Content uploaded by Alejandro Padilla-Rivera
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alejandro Padilla-Rivera on Sep 25, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
sustainability
Review
Addressing the Social Aspects of a Circular Economy:
A Systematic Literature Review
Alejandro Padilla-Rivera 1, * , Sara Russo-Garrido 2and Nicolas Merveille 2
1CIRAIG, Department of Mathematical and Industrial Engineering, Polytechnique Montréal, Montreal,
QC H3T 1J4, Canada
2CIRAIG, Department of Strategy and Corporate Social Responsibility, ESG, UQAM, Montreal,
QC H3C 3P8, Canada; russo_garrido.sara@uqam.ca (S.R.-G.); Merveille.nicolas@uqam.ca (N.M.)
*Correspondence: alejandro-de-jesus.padilla-rivera@polymtl.ca
Received: 31 August 2020; Accepted: 22 September 2020; Published: 24 September 2020
Abstract:
Circular Economy (CE) is a growing topic among scholars, industries, and governments,
and is aimed at decoupling economic growth and development from the consumption of finite resources.
CE incorporates different meanings, from reduce, reuse, and recycle activities, to environmental
degradation or resource scarcity, and is supported by specific indicators to attain sustainable development.
However, so far, there has been no agreement to measure how effective an industry/product is in making
the transition from linear to circular approaches, particularly those that affect society. This research work
aims to perform a systematic literature review (n =60) to analyze and discuss how social aspects have
been considered and integrated in CE research so far. Moreover, this review provides an overview of the
literature on social impact within the CE, which results in three main outputs: a knowledge map of the
CE, an analysis of social aspects within CE, and the theories/frameworks used to evaluate social impact
of CE. Finally, this study brings to light how CE implementation can affect society and highlights the
importance of social dimension in the domains of CE and a policy-making community, which could help
move CE towards a sustainable development.
Keywords: circular economy; social aspects; systematic review; sustainable development
1. Introduction
Circular Economy (CE) has emerged as a paradigm, highlighting multiple paths and targets to
attain sustainable development, and to propose ways to create value for costumers, societies, and other
stakeholders. Moreover, the understanding of CE has attracted increasing research interest, and it is
currently mainstreamed in several stakeholders, from municipal to national governments, academia,
and businesses around the world, and has become a policy tool to move forward sustainability [1].
CE puts forward the concept of developing new business models that transform traditional
linear economies of “take, make, dispose” [
2
], into an alternative flow model, one that is circular,
and looking for closed loops. It has been argued that circular materials reduce negative environmental
impacts, by minimizing the consumption of virgin materials and energy, and stimulating new business
opportunities [
3
]. However, CE views have privileged economic solutions as the driver for solving
material and energy-related problems, rather than a sustainability paradigm [
4
], which should require
a complete mapping of three sustainability dimensions. Indeed, although sustainability has, as a main
goal, to benefit the environment, the economy, and society at large, the current main beneficiaries of
the CE appear to be economic actors that implement the system [5].
Recently, a considerable number of reviews have taken the challenge of undertaking research
focused on the relationship between CE and a sustainability concept, as well as the large amount of
terms that are related to it. For instance, some studies have referred to the CE term as new sustainability
Sustainability 2020,12, 7912; doi:10.3390/su12197912 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2020,12, 7912 2 of 17
paradigm, which enables progress through the implementation of CE practices [
5
–
7
]. Other researchers
have investigated the limitations and challenges of CE in terms of global sustainability [
3
,
8
]. Moreover,
discussions and critics about the various CE conceptualizations have been made towards the coherence
of CE [
1
,
9
]. Other authors, such as De P
á
dua Pieroni et al. [
10
], propose business models (based on
business model innovation) as a strong foundation to transition to CE (with sustainability as a strong
foundation).
In short, notwithstanding a few voices from authors advocating for the inclusion of social aspects
in CE concepts, tools, and metrics, the concept of CE today clearly appears to prioritize the economic
system with primary benefits for the environment, either resource efficiency or environmental
efficiency, and only implicit gains for social aspects. For instance, some of these voices include
Korhonen et al. [3]
, who emphasize the importance of including a social objective in CE, establishing
the sharing economy, increased employment, and participative democratic decisions as main issues
to be included. Additionally, Homrich et al. [
11
] point out the lack of more research approaches,
applying a triple bottom line perspective, since the focus, until now, remains on economic-environment
perspectives, while concern with social aspects are still missing. Other authors, such as [
12
], criticize CE
for not explicitly targeting sustainable development goals, especially regarding the social dimension.
Incorporating sustainable development goals (SDGs) into the CE agenda is promising and should not
be underestimated. In all of these examples, authors agree and recognize the importance of bringing
the social dimension into the CE agenda, attempting to help sustainability transition worldwide.
Thus, transition towards CE must be perceived through a framework of socio-technological transition,
where existing production structures, businesses, models, products, and consumption practices
undergo a fundamental change [13].
Reviews on CE have pointed out weaknesses in the current concept, particularly because there is
lack of social and institutional dimensions, issues that are considered important to the development of
the CE concept [
14
]. As quoted by Geissdoerfer et al. [
5
], many conceptualizations of the term seem to
ignore socioeconomic effects and only emphasize economic issues, while simplify the environmental
dimension. Similarly, Murray et al. [
8
] support that circularity approaches benefit some aspects of
sustainability, but lack the integration with social dimension. Besides, many researchers highlight
that there is no evidence concerning the contribution of CE to sustainability, particularly to social
wellbeing [
5
]. So far, insufficient consideration is given to how CE will interact with normality
(habits, norms), and meaning in circularity approaches [15].
Although there are various benefits that CE could potentially give to society, the conceptual
relationship between the CE concept, tools, and social impact is not clear. This has potential implications
to outline how social impacts can be associated with CE implementation on the affected stakeholder
groups. As far as we know, no research has systematically reviewed how socials aspects are dealt
and integrated in CE strategies and tools. Therefore, to fill this gap, this work aims to analyze and
summarize, through a systematic literature review, the social dimension within CE. Hence, the research
questions addressed in this paper are: (1) why social aspects are relevant in CE? (2) What are the
socio-economic aspects related to CE and what are the most important in CE? (3) Which methodological
tools and metrics are used for assessing the social dimension within CE? We defined social aspects as
all parameters, indicators, or issues related to the social relations between individuals and society.
2. Research Methodology
This review was conducted in accordance with general systematic review principles [
15
], and is
based on research articles published from 2009 to March 2019, and academic search databases (Springer,
Cham, Switzerland; Science Direct, Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; MDPI, Basel, Switzerland
and Whiley, Hoboken, NJ, USA). The time span chosen is because the previous decade encompassed
the most relevant part of literature in terms of trends, development, and research of CE.
First, search words were associated with the Boolean operators OR and AND, and defined using
the following topics: “Circular economy” OR “circularity” AND “social aspects, OR “social indicators”,
Sustainability 2020,12, 7912 3 of 17
OR “social issues”, OR “social implications”, OR social indicators, OR social impact, OR social value,
OR social cohesion, OR social capital. Our first search generated 3647 potentially studies.
Following Becheikh et al. [
16
], we performed a two-step screening (practical screening, inclusion
criteria). As a first step, a practical screening was applied to titles and abstracts (3647 studies) to
eliminate duplicates. The practical screening was done by one author and repeated once after the coding
of all papers to ensure all relevant works were included. The searching was limited to peer-review
works and only published in the English language. We concentrated on English literature to make
this review replicable for readers. After the application of practical-screening, 1580 relevant studies
were identified.
As a second step screening, we defined the following criteria inclusion for the studies in order to
be considered in the final systematic review:
•
The articles must deal–evaluate–propose with, either separately or mixed, at least one social
aspect/indicator/issue/parameter/implication; and
•
The articles must consider, as a core, CE or its associated concepts (green economy, cradle-to-cradle,
industrial ecology and bioeconomy).
The screening criteria were applied to abstract–introduction–conclusion sections. It was found
that 1319 studies did not achieve the inclusion criteria; thus, 261 potentially studies were kept for
analysis. Finally, a full-text analysis was launched to determine the final studies for the systematic
review. After that, only 60 relevant studies, which included all inclusion criteria established above
were considered for the systematic review process. Figure 1shows the process adopted to carry out
the literature review.
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 19
encompassed the most relevant part of literature in terms of trends, development, and research of
CE.
First, search words were associated with the Boolean operators OR and AND, and defined using
the following topics: “Circular economy” OR “circularity” AND “social aspects, OR “social
indicators”, OR “social issues”, OR “social implications”, OR social indicators, OR social impact, OR
social value, OR social cohesion, OR social capital. Our first search generated 3647 potentially studies.
Following Becheikh et al. [16], we performed a two-step screening (practical screening, inclusion
criteria). As a first step, a practical screening was applied to titles and abstracts (3647 studies) to
eliminate duplicates. The practical screening was done by one author and repeated once after the
coding of all papers to ensure all relevant works were included. The searching was limited to peer-
review works and only published in the English language. We concentrated on English literature to
make this review replicable for readers. After the application of practical-screening, 1580 relevant
studies were identified.
As a second step screening, we defined the following criteria inclusion for the studies in order
to be considered in the final systematic review:
• The articles must deal–evaluate–propose with, either separately or mixed, at least one social
aspect/indicator/issue/parameter/implication; and
• The articles must consider, as a core, CE or its associated concepts (green economy, cradle-to-
cradle, industrial ecology and bioeconomy).
The screening criteria were applied to abstract–introduction–conclusion sections. It was found
that 1319 studies did not achieve the inclusion criteria; thus, 261 potentially studies were kept for
analysis. Finally, a full-text analysis was launched to determine the final studies for the systematic
review. After that, only 60 relevant studies, which included all inclusion criteria established above
were considered for the systematic review process. Figure 1 shows the process adopted to carry out
the literature review.
Figure 1. Research strategy implemented to undertake the systematic review.
Figure 1. Research strategy implemented to undertake the systematic review.
3. Systematic Literature Review
3.1. Characteristics of the Included Studies
From the 60 articles reviewed (Supplementary Material), it can be seen that interest on social
dimension within CE academia grew from 2015 onward. This tendency can be explained due to
Sustainability 2020,12, 7912 4 of 17
the increment of environmental international regulations, as highlighted by Sassanelli et al. [
17
].
Some of these regulations became more closed and important because of climate change, urbanization,
and consumerism. Moreover, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation report, published in 2015 [
18
],
emphasized the inclusion of social dimension within circular performance assessment.
Regarding the type of research, both articles published in international journals (59) and
proceedings of international conferences (1) were considered. Three journals present a bigger
contribution in terms of social implications within CE works, Sustainability (25%), Journal of Cleaner
Production (25%), and Resources, Conservation & Recycling (9%), with almost 60% of papers reviewed.
Most of the papers selected (53%) gave relevance to the analytical assessment that is the approach
most exploited; analytical assessment is used to break CE down into its respective constituents in order
to drive the methodology (elements of CE), while theoretical approaches (22%) tend to describe various
aspects of human behavior, providing models for investigating complexity of CE (whole object-CE),
followed by case study (13%) and surveys (12%).
3.2. Geographical Context
In order to analyze the region where circular economy works are applied and implemented,
the papers were allocated regarding the geographic context (Figure 2), wherever possible. Moreover,
85% of studies investigated have an exact geographic zone. Of these, 70% settle their investigations in
Europe, 23% in Asia, while Africa, North America, and Latin America, together reach only 7%.
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 19
3. Systematic Literature Review
3.1. Characteristics of the Included Studies
From the 60 articles reviewed (Supplementary Material), it can be seen that interest on social
dimension within CE academia grew from 2015 onward. This tendency can be explained due to the
increment of environmental international regulations, as highlighted by Sassanelli et al. [17]. Some of
these regulations became more closed and important because of climate change, urbanization, and
consumerism. Moreover, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation report, published in 2015 [18], emphasized
the inclusion of social dimension within circular performance assessment.
Regarding the type of research, both articles published in international journals (59) and
proceedings of international conferences (1) were considered. Three journals present a bigger
contribution in terms of social implications within CE works, Sustainability (25%), Journal of Cleaner
Production (25%), and Resources, Conservation & Recycling (9%), with almost 60% of papers reviewed.
Most of the papers selected (53%) gave relevance to the analytical assessment that is the
approach most exploited; analytical assessment is used to break CE down into its respective
constituents in order to drive the methodology (elements of CE), while theoretical approaches (22%)
tend to describe various aspects of human behavior, providing models for investigating complexity
of CE (whole object-CE), followed by case study (13%) and surveys (12%).
3.2. Geographical Context
In order to analyze the region where circular economy works are applied and implemented, the
papers were allocated regarding the geographic context (Figure 2), wherever possible. Moreover, 85%
of studies investigated have an exact geographic zone. Of these, 70% settle their investigations in
Europe, 23% in Asia, while Africa, North America, and Latin America, together reach only 7%.
Figure 2. Geographical context found in Circular Economy (CE) documents.
For Europe, most of the studies focused on Germany (16%) and The European Community (EC)
(16%) as a whole, followed by Sweden (10%), Italy (10%), the United Kingdom (10%), and other
European countries (38%). It should be notice that in Europe, CE first emerged in Germany with the
1972 Waste Disposal Act, and was then supported by the Waste Directive 2008/98/EC [19], and the
CE Package [20].
Regarding Asia, China (55%) is the country with the greatest number of works on the subject in
this review. This could be attributed to the early adoption (year 2002) of CE as a nationwide
development strategy. In the wake of this Chinese strategy, many other countries have promoted CE
as a new development strategy. However, the current China policy framework stresses too much on
the means and not enough on the ends of the CE.
Figure 2. Geographical context found in Circular Economy (CE) documents.
For Europe, most of the studies focused on Germany (16%) and The European Community (EC)
(16%) as a whole, followed by Sweden (10%), Italy (10%), the United Kingdom (10%), and other
European countries (38%). It should be notice that in Europe, CE first emerged in Germany with the
1972 Waste Disposal Act, and was then supported by the Waste Directive 2008/98/EC [
19
], and the CE
Package [20].
Regarding Asia, China (55%) is the country with the greatest number of works on the subject
in this review. This could be attributed to the early adoption (year 2002) of CE as a nationwide
development strategy. In the wake of this Chinese strategy, many other countries have promoted CE
as a new development strategy. However, the current China policy framework stresses too much on
the means and not enough on the ends of the CE.
In contrast, North America and Latin America have only a few works represented in this review.
This could be attributed to the existence of few initiatives in the region [
21
]. The United States (U.S.)
Sustainability 2020,12, 7912 5 of 17
is one of the few countries that present a relevant CE federal policy, based on previous regulations:
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 [
22
], and the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 [
23
].
3.3. Scale of Analysis
The implementation of CE is categorized according to three systematic levels [
21
]. The micro
level, which emphasizes products, companies, or consumers. The meso level focuses on industrial
parks and industrial symbiosis districts; the macro level includes activities within a city, region, nation,
and beyond. In this review, the level of analysis presents that one-third of studies reviewed (32%)
conducted studies oriented at a macro level: either society level (e.g., [
24
,
25
]), municipal (e.g., [
26
]),
or regional level (e.g., [
25
,
27
]). The micro level of analysis portrays 30% of studies (e.g., company [
28
],
consumers [
29
], products [
30
], followed by not mentioned (17%) (e.g., [
7
,
8
,
31
]), and the meso level
(17%) (e.g., industrial parks [
32
]). Finally only 3% of studies presented a combined (micro and macro)
level of analysis (e.g., [33,34]); this could be attributed to concurrence of the CE implementation.
