Content uploaded by Joan Manuel F. Mendoza
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joan Manuel F. Mendoza on Jan 12, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
This is a draft chapter. The final version of the paper will be available in the Handbook of the Circular
Economy, edited by Brandão, M., Lazarevic, D., Finnveden, G. (December 2020). Edward Elgar
Publishing Ltd. The material cannot be used for any other purpose without further permission of the
publisher, and is for private use only.
Link to the forthcoming handbook: https://www.e-
elgar.com/shop/gbp/catalog/product/view/_ignore_category/1/id/16687/s/handbook-of-the-circular-
economy-9781788972710/.
1
Implementation of a circular economy at universities
Joan Manuel F. Mendozaa,b, Alejandro Gallego-Schmida,c, and Adisa Azapagica
aSustainable Industrial Systems, School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, The
Mill, The University of Manchester, Sackville Street, M13 9PL Manchester, United Kingdom.
bIndustrial Organisation and Management, Faculty of Engineering, Mondragon Unibertsitatea,
20500 Arrasate-Mondragon, Gipuzkoa, Spain
cTyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil
Engineering, The University of Manchester, Pariser Building, Sackville Street, Manchester M13
9PL, UK. (*)
*Corresponding author: jmfernandez@mondragon.edu.
Abstract
The circular economy (CE) literature has so far focused on the implementation of the CE
philosophy in teaching and research at universities. However, studies on the implementation
of CE principles for sustainable campus management are lacking. This chapter shows how
the latter may be achieved using the University of Manchester as an illustrative case. A CE
decision-support framework was used for these purposes to help the university identify
opportunities and develop a pragmatic action plan for implementation of a CE. The chapter
also illustrates the first steps that need to be taken to build a CE business case. Future
research should focus on quantifying the sustainability implications of implementing a CE in
universities, including definition of meaningful performance indicators, stakeholder benefits
and how university living labs can be used for experimentation towards CE implementation.
This could help monitor CE progress and benchmark universities on their circularity and
sustainability performance.
Keywords: Resource efficiency; Service sector; Sustainable campus; Backcasting; Eco-
design; Sustainable business models.
<a> Introduction
Universities are key agents for the socio-economic development of regions through
knowledge creation (research), knowledge transfer (teaching) and community development
(social outreach activities) (OECD 2010). Thus, they play a pivotal role in supporting
sustainable development (Ferrer-Balas et al. 2008) because they can facilitate the processes
through which sustainability innovations can flourish and thrive (Stephen et al. 2008).
Paradoxically, although universities are recognised as organisations which foster change,
they tend to be quite conservative and resistant to change themselves due to rigid
governance structures and conservative mindsets (Elton 2003). However, the shift towards a
more resource efficient and sustainable economy calls for system-level changes in the way
organisations operate in order to move away from business-as-usual incremental solutions
and tackle unsustainable practices (Wells 2013).
Teaching, research and social outreach activities entail significant resource consumption,
waste generation and environmental impacts. Focusing on the UK as an example, the annual
energy expenditure by universities amounts to £400M, resulting in 3.1 Mt of greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions (Carbon Trust 2012). The former is equivalent to the net annual average
earnings of around 26,000 people in the European Union (EU) (EUROSTAT 2018a),
whereas the latter equals the annual GHG emissions by more than 1,550,000 EU
households (EEA 2014). Likewise, over 322,000 t/year of waste are disposed into landfills by
This is a draft chapter. The final version of the paper will be available in the Handbook of the Circular
Economy, edited by Brandão, M., Lazarevic, D., Finnveden, G. (December 2020). Edward Elgar
Publishing Ltd. The material cannot be used for any other purpose without further permission of the
publisher, and is for private use only.
Link to the forthcoming handbook: https://www.e-
elgar.com/shop/gbp/catalog/product/view/_ignore_category/1/id/16687/s/handbook-of-the-circular-
economy-9781788972710/.
2
UK universities alone (EAUC 2016), equivalent to the annual municipal waste generation by
almost 692,000 people in the EU (EUROSTAT 2018b).
