4 Global Partnerships The global partnerships category includes only SDG 17 ‘Partnerships for the Goals’. This goal and its

targets is an overarching goal according to the classification of Folke et al. (2016) and this is why it has its own section. Similarly, to the other categories, specific targets are mentioned in the reports. However,

all the reports mention SDG 17 and mainly the targets under the subsection ‘Systemic issue’ which

relates to policy and institutional coherence challenges.

Table 5: Results from the content analysis linking the SDG 17 targets and the reports (See appendix for detailed

results)


SDG17 17.7; 17.14; 17.17; 17.18; (17.16) 17.14; 17.17 17.14; 17.16; 17.17 17.14; 17.16; 17.17

Target 17.14 and 17.17 are mentioned by all the four reports. Those targets relate to the need of policy

coherence to promote sustainable development and also to encourage partnerships between various

stakeholders such as public, private and civil society.

Target 17.16 is also mentioned by the Circular Economy package and the Reflection Paper as well as

indirectly by the 7th EAP. That target is about enhancing the cooperation between partners. In the

reports, this is mainly about promoting the cooperation between the Member States to work between

them but also with other countries.

Finally, target 17.18 is only mentioned by the 7th EAP. This target is about supporting the developing

countries in their mitigation action for climate change.

22

5.2 Circular Economy principles and the EU reports The circular economy principles can be classified in 9 categories, commonly called the 9R. The table below summarizes what each report says on the Circular Economy principles, which are also coding

categories. The red cell means that the report does not mention the principles in question Table 6: Summary of the CE principles. The texts presented in the table pertain to the four EU reports (see 4.2

Material).

23

7th EAP, 2013 EP's resolution, 2015 CE Package, 2015 Reflection paper, 2019

Refuse "Waste legislation

should be based on a

strict application of the

waste hierarchy. The

solutions should

privilege prevention,

recycling, re-use." (p.

184)

"Stresses that in accordance

with the waste hierarchy that

prevention takes priority over

recycling" (p.8)

"Choices made by the

consumers are crucial for

preventing the generation of

houselhold waste and the EU

Commission promotes waste

prevention through exchange

of information (...)" (p.6)

Reduce "Need to reduce the

overall resource use

among other initiatives

to achieve more

competitive and low-

carbon economy" (p.

182)

"The EU’s use of resources

needs to be sustainable and

that this requires, inter alia,

an absolute reduction in the

consumption of resources to

sustainable levels. It is also

necessary to overcome the

rebound effect." (p.6)

"Reduce the amount of waste

and resources use by

increasing resource

efficiency" (p.7)

"Reduce the need for

new resources to be

extracted at great

financial and

environmental cost

with the help of eco-

design" (p.15)

Reuse Products designed for

reuse

Reuse strategy could boost

the business based on the

reuse market and promote

industrial symbiosis

programme

"There is a need to increase

preparation for reuse of key

waste streams. Lifetime of

products can be extented

through reuse. Reuse market

could also contribute to EU's

jobs and social agenda." (p.2)

"New designs of

materials and products

so that we are properly

equipped to reuse" (p.

15)

Repair Repair in the eco-design

directive

"Develop a set of product

standards for the circular

economy, which include

repair, facilitating

dismantling, and the efficient

use of raw materials,

renewable resources and

recycled materials in

products" (p.7)

"Better design can make

products more durable and

easier to repair" (p.3)

"New designs of


so that we are properly

equipped to repair" (p.

15)

Refurbis

h

"Develop a set of product

standards for the circular

economy that include

refurbishment and public

procurements procedures

where refurbished products

are to be preferred" (p.11)

Remanuf

acture

"Develop public

procurements procedures

where remanufactured

products are to be preferred"

(p.11)

"Remanufacturing is another

high-potential area. This

practice could be applied to

other sectors" (p.5)

Repurpo

se

Recycle "Increase the

recyclability with to the

eco-design directive" (p.

183)

Increase the recyclability

with to the eco-design

directive (p.6)

"There is need to increase

preparation for recycling of

key waste streams" (p.2)

"New designs of


are required so that we

are properly equipped

to recycle" (p.15)

Recover

energy

"Recovery limited to

non-recyclable

materials" (p.186)

"Strictly limit incineration,

with or without energy

recovery, by 2020, to non-

recyclable and non-

biodegradable waste" (p.9)

"When waste cannot be

prevented or recycled,

recovering its energ

new economy, same challenges: is circular economy enabling...

Documents