Content uploaded by Alireza Bazargan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alireza Bazargan on Jul 31, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
An Introduction to Sustainable Materials
Management
Mohaddeseh Khorasanizadeh, Alireza Bazargan, and
Gordon McKay
Contents
Introduction ....................................................................................... 3
Why Is a Sustainable Approach Towards Materials Management a Necessity? ................ 3
Section 1: Waste Management: A Starting Point for Sustainable Management of
Resources ................................ ......................................... ................ 6
Definition: What Is Called “Waste”?......................................................... 6
Waste Classification, Composition, and Amounts ........................................... 7
Historical Drivers of Waste Management Practices .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Strategic Targets for Waste Management: How Beneficial? ................................. 14
Section 2- Sustainable Material Management Strategies ........................................ 15
Drivers of Sustainable Strategies Towards Waste and Resource Management .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Definition: What Does “Sustainable Materials Management”Mean? . . . .................... 16
International Bodies’Roles in SMM Development .. . ....................................... 23
Material Flow Analysis: Understanding the Material Basis of the Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Evaluating Resource Efficiency ............................................................... 31
Policy Principles of the OECD’s Sustainable Materials Management Practice ................. 33
Challenges Facing the Sustainable Approach for Materials Management . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 34
Case Studies of Implementing a Sustainable Approach for Materials Management: Towards
a Circular Economy ............................................................................... 34
Case Study 1: Vehicle Manufacturing Industry .. ............................................ 35
Case Study 2: Rethinking the Business Model for Household Cleaning Products .......... 35
M. Khorasanizadeh
Department of Chemical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
A. Bazargan (*)
Department of Civil Engineering, K.N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
e-mail: alirezabazargan@kntu.ac.ir
G. McKay
Division of Sustainability, College of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin Khalifa University,
Doha, Qatar
e-mail: gmckay@hbku.edu.qa
#Springer International Publishing AG 2018
C. M. Hussain (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Materials Management,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58538-3_105-1
1
Case Study 3: Lease Model for Recirculating Clothing . . . . . . . . . . . .......................... 35
Case Study 4: Seeking Opportunities for Restoring Value to Waste Streams . . . ............ 36
Conclusion . . . . . ................................................................................... 36
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Abstract
Although focusing on managing waste as a means of managing the impact of
materials on the environment has been traditionally common, research has shown
that the key process for sustainability is not solely proper waste management.
Rather, an approach for controlling material flows in the overall industrial and
economic systems is required. Sustainable materials management (SMM) is a
strategy for decoupling economic growth from natural resource consumption and
is defined as “an approach to promote sustainable materials use, integrating
actions targeted at reducing negative environmental impacts and preserving
natural capital throughout the life-cycle of materials, taking into account eco-
nomic efficiency and social equity”by The Organization for Economic Cooper-
ation and Development (OECD).
SMM encourages the consideration of the impacts of a suite of policies that
affect a given target area, thereby encouraging consideration of policy incoher-
ence. It is aimed at helping to reduce pressures on resources by decreasing the
quantities of materials that need to be extracted. Furthermore, SMM supports
sustainable decision making by balancing the social, environmental, and eco-
nomic considerations throughout the life cycle of a product or material,
guaranteeing that negative impacts are not shifted from the production process
to the consumption phase, or vice versa. There should be a balance between
material use and consumption of other natural resources, such as energy and
water for SMM policies to succeed. For example, many have proposed replace-
ment of non-renewable materials such as petroleum derivatives with bio-based,
renewable materials, yet these substitute materials may consume far greater
amounts of water and other ecosystem services.
In this chapter, the history of SMM will be reviewed and successful examples
of implementing SMM policies in the UK, Netherlands and Japan will be
presented. SMM policy principles will be illustrated and it will be shown how
SMM can help to reduce dependency on raw materials through increasing
resource efficiency and resource productivity. Furthermore, case studies of iden-
tifying opportunities for sustainable materials management in different industries
will be discussed, e.g. mobile phones, wood fibers, etc. Also, it will be shown
how Material Flow Analysis (MFA), along with life-cycle analysis and other
methodologies, contribute to sustainable materials management. Moreover, a
systematic view of material flow cycles and policy frameworks will be devised
in order to clarify policy instruments for SMM. Finally, the challenges facing
sustainable materials management will be introduced.
2 M. Khorasanizadeh et al.
Keywords
Sustainable Materials Management · Sustainability · Life cycle · Resource
efficiency · Resource productivity · Recycling
Introduction
Sustainable materials management (SMM) is a term chosen by the OECD for
representing a holistic approach towards sustainable resource consumption, taking
into account all stages of a product’s life cycle, aiming at minimum environmental
impacts and preserving natural capital in consistence with maintaining economic
efficiency and social equity. While the term is well defined and is agreed upon
globally, it is one of many terms used in the context of sustainable development to
address the sustainable use of natural resources. This chapter is aimed at presenting a
picture of the history of waste and resource management practices, introducing
different concepts and approaches towards sustainable material management and
highlighting the evolutions of these issues.
Why Is a Sustainable Approach Towards Materials Management
a Necessity?
There are various drivers that compel us to look beyond the traditional forms of
material management, and aim for solutions that are sustainable. For example:
•Material use has accelerated globally since the 1970s. While population has
almost doubled, global economy has expanded more than threefold and global
material extraction has tripled as well (Schandl et al. 2017). The global trend is
towards growth in material use resulting from population and economic growth
and increasing living standards. Some have proposed the simple –yet useful –
calculation that human impact on natural resources is proportional to the popu-
lation, affluence, and technology (Impact =Population Affluence Technology)
(Hubacek et al. 2007; Ehrlich and Holdren 1971). If technology enables the more
efficient use of natural resources, it might be able to weaken the combined effects
of population growth and rising affluence. Assuming the implementation of the
same production and provision systems, by 2050 nine billion people will require
180 billion tons of materials, three times the current amounts (Schandl et al.
2017), and a 70% increase will be needed in food production as estimated by the
FAO (Alexandratos and Bruinsma 2012).
•There is a big gap in material standards of living around the globe. In other words,
materials are distributed unequally and approximately in proportion to the
nations’human development index (HDI). The group of countries with a high
HDI consumes on average 10 times as many materials as the poorest countries
and twice the world average (Schandl et al. 2017).
An Introduction to Sustainable Materials Management 3
•The increase in material consumption results in a number of environmental
impacts, such as climate change, increased biodiversity loss, waste generation
causing water, air, and land pollution; soil and water acidification and eutrophi-
cation; and soil erosion.
•Increase in overall consumption has resulted in price fluctuations, speculations
and scarcity of some resources. In the coming decades, the availability of critical
resources cannot be taken for granted.
•The current prices of many resources do not reflect the real environmental and
social costs. For instance, impacts like climate change, pollution, and noise
impacts of transport have been neglected, and cheap oil has been fueling the
economy internationally for years (Collier 2010). The burden is mostly on
developing, resource exporting countries, commonly challenged with political
instability and with poorly developed environmental policies (Weterings et al.
2013).
•Growing scarcity of water and available land are threats to future economic
growth. Comparing the productive land available and the needed land, using
the ecological footprint indicator, our demand already exceeds the potential of
earth.
Box 1 Human Development Index (HDI)
The HDI is a measure of the development of a country not only based on
economic growth but also taking into account other factors. It is a summary
measure of average achievement in three basic dimensions of human devel-
opment: long and healthy life, education, and standard of living.
The health dimension is assessed by life expectancy at birth, the education
dimension is presented by years of schooling for adults above 25 years old and
expected years of schooling for children; and the standard of living is mea-
sured through gross national income per capita. The geometric mean of the
three indicators is then presented by the HDI. Human development reports are
published every year at http://hdr.undp.org/.
Box 2 Ecological Footprint
The Ecological Footprint is an indicator, representing the ratio of available
land compared to the needed land for sustainable development. This means the
land theoretically needed considering the sustainable production of food,
building and infrastructure and the required land for sustainable energy pro-
duction and CO
2
storage. If the Ecological Footprint is larger than the land
available, this means that more resources are being used than sustainably
available, that is, we are living on borrowed time.
4 M. Khorasanizadeh et al.
Sustainable development is defined as “a development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs”(Keeble 1988). It is a concept which emphasizes on a balanced economic,
environmental, and social state. In 2015, the world agreed on seventeen universally
accepted Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Associated with these goals are
169 targets. The goals are as follows:
Goal 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere.
Goal 2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote
sustainable agriculture.
Goal 3: Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.
Goal 4: Insure inclusive and equitable education and promote lifelong learning
opportunities for all.
Goal 5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.
Goal 6: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation
for all.
Goal 7: Insure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all.
Goal 8: Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and
productive employment, and decent work for all.
Goal 9: Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrial-
ization and foster innovation.
Goal 10: Reduce inequality within and among countries.
Goal 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and
sustainable.
Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production.
Goal 13: Take urgent action to combat climate change and it impacts.
Goal 14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources for
sustainable development.
Goal 15: Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems,
sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land
degradation and halt biodiversity loss.
Goal 16: Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development,
provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive
institutions at all levels.
Goal 17: Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partner-
ship for sustainable development.
Sustainable development draws a link between the social, economic, and envi-
ronmental concerns and calls for integrated approaches which address a broad range
of problems across different areas. To live in the ecological limits of our planet and to
combat hunger, poverty, and inequality around the globe, serious changes in current
economic structures are needed. In order to reach sustainable development there is a
need for technological innovations, improving the efficiency of production pro-
cesses, minimizing waste and pollution, and reducing material consumption. Con-
cepts like eco-efficiency and green economy are relevant to sustainability through
An Introduction to Sustainable Materials Management 5
this process. However necessary, this approach is not sufficient and more radical
approaches redesigning the whole system, economically, environmentally and
socially, instead of redesigning a single product is required. That holistic approach
towards the management of materials is the key for solving the inferred challenges.
To sum up, we are reaching and may have exceeded the earth’s physical limits of
consumption and there is an urgent need for more efficient use of natural resources.
Different strategies have been introduced to tackle resource management issues,
from steps based on current societal, technological, and economic models to more
radical approaches, demanding the restructuring of economic activities.
Section 1: Waste Management: A Starting Point for Sustainable
Management of Resources
Waste management can be viewed as an entry point for addressing sustainable
development issues and is inherent in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
whether explicitly or implicitly. Moreover, it is interrelated to a number of global
challenges including health, food and resource security, climate change, poverty
reduction and sustainable production and consumption.
From an environmental perspective, proper waste management has the potential
for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing short-term climate change
mitigation by a factor of 15–20% (Wilson et al. 2015).
From a social point of view, aside from assuring people’s health and well-being,
the state of success in a waste management system can be a measure for success of
governance. This can lead to further attraction for business and tourism and therefore
help building a more successful society (Wilson et al. 2015).
Economically, for both high and low-income economies, promoting resource
efficiency will benefit industries. Moreover, job creation and increased resource
and energy security are other potential benefits of waste management systems in a
green economy.
In order to understand the concept of sustainable management of resources, we
first examine the concepts related to waste. By presenting the historical drivers of
waste management we aim to shed light on the evolution of this field. The definition,
classification, composition and amounts of waste are discussed in order to explain
the current status and future trends. Thereafter, management perspective towards
waste through the past 50 years are discussed based on their drivers, focusing on the
flaws of such approaches.
Definition: What Is Called “Waste”?
Waste is a by-product of production and consumption cycles. Its definitions gener-
ally imply the lack of use or value. The only distinction between useful products and
waste is value, otherwise they consist of the same materials. Therefore, restoring
value to waste can be viewed as the bottom line of waste management; but one may
6 M. Khorasanizadeh et al.
ask: to what extend have waste management methods taken this bottom line
seriously.
Waste Classification, Composition, and Amounts
Waste can be classified into different categories, that is, by their state (solid, liquid,
gaseous), origin (municipal, commercial and industrial (C&I), construction and
demolition (C&D), agricultural, etc.), practical use (food waste, packaging waste,
etc.); material (metal, paper, etc.); properties (recyclable, combustible, compost-
able,); or by safety level (hazardous or nonhazardous).
Municipal solid waste (MSW), along with C&I, C&D comprise a big portion of
the waste stream, based on data from OECD countries with 24%, 32%, and 38%,
respectively, excluding agricultural and forestry and mining and quarrying waste
(Wilson et al. 2015). Generally MSW is managed by municipalities in high income
countries, while C&I and C&D waste are managed by the waste generators through
the waste industry. However, in cities located in developing countries, the distinc-
tions between these three waste types are not clear. It has been estimated that the
annual waste generation of OECD countries is about 3.8 billion tons (Wilson et al.
2015). Extrapolating this data, based on data from Russia and China mainly, the
global annual municipal waste production was estimated to be about twice the
OECD, 2 billion tons. While extrapolation for the global urban waste (municipal,
C&I, and C&D) is challenging, as an order of magnitude, 7–10 billion tons per year
are estimated. The other two major categories –Agricultural and Forestry and
24%
32%
36%
3% 5%
MSW C&I C&D Energy Production
M
S
W
C
&
I
C
&
D
Water Supply, Sewage Treatment, Waste Management
Fig. 1 Relative waste
production of different
sectors. MSW Municipal Solid
Waste, C&I Commercial and
Industrial waste, C&D
Construction and Demolition
Waste (Data from (Wilson
et al. 2015))
An Introduction to Sustainable Materials Management 7
Mining and Quarrying –are largely managed close to source. Most agricultural and
forestry residues are returned to the soil as nutrients or used as biomass fuel.
Agriculture and forestry wastes consist of wood residues, crop residues, and animal
manure. The quantities are very large, close to 10 to 20 billion tons per year for each
Table 1 Amount and quality of main portions of municipal waste in high-income vs. low- and
middle-income countries (Wilson et al. 2015)
Amount Quality
Organic Fraction Significantly lower in high-
income countries (34% avg.)
vs. middle- and low-income
countries (46–53% avg.)
Mostly consisting of
“unavoidable”waste, in other
words, organic material which
cannot be eaten in middle- and
low-income countries
However, in high-income
countries a large proportion is
avoidable food waste, food that
could have been eaten (Wilson
2007)
Paper Income levels and the percentage
of paper waste are proportionate.
While 6% in low-income
countries, it is estimated at
around 11–19% in middle-
income and 24% in high-income
countries. Annual consumption
of paper per capita in North
America, Europe, Asia, and
Africa is 240, 140, 40, and 4 kg,
respectively
There has been a decrease in per
capita consumption of printing
and writing paper and newsprint
in high-income countries due to
electronic reading prevalence. A
drop of 4% is recorded in 2012
compared to 2007 (the peak)
Plastic An average of 7–12% of plastic
waste is estimated for all income
levels, in other words the
amounts of this portion of waste
seems independent from income
level and is high in general
Other “dry recyclable”
materials including
metals, glass, and
textiles
For each material, there is a
relatively low amount. Income
levels are proportionate to the
total, starting from 6% in
low-income, to 9–12% in
middle-income to 12% or above
in high-income countries
household hazardous
waste
Generally, 1% found in MSW,
but taking account of e-waste, up
to 5%
A list of the sources of hazardous
household waste might consist of
motor oil and other mineral oils;
insulation materials such as
asbestos products; batteries;
e-waste; paints detergents;
solvents; pesticides and
cosmetics
8 M. Khorasanizadeh et al.
category. These estimates are based on available data from a few countries and
assumptions for residues per unit of production (Wilson et al. 2015) (Fig. 1).
In general, MSW is one of the hardest sources of waste to manage effectively. It
comprises of a mix of small amounts of different materials and bears a high political
profile (McDougall et al. 2008). MSW generation rates are affected by climate,
income levels and social and cultural patterns within a nation and internationally.
High income countries’per capita median generation rate is 6 times that of low
income countries (Wilson et al. 2015). MSW compositions are also associated to
income levels (Table 1).
Furthermore, the increase of waste generation per capita also has a strong
correlation with income level. In the past 20 years, MSW generation rates have
stabilized in high-income countries, and have even experienced a slight decrease in
some countries (possibly due to increased environmental awareness and conserva-
tion). The trend was shown before the financial crisis in 2008–09, and it is known to
be an indication for waste growth “decoupling”from economic growth (Wilson et al.
2015, Kazmierczyk et al. 2016). While MSW generation is known to be independent
from the shift of manufacturing industries to emerging economies, industrial waste
quantities are affected.
In addition, population is another key factor affecting waste streams. In order to
forecast the waste generation rates in the future, there is a need for population
estimation. Future population growth scenarios up to 2100 are published by the
UN’s World Population Prospects (UNDESA, available at http://esa.un.org/wpp/).
Globally, an initial rise will possibly be followed by a population fall and then a
stabilization or further fall is suggested. Asia will reach its peak population by
around 2050 while it will take Africa until 2100.
Moreover, the urbanization rate is of importance for estimating future waste
generation rates and compositions, as waste generation rates have different patterns
in urban areas compared to rural areas. The map below shows the urban population
and growth rates in 2030 (Fig. 2).
Historical Drivers of Waste Management Practices
The classical drivers of waste management practices have been health and safety
issues, along with scarcity of resources, and handling them for the sake of splendor
(Wilson 2007). Generally, in both Europe and America, the industrial revolution led
to a series of events, driving governmental interest in public health. Therefore, more
sophisticated waste management practices were adopted by means of legislations
and infrastructure development (Marshall and Farahbakhsh 2013). Through the
nineteenth century public health legislation continued ruling the waste management
agenda, with collection and removal of waste from the residential area the major
priority (Wilson 2007). Meanwhile, through the twentieth century, before 1970,
unregulated and uncontrolled disposal was common, including dumping and burn-
ing (Wilson 2007). It was the environmental movement in the 1970s which caused a
substantial shift in policymakers’perspectives on the SWM framework (Wilson
10 M. Khorasanizadeh et al.
2007; Wolsink 2010). Waste control, through managing landfills’and incinerators’
safety and functionality was the main objective. Beginning from the 1980s and up
until now, increasing technical standards have been in instruction (Marshall and
Farahbakhsh 2013). Landfill gas and leachate control, incinerator gas and dioxin
reduction, and odor control for composting facilities and anaerobic digesters are
some examples (Wilson 2007).
Historically through most of human history before the industrial revolution, due
to the scarcity of resources, goods were repaired and reused rather than discarded
(Wilson 2007). However, in the eighteenth and nineteenth century, extensive
increase in consumption resulted in much less reuse and repair. Nevertheless,
when the waste hierarchy was introduced in the 1970s, somewhat of a revival of
concerns came about. The hierarchy of waste management options orders waste
management options according to preference from highest to lowest: prevention of
waste generation, waste minimization or source reduction followed by reuse,
recycling, composting, waste to energy, incineration without energy recovery and
landfilling. However, there are different versions of the hierarchy with varying
priorities (McDougall et al. 2008). A transition from end of pipe to preventative
thinking took place, particularly after the introduction of the concept in the European
Union’s Second Environment Action Program in 1977 (Marshall and Farahbakhsh
2013). Terms like pollution prevention, source reduction, waste minimization, waste
reduction, reduction in use of toxics, clean or cleaner technology, etc. were intro-
duced thereafter and the perspective changed from reaction and control to prevention
(Hirschhorn et al. 1993).
Box 3 The Hierarchy of Waste Management
The waste hierarchy was introduced to European waste policy in 1975 by the
European Union’s Waste Framework directive (Williams 2015). It was aimed
to conserve resources and protect the environment through minimizing waste
generation.
The hierarchy can be presented in different versions, the version presented
bellow was agreed upon by the parties of the Basel Convention, stating that the
hierarchy “encourage[s] treatment options that deliver the best overall envi-
ronmental outcome, taking into account life-cycle thinking”(Wilson et al.
2015) (Fig. 3).
Source reduction and waste minimization
Reuse
Recycling
Composting
Waste to energy
Incineration without
energy recovery
Landfill
Fig. 3 Waste management
hierarchy (Source (Wilson
et al. 2015))
An Introduction to Sustainable Materials Management 11
In spite of the immediate vast acceptance of the waste hierarchy (Gertsakis and
Lewis 2003), there has been serious criticism about it (McDougall and Hruska 2000;
Seadon 2006) which will be further discussed.
Another important environmental driver for waste management has been global
warming concerns since the 1990s. Landfills can be a source of methane production.
Therefore, a series of preventative policies, including targets for compost and
recycling levels promoting diversion from landfills were set and the concept of
extended producer responsibility was introduced (Wilson 2007; Habitat 2010).
Although the possibility of carbon reduction is in conjunction with sound waste
management, but the impacts will be noticeable only if many countries contribute. In
other words, direct and immediate national advantages for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions are not recognized and this might be a reason why carbon reduction is not
a powerful driver for promoting waste management practices (Marshall and
Farahbakhsh 2013; Kazmierczyk et al. 2016).
Box 4 Extended Producer Responsibility
Basically, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a strategy aimed at
minimizing the total environmental impact of a product, by making the
manufacturer of that product responsible for its end-of-use treatment. It
(continued)
Fig. 4 Extended producer responsibility (ceced.eu 2017)
12 M. Khorasanizadeh et al.
Box 4 Extended Producer Responsibility (continued)
promotes the integration of environmental costs of a product throughout its life
cycle into its market price (Johnson and McCarthy 2014). EPR encourages
manufacturers by financial incentives to design environmental friendly prod-
ucts and use less toxic materials. The logic behind EPR is that producers have
the greatest control over product design and marketing therefore they should
hold the responsibility to minimize environmental impacts.
EPR can be addressed through reuse, buy-back, and recycling programs
and may even be taken care of by a third party, known as a producer
responsibility organization (Hanisch 2000). Therefore, the responsibility is
shifted from the government to private industry (Fig. 4).
In a nutshell, since the 1960s and the change of the international agenda towards
the environment, many developed countries have made great steps in managing
waste, presenting many good practice examples. Meanwhile, the approach has
changed from controlling and managing after being discarded, to preventing waste
generation, minimizing and reusing, reducing hazardous substances in the design
phase and keeping residues concentrated and separate, if not prevented, to preserve
their intrinsic value for recycling and recovery and prevent them from contaminating
other valued waste. The perception has changed from “waste”to “resource.”Hence,
terms like “waste and resource management”and “resource management”are
gradually substituting “waste management”(Wilson et al. 2015). This is while
low- and middle-income countries still face basic challenges, that is, waste collection
services coverage, confronting uncontrolled disposal and burning. Moreover, the
population is growing fast in these countries, making it even harder to manage
(Wilson, Rodic et al. 2015) (Fig. 5).
Box 5 Cleaner Production
Clean production is a preventative strategy aimed to minimize the environ-
mental impacts of production. The actors of cleaner production are companies;
however they are influenced by their customers on the one hand and the
regulations on the other (Fresner 1998). Basically, source reduction strategies
are applied and material and energy flows are analyzed in a company, in search
for options to minimize waste and emissions of industrial processes. Cleaner
production is sometimes referred to as pollution prevention in the USA. A
number of options in line with cleaner production are:
•Analysis of material and energy flows, for example with Sankey diagrams
•Identifying losses from improper planning, training, etc. by monitoring
indicators
•Automation and modifying process control
(continued)
An Introduction to Sustainable Materials Management 13
Box 5 Cleaner Production (continued)
•Implementing novel low waste technologies
•Internal or external reuse and recycling of waste
•Improving the life span of process liquids and auxiliary materials
•Substitution of raw and auxiliary materials with less harmful, recyclable
ones
•Modifying products and eliminating production steps with large environ-
mental impacts (Fresner 1998)
Lean Production
Lean production is a manufacturing paradigm, a management philosophy
derived from the Toyota production system, and identified as “lean”since the
1990s. It is a systematic method for waste minimization in a manufacturing
system without sacrificing productivity. It can be viewed as a set of tools that
promote the identification and steady elimination of waste leading to reduced
production time and cost alongside quality improvement (Holweg 2007).
Strategic Targets for Waste Management: How Beneficial?
Legislation governs waste management practices, especially in developed countries.
Basically, as implied, waste management regulations can be categorized into end-of-
pipe regulations and strategic targets. Generally, end of pipe regulations focus on the
Before industrial revolution
scarcity of
resources:
repair and reuse,
* while never
stopped being
practiced, it
decreased through
the industrial
revolution
19 th century
Public health
concerns:
focusing on waste
collection and
removal of waste
from the
residential area,
uncontrolled
disposal
1960s
Increased
environmental
concerns:
waste control
through legislations
and defining
technical
standards. "End of
pipe" thinking
1980s
Preventative
thinking:
Introduction of The
Waste Hierarchy
and emergence of
concepts like
pollution
prevention, source
reduction, waste
minimization,
toxics use
reduction, (c)lean
production
.
*The era of
strategic targets
2000s
Change of
perception from
waste to resource.
Fig. 5 Waste management drivers’time line
14 M. Khorasanizadeh et al.
available waste management options and fine tune them technologically; while
strategic decision-making, looks into different options for changing the approach
of the waste management system operation (McDougall et al. 2008). Here, we will
look into the most widespread strategic targets and their weaknesses. We will further
discuss how the flaws of such strategies have led to more integrated approaches,
known as “sustainable materials management.”
1. Strategies built on the waste hierarchy
It is frequently argued in the literature that the lowest environmental impacts and
an economically sustainable system are not guaranteed through the waste hierar-
chy approach (Seadon 2006; Wilson et al. 2015). Specifically:
–Each material in the waste stream requires a specific process, and therefore varied
waste management options are suitable. Generalization cannot help dealing with
a spectrum of materials and processes effectively.
–The hierarchy lacks scientific or technical basis, and fails to address particular
circumstances (McDougall et al. 2008).
–Cost issues are not considered, and therefore economical sustainability is not
promoted by the waste hierarchy (McDougall and Hruska 2000).
–The hierarchy does not account for the initial steps in the waste management
chain, such as waste storage and collection, which are the steps developing
countries struggle with the most (Wilson et al. 2015).
2. Recycling targets
While paving the way to higher recycling rates, recycling targets are not always
consistent with environmental objectives. Recycling is aimed to reduce raw
material and energy consumption, however not necessarily in a linear manner
(Boustead 1992). The environmental benefits of lower energy and raw materials
consumptions are dampened at high levels of recovery, as more energy is needed
to collect used materials. However, Life Cycle Assessment may help identifying
the optimal recycling rate for the specific environmental and economic context
(McDougall et al. 2008).
Section 2- Sustainable Material Management Strategies
Drivers of Sustainable Strategies Towards Waste and Resource
Management
The sustainable approach for management of natural resources has historically had
economic and environmental drivers. Originally, the concept of sustainable materials
management was developed in the context of waste policies. A life cycle perspective
was believed to be able to minimize environmental impacts of human activities. In
other words, sustainable management of materials emerged on the global political
agenda well before resource concerns were shaped (Happaerts 2014).
An Introduction to Sustainable Materials Management 15
However, the exponential growth of political attention towards sustainable strat-
egies was a consequence of the price volatility of a number of materials (Happaerts
2014). Increased demand for raw materials, especially in developing countries,
which are facing both population growth and rising affluence, and inconsistency
between supply and demand led to a sudden price rise of a number of materials.
Volatile commodity prices and possible scarcities of raw materials preceded financial
and economic crisis globally, leaving importing countries vulnerable
(Kazmierczyket al. 2016). Hence, sound waste and resource management was seen
as a key strategy for maintaining economic competitiveness (Happaerts 2014).
Definition: What Does “Sustainable Materials Management”Mean?
One should bear in mind that Sustainable Materials Management (SMM), should be
seen through a sustainable development perspective. That is to say, it is not an
independent concept, and is one of many introduced terminologies for representing a
sustainable approach for materials use (Rossy et al. 2010). Since the sustainable
development concept gained traction in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, knowledge about the
interrelated concepts linked to sustainable development has advanced, leading to the
introduction of different terminologies by international bodies, that is, UNEP, EU,
and the OECD depending on their particular objectives for policy development
(Rossy et al. 2010). Integrated product policy (IPP), sustainable use and manage-
ment of natural resources, sustainable consumption and production (SCP) and
sustainable materials management (SMM) are some keywords frequently used for
presenting the holistic approach for materials management. While the first three are
mostly used by the UNEP and EU, SMM is OECD’s term for the concept (Rossy
et al. 2010). Meanwhile, in practicing the mentioned management strategies, other
concepts have emerged such as life cycle assessment, waste reduction, resource
productivity and efficiency, lean production, sustainable product chain, and
eco-innovation (Rossy et al. 2010).
Note that, different terminologies do not necessarily mean different things and
there often is considerable overlap. Nevertheless, the main distinctions can be
discerned from the scope of the concepts. In this chapter, the OECD’sdefinition
for SMM is considered.
Box 6 Eco-innovation
Eco-innovation can be defined as all sorts of innovations, from new products
to new services and business practices that are in line with less environmental
impacts and less resource use (including energy) throughout the whole life
cycle (Carrillo-Hermosilla et al. 2009). The term Eco-innovation is used
interchangeably with Environmental and Green innovation in the literature
(Díaz-García et al. 2015). It is argued that Eco-innovation addresses three
types of changes towards sustainable development: technological, social, and
institutional innovation (Rennings 2000).
16 M. Khorasanizadeh et al.
Box 7 Integrated Product Policy (IPP)
Integrated product policy (IPP) comprises of a set of policy instruments aiming
at the reduction of overall environmental impacts of products and services
through their life cycles by taking action where it is most effective. IPP focuses
on the product development as well as the demand side (Charter 2001) and is
known to represent a shift in environmental policy approaches as it focuses on
the design phase, instead of the then common end of pipe solutions to point
sources of pollution, namely, production sites and processes.
IPP is based on three principles: market orientation, stakeholder involve-
ment, and life cycle perspective (Charter 2001). It can be seen as a govern-
ment’s means of facilitating the improvement of environmental performance
of products and services through stakeholders engaged in the life cycle;
reforming their design, production, distribution, and end of life.
It is worthy to mention that since the 1980s, national product-oriented
environmental policies were introduced in European countries, and were
prominent in the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, and Austria.
However, after the introduction of IPP as an initiative at the European
Union, harmonization of these national approaches has occurred.
Economic instruments, substance bans, product design recommendations,
and soft environmental policy instruments such as voluntary agreements and
environmental labelling are among the policy measures that are used to
achieve IPP goals (Rehfeld et al. 2007).
Box 8 Sustainable Consumption and Production
Sustainable consumption and production (SCP) is an overarching principle
addressing both environmental and development challenges, which was
discussed in 1992 at the UN Conference on Environment and Development,
Rio de Janeiro. Unsustainable patterns of consumption and production was
declared as the major cause of environmental degradation around the globe, in
the conference’sfinal report, Agenda 21. A working definition on SCP was
derived at the symposium on sustainable consumption, Oslo 1994: “The use of
services and related products, which respond to basic needs and bring a better
quality of life while minimizing the use of natural resources and toxic mate-
rials as well as the emissions of waste and pollutants over the life cycle of the
service or product so as not to jeopardize the needs of future generations.”
In 2002, at the world summit on sustainable development (WSSD), world
leaders signed the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI). It was agreed
that fundamental changes in production and consumption patterns of societies
are necessary for reaching sustainable development globally. JPOI called for
(continued)
An Introduction to Sustainable Materials Management 17
Box 8 (continued)
developing a 10-Year Framework of Programs (10 YFP) in line with SCP
goals, delinking economic growth from environmental deterioration to reach
economic and social growth within the ecological limits of earth. The Marra-
kech Process takes care of the development of 10YFP, which was adopted in
the UN conference on sustainable development, Rio+20, 2012, as a global
framework of action accelerating the shift toward SCP in both developed and
developing countries. SCP is defined as a stand-alone goal (SDG 12) and a
main component of other goals and targets since 2015.
Lorek and Fuchs (2013) argue that most activities on sustainable consump-
tion focus on product efficiency, that is, optimizing products and services and
their marketing. Such an approach towards sustainable consumption, is rooted
in the IPP concept (Rehfeld et al. 2007; Lorek and Fuchs 2013). While
technological development and changes in consumers’demand are crucial
steps toward sustainable consumption, limitations are detectable. In essence,
the greening potential of technological improvements is optimistically over-
estimated, taking into account the rebound effect (more widespread consump-
tion linked to improved technical efficiency offsetting the gains). Promoting
the choice of products that are less harmful to the environment, only counts as
a greening approach of a number of people for a number of products, and not a
comprehensive approach towards sustainability. Some have categorized this
approach as weak (Lorek and Fuchs 2013). On the other hand, a strong
sustainable consumption approach couples individual consumption patterns
to resource management (Mont and Bleischwitz 2007). In other words,
questioning the structures of material consumption and devising radical
plans of change is the form of sustainable consumption which enhances the
transformation of global society towards sustainable development.
Box 9 Sustainable Use and Management of Natural Resources (Resource
Decoupling)
Since 2001 and the adaptation of EU sustainable development strategy and the
sixth environment action program (6EAP), this topic has been highlighted in
Europe. Basically, it focuses on natural resource use for production and looks
into decoupling economic growth from natural resource consumption.
The definition of SMM as per the OECD was developed in 2005, and states:
Sustainable Materials Management is an approach to promote sustainable materials use,
integrating actions targeted at reducing negative environmental impacts and preserving
natural capital throughout the life-cycle of materials, taking into account economic effi-
ciency and social equity.
18 M. Khorasanizadeh et al.
The following explanatory notes are given with this working definition:
•“Materials”include all those extracted or derived from natural resources, which
may be either inorganic or organic substances, at all points throughout their life-
cycles.
•“Life-cycle of materials”includes all activities related to materials such as
extraction transportation, production, consumption, material, product reuse,
recovery and disposal.
•An economically efficient outcome is achieved when net benefits to society as a
whole are maximized.
•A variety of policy tools can support SMM, such as economic, regulatory and
information instruments and partnerships.
•SMM may take place at different levels, including firm/sector and different
government levels.
•SMM may cover different geographical areas and time horizons.
In fact, the concepts of SMM are still evolving. Meaning materials management
has held different interpretations through time, gradually maturing and still growing.
In order to understand the SMM concept and to be able to evaluate implemented
cases, it is necessary to realize the distinction of the evolution stages. SMM needs
systems thinking and a holistic perspective. Therefore, it is not shocking that its
development has an analogy with organizational learning. Rossy et al. (2010) divide
the evolution in materials use into three steps, each matching a learning phase of
organizational learning (Argyris 2000). They relate the evolution in materials man-
agement concept to our knowledge of the complexity of ecosystems. Since the late
twentieth century we have started understanding the effects of human activity on the
ecosystems at large, changing our perspective and way of thinking towards the
suitable management approach. Before describing the three stages of development,
namely, reaction, redesign, and reframing, it is worthy to mention that, when
specifying time periods for each of the stages governing the global perspective;
science, market, and policy do not often coincide. Furthermore, the speed of
adaptation is different in various countries (Rossy et al. 2010).
1. Reaction
As described before, end of pipe thinking governed the material (waste) manage-
ment agenda, through the 1970s and 1980s. After the environmental destruction
resulting from industrialization and population and affluence growth was recog-
nized, the reaction was cleaning up. A shift towards pollution and waste preven-
tion happened during the 1980s, focusing on cleaner technologies. The core of
business operations was eco-efficiency, that is, “do more with less.”This is when
new management standards were introduced, corporate social responsibility
(CSR) evolved and sustainable consumption and production emerged at the
global political stage. In addition, the product stewardship concept was intro-
duced, asking the companies to address the economic, environmental, and social
issues related to their products or services in the whole supply chain. However,
An Introduction to Sustainable Materials Management 19
the initiatives from businesses were mostly from a linear perspective and not
mainstream (Rossy et al. 2010).
Box 10 Eco-Efficiency
Eco-efficiency is concerned with creating more value with less impact. The
prefix“eco”stands for both economic and ecological perspectives.
Eco-efficiency is a management philosophy, encouraging businesses to search
for environmental improvements which have the potential to create economic
benefits as well. It calls for businesses to attain more value from lower inputs
of materials and energy and to cause less pollution. However, it is not possible
for businesses alone to achieve eco-efficiency without cooperation between
stakeholders, social transformations and governments creating the conditions.
Eco-efficiency is recommended by intergovernmental organizations and
has been adopted in many countries as a policy means towards achieving
sustainable development. OECD refers to eco-efficiency as the efficiency with
which ecological resources are used to meet human needs, and is defined as the
ratio of output (value of products and services produced) divided by the input
(sum of environmental impacts). The European Environmental Agency (EEA)
defines eco-efficiency as more welfare from less nature, achieved through
decoupling resource use and pollution from economic development; and
uses indicators to quantify progress toward sustainability.
It is well known that eco-efficiency does not guaranty sustainability as it is a
relative measure (value per impact) and is not a representative of absolute
reduction in use of nature.
To sum up, eco-efficiency promotes the idea of preventing pollution and
avoiding waste, and integrates two dimensions of sustainable development,
that is, economy and environment. However, achieving eco-efficiency does
not automatically lead to sustainable development (Schmidheiny and Stigson
2000).