Accordingly, universities should not be perceived only as sustainability drivers through
teaching, research and social outreach activities but also as organisations that should
practise sustainability across campuses in order to lead by example (Stephens et al. 2008).
However, little attention has been given in the literature to the analysis of the potential
benefits from the implementation of circular economy (CE) principles within strategic
sustainability-based decision-making processes as a mechanism for enhancing sustainable
resource management of campus operations. The later has been recently addressed by
Mendoza et al. (2019a, 2019b) in two different ways, considering the University of
Manchester as an illustrative example of a university:
i. Exploration of barriers and opportunities for the implementation of CE thinking in campus
management through the analysis of the scope of corporate sustainability policies and the
engagement of university staff (Mendoza et al. 2019a).
ii. Application of a comprehensive action-led approach to help staff make the first steps in
building a business case for CE strategy development (Mendoza et al. 2019b).
Based on the above findings, this chapter examines the current reality, including barriers,
challenges and opportunities, for the implementation of CE solutions in universities with the
aim or achieving more sustainable resource management.
<a> Methodology
The so-called Backcasting and Eco-design for Circular Economy (BECE) framework
(Mendoza et al. 2017) was used as a guide to identify gaps and opportunities for driving
operational and organisational change towards the implementation of a CE in the University
of Manchester. BECE is a generic and flexible action-led framework that was developed to
guide product-based and service-oriented organisations in building circular and sustainable
business models.
The most relevant features of the BECE framework are:
i) it integrates explicitly CE principles to guide sustainable innovation;
ii) it is underpinned by CE actions, each representing a relevant CE opportunity;
iii) it focuses on implementation, supporting the integration of CE requirements into
business practice;
iv) it takes a strategic view of a CE by starting with an ambitious vision, which allows an
organisation to define the direction and scope of its future CE activities;
v) it enables selection and modular use of different analytical and decision-support tools as
needed for specific cases; and
vi) by combining backcasting (Vergragt and Quist 2011) and eco‐design (Crul and Diehl
2009), the framework bridges the gap between the strategic and operational levels,
providing tools for both top‐down and bottom-up strategic planning and actions, which is
key for a successful realisation of the CE concept (Mendoza et al. 2017).
For these reasons, the BECE framework was considered appropriate to guide the
identification, evaluation and prioritisation of opportunities for CE implementation in
universities, using Manchester as an illustrative example of a large university wishing to “go
circular” (Mendoza et al. 2019a, 2019b). Figure 1 describes how the action-led BECE
framework was applied in the university context.
This is a draft chapter. The final version of the paper will be available in the Handbook of the Circular
Economy, edited by Brandão, M., Lazarevic, D., Finnveden, G. (December 2020). Edward Elgar
Publishing Ltd. The material cannot be used for any other purpose without further permission of the
publisher, and is for private use only.
Link to the forthcoming handbook: https://www.e-
elgar.com/shop/gbp/catalog/product/view/_ignore_category/1/id/16687/s/handbook-of-the-circular-
economy-9781788972710/.
3
Building on the findings from a preliminary background (desktop-research) and foreground
analysis (expert interviews), the framework was developed comprising the following five
steps (Figure 1):
A – Definition of a CE vision and analyse drivers and barriers
B – Evaluation of the baseline CE and sustainability performance
C – Analysis of feasible CE opportunities
D – Development of a CE action plan
E – Implementation and review.
Steps A-D were developed through two participatory workshops. The first workshop on gaps
analysis involved the development of steps A and B by applying backcasting. The second
workshop on opportunity assessment entailed the development of steps C and D by applying
eco-design thinking. The final step E is the ultimate responsibility of the focal organisation.
However, guidelines are provided to facilitate this process.
A brief description of each step is provided in the subsections below. Detailed descriptions of
each methodological step, including the process for stakeholder engagement and
development of semi-structured interviews, the design of the participatory workshops and the
application of the supporting analytical tools can be found in Mendoza et al. (2019a, 2019b).
Define a CE vision
and analyse
barriers and
drivers
Evaluate the
baseline CE and
sustainability
performance
Analyse
feasible CE
opportunities
Develop a CE
action plan
Implement
and review)
Focal
organisation
ReSOLVE
checklist
Prioritisation
matrix
Circular and
sustainable
business
model canvas
Plan-do-
check-act Guiding
questions
Background and
foreground
analysis
A
B
D
E
C
Workshops
This is a draft chapter. The final version of the paper will be available in the Handbook of the Circular
Economy, edited by Brandão, M., Lazarevic, D., Finnveden, G. (December 2020). Edward Elgar
Publishing Ltd. The material cannot be used for any other purpose without further permission of the
publisher, and is for private use only.
Link to the forthcoming handbook: https://www.e-
elgar.com/shop/gbp/catalog/product/view/_ignore_category/1/id/16687/s/handbook-of-the-circular-
economy-9781788972710/.
4
Figure 1 An overview of the BECE framework applied in the research. Adapted from Mendoza et al.
(2017, 2019a, 2019b). [BECE: Backcasting and eco-design for circular economy; CE: Circular
economy; ReSOLVE – Regenerate, share, optimise, loop, virtualise, exchange.]
<b> Background and foreground analysis
A background analysis comprises the evaluation of the scope of the corporate sustainability
policies of the focal university to get an overview of the organisation’s awareness of and
capabilities in CE and sustainability management. Accordingly, the most relevant corporate
sustainability policies of the University of Manchester were analysed, including Manchester
2020 Strategic Plan (UoM 2015), Campus Masterplan 2012-2022 (UoM 2012),
Environmental Sustainability Strategy (UoM 2016), Sustainable Resources Plan (UoM
2017a) and Living Campus Plan (UoM 2017b).
A foreground analysis is aimed at gathering detailed information about the effectiveness of
the mechanisms (e.g. frameworks, tools and indicators) employed by university staff for
identifying, evaluating and monitoring the implementation of sustainability strategies. This is
facilitated through engagement and interview of stakeholders with different roles and
responsibilities along the governance structure. A team of four sustainability-oriented
academics (Sustainable Chemical Engineering, Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and
Environmental Governance) and eight technical staff (Capital Projects, Design Services,
Residential Services, Environmental Sustainability Coordinator and Officer, Procurement,
Technical Services, and Waste Management) from the University of Manchester was
engaged to participate in individual semi-structured interviews.
As a result of both analyses, the current level of implementation of CE thinking by the
university was determined, including the identification of high-level opportunities to drive
change.
<b> STEP A: Vision definition and analysis of barriers and drivers
This step involves the envisioning a CE model coherent with the university´s core goals and
priorities. To facilitate this process in the first workshop, participants were asked:
What do you think a circular economy model for sustainable campus
management would look like in the future?
Afterwards, a number of guiding questions were asked to initiate a group discussion:
i) What does success look like around this vision?
ii) What are we looking to accomplish?
iii) What impact do we want to have?
iv) What are the potential benefits?
v) How will we know when we get there?
Accordingly, drivers, challenges and opportunities for CE implementation were identified.
This is a draft chapter. The final version of the paper will be available in the Handbook of the Circular
Economy, edited by Brandão, M., Lazarevic, D., Finnveden, G. (December 2020). Edward Elgar
Publishing Ltd. The material cannot be used for any other purpose without further permission of the
publisher, and is for private use only.
Link to the forthcoming handbook: https://www.e-
elgar.com/shop/gbp/catalog/product/view/_ignore_category/1/id/16687/s/handbook-of-the-circular-
economy-9781788972710/.
5
<b> STEP B: Evaluation of the circular economy and sustainability performance
The Business Model Canvas (BMC) is a strategic management tool used to facilitate a
structured analysis of the performance of an organisation (Osterwalder and Pigneur 2010).
However, the traditional BMC is not able to support sustainability-oriented evaluations
because it is economically-driven for profit generation (Joyce and Paquin 2016). Thus, a
Circular and Sustainable Business Model Canvas (CSBMC) was developed to get an
overview of the university’s baseline circularity and sustainability performance (Mendoza et
al. 2019b). The CSBMC follows the same structure as the traditional BMC but integrates CE-
and sustainability-oriented questions with the list of economic-oriented questions posed to
the participants to analyse the performance of the organisation. As a result, gaps for
improvement were identified. For further details on the CSBMC and the questions posed to
the workshop participants, see Mendoza et al. (2019b).