3.4. Industries
In this section, the papers reviewed were categorized in relation to the industry of implementation.
In almost 50% of works analyzed, it was possible to distinguish a sector of activity. The most relevant
sectors are waste management (14%) (e.g., [
35
]) and manufacture (7%) (e.g., [
28
]). This is supported
by [
36
], who highlighted that most of the circular economy works focus on waste industry, since one
the objectives of CE is to minimize waste and improve its use. With regards to the manufacture sector,
the most investigated areas are metal [37], and paper production [38].
Concerning other industries, chemical (5%) (e.g., [
39
]) is the most investigated regarding the
technological sphere, while the agri-food industry (5%) (e.g., [
40
]) and wood (5%) (e.g., [
41
]) are the
most studied in the biological sphere. While in services, tourism and commodity accounted for 8%.
The rest of the industries accounted for (12%), including cities (3%), high-tech (3%), energy generation
(2%), textile (2%), and communication (2%).
4. Results and Discussions
4.1. Classification of Social Aspects
In order to help articulate the findings of this review, the social aspects were first classified,
in order to analyze their meaning and relevance in the sustainability context. Typically, the meaning of
sustainability has been interpreted differently according to the actors involved, the context, and the
indicators used to measure it. Sustainability aspects are classified in three dimensions: environmental,
economic, and social. While this three-dimension classification is being debated, no other categorization
schemes have been proposed so far in the literature. However, while the concept of a social
dimension to sustainability is generally accepted, its implementation in sustainability strategies has
not been very clearly defined or agreed. Indeed, despite the variety of available social sustainability
categories/aspects/indicators, Hutchins et al. [
42
] note the absence of commonly accepted indicators of
social sustainability.
Therefore, in this review, we based our analysis on the sustainability categories identified by
Dempsey et al. and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation [
18
,
43
]. The categories gave an overview of
social dimension in terms of sustainable development and circularity, the categories were grouped
into thematic areas and social aspects, according to Table 1. We used the social aspect classification
following the principles previously stablished in the Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) methodology,
but using the thematic areas proposed in [
18
]. These categories and thematic areas were selected since
there is no consensus for classifying social issues in CE.
Sustainability 2020,12, 7912 6 of 17
Table 1. Thematic areas and aspects for social dimension within CE.
Thematic Areas * Labor Practices and Decent Work Human Rights Society Product Responsibility
Social Aspects
1. Employment
2. Labor/Management Relations
3. Occupational Health and Safety
4. Training and Education
5. Diversity and Equal Opportunity
6. Fair distribution of income
7. Quality and Well-being
8. Investment
9. Non-discrimination
10.
Freedom of Association
and Collection Bargaining
11.
Child Labor
12.
Forced or
Compulsory Labor
13.
Security Practices
14.
Human
Rights Mechanisms
15.
Social inclusion (equity)
16.
Social networks
17.
Social cohesion
18.
Participation and
Local Democracy
19.
Anti-corruption
20.
Public Policy
21.
Compliance
22.
Supplier Assessment for
Impacts on Society
23.
Cultural Traditions
24.
Tourism and Recreation
25.
Local Communities (Sense
of community
and belonging)
26.
Customer Health and Safety
27.
Product and Service Labelling
28.
Marketing Communications
29.
Costumer Privacy
30.
Compliance
31.
Anti-competitive behavior
*A fifth thematic area, named as “Others”, presents those indicators that cannot be classified in the thematic areas proposed.
Sustainability 2020,12, 7912 7 of 17
4.2. Thematic Areas and Social Aspects within CE
After determining the classification above, the thematic areas and the social aspects identified
in this review are shown in Figure 3. The social aspects used in the papers reviewed addressed a
wide spectrum of issues related to the social dimension of CE, within which numerous aspects aim
to support CE assessment across the macro, meso, and micro levels. Society is the thematic area that
has the highest percentage of indicators found in the literature (49%), followed by labor practices and
decent work (41%), while others (6%), human rights (2%), and product responsibility (2%) presented
the lowest level of occurrence.
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19
4.2. Thematic Areas and Social Aspects within CE
After determining the classification above, the thematic areas and the social aspects identified in
this review are shown in Figure 3. The social aspects used in the papers reviewed addressed a wide
spectrum of issues related to the social dimension of CE, within which numerous aspects aim to
support CE assessment across the macro, meso, and micro levels. Society is the thematic area that has
the highest percentage of indicators found in the literature (49%), followed by labor practices and
decent work (41%), while others (6%), human rights (2%), and product responsibility (2%) presented
the lowest level of occurrence.
Figure 3. Thematic areas and social aspects in the systematic review.
Concerning the single aspects, employment has the highest frequency (reported in 23 out 60
studies) in the reviewed studies, tied at second level of occurrence are quality and wellbeing, social
networks, and local community (reported in 13 out 60 studies). Social equity has also a high frequency
(reported in 12 out 60 studies). From Figure 3, it also emerges that some indicators (such as
participation and local democracy (10/60), social cohesion (9/60), and occupational and health and
safety (8/60)) are increasingly used to assess the social dimension within CE. It should be noted that
although sharing economy and green purchasing/consumption indicators do not represent a high
frequency in reviewed studies (less than 3%), they have been recognized as a new vision for the
consumption culture within CE for sustainable development [3]. The role of institutions/governance
have (reported in 3 out 60) gained an insight within CE practitioners because they provide the basic
requirements for transitioning to CE, and they also stimulate the creation of new policies enhancing
sustainability [13,44]. In the following section are analyzed in detail the most frequented social
aspects (employment, social inclusion, participation and democracy, and health and safety) to
provide a more compressive overview.
4.2.1. Employment
As seen in Figure 3, employment was the social aspect most often cited in this review, since CE
has the potential to create employment opportunities, which directly deals with regional
unemployment disparities and occupational mismatch. These studies highlight the importance of
Figure 3. Thematic areas and social aspects in the systematic review.
Concerning the single aspects, employment has the highest frequency (reported in 23 out 60 studies)
in the reviewed studies, tied at second level of occurrence are quality and wellbeing, social networks,
and local community (reported in 13 out 60 studies). Social equity has also a high frequency (reported
in 12 out 60 studies). From Figure 3, it also emerges that some indicators (such as participation and
local democracy (10/60), social cohesion (9/60), and occupational and health and safety (8/60)) are
increasingly used to assess the social dimension within CE. It should be noted that although sharing
economy and green purchasing/consumption indicators do not represent a high frequency in reviewed
studies (less than 3%), they have been recognized as a new vision for the consumption culture within CE
for sustainable development [
3
]. The role of institutions/governance have (reported in 3 out 60) gained
an insight within CE practitioners because they provide the basic requirements for transitioning to CE,
and they also stimulate the creation of new policies enhancing sustainability [
13
,
44
]. In the following
section are analyzed in detail the most frequented social aspects (employment, social inclusion,
participation and democracy, and health and safety) to provide a more compressive overview.
4.2.1. Employment
As seen in Figure 3, employment was the social aspect most often cited in this review, since CE has
the potential to create employment opportunities, which directly deals with regional unemployment
Sustainability 2020,12, 7912 8 of 17
disparities and occupational mismatch. These studies highlight the importance of promoting
circularity-based economies and show that it is necessary that governments are involved by proposing
new policies and incentivize their developments in order to create more jobs. These policies should also
help improve energy efficiency through greener technologies, smarter strategies to move forward better
waste management systems, lower carbon emissions, increased renewable energy sources, etc. All of
these new developments would require the development of new business models that incorporate
greener jobs.
In this review, Pociov
ă
li¸steanu et al. [
45
] studied the relationship between environment and jobs,
by means of determining the jobs created derived from the environmental policies. Their findings
suggest that measures to promote green jobs in the context of sustainability should be oriented
towards the development of educational programs and training and encourage the adoption of greener
technologies among different stakeholders. It was also found that investment in green infrastructure
should promote a green economy at a social level. In this sense, employment in the CE plays an
important role in overcoming socio-economic challenges, by which CE has the possibility to create new
jobs, even if modest or transformational, and combat against unemployment and social inequity, for an
exponentially growing population in a shifting economy.
Jobs in a circular economy can be newly created, created by substitution, or redefined. Moreover,
green jobs on the road to contribute to decent work have to: (1) incentive jobs that meet conditions
in terms of pollution (which have to be minimized), (2) commute traditional jobs to greener jobs,
by employing non fossil sources, by retraining workers and by greening working methods, and (3) stop
working in excessively contaminated areas. The CE can also contribute to offsetting the disappearance
of low-level occupations. However, if the circular economy is aimed to be developed extensively,
there would be, necessarily, some types of higher skilled employment. In this sense, education and
training contribute to the development of these skills, increase labor productivity, and thus move
forward sustainable development, but measuring skills and circular jobs remain too generic and
difficult to adequately inform circular economy policy. For these reasons, approaches, such as [
46
],
have developed a more granular framework to measure the amount of circular jobs. This framework
distinguishes over 1400 economic sectors and differentiates between directly circular jobs in sectors
that follow core strategies, enable circular economy strategies, and, indirectly, circular jobs in sectors
that support directly circular jobs. Moreover, the approach takes economic interaction between these
different sectors into account. As such, they were are able to measure the circular labor force in a very
detailed way. The method is a uniquely comprehensive way of measuring the circular labor force,
providing cities with a tool to effectively invest in the jobs of the future.
It is important to highlight that technology related to CE implementation could reduce certain
human jobs, referred to as technological unemployment. However, while that might be true, CE may
also create new job opportunities elsewhere [47].
Thus, to promote employment in circular economies, attempts must be carried out both at the industry
and government levels. Both must strengthen employment through strategies and incentives, either to
close material loops or to use products more efficiently. However, this transition would also depend on
how workers receive the necessary training and skills to fulfil the employment demanded in CE.
4.2.2. Social Inclusion (Equity)
As noted in Section 4.2 and Figure 3, equity is one of the most frequent aspects. In this
review, there are multiple references to social equity ranging from intra-generational equity and
inter-generational equity [
48
], equitable distribution of system benefits [
33
], to improving social benefits
for poverty alleviation [
49
]. The importance of equity resides, among other aspects, in improving
human rights and social justice. It has its base in social justice, distributive justice, and equality
condition [
50
]. This reflects the connectedness of the concept of social equity within interpretation of
sustainable development aimed at satisfying the needs of present as well as future generations.
Sustainability 2020,12, 7912 9 of 17
Moreover, there are some cases of inconclusive approaches found in the literature, on how the
CE will promote social equity. For example, Xue et al. [
51
] propose that the CE can improve social
welfare distribution, at the same time Gen and Dobertein [
52
] suggest that CE helps to further social
justice. However, these approaches seem to be vague suggestions in terms of measuring CE as no
quantitative studies have been proposed that support these statements. In addition, no suggestions are
found on how CE improve aspects of this dimension. In this regard, some efforts have been made to
measure social equity, for example, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has been proposed as a relevant
indicator of social equity. On the one hand, Zhijun and Nailing [
53
] suggest that the CE can incentive
economic and social growth, and discussion about that the implementation of the CE in certain areas
has been associated with an important raise in GDP. They advocate the idea that GDP increment can
be employed as an indicator for social equity. On the other hand, Van Den Bergh [
54
] argues that GDP
is not sufficient for improving social equity. Therefore, as indicated by Moreau et al. [
55
], it seems that
there is no knowledge about how CE could support the promotion of social equity, there has been no
detailed analysis, and it is necessary, explicitly, that CE empirically supports this fact.
As a consequence, if CE is seen as a tool to move forward sustainable development, it must firstly
develop a framework to show how CE strategies can promote/incentive social equity, and it can be
incorporated with other aspects. However, as supported by Moreau et al. [
55
], so far, there is no explicit
evidence on how CE could support the encouragement of social equity. Thus, it is necessary to create the
tools and mechanisms that can adequately and accurately integrate the concept of social equity within CE
discourse to progress in different directions, in this regard, further work is necessary in this area.
4.2.3. Sharing Economy/Collaborative Economy
Defining ‘sharing economy’ has been a challenge, particularly considering the widespread
usage and its multiple definitions, including peer-to-peer economy, collaborative economy, fair trade,
community currencies, on-demand, and collaborative consumption, to name but a few. However,
these approaches agree that sharing economy aims to distribute the goods/services or other resources
by multiple people. The sharing economy assumes the principle of maximizing the utility of benefits
via lending, renting, exchanging, etc., issued by technology [56].
Moreover, practitioners of the theme suggest that this type of economy is conducted by three main
assets: more efficient and resilient use of financial resources (economic), more efficient use of natural
resources (environmental), and deeper social interactions among people (social) [
57
]. In parallel,
the sharing economy also supports targets, such as community-building, economic empowerment,
creative expression, but also resource management.
In the last years the concept has, perhaps, become progressively less transparent in a context
where sharing and collaborative frameworks are together linked with a perception of start-ups
and the promotion of small enterprises. All of these models are facilitating and extended by
technology platforms, wherein the three main systems drive within the collaborative consumption
and sharing economy: redistribution markets, product service systems, and collaborative lifestyles
platforms. The principal examples of these business include sectors, such as office space, transportation,
accommodation, tourism, retail products, and financial services. However, sharing models is only a
little part of the large CE picture, and in-depth questions should be asked to have clearer implications
for consumers/users and its shortage of acceptance. In this sense, it is imperative to adopt digital
technologies to increase the use of (and optimize) resources and material flows, and promote the
integration of user and consumption perspectives into design processes in order to integrate them into
circular solutions [58].
4.2.4. Participation and Local Democracy
Participation and local democracy are two ways in which society can express their own opinions,
and in some cases, they can influence decisions makings, for instance, circularity decisions [
59
].
Both aspects can serve as local change mechanisms to educate people, and facilitate information
Sustainability 2020,12, 7912 10 of 17
about a bureau’s activities, and enable people to be part of conducting decisions. On this subject,
the understandings and outcomes from society’s participation can play an important role in tackling
persistent societal problems in a reasonable, transparent, and multi-oriented way, along with enabling
innovations for circularity. Thus, CE strategies should explicitly propose strategic and systematic
approaches to bring all stakeholders, together, to attempt policy coherence. Therefore, all CE actors
must be connected more closely with multi-perspective policy processes and intergovernmental
discussions, and should be organized by a common perspective of a sustainable CE system.
In terms of participation related to environmental issues, there are three levels of participation
recognized: participation in the planning process, participation via information, and participation in
finance decisions. In studies reviewed, different goals and scopes are pursued from the decision making
progress [
60
], stakeholders interest, and perceptions of bio economy [
61
], to consumer perspectives
on CE strategies for reducing wastes [
62
]. These approaches have the power to give an insight base
for short-term democratic and decision-making agendas (of incentives and measures to forward a
potentially sustainable CE) as well as to actually put them into practice.
From a community perspective, greater participation within and by local communities develops
the functional benefits, as mentioned by Korhonen et al. [
63
]. Thus, operation of CE should increase
participative democratic decision-making through a community user. Moreover, it is important to pay
attention, from a stakeholder perspective, since this approach can generate better decisions that are
more likely to be implemented, raise legitimacy, and promote a wider understanding of the complexity
of societal problems. Participation by local actors also plays an important role in a community-centered
perspective that accentuates local empowerment.
Another area related to the community and involvement in decision-making is social acceptance,
also referred to as community acceptance. Community acceptance involves specific acceptance of
citing decisions within projects, in this case, projects related to CE, by local actors, particularly residents
and local authorities. This is the place where the Not in My Backyard (NIMBY) concept spreads.
NIMBY reflects a phenomenon defined as “public opposition to construction of certain public facilities
in urban development” [
64
]. NIMBY conflict increases when residents have different perceptions of
gains and losses resulting from the development of certain projects. This concept is basically an effect
of community perceptions; particularly in the perception of the visual impact, noise, hygiene, safety,
etc., requirements of such facilities, in which most habitants are against [65].
In addition, the NIMBY syndrome is commonly seen as a negative term, involving selfishness,
ignorance, and irrationally, in favor of residents interested in conserving their own turf and putting
their own interests ahead of societal assets [
66
]. Some scientists have criticized this concept since they
argue that it lacks a robust theoretical framework and conceptual models for measuring it, and it
is suggested that the language of NIMBY should be excluded [
67
]. Furthermore, public policy and
researchers need to develop frameworks for understanding public perceptions involving CE strategies
affecting local communities. In this regard, education and awareness raising campaigns could modify
this opposition (NIMBY) and provide a better community cohesion when it comes to implementing
strategies for decision making. However, there is no literature on the relationship between NIMBY
phenomenon and CE initiatives and, therefore, further investigation is required to build on existing
discourse. Implementing these strategies is a way to address citizens’ environmental concerns and
give them access to decision making information about transitioning to CE.
4.2.5. Health and Safety (Occupational and Consumer)
The transition to a CE has implications for the stated priorities of human health in following years.
These priorities include dealing with major disease concerns, strengthening people-centered health
systems and public health capacity, and creating supportive environments and resilient communities,
among others. The CE may affect the burden of disease, both positively, e.g., through reduction of air
pollution due to transition to circular economy mobility and production modes [
68
,
69
], and negatively,
e.g., if hazardous chemicals are not managed to minimize health risks (Garrido-Azevedo et al. [
70
]).
Sustainability 2020,12, 7912 11 of 17
The CE can also contribute to improving the delivery of public health and health care services by
providing a range of cost-saving and efficiency measures. In this regard, the transition to the circular
economy could promote supportive environments and resilient communities to the extent that this
translates into improved well-being and quality of life. Up to now, however, the coverage of the health
link to transition to a circular economy has been nearly insufficient.
There have been a few specific and indirect CE actions that attempted to evaluate and improve
health consequences. Direct actions include those case studies on chemicals of concern, e-waste,
and food safety, while indirect actions would result in reduced global environmental pollution from
production and consumption process. In the context of assessing the health implications of the transition
to a CE, it is necessary to develop a framework to identify pathways through which implementation of
circular economy models may affect human health and welfare. The framework should be designed to
describe the health and welfare impacts identified according to their key characteristics, including
the type of effects (positive/negative, direct/indirect) and the economic sectors and groups affected
(distributional issues). To the extent possible, the framework should draw on and adapt existing
frameworks and classifications from the environment and health literature, including from World
Health Organization (WHO) initiatives. A key question in this context is: to what extent do circular
economy alleviate or contribute to environmental health risks for the vulnerable stakeholders?
4.3. Theoretical Approaches within CE
The multiple choices, in terms of social aspects within CE, are difficult decisions that usually
entail the application/development of theories and frameworks/method/index/approach. In this
review, the documents were classified according their level of empiricism by non-empirical (theoretical
approaches) and empirical studies (analytical assessment, case study, and survey). Regarding
non-empirical studies, they contribute to 22% of papers reviewed. From these studies, 13 articles
use socio-economic theories, as follows: the social and solidarity economy [
56
,
71
,
72
], socio-technical
transition theory [
73
], stakeholder theory [
74
], governance theory [
60
,
75
], historical analysis [
50
,
76
],
grounded theory [
77
], social embeddedness and social capital [
35
], sustainable oriented theory of the
firm [
78
], and Gidden’s structuration theory [
79
]. Table 2maps the use of some theories in the field to
provide future researchers with an orientation and, thus, contributes to the advancement of the field.
Table 2. Principal theories used to develop social dimension within CE.
Theory Overall Purpose of Theory in Terms of Social Performance Measurement
Stakeholder theory
Stakeholder theory can be seen as a tool to the implementation, scope, and quality of social
performance measurement within CE context.
Socio-technical
transition theory This theory can enable a significant change in the socio-technical dimension within CE
case studies.
Network theory
Network theory helps with understanding how the position in a network determines social
performance measurement and interorganizational decision making.
Gidden’s
structuration theory
Understanding this interaction and the feedback between social structures and human
action can improve physical resource management. Thus, making an explicit link between
the institutional drivers of material change and material (stocks and flows) aspects would
allow for increasing the effectiveness of the circular economy initiatives.
Social and solidarity
economy theory
The social and solidarity economy is an instructive and constructive example for the CE,
increasing labor-intensive activities, while raising the quality and diversity of human work
involved in remanufacturing and recycling.
Social
embeddedness and
capital theory
Combination of both theories can be used to understanding and comparability of the role
of the social characteristics in CE activities around the world by quantifying the presence of
these factors and their correlation with CE.
Institutional theory
Institutional theory facilitates understanding how differing institutional settings determine
the social performance measurement and how it helps organizations to assess their
conformity to institutional rules.
Resource-based
view of the firm Resource-based view help analyze how firms can achieve sustainable competitive
advantage through competencies and capabilities in social performance measurement.
Sustainability 2020,12, 7912 12 of 17
4.4. Methods and Tools
Methodologies for quantifying and valuing social aspects are not yet well stablished, however our
results found that approximately 78% of the reviewed literature sample use quantitative related-social
methodologies. The increment of quantitative studies, 44 studies, indicate a progression in social
performance measurement, rising from a theoretical base to a quantitative framework. This is interesting
because, normally, social impacts are often of a qualitative nature and not easily quantifiable [
80
].
The outlook of social indicators in performance measurement can be interrogated if significant
qualitative indicators are overlooked in favor of more easily quantifiable effects.
The overall publication of frameworks for guiding the social dimension within CE are diverse,
principally, four principal approaches are frequently mentioned (in 56% of empirical studies) by
researchers, ranging from United Nations (UN) sustainable development goals (used as target indicators)
(8 articles), forecasting and statistical methods (surveys and Delphi-method) [
81
], (18%), United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) [
82
], (7%) and generic
sustainable indicators (7%) [
83
]. The rest of the approaches (eco-innovative solutions, monitoring
framework, dynamics systems, sustainable business model, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) guidelines and ecological footprint) account for 45% of empirical studies.
4.5. International Reports on Circular Economy and Social Dimension
Throughout this review, scientific papers and proceedings have been analyzed, all of them from
academia; however, it is necessary to mention initiatives from other stakeholders, in this case from
international organizations that consider/include social dimension to pave the way to a more inclusive
and sustainable global economy (Table 3).
Table 3. International reports focus on social aspect of circular economy.
Methodology/Approach Description Social Dimension Weakness
Ellen Macarthur
Foundation [18]
Approach developed to
measure effectiveness of a
company in achieving
transition from linear to
circular models.
Complementary social issues
based on Global Reporting
Initiative (GRI) guidelines
are proposed.
It is not reported how to measure
social issues and how to incorporate
these issues into
circularity indicators.
Towards a greener
economy [84]
Initiative developed to
understand labor
implications in
green economies.
This report focusses on
employment generation by
relocating resources from
high carbon to lower carbon
economies.
The principal lack of this initiative is
that it only focuses on a single
stakeholder and it is missing the
community and
consumers stakeholders.
Social circular economy
opportunities [85]
A report to highlight the
opportunities, insights, and
themes to engage enterprises
and society through the
creation of social
circular enterprises.
The term social circular
economy, a holistic view in
line with UN sustainable
goals to accelerate progress
to a circular economy
is proposed.
The main criticism of this approach
is the lack of indicators and ways to
measure how implementation of a
social circular economy has
improved the society.
The Circular Economy
and Benefits for
Society [86]
A report focused on the
social benefits from linear to
circular economy.
The report aims to explore
employment benefits and
CO2reductions in Poland
and Czech Republic by
evaluating
circular strategies.
It only measured employment in
terms of economic indicators (jobs
generated), it did not specify quality
issues, such as skills and training,
involved in circular
economy strategies.
Handbook for product
social impact assessment
[87]
This report describes a
methodology to assess social
impacts of products and
services with focus on life
cycle approach.
Regarding CE, these metrics
discuss how CE strategies
can have potential social
impacts on social actors
along the product
value chain.
The incorporation of CE seems to be
ambiguous and no identification is
made on how CE-strategy analysis
could improve social well-being
or equity.
Sustainability 2020,12, 7912 13 of 17
5. Conclusions and Final Remarks
This systematic literature review has highlighted that, despite being advocated as a tool for
sustainable development, current CE framework is not clear if it can promote the social well-being
for this generation and generations to come. In addition, it is uncertain whether the CE can be a
more sustainable model than a linear economy. Furthermore, social dimension is an important area
in the domains of CE and sustainable development. As such, academia, governments, and firms are
increasingly striving to achieve a comprehensive understanding and valid measurement of social
dimension to influence the overall implementation of CE as a means to achieve sustainable development.
The results have shown that, besides the environmental impacts of CE strategies, social impacts
are receiving more and more attention in the transition towards a circular economy. Moreover, various
trends and patterns in data extracted from the systematic literature review were confirmed. The main
conclusions followed the research questions posed at the beginning of this work; they can be stated as:
(1) social aspects are relevant in CE since they can give an overview on how strategies and actions
impact or benefit society; moreover, social aspects can bring better understanding of circular economy
monitoring. (2) The most cited socio-economic aspects related to CE found in this literature review were
those related to employment, health and safety, and participation; however, there were other social
issues that were relevant, but were not included in studies analyzed. These issues were: eradicating
poverty, food security, and gender equity. We consider these social issues important because they could
help in understanding the negative externalities created by moving to a circular economy. (3) In terms
of tools and metrics used for social dimension within CE, we found that SLCA can be used to include
social aspects of goods and services within a life cycle perspective, to complement environmental and
economic dimension of CE. These social aspects, inherently linked with circular economy goods and
services, must be included for engineering tools and should not be neglected.
Our review has shown that there is no consensus (as yet) to select an appropriate framework or
approach that considers all social issues, due to its dependence on the scope of the study, data availability,
and the priorities of the group of interest involved in the CE under consideration. Contrarily, the
reviewed papers have not tried to cover multiple aspects; the studies are focused on very narrow
aspects, where the main efforts focused on employment. However, the social aspects covered are useful
when evaluating the social impacts of a circular economy. After reviewing all of the papers, we outlined
that diverse social impacts can be associated with circular economy, particularly, circular economy
strategies. These potential impacts are based on the affected stakeholder groups, i.e., those produced
on (1) workers, small-case enterprises and local communities, in the product value chain, and those
produced on (2) users of products and services. The distinguishments are based on circular economy
strategies that are focused on closing material loops (workers, small enterprises, and local communities),
and using products more efficiently (final users).
Therefore, this review can help CE practitioners by providing directions about aspects to be
considered in the development of a holistic framework, to measure the social impacts of circular
strategies, and to take into account all stakeholders involved in the supply chain. However, future
research should begin to analyze the importance of other dimensions that matter concerning CE,
such as governance and cultural aspects. As per our understanding, these two aspects are crucial
to continue research on CE. This may require significant re-examination of the current theory, and,
thus, lead to a new paradigm of CE. This led us to incorporate a wider win–win vision of the CE.
Moreover, further studies should define and specify how to measure social indicators and how circular
economy practices can improve human well-being in society. Real-world case studies to facilitate the
development of a circularity database, particularly for social impacts of the circular economy, need to
be implemented. In fact, this could only be done by comparing social aspects of a linear economy
against a circular economy—some years after implementation—and sustained with different indicators
for circularity. Alternately, the real-world-case could look at two regions, where one is circular and the
other is lineal, although there may be a regional bias on the social aspects considered.
Sustainability 2020,12, 7912 14 of 17
Despite the remaining challenges, considering the current social aspects, it can be an outset point
for evaluating the social dimension in the circular economy to inform decision makers about enhancing,
or preventing, social impact derived from circular economy strategies.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/19/7912/s1.
Author Contributions:
A.P.-R.: Conceptualization, methodology, investigation, and writing. S.R.-G.: writing—review
and editing. N.M.: review and editing and supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding:
This research was funded by Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnolog
í
a (M
é
xico) grant number: 740519.
And the APC was funded by UQAM.
Acknowledgments:
The authors would like to thank Francois Saunier for his help in the preparation of this work.
The CONACYT (Mexico) for financial support and CIRAIG are also gratefully acknowledged.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Prieto-Sandoval, V.; Jaca, C.; Ormazabal, M. Towards a consensus on the circular economy. J. Clean. Prod.
2018,179, 605–615. [CrossRef]
2.
Zhu, J.; Fan, C.; Shi, H.; Shi, L. Efforts for a Circular Economy in China: A Comprehensive Review of Policies.
J. Ind. Ecol. 2018,23, 110–118. [CrossRef]
3.
Korhonen, J.; Honkasalo, A.; Seppälä, J. Circular Economy: The Concept and its Limitations. Ecol. Econ.
2018,143, 37–46. [CrossRef]
4.
Tomi´c, T.; Schneider, D.R. Circular economy in waste management—Socio-economic effect of changes in
waste management system structure. J. Environ. Manag. 2020,267, 110564. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5.
Geissdoerfer, M.; Savaget, P.; Bocken, N.M.P.; Hultink, E.J. The Circular Economy—A new sustainability
paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 2017,143, 757–768. [CrossRef]
6.
Merino-Saum, A.; Baldi, M.G.; Gunderson, I.; Oberle, B. Articulating natural resources and sustainable
development goals through green economy indicators: A systematic analysis. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
2018,139, 90–103. [CrossRef]
7.
Schroeder, P.; Anggraeni, K.; Weber, U. The Relevance of Circular Economy Practices to the Sustainable
Development Goals. J. Ind. Ecol. 2018,23, 77–95. [CrossRef]
8.
Murray, A.; Skene, K.; Haynes, K. The Circular Economy: An Interdisciplinary Exploration of the Concept
and Application in a Global Context. J. Bus. Ethics 2017,140, 369–380. [CrossRef]
9.
Kirchherr, J.; Reike, D.; Hekkert, M. Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017,127, 221–232. [CrossRef]
10.
De P
á
dua Pieroni, M.; Pigosso, D.C.A.; McAloone, T.C. Sustainable Qualifying Criteria for Designing Circular
Business Models. In Procedia CIRP; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; Volume 69, pp. 799–804.
11.
Homrich, A.S.; Galv
ã
o, G.; Abadia, L.G.; Carvalho, M.M. The circular economy umbrella: Trends and gaps
on integrating pathways. J. Clean. Prod. 2018,175, 525–543. [CrossRef]
12.
Borrello, M.; Pascucci, S.; Cembalo, L. Three propositions to unify circular economy research: A review.
Sustainability 2020,12, 4069. [CrossRef]
13.
Lammi, M.; Anttonen, M.; Bamford, I.; Antikainen, M.; Naumanen, M. Turning Finland into a country of
circular economy: What kind of a process of change should we seek? In Proceedings of the Sustainable Design
and Manufacturing 2019, Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, Budapest, Hungary,
28 July 2019
;
Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH: Berlin, Germany, 2019; Volume 155, pp. 215–228.
14. CIRAIG. Circular Economy: A Critical Literature Review of Concepts; CIRAIG: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2015.
15.
Tranfield, D.; Denyer, D.; Smart, P. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management
Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. Br. J. Manag. 2003,14, 207–222. [CrossRef]
16.
Becheikh, N.; Landry, R.; Amara, N. Lessons from innovation empirical studies in the manufacturing sector:
A systematic review of the literature from 1993–2003. Technovation 2006,26, 644–664. [CrossRef]
17.
Sassanelli, C.; Rosa, P.; Rocca, R.; Terzi, S. Circular economy performance assessment methods: A systematic
literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019,229, 440–453. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020,12, 7912 15 of 17
18.
(EMF) Ellen Macarthur Foundation. Circularity Indicators: An Aproach to Measuring Circularity;
EMF: Cowes, UK, 2015.
19.
Pinjing, H.; Fan, L.; Hua, Z.; Liming, S. Recent Developments in the Area of Waste as a Resource, with Particular
Reference to the Circular Economy as a Guiding Principle. In Waste as a Resource; Royal Society of Chemistry
(RSC): Cambridge, UK, 2013; pp. 144–161.
20.
European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Towards a Circular Economy: A Zero Waste
Programme for Europe; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2014.
21.
Ghisellini, P.; Cialani, C.; Ulgiati, S. A review on circular economy: The expected transition to a balanced
interplay of environmental and economic systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2016,114, 11–32. [CrossRef]
22.
EPA. Summary of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; United States Environmental Protection Agency:
Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
23.
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/p2/pollution-prevention-act-1990
(accessed on 1 January 2003).
24.
Egenolf, V.; Bringezu, S.; Egenolf, V.; Bringezu, S. Conceptualization of an Indicator System for Assessing the
Sustainability of the Bioeconomy. Sustainability 2019,11, 443. [CrossRef]
25.
Pitkänen, K.; Antikainen, R.; Droste, N.; Loiseau, E.; Saikku, L.; Aissani, L.; Hansjürgens, B.; Kuikman, P.J.J.;
Leskinen, P.; Thomsen, M. What can be learned from practical cases of green economy? –Studies from five
European countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2016,139, 666–676. [CrossRef]
26.
Sun, L.; Spekkink, W.; Cuppen, E.; Korevaar, G. Coordination of industrial symbiosis through anchoring.
Sustainability 2017,9, 549. [CrossRef]
27. Girard, L.F.; Nocca, F. From linear to circular tourism. Aestimum 2017,70, 51–74. [CrossRef]
28.
Azevedo, S.G.; Godina, R.; Matias, J.C.O. Proposal of a Sustainable Circular Index for Manufacturing
Companies. Resources 2017,6, 63. [CrossRef]
29.
Biber-Freudenberger, L.; Basukala, A.K.; Bruckner, M.; Börner, J. Sustainability performance of national
bio-economies. Sustainability 2018,10, 2705. [CrossRef]
30.
Laurenti, R.; Martin, M.; Stenmarck, Å. Developing Adequate Communication of Waste Footprints of
Products for a Circular Economy—A Stakeholder Consultation. Resources 2018,7, 78. [CrossRef]
31.
Millar, N.; McLaughlin, E.; Börger, T. The Circular Economy: Swings and Roundabouts? Elsevier: Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 2019; Volume 158, pp. 11–19.
32.
Zhao, H.; Guo, S.; Zhao, H. Comprehensive benefit evaluation of eco-industrial parks by employing the
best-worst method based on circular economy and sustainability. Environ. Dev. Sustain.
2018
,20, 1229–1253.
[CrossRef]
33.
Iacovidou, E.; Velis, C.A.; Purnell, P.; Zwirner, O.; Brown, A.; Hahladakis, J.; Millward-Hopkins, J.;
Williams, P.T. Metrics for optimising the multi-dimensional value of resources recovered from waste in a
circular economy: A critical review. J. Clean. Prod. 2017,166, 910–938. [CrossRef]
34.
Mattila, T.J.; Judl, J.; Macombe, C.; Leskinen, P. Evaluating social sustainability of bioeconomy value chains
through integrated use of local and global methods. Biomass Bioenergy 2018,109, 276–283. [CrossRef]
35.
Ashton, W.S.; Bain, A.C. Assessing the “Short Mental Distance” in Eco-Industrial Networks. J. Ind. Ecol.
2012,16, 70–82. [CrossRef]
36.
Merli, R.; Preziosi, M.; Acampora, A. How do scholars approach the circular economy? A systematic
literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018,178, 703–722. [CrossRef]
37.
Geisendorf, S.; Pietrulla, F. The circular economy and circular economic concepts—A literature analysis and
redefinition. Thunderbird Int. Bus. Rev. 2018,60, 771–782. [CrossRef]
38.
Domenech, T.; Bleischwitz, R.; Doranova, A.; Panayotopoulos, D.; Roman, L. Mapping Industrial Symbiosis
Development in Europe_typologies of networks, characteristics, performance and contribution to the Circular
Economy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019,141, 76–98. [CrossRef]
39.
He, G.; Chen, C.; Zhang, L.; Lu, Y. Public perception and attitude towards chemical industry park in Dalian,
Bohai Rim. Environ. Pollut. 2018,235, 825–835. [CrossRef]
40.
Winkler, B.; Maier, A.; Lewandowski, I. Urban gardening in Germany: Cultivating a sustainable lifestyle for
the societal transition to a bioeconomy. Sustainability 2019,11, 801. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020,12, 7912 16 of 17
41.
Jasineviˇcius, G.; Lindner, M.; Verkerk, P.J.; Aleinikovas, M. Assessing impacts of wood utilisation scenarios
for a Lithuanian bioeconomy: Impacts on carbon in forests and harvested wood products and on the
socio-economic performance of the forest-based sector. Forests 2017,8, 133. [CrossRef]
42.
Hutchins, M.J.; Richter, J.S.; Henry, M.L.; Sutherland, J.W. Development of indicators for the social dimension
of sustainability in a U.S. business context. J. Clean. Prod. 2019,212, 687–697. [CrossRef]
43.
Dempsey, N.; Bramley, G.; Power, S.; Brown, C. The Social Dimension of Sustainable Development: Defi
ning Urban Social Sustainability. Sustain. Dev. 2011,19, 289–300. [CrossRef]
44. Morseletto, P. Targets for a circular economy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020,153, 104553. [CrossRef]
45.
Pociov
ă
li¸steanu, D.M.; Novo-Corti, I.; Aceleanu, M.I.; ¸Serban, A.C.; Grecu, E. Employment policies for a
green economy at the European Union level. Sustainability 2015,7, 9231–9250. [CrossRef]
46.
EHORE. Circular Jobs: Understanding Employment in the Circular Economy in the Netherlands; Coöperatieve
Circle Economy UA: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017.
47.
Larsson, A.; Lindfred, L. Digitalization, circular economy and the future of labor. In The Digital Transformation
of Labor; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2019; pp. 280–315.
48.
Nahman, A.; Mahumani, B.K.; de Lange, W.J. Beyond GDP: Towards a Green Economy Index. Dev. South.
Afr. 2016,33, 215–233. [CrossRef]
49.
Siyambalapitiya, J.; Zhang, X.; Liu, X. Is governmentality the missing link for greening the economic growth?
Sustainability 2018,10, 4204. [CrossRef]
50.
Naess, P. Sustainable Communities. The Potential for Eco-Neighbourhoods; Barton, H., Ed.; 17.95 (paperback);
Earthscan: London, UK, 2000; p. 305. ISBN 1-85383-513-7. J. Environ. Policy Plan.
2001
,3, 327–328. [CrossRef]
51.
Xue, B.; Chen, X.; Geng, Y.; Guo, X.; Lu, C.; Zhang, Z.; Lu, C. Survey of officials’ awareness on circular
economy development in China: Based on municipal and county level. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
2010
,54,
1296–1302. [CrossRef]
52.
Geng, Y.; Dobertein, B. Developing the circular economy in China: Challenges and opportunities for achieving
“leapfrog development. ” Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2008,15, 231–239. [CrossRef]
53.
Zhijun, F.; Nailing, Y. Putting a circular economy into practice in China. Sustain. Sci.
2007
,2, 95–101.
[CrossRef]
54. Van Den Bergh, J.C.J.M. The GDP paradox. J. Econ. Psychol. 2008,30, 117–135. [CrossRef]
55.
Moreau, V.; Sahakian, M.; van Griethuysen, P.; Vuille, F.F.F. Coming Full Circle: Why Social and Institutional
Dimensions Matter for the Circular Economy. J. Ind. Ecol. 2017,21, 497–506. [CrossRef]
56.
Heinrichs, H. Sharing Economy: A Potential New Pathway to Sustainability. GAIA Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc.
2013,22, 228–231. [CrossRef]
57.
Cherry, C.E.E.; Pidgeon, N.F.F. Is sharing the solution? Exploring public acceptability of the sharing economy.
J. Clean. Prod. 2018,195, 939–948. [CrossRef]
58.
Camacho-Otero, J.; Boks, C.; Pettersen, I.N. Consumption in the circular economy: A literature review.
Sustainability 2018,10, 2758. [CrossRef]
59.
Bolger, K.; Doyon, A. Circular cities: Exploring local government strategies to facilitate a circular economy.
Eur. Plan. Stud. 2019,27, 2184–2205. [CrossRef]
60.
Puppim de Oliveira, J.A.; Doll, C.N.H.; Balaban, O.; Jiang, P.; Dreyfus, M.; Suwa, A.; Moreno-Peñaranda, R.;
Dirgahayani, P. Green economy and governance in cities: Assessing good governance in key urban economic
processes. J. Clean. Prod. 2013,58, 138–152. [CrossRef]
61.
Zeug, W.; Bezama, A.; Moesenfechtel, U.; Jähkel, A.; Thrän, D. Stakeholders’ Interests and Perceptions of
Bioeconomy Monitoring Using a Sustainable Development Goal Framework. Sustainability
2019
,11, 1511.
[CrossRef]
62.
Borrello, M.; Caracciolo, F.; Lombardi, A.; Pascucci, S.; Cembalo, L. Consumers’ perspective on circular
economy strategy for reducing food waste. Sustainability 2017,9, 141. [CrossRef]
63.
Korhonen, J.; Giurca, A.; Brockhaus, M.; Toppinen, A. Actors and politics in Finland’s forest-based bioeconomy
network. Sustainability 2018,10, 3785. [CrossRef]
64.
Sun, L.; Yung, E.H.K.; Chan, E.H.W.; Zhu, D. Issues of NIMBY conflict management from the perspective of
stakeholders: A case study in Shanghai. Habitat Int. 2016,53, 133–141. [CrossRef]
65.
Den Boer, J.; den Boer, E.; Jager, J. LCA-IWM: A decision support tool for sustainability assessment of waste
management systems. Waste Manag. 2007,27, 1032–1045. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020,12, 7912 17 of 17
66.
Petrova, M.A. From NIMBY to acceptance: Toward a novel framework—VESPA—For organizing and
interpreting community concerns. Renew. Energy 2016,86, 1280–1294. [CrossRef]
67.
Devine-Wright, P. Beyond NIMBYism: Towards an integrated framework for understanding public
perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy 2005,8, 125–139. [CrossRef]
68.
Pei, S.-L.L.; Shah, K.J.; Gao, M.; Kim, H.; Pan, S.-Y.Y.; Chiang, P.-C.C. Advances and challenges in sustainable
tourism toward a green economy. Sci. Total Environ. 2018,635, 452–469. [CrossRef]
69.
Sacirovic, S.; Ketin, S.; Vignjevic, N. Eco-industrial zones in the context of sustainability development of
urban areas. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018,26, 24346–24356. [CrossRef]
70.
Garrido Azevedo, S.; Matias, J.C.O. Corporate Sustainability: The New Pillar of the Circular Economy;
Nova Science Publishers: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2017.
71.
Sahakian, M. The social and solidarity economy: Why is it relevant to industrial ecology? In Taking Stock of
Industrial Ecology; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 205–227, ISBN 9783319205717.
72.
Gutberlet, J.; Carenzo, S.; Kain, J.-H.; Mantovani Martiniano de Azevedo, A. Waste Picker Organizations and
Their Contribution to the Circular Economy: Two Case Studies from a Global South Perspective. Resources
2017,6, 52. [CrossRef]
73.
Allam, Z.; Jones, D. Towards a Circular Economy: A Case Study of Waste Conversion into Housing Units in
Cotonou, Benin. Urban Sci. 2018,2, 118. [CrossRef]
74.
Chiappetta Jabbour, C.J.; Sarkis, J.; Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.; Scott Renwick, D.W.; Singh, S.K.;
Grebinevych, O.; Kruglianskas, I.; Filho, M.G. Who is in charge? A review and a research agenda on the
‘human side’ of the circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2019,222, 793–801. [CrossRef]
75.
Dietz, T.; Börner, J.; Förster, J.J.; Von Braun, J.; Dietz, T.; Börner, J.; Förster, J.J.; Von Braun, J. Governance of the
Bioeconomy: A Global Comparative Study of National Bioeconomy Strategies. Sustainability
2018
,10, 3190.
[CrossRef]
76.
Morales, E.M.; Diemer, A.; Cervantes, G.; Carrillo-Gonz
á
lez, G. “By-product synergy” changes in the
industrial symbiosis dynamics at the Altamira-Tampico industrial corridor: 20 Years of industrial ecology in
Mexico. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019,140, 235–245. [CrossRef]
77.
Domenech, T.; Davies, M.; Dom
é
nech, T.; Davies, M.; Domenech, T.; Davies, M.; Dom
é
nech, T.; Davies, M.
The role of Embeddedness in Industrial Symbiosis Networks: Phases in the Evolution of Industrial Symbiosis
Networks. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2011,20, 281–296. [CrossRef]
78.
Aquilani, B.; Silvestri, C.; Ioppolo, G.; Ruggieri, A. The challenging transition to bio-economies: Towards
a new framework integrating corporate sustainability and value co-creation. J. Clean. Prod.
2018
,172,
4001–4009. [CrossRef]
79.
Laurenti, R.; Singh, J.; Frostell, B.; Sinha, R.; Binder, C.R. The socio-economic embeddedness of the circular
economy: An integrative framework. Sustainability 2018,10, 2129. [CrossRef]
80. Kühnen, M.; Hahn, R. Indicators in Social Life Cycle Assessment: A Review of Frameworks, Theories, and
Empirical Experience. J. Ind. Ecol. 2017,21, 1547–1565. [CrossRef]
81.
Okoli, C.; Pawlowski, S.D. The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and
applications. Inf. Manag. 2004,42, 15–29. [CrossRef]
82. Weidema, B.P. ISO 14044 also Applies to Social LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2005,10, 381. [CrossRef]
83.
Sala, S.; Farioli, F.; Zamagni, A. Life cycle sustainability assessment in the context of sustainability science
progress (part 2). Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013,18, 1686–1697. [CrossRef]
84. International Labour Organization. Towards a Greener Economy: The Social Dimensions; International Labour
Organisation: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011.
85.
Social Circular Economy, Social Circular Economy: Opportunities for People, Planet and Profit.
Available online: http://www.socialcirculareconomy.com/news (accessed on 30 December 2017).
86.
Wijkman, A.; Skånberg, K. The Circular Economy and Benefits for Society: Jobs and Climate Clear Winners in an
Economy Based on Renewable Energy and Resource Efficiency; Club of Rome: Rome, Italy, 2015.
87.
Goedkoop, M.; Indrane, D.; de Beer, I.M. Product Social Impact Assessment Handbook; PSIA: Amersfoort,
The Netherlands, 2018.
©
2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