Box 11 Corporate Social Responsibility
Corporate social responsibility is a value-based principle for businesses which
takes into account the social and environmental impacts of a business’s
operations and promotes sustainable development (Carroll 2015).
Box 12 Product Stewardship
Product Stewardship is a management strategy that attributes the responsibility
of minimizing a product’s environmental impact through its life cycle to
(continued)
20 M. Khorasanizadeh et al.
Box 12 Product Stewardship (continued)
everyone engaged, from design and distribution to consumption. It is a concept
very close to extended producer responsibility. While both concepts shift the
responsibility of taking care of the end of life products from governments to
manufacturers; product stewardship further extends the responsibility to every
other element of the life cycle.
This stage can be attributed to single loop learning, as C. Argyris describes as a
primary level of organizational learning. He defines organizational learning as the
detection and correction of error, in which single loop learning addresses “what”
has caused the problem. It involves technical repair by defining a routine follow-
ing existing procedures.
2. Redesigning
With the change of our knowledge and understanding about how human activities
are causing challenges like climate change and depletion of natural resources,
another shift has happened in the perspective towards materials management. The
complexity, interdependency and societal impacts of material use have been
realized and it is accepted that the solution is not found in the industrial processes
and production efficiency alone (Rossy et al. 2010). The goal switches from “do
more with less”to “do it right from the beginning,”from eco-efficiency to
eco-effectiveness (Rossy et al. 2010). In other words, implementing a life cycle
perspective throughout all the steps a material goes through, from extraction,
design and production to the end of use stage, becomes crucial. The Cradle to
cradle concept is born, thinking of how to keep materials in closed cycles,
biologically or technically. This change of view led to a shift towards products-
services models; from owning (end-user) to using (leasing, renting) in order to
reduce environmental pressures.
This shift matches the double loop of organization learning, answering the
“how”to solve the problem question, by improving the processes and structures.
As more complicated questions arise, creativity is critical in this step.
Box 13 Cradle to Cradle
Among different sustainable product design strategies, cradle to cradle is a
relatively recent concept compared to eco design and biomimicry. Cradle to
cradle is a nature inspired design strategy (NIDS). The basic principle is to
design products in a way that after using them, they become resources for other
products (McDonough and Braungart 2010). Cradle to cradle thinking encour-
ages designing based on eco effectiveness rather than eco-efficiency.
An Introduction to Sustainable Materials Management 21
Box 14 Product Service Systems (PSS)
Product Service Systems are business models which deliver an integration of
products and services, promoting competitiveness and reducing environmental
burdens while satisfying consumer demands. Dematerialization is a defined
goal for PSS, achieved by designing for minimum material consumption of
products and developing services to reduce overall material demand not only
in the production stage but also by reuse and recycling. Servitization is a term
used to describe the transformation process of businesses developing services
and solutions to supplement their products (Beuren et al. 2013).
3. Reframing
Lately, a shift is noticed from linear thinking to complex and circular thinking. All
the concepts related to different life cycle stages of materials, are seen as a part of
a bigger system which influences other systems: ecology, society, and economy,
both for now and the future and beyond the political boundaries. Near the end of
the twentieth century the notion of integrative policy was introduced to address
not only the technical and environmental issues but also the political, social,
Triple Loop Learning, pertaining to the shift of perceptions
Single Loop Learning
Double Loop Learning, not limited to improving the problem as
it exists, but questioning the underlying assumptions
Conceptual
framework, Goals,
Values
Actions,
Techniques,
Strategies
Results,
Consequences
Context
Fig. 6 Single, double and triple loop learning (Interpreted from (Argyris 1982; Tosey et al. 2012))
22 M. Khorasanizadeh et al.
financial, economic, and institutional elements of material management
(McDougall and Hruska 2000; Wilson 2007; Marshall and Farahbakhsh 2013).
However, it did not address all generations beyond political boundaries, at the
very first. The fully integrated, systematic perspective which takes into account
all the life cycle stages of a material, beyond generations and geopolitical regions,
is the sustainable materials management we are discussing. SMM’s evolution has
been a product of triple loop learning, which answers “why”the challenge
remains by questioning the basic framework. The problem is reframed, new
approaches are introduced and a transition to new models begins (Fig. 6).
International Bodies’Roles in SMM Development
Sustainable materials management was introduced as part of the global political
agenda out of an environmental concern. Then, it experienced exponential progres-
sion after the economic crisis of 2007/2008 and the price increase of some materials.
In this section a brief overview of the practices of international bodies, that is, UNEP,
EU, and OECD, in developing the concept is presented.
UNEP (United Nation’s Environmental Program) covers an extensive suite of
initiatives towards SMM using the “resource efficiency”keyword.
–Organizing joint environmental agreements on natural resources, for example the
Minamata Convention.
–Designing policy options for countries which are taking their very first steps
towards the sustainable management of resources.
–Pursuing partnerships with different actors.
–Running pioneering studies (Happaerts 2014).
The OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development)as an
organization with a more restricted audience; has been producing useful reports,
trying to expand the knowledge base of SMM. The fundamental attention of these
studies is preparing basic tools for governance level decision-making. Nevertheless,
the traditional waste management practices at times keep the OECD from reaching
SMM goals (Happaerts 2014).
Looking for the most integrated and deep application of SMM, one need not look
further than the EU’s SMM activities under the “resource efficiency”keyword.
Primarily, the concept was introduced as an environmental policy-making priority,
compelling for economic and market programs. The prominence of the resource
efficiency policy of the EU is because of its capability to influence or direct new
legislation and conduct reviews on available legislations. Although existing policy
traditions in the EU state members might assist applying SMM strategies because of
the available policy instruments, yet it leaves the risk of policy incoherence
(Happaerts 2014). Because of the unique characteristics of resource efficiency
activities in the EU, a review of the history of selected EU policy initiatives related
to material use and resource efficiency is presented.
An Introduction to Sustainable Materials Management 23
Box 15 Resource Efficiency Policies in the EU
Since the 1970s, around 200 different environmental policy initiatives have
been legislated in the EU (Kazmierczyket al. 2016). Table 2 shows a number
of these legislations categorized by themes (Courtesy of the #European
Environment Agency 2016)
(continued)
Energy Energy 2020: A strategy for competitive, secure and sustainable
energy
A policy framework for climate and energy for 2020–2030
Energy Roadmap 2050
European Energy Security Strategy
Waste and
recycling
Waste Framework Directive
Landfill Directive
Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive
Thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste
Sustainable
management of
natural
resources
Sixth Environment Action Program (6EAP)
Thematic strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources
EU Forest Strategy
Sustainable
consumption
and production,
and
business-oriented
initiatives
Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable Industrial
Policy (SCP/SIP) Action Plan
Eco-Innovation Action Plan
Industrial Policy for the Globalization Era and Innovation Union
Single Market for Green Products
The Green Action Plan for Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs)
Raw materials Raw Materials Initiative
Strategy on commodity markets and raw materials
European Innovation Partnership on Raw Materials
EU list of critical raw materials
Resource
efficiency
Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth
Flagship initiative for a resource-efficient Europe
Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe
Seventh Environment Action Program (7EAP)
24 M. Khorasanizadeh et al.
Box 15 (continued)
It was in 2011, with the adaptation of the Flagship initiative for a resource
efficient Europe under the Europe 2020 strategy along with the Roadmap to a
Resource Efficient Europe, that the “resource efficiency”term entered the EU
policy agenda. However, a number of relevant concepts were already engaged,
that is, “the decoupling of economic growth from environmental pressures,”
“the decoupling of economic growth from materials and energy consumption,”
and “the sustainable use and management of natural resources”
(Kazmierczyket al. 2016).
Namely, the EU strategy for Sustainable Development (2001) and the Sixth
Environmental Action Program (6EAP, 2001) set out strategic directions
towards breaking the link between economic growth, the use of resources
and waste generation. However, it was in 2005, that a systematic approach for
materials and resource management was adopted: the thematic strategy on
sustainable use of natural resources (COM (2005) 670) and the thematic
strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste (COM (2005) 666). The
former led to the development of indicators, establishment of a data center
(Eurostat) and EU’s collaboration with the International Resource Panel (IRP)
of the UNEP. The later helped devise end-of-life measures for particular waste
streams and adopting waste prevention policies (Kazmierczyket al. 2016).
Recently, as economic concerns have gained increasing importance in
material resource efficiency policies, these policies have developed in different
directions (Kazmierczyket al. 2016).
1. Strategic Frameworks: A number of the recent policies can be grouped as
strategic frameworks for resource efficiency improvement, including the
flagship initiative for a resource-efficient Europe, under the Europe 2020
strategy (COM (2011) 21); the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe
(COM (2011) 571 final); the EU 7EAP (1386/2013/EU); the Sustainable
Consumption and Production (SCP) and Sustainable Industrial Policy (SIP)
Action Plan (COM(2008) 397 final); and closing the loop: An EU action
plan for the Circular Economy (COM(2015) 614 final).
(continued)
Circular economy Towards a circular economy: A zero waste program for Europe
(2014)
Flanking communications on sustainable buildings, green
employment, SMEs
Closing the loop: An EU action plan for the Circular Economy
(2015)
An Introduction to Sustainable Materials Management 25
Box 15 (continued)
2. Integrating resource efficiency into other policies: Another group of poli-
cies related to resource efficiency are those which integrate resource effi-
ciency into other thematic policies such as waste or energy. The waste
policies and targets which are related to material resource efficiency include
legislations on specific waste streams like waste electric and electronic
equipment (WEEE), packaging waste, etc., legislation on waste treatment
options like incineration, landfill, etc. and framework legislations such as
waste framework directive. There is an obvious close relationship between
waste management and resource efficiency, as discussed in this chapter.
However, energy is conventionally seen as a separate policy area from
resource efficiency. It is worth mentioning that almost 25% of total EU
material use is extracted, manufactured and transported by fossil energy
carriers (Kazmierczyket al. 2016). The explicit link between resource
efficiency and low carbon economy is considered in the 7EAP. EU has
adopted energy targets to reach by 2030 to increase renewables to a
minimum of 27% of EU energy use and improving energy efficiency by a
minimum of 27% compared to 1990 levels. Some policy instruments in line
with resource efficiency improvement and sustainable energy consumption
include the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, the Energy Label-
ling Directive, and the Eco design Directive.
3. Monitoring the resource efficiency status: Another share of EU resource
efficiency policies consists of those that help monitoring progress. The
2002 regulation on waste statistics (revised in 2010), the 2011 regulation
on European environmental economic accounts and the monitoring frame-
work for the circular economy are some examples.
Raw materials’policies: particularly after the 2007/2008 economic crisis
and price volatility of some raw materials, policies addressing this concern
have been introduced, starting with the Raw Materials Initiative –meeting our
critical needs for growth and jobs in Europe. This initiative promoted less
primary raw materials consumption through increasing resource efficiency,
eco-efficiency, recycling, and using renewable materials. The initiative
followed by publishing a list of critical raw materials in 2011, Communication
on raw materials –Tackling the challenges in commodity markets and on raw
materials, which is going to be revised every 3 years. The European Innova-
tion Partnership on Raw Materials 2012 is aimed at securing the sustainable
supply of raw materials and is considered as a “new approach to innovation.”
This was followed by a strategic implementation plan in 2013, presenting
measures for various stakeholders. The raw materials scoreboard 2016 has
been published as a means of evaluating and monitoring the innovation
partnership on raw materials.
26 M. Khorasanizadeh et al.
Box 16 Circular Economy
The concept of “circular economy”can be referred to as one of the most recent
approaches of integrating economic growth and environmental preservation
(Murray et al. 2017). The Circular economy can be viewed as the opposite of
the traditional linear approach which was taking from nature, producing and
discarding waste. A circular economy is one in which the net effects on the
environment are minimized. In other words, a circular economy is “regener-
ative”meaning that waste, emissions, and energy leakage are minimized by
slowing, closing, and narrowing material and energy loops, hence resulting in
less required resource inputs for continued operation of the system.
One can also comprehend the circular economy by considering the concept
of cycles, taking into account biogeochemical cycles as well as material
recycling.
Biogeochemical cycles of water, carbon dioxide, oxygen, phosphorus, and
nitrogen each have different timeframes from a couple of days for water to 3.7
million years for oxygen (Keeling et al. 1993). However all such cycles are
sensitive to change; the smaller the sink, the faster the turnover time, the more
vulnerability to change. Hence, flux changes affect cycles, not rates. Circular
economy contributes to these cycles by managing the fluxes (Murray et al.
2017).
Recycling is the core of the circular economy concept. Re-cycling viewed
from the circular economy perspective can be accessible through different
approaches besides recycling. Industrial symbiosis (one firm’s waste is a
resource to another) and service economies (by slowing down the cycles of
use and delaying the waste output) are some examples.
The important notion when talking about a circular economy is that unlike
many sustainability concepts that focus on possible redesigning potential
within the industry, the circular economy tries to optimize systems rather
than components.
China is known to have taken the lead in implementing the concept of
circular economy, incorporating the concept in their 11th and 12th five year
plans for national economic and social development (Wu et al. 2014). In
Europe, an EU action plan for a Circular Economy (COM (2015) 614 final),
closing the loop, has been introduced. The key objective is defined as a
“transition to a more circular economy, where the value of products, materials,
and resources is maintained in the economy for as long as possible, and the
generation of waste minimized.”It is in line with the EU’s efforts for a
competitive economy which is sustainable, low-carbon, and resource-efficient.
This action plan addresses production, consumption, waste management,
support of markets for secondary raw materials and horizontal measures
such as innovation, investment, and monitoring (Fig. 7).
An Introduction to Sustainable Materials Management 27
Material Flow Analysis: Understanding the Material Basis
of the Economy
Understanding the natural resource basis of the economy is a key step for devising
policies towards resource efficiency and sustainable materials management. This
understanding should be based on information on material flows. One of the most
useful tools, filling knowledge gaps and guiding decision-making is Material Flow
Analysis or Material Flow Accounting.
Material Flow Analysis (MFA) is the study of material flows in and out of the
economy, based on mass balancing. The analysis can be performed on different
scales from all resources to single chemical elements, from global or national
economies to an industry or a city. Therefore, MFA consists of a family of tools
whereby implementing a combination of them helps building the required insights.
MFA can:
–Present a holistic picture of the physical resource flow through the economy.
–Take account of the flows which do not enter the economy as priced goods but do
affect the environment.
–Show how the flow of materials shifts between countries, and how that affects the
global and national economic and environmental status.
Therefore, MFA can be used to analyze issues that cut across different policy
areas, namely, environmental policies, resource management policies and economic,
trade and technology development policies.
Material flow indicators can be derived from any MFA tool. The most common
ones come from economy-wide MFA and from physical input output analysis and
can be classified in the following main groups: input indicators, consumption and
balance indicators, and output indicators (Fig. 8).
Input Indicators: indicators that describe the materials used in an economy for
production of goods whether for domestic use or export. Material supply consists of
Total
material
requirement
TMR
Total
material
input
TMI
Direct
material
input
DMI
Total
domestic
output
TDO
Tota
l
materia
l
outpu
t
TMO
Material inputs Material consumption Material outputs
Indirect
flows of
imports - IFimp
Man made stocks
Net additions to
stock
NAS
Domestic material
consumption
DMC
(apparent consumption)
Indirect
flows of
exports - IFexp
Exports - EXP
Domestic
processed output
DPO
(outputs to nature)
Unused
domestic
Extraction - UDE
Imports - IMP
Domestic
extraction used
DEU
Unused
domestic
extraction - UDE
Fig. 8 Material flow indicators (OECD-Guide 2008)
An Introduction to Sustainable Materials Management 29
Domestic Extraction Used (DEU) and Direct Material Input (DMI). The Total
Material Requirements (TMR) is the sum of the material supply plus the unused
flows that are associated with the extraction of materials and indirect flows (hidden
flows) that are associated with imports, and take place outside the boundaries like
pollution, waste, and unused extraction. This is closely related to levels of technol-
ogy development, how rich a country is in natural resources, and patterns of foreign
trade.
Consumption Indicators: consumption indicators represent the materials con-
sumed by the economic activities reflected by the Domestic Material Consumption
(DMC) and the Total Material Consumption (TMC). The difference between input
indicators and consumption indicators is a representative of the degree of integra-
tion of the economy with the global economy, also depending on the size of the
economy.
Balance indicators: indicators that account for the physical growth of the
economy, showing net flows of materials added to the economy’s stocks (Net
Additions to Stock, NAS). The flows added to stocks include those stored in
buildings, infrastructure and durable goods, and flows removed include construction
and demolition waste and end-of-life products. The Physical Trade Balance (PTB) is
an indicator of the physical trade surplus or deficit of an economy.
Output Indicators: take into account the emissions and waste flows rising from
production and consumption activities on the one hand, and on the other hand,
indicate exports through Domestic Processed Output (DPO). By taking into account
Economy-wide MF Analysis
(EW-MFA)
Material System Analysis
(MSA)
Local Systems Analysis (LSA)
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
Business level MF Analysis
Input-Output Analysis (IOA)
Decomposition Analysis
Environmental Input-Output
Analysis (eIOA)
Substance Flow Analysis (SFA)
Particular Materials,
Particular natural resources
completeness
detail
+
+
-
-
City, river basin, ecosystem
Particular products
Establishment, enterprise
By economic activity
Particular substances
Specification according to natural
science concepts (material, territory)
Specification according to aconomic
concepts (activities, products)
All materials, Material groups,
Particular materials
Overall architecture of MFA and related tools
Fig. 9 MFA architecture and related tools (OECD-Guide 2008)
30 M. Khorasanizadeh et al.
the unused flows of materials, the environmental burden of material use can be
recorded through Total Domestic Output (TDO).
A material flow study can cast light on material flows at different scales, with
various levels of detail and completeness. One can divide them in two main groups,
MFA that addresses specific concerns and MFA that addresses general environmen-
tal and economic concerns. Substance Flow Analysis, Material System Analysis and
Life Cycle Assessment address flow accounting for chemical elements or com-
pounds, raw materials or semifinished goods and manufactured goods respectively.
Businesses might use Business Level MFA, while Input–Output Analysis suits the
MF accounting of economic activities. Economy wide analysis is used for investi-
gating material use of countries and regions (Fig. 9).
Evaluating Resource Efficiency
Different indicators cover the concept of resource efficiency; particularly based on
material flow accounting, general and sector-specific indicators have been
adopted. Among all, the EU has designed a comprehensive system for tracking
resource efficiency status in Europe through the resource efficiency scoreboard.
EU member countries report material flow data every two years to Eurostat
(European statistical office), which is published online along with data from the
European Environment Agency (EEA) and other EU or international sources.
Thirty-two key indicators are classified in three tiers: lead indicator, dashboard
of indicators for water, land, materials, and carbon, and theme-specific indicators.
As the scoreboard has been designed to cover all the identified themes from the
2011 roadmap to a resource efficient Europe, it covers a broad range of key areas
related to natural resources.
The OECD uses a similar indicator, resource productivity, as a part of its Green
Growth Strategy. Japan uses a material intensity indicator in order to monitor
progress towards the sound material cycle society high-level policy goal (Schandl
et al. 2017). The UNEP defines a set of indicators in its recent report on global
material flows and resources.
Box 17 The OECD’s Green Growth Strategy
The OECD defines Green Growth as “fostering economic growth and devel-
opment, while ensuring that natural assets continue to provide the resources
and environmental services on which our well-being relies.”In essence, green
growth strategy aims at seeking chances of cleaner growth leading to
decoupling of economic growth from environmental degradation.
An Introduction to Sustainable Materials Management 31
Box 18 Japan’s Sound Material Cycle Society
In 2000, the environmental agency in Japan was promoted to become a
ministry. After this change the ministry’s strategy of waste management and
recycling experienced a shift from focusing on waste disposal to resource
performance. In 2003, the fundamental law for establishing a sound material
cycle society was established in which emphasize was placed on a utilization
hierarchy beginning with waste prevention, reuse, recycling, thermal
recycling, and final disposal. In other words, basically the 3R philosophy
has been employed in line with dematerialization and resource efficiency
strategies along with an advanced waste policy.
Lead Indicator: Resource Productivity
Resource productivity is defined as the ratio of gross domestic product (GDP) to
domestic material consumption (DMC). This indicator reflects the key goal of
improving resource efficiency, in other words improving economic performance
while reducing environmental burdens. If GDP grows faster than material consump-
tion an improvement of resource productivity occurs, interpreted as decoupling of
economic activities from material consumption.
Resource productivity is highly dependent on structure of national economies and
their international trade. Generally, industrial economies with open trades show less
efficiency compared to service economies which create GDP from less intensive
activities. On the other hand, transforming linear economy models to more circular
economies with less primary material input will improve resource efficiency.
Metal Ores
(Gross Ores)
4%
Biomass
26%
Fossil energy
materials/carriers
23%
Non-metalic
minerals
47%
Fig. 10 Relative proportions of material consumption per capita based on Eurostat 2014 datasets
for MFA (Kazmierczyket al. 2016)
32 M. Khorasanizadeh et al.
Dashboard Indicators: Materials
Domestic material consumption (DMC) per capita: as discussed, DMC measures the
total amount of material directly used in the economy. Relative proportions of
various material categories are presented in the figure below based on EU 2014
data. Material consumption for nonmetallic minerals, used mainly for construction,
equals to 47% of all materials consumed (6.2 tons per capita) while biomass and
fossil energy materials each are about a quarter of the total material consumption (3.5
and 3 tons per capita, respectively). Metal ores comprise only 4% (0.5 tons per
capita) (Fig. 10).
Raw material consumption (RMC) will soon replace DMC, as soon as the data
becomes available. RMC provides a more complete picture of material consumption
status of a country by taking into account all the materials used for production even
those not in the final product. Due to losses, it is known that the weight of finished
goods is lower than the sum of the weight of all materials used to produce them.
Therefore, by using the DMC indicator a distorted picture of material consumption
status of a country will be presented, shifting material consumption to countries
exporting those goods.
Thematic Indicators
The Scoreboard thematic indicators associated with material resource efficiency
consist of (Kazmierczyket al. 2016):
•Generation of waste excluding major mineral resources (kg/person)
•Landfill rate of wastes excluding major mineral resources (%)
•Recycling rate of municipal solid waste (%)
•Recycling of WEEE (%)
Policy Principles of the OECD’s Sustainable Materials
Management Practice
One of the benefits of SMM is the policy coherence and integrity that it is able to
offer, because of the holistic approach and seeing the whole picture. Since the
popularization of the concept in 2005, the OECD has been working on its develop-
ment by preparing reports and case studies for policymakers. A set of policy
principles has been derived based on the data, which are discussed hereafter. We
should bear in mind that, each and every principle should turn into policy instru-
ments based on the specific circumstance of any country and region.
OECD policy principles towards SMM:
1. Natural Capital Preservation
An SMM framework should be in the direction of keeping the natural resources
from depletion. Science, technology and business strategies should be
implemented to minimize the impacts of human activities on natural ecosystems.
An Introduction to Sustainable Materials Management 33
2. Design for Sustainability
The second principle calls for attention to the impacts materials and products have
through their life cycle, from the design phase. The goal is to design for
preserving natural capital, while maximizing social and economic outcomes. It
is worth mentioning that by looking through the life cycle, it has to be guaranteed
that risks are not shifted through the life cycle stages and political boundaries.
Designing for detoxification, dematerialization and for value recovery are
examples.
3. Implementing a set of diverse policy instruments:
There is not any single prescription that works for every actor. A variety of policy
instrument in the form of regulations, economic incentives, etc. have to be applied
to keep all players in the league. Integrated mix of policy instruments has the
ability to push in the right direction and accelerate the development to an extent of
generating synergies. Setting success indicators might improve the involvement.
4. Engaging many players in designing solutions
Addressing the complex, interrelated situation with sustainable management of
materials, needs participation of many players across the life-cycle. SMM has the
added benefit of deriving socially acceptable and ethical solutions.
Challenges Facing the Sustainable Approach for Materials
Management
The main obstacles towards making decisions in line with sustainable materials
management can be classified in two main groups. First, complex life cycles of
materials are hard to assess. The procedure leading to an informative MFA is time-
consuming and requires knowledge in different areas like systems science, material
flow inventory, modeling, and result interpretation (Chen et al. 2017). Hence, it is
hard for different stakeholders to obtain comprehensive MFAs for decision-making.
Secondly, complex material life cycles call for the contribution of different organi-
zations. Within a country, a range of government organizations from agriculture and
mining to business, manufacturing and environmental protection are engaged in
different stages of a material’s life cycle making coherent decision-making difficult.
Case Studies of Implementing a Sustainable Approach
for Materials Management: Towards a Circular Economy
In this section, a few case studies from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (https://
www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/case-studies/) is presented briefly in order to
provide a more tangible understanding of sustainable practices in line with a resource
efficient economy.
34 M. Khorasanizadeh et al.
Case Study 1: Vehicle Manufacturing Industry
The process of car manufacturing takes a large quantity of high value components
and materials, whose recovery and reuse is economically profitable. For example,
the Renault Group designs and manufactures vehicles and parts for sale in 125 coun-
tries and has sold more than three million vehicles in 2016. Their circular economy
strategy includes remanufacturing of engine parts and electric batteries and increas-
ing “short loop recycling”of raw materials, that is, steel, copper, textiles, and plastics
in the sector, meaning that the recycling loop remains in the automotive sector.
Currently 85% of an end of life vehicle is recyclable, 36% of the total mass of a
newly produced Renault vehicle in Europe is made from recycled materials and 20%
of the plastic used is from recycled material. An experimental platform, called
Innovative CAR Recycling 95% (ICARRE 95), is working on completely closing
the loop.
To emphasize on the collaboration and coherence needed in different sectors in
order to employ circular economy strategies, it is worthy to mention the following
specifics: first, the existence of legislative drivers requiring handlers to reuse 95% of
ELVs overall (85% by reuse and recycling and 10% by energy generation); second,
cooperation within the manufacturing team, feedback from maintenance activities,
and analysis of ELVs affecting the material choices and assembly protocols of the
design team; third, adopting new business models, calling for the collaboration of
customers to increase collection rates through incentives like bonuses or deposit
schemes; fourth, the existence of a collective system, therefore instead of reinventing
the wheel, basically adapting the existing ecosystem.
Case Study 2: Rethinking the Business Model for Household Cleaning
Products
One of the principles of a circular economy is that biological and technical materials
should be easily separated. In tradition forms of household cleaning products, a
bottle of detergent will be used in no more than a few months and the bottle is thrown
out, and at best recycled after one time use. However, a new business model has been
introduced to the British market since 2012 by “Splosh”which sells a starter box
containing a range of bottles and afterwards a concentrated form of cleaning
products is sold online to refill the bottle with the addition of tap water. If the bottle
is used 20 times 95% less packaging waste is made.
Case Study 3: Lease Model for Recirculating Clothing
Recovery rates in the textile industry are low, around 25% per year in the EU. An
innovative strategy aiming at retaining the control of materials has led to a leasing
plan on jeans. Mud Jeans can be leased for a couple of Euros per month and after a
year there are three options for the customer, each contribution to the circular
An Introduction to Sustainable Materials Management 35
economy in a way. They can change their pair for a new pair and continue leasing,
keep their pair, or end their relationship by returning them. The company will decide
on repair, reuse, and recycling options for the returned jeans.
Case Study 4: Seeking Opportunities for Restoring Value to Waste
Streams
Home delivery business models have gained interest since the rise of online shop-
ping. An innovative organic product delivery system, “Cirkle,”has integrated the
delivery system with collecting recyclables. They distribute the reusable items
between charities and the rest to recycling companies. Cirkle focuses on collecting
items whose disposal is inconvenient for people like batteries, electronic waste
printer cartridges, water filters and light bulbs. They also collect cooking oil and
sell it for biodiesel production.
Conclusion
Since the industrial revolution, consumption patterns have changed dramatically as a
result of population growth and rising affluence. This shift has resulted in environ-
mental depletion, and the growing risk of economic crisis caused by material
scarcity. Historically, health and safety drivers have governed waste management
practices. However, lately, due to the price volatility of some raw materials, eco-
nomic drives have resulted in the development of holistic approaches for the
management of waste and resources. It is argued that waste management practices
have experienced an evolution. Primarily, increasing awareness of the influence of
human activities on the environment gave rise to reaction-solutions simply based on
cleaning up. However, a shift happened from end-of-pipe thinking to preventative
thinking through the 1980s, and new concepts were introduced such as waste
minimization, pollution prevention, and toxic use reduction. This stage can be
interpreted as engaging double loop learning as defined by C Argyris, that is,
redesigning by means of questioning the underlying assumptions. The last paradigm
shift has taken place recently: complex and circular thinking has substituted linear
thinking. An integrated systematic approach addressing not only technical and
environmental concerns but also taking into account societal, political, and eco-
nomic elements of material management has been introduced.
Sustainable materials management is a concept defined consistent with sustain-
able development, basically representing the inferred holistic approach for managing
waste and resources. Different terminologies have been introduced through different
global players such as the UNEP, EU, and OECD, which represent quite similar
concepts, only slightly different in their scope. In this chapter, the history of SMM is
clarified by presenting definitions of the various terminologies used in this field,
focusing on their interrelations and answering the question of how comprehensive
are they from a sustainable development perspective.
36 M. Khorasanizadeh et al.
In order to reach the goals set for resource management, whether in a single
industry or on a larger scale, it is important to develop tools for modeling. Material
flow accounting is the tool for understating the natural resource basis of the econ-
omy. Based on various MFA tools designed for a spectrum of simpler to more
detailed and comprehensive analysis, a number of indicators are selected to represent
the resource efficiency status of an enterprise or country. One of the roles of global
organizations has been assisting the development of unified tools and indicators.
Data on MFA status of different countries is published regularly, and gradual
improvements in interpreting the data are happening.
Policy instruments should be selected based on every country’s specific circum-
stance. The OECD argues that diverse policy instruments should be implemented
aiming at minimizing the impact of human activities on the environment from the
design phase, by engaging all the parties involved in a product’s life cycle.
Among different challenges facing successful sustainable materials management,
the complexity of deriving and interpreting a comprehensive material flow analysis
is the most significant drawback. In addition, different stakeholders from various
sectors are engaged which makes coherent decision-making difficult.
In order to complete the presented picture of global sustainable materials man-
agement practices, a number of case studies from different countries in line with a
circular economy are presented. Circular economy is the most recent concept
introduced under sustainable materials management and is in its infancy. While
this concept has the potential for tackling the main resource problems of the
twenty-first century, it might take time for it to flourish.
References
Alexandratos N, Bruinsma J (2012) World agriculture towards 2030/2050: The 2012 revision, ESA
Working paper Rome, FAO
Argyris C (1982) Reasoning, learning, and action: individual and organizational. Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco
Argyris C (2000) Double-Loop Learning. Wiley Encyclopedia of Management.
Beuren FH et al (2013) Product-service systems: a literature review on integrated products and
services. J Clean Prod 47:222–231
Boustead I (1992) The relevance of re-use and recycling activities for the LCA profile of products.
Proceedings of the 3rd CESIO International Surfactants Congress and Exhibition, 1992.
Carrillo-Hermosilla J et al (2009) What is eco-innovation? Eco-Innov Springer:6–27
Carroll AB (2015) Corporate social responsibility. Organ Dyn 44(2):87–96
ceced.eu (2017) EPR. 2017, from http://www.ceced.eu/site-ceced/policy-areas/Environment/E-
Waste/EPR-.html
Charter M (2001) Integrated product policy (IPP) and eco-product development (EPD). Environ-
mentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing, 2001. Proceedings EcoDesign 2001:
second International Symposium on, IEEE.
Chen P-C et al (2017) Resource and waste-stream modeling and visualization as decision support
tools for sustainable materials management. J Clean Prod 150:16–25
Collier P (2010) The plundered planet: why we must –and how we can –manage nature for global
prosperity. Oxford University Press, New York
Díaz-García C et al (2015) Eco-innovation: insights from a literature review. Innovation 17(1):6–23
An Introduction to Sustainable Materials Management 37
Ehrlich PR, Holdren JP (1971) Impact of population growth. American Association for the
Advancement of Science, Washington, DC
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Circular Economy System Diagram (2017) Available at: https://www.
ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/interactive-diagram
Fresner J (1998) Cleaner production as a means for effective environmental management. J Clean
Prod 6(3):171–179
Gertsakis J, Lewis H (2003) Sustainability and the waste management hierarchy. Retrieved on
January 30: 2008.
Habitat U (2010) Solid waste management in the world’s cities. Water and Sanitation in the Worlds
Cities, Routledge, London
Hanisch C (2000) Is extended producer responsibility effective? Environ Sci Technol 34
(7):170A–175A
Happaerts S (2014) International discourses and practices of sustainable materials management.
Policy Research Centre on Sustainable Materials Management, Leuven, Brussels
Hirschhorn J et al (1993) Toward prevention–The emerging environmental management paradigm.
Erasmus University, Rotterdam
Holweg M (2007) The genealogy of lean production. J Oper Manag 25(2):420–437
Hubacek K et al (2007) Changing lifestyles and consumption patterns in developing countries: a
scenario analysis for China and India. Futures 39(9):1084–1096
Johnson MR, McCarthy IP (2014) Product recovery decisions within the context of extended
producer responsibility. J Eng Technol Manag 34:9–28
Kazmierczyk P et al (2016) More from less: material resource efficiency in Europe; 2015 overview
of policies, instruments and targets in 32 countries. Publications Office of the European Union,
Luxembourg
Keeble BR (1988) The Brundtland report:‘Our common future’. Med War 4(1):17–25
Keeling RF et al (1993) What atmospheric oxygen measurements can tell us about the global carbon
cycle. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 7(1):37–67
Lorek S, Fuchs D (2013) Strong sustainable consumption governance–precondition for a degrowth
path? J Clean Prod 38:36–43
Marshall RE, Farahbakhsh K (2013) Systems approaches to integrated solid waste management in
developing countries. Waste Manag 33(4):988–1003
McDonough W, Braungart M (2010) Cradle to cradle: remaking the way we make things. North
Point Press, New York
McDonough W et al (2003) Peer reviewed: applying the principles of green engineering to cradle-
to-cradle design. ACS Publications, Washington DC
McDougall FR, Hruska JP (2000) Report: the use of life cycle inventory tools to support an
integrated approach to solid waste management. Waste Manag Res 18(6):590–594
McDougall FR et al (2008) Integrated solid waste management: a life cycle inventory. John Wiley
& Sons, New York
Mont O, Bleischwitz R (2007) Sustainable consumption and resource management in the light of
life cycle thinking. Environ Policy Gov 17(1):59–76
Murray A et al (2017) The circular economy: an interdisciplinary exploration of the concept and
application in a global context. J Bus Ethics 140(3):369–380
Nations U (2014) World urbanization prospects: the 2014 revision, highlights. Department of
Economic and Social Affairs. Population Division, United Nations
OECD-Guide (2008) Measuring material flows and resource productivity, vol 1. The OECD guide.
OECD, Paris
Rehfeld K-M et al (2007) Integrated product policy and environmental product innovations: an
empirical analysis. Ecol Econ 61(1):91–100
Rennings K (2000) Redefining innovation—eco-innovation research and the contribution from
ecological economics. Ecol Econ 32(2):319–332
Rossy A et al (2010) Sustainable Materials Management for Europe, from efficiency to effective-
ness. Wuppertal Institute, Brussels
38 M. Khorasanizadeh et al.
Schandl H et al (2017) Global Material Flows and Resource Productivity. Assessment Report for
the UNEP International Resource Panel. Pre-publication final draft.
Schmidheiny S, Stigson B (2000) Eco-efficiency: creating more value with less impact. World
Business Council for Sustainable Development, Conches-Geneva
Seadon J (2006) Integrated waste management–Looking beyond the solid waste horizon. Waste
Manag 26(12):1327–1336
Tosey P et al (2012) The origins and conceptualizations of ‘triple-loop’learning: a critical review.
Manag Learn 43(3):291–307
Weterings R et al (2013) Resources for our future: key issues and best practices in resource
efficiency, The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies. Amsterdam University Press, Herengracht
Williams I (2015) Forty years of the waste hierarchy. Waste Manage (New York, NY) 40:1–2
Wilson DC (2007) Development drivers for waste management. Waste Manag Res 25(3):198–207
Wilson DC et al (2015) Global waste management outlook. International Solid Waste Association,
Vienna
Wolsink M (2010) Contested environmental policy infrastructure: socio-political acceptance of
renewable energy, water, and waste facilities. Environ Impact Assess Rev 30(5):302–311
Wu H-q et al (2014) Effectiveness of the policy of circular economy in China: a DEA-based
analysis for the period of 11th five-year-plan. Resour Conserv Recycl 83:163–175
An Introduction to Sustainable Materials Management 39