<b> STEP C: Analysis of feasible circular economy solutions
The ReSOLVE checklist (EMF 2015) was used to structure the analysis of CE solutions for
potential implementation in the university context. This checklist consists of six strategic
actions – regenerate, share, optimise, loop, virtualise and exchange – that comply with the
CE principles of preserving and enhancing natural capital, optimising resource yields, and
designing out negative externalities (EMF 2015).
According to the EMF (2015), the greatest potential for Universities lies in the implementation
of the following three ReSOLVE actions:
virtualise: displacing resource consumption by delivering products and utilities virtually
through service provision;
share: maximising asset utilisation by promoting reuse, maintenance and sharing; and
optimise: reducing resource consumption per product/service unit and eliminating waste
generation in supply chains.
Therefore, only these ReSOLVE actions were considered in the analysis.
Demonstrative case studies gathered from different databases, such as EMF (2017), Circle
Economy (2017) and Arup (2016), were grouped into virtualise, share and optimise CE
actions. These case studies were used to demonstrate how organisations (outside the
university sector) are developing CE actions through business model and product-service
innovation. This activity facilitated creative thinking, open dialogue and idea exchange for the
prioritisation of CE actions.
<b> STEP D: Development of a circular economy action plan
Based on Crul and Diehl (2009), an opportunity prioritisation matrix was used to group CE
solutions based on their potential resource, environmental or social gains compared to their
technical or economic feasibility. Consequently, an action plan for CE implementation was
developed.
<b> STEP E: Circular economy strategy implementation and review
The most promising CE solutions should be implemented across the campus to maximise
overall resource efficiency and sustainability performance. Periodic monitoring and revision
This is a draft chapter. The final version of the paper will be available in the Handbook of the Circular
Economy, edited by Brandão, M., Lazarevic, D., Finnveden, G. (December 2020). Edward Elgar
Publishing Ltd. The material cannot be used for any other purpose without further permission of the
publisher, and is for private use only.
Link to the forthcoming handbook: https://www.e-
elgar.com/shop/gbp/catalog/product/view/_ignore_category/1/id/16687/s/handbook-of-the-circular-
economy-9781788972710/.
6
of the outcomes should be carried out following the plan-do-check-act approach to ensure
continuous improvements.
<a> Results and discussion
This section presents a summary of the key findings, including the opportunities to embed
CE thinking in sustainable campus management by the University of Manchester.
<b> Key findings from the background and foreground analyses
Although there is no mention of the CE concept in the university’s sustainability policies,
there are a number of environmental sustainability strategies in place that resonate with the
CE concept. These include the marketplace online platform for the reuse of second-hand
products, the university furniture and IT reuse centres, trayless dining areas and provision of
reusable mugs in food halls, virtualisation of services, recycling facilities and green spaces
(UoM 2017a, 2017b).
However, most of these strategies are limited in scope because they concentrate on
reducing resource consumption, waste generation and direct carbon emissions rather than
rethinking current processes to achieve more sustainable resource management. Indeed, the
stakeholder interviews demonstrated that the university´s sustainability policies have been
developed without incorporating CE thinking due to a lack of understanding of its practical
application in the university context and the uncertainty of the potential benefits. Other key
findings from the interviews are summarised in Table 1.
<b> Steps A & B: Key findings from the workshop on gaps analysis
The following subsections present a summary of the most relevant findings from the first
workshop used to build a CE vision and analyse current gaps for improvement.
<c> Circular economy vision for the university
The workshop participants agreed on the adoption of a preliminary CE vision that would allow
the university to take simple incremental steps towards the implementation of a CE. Although
incremental changes are not going to drive the needed fundamental shift from linear to
circular thinking, they represent a necessary interim step, aiming to empower the
stakeholders and reduce the resistance to change (Lozano 2006).
Table 1 Summary of key outcomes from stakeholder interviews.
Topic
Interview outcomes
CE concept and
principles
Important to agree on a CE vision that resonates with the organisation’s core goals
and priorities in order to encourage CE practice
CE criteria should be embedded in sustainability policies to avoid putting too much
effort in the development of strategies that would lead to marginal improvements
Important to raise CE awareness among staff, students and the stakeholder network
Decision-support
frameworks and
tools
Sustainability-oriented decisions derive mostly from internal meetings where
stakeholders share information, propose solutions and agree on actions based on
inside knowledge and experience in daily practice
Staff should access to decision-support systems that could facilitate the
identification of best alternatives through the combination of CE and sustainability
criteria
This is a draft chapter. The final version of the paper will be available in the Handbook of the Circular
Economy, edited by Brandão, M., Lazarevic, D., Finnveden, G. (December 2020). Edward Elgar
Publishing Ltd. The material cannot be used for any other purpose without further permission of the
publisher, and is for private use only.
Link to the forthcoming handbook: https://www.e-
elgar.com/shop/gbp/catalog/product/view/_ignore_category/1/id/16687/s/handbook-of-the-circular-
economy-9781788972710/.
7
Important to obtain buy-in from senior managers and make everybody a
sustainability champion to facilitate the implementation of a CE across the university
Key performance
indicators (KPIs)
KPIs used to measure and monitor progress on resource efficiency and
environmental sustainability are not very informative and meaningful
A key barrier to setting meaningful KPIs is the lack of suitable data collection
systems
Current financial models cannot provide disaggregated data to set robust KPIs and
support the development of comprehensive CE and sustainability studies
Allocation of
responsibilities
and budgets
Schools do not benefit directly from the economic savings related to improvements
in resource efficiency because budgets to take such actions and the related savings
are handled by the Estates department.
This may discourage school/department managers and staff to pursue CE practices
Budget incentives and appropriate KPIs should be developed to facilitate
implementation of CE by schools/departments
Creation of joint
teams of
managers and
technical staff
Top-down CE strategies formulated by senior managers may not be practical at the
operational level if they lack consideration of technical aspects
Staff focused only on operations management may lose track of the organisation’s
core goals and strategic priorities
It is important to create teams combining operational staff and senior managers to
develop realistic CE strategies for their effective implementation
Stakeholder
engagement and
collaboration
The university does not have the capability to develop certain CE- and
sustainability-related activities
Stakeholder partnership and collaboration are essential for co-creating solutions for
CE implementation in the university and its stakeholder network
The workshop participants decided to follow the CE definition provided in EMF (2015)
because they all found it meaningful to start driving change:
“A restorative and regenerative university that aims to keep products,
components, and materials at their highest utility and value at all times”.
Table 2 summarises relevant opportunities, drivers and barriers for CE implementation in the
university, as identified by the workshop participants. In addition to these barriers, the
participants were aware of the potential benefits the deployment of a CE could bring. These
benefits go beyond a more efficient and sustainable campus to include the development of
new academic programmes and redesign of governance structures.
This is a draft chapter. The final version of the paper will be available in the Handbook of the Circular
Economy, edited by Brandão, M., Lazarevic, D., Finnveden, G. (December 2020). Edward Elgar
Publishing Ltd. The material cannot be used for any other purpose without further permission of the
publisher, and is for private use only.
Link to the forthcoming handbook: https://www.e-
elgar.com/shop/gbp/catalog/product/view/_ignore_category/1/id/16687/s/handbook-of-the-circular-
economy-9781788972710/.
8
Table 2 Opportunities, drivers and barriers for CE implementation in the university context.
Opportunities
Reduced material consumption
Cost reduction
Lower carbon emissions
Strategic design and management of innovative buildings and infrastructures
Creative thinking and innovation
New educational programmes
Behavioural change among students and staff
Stakeholder engagement in sustainability practice
Drivers
Highly skilled staff to realise organisational and operational changes
Environmental sustainability action plans, programmes and strategies
University living lab for sustainability and network of sustainability champions
Extensive stakeholder network of the university, including partners and suppliers
Integration of CE-related specifications in tender processes (procurement)
CE-oriented legislation and strategies developed by the Manchester City
Council and Greater Manchester regional government
Barriers
People unawareness and lack of involvement in CE practice
Budget limitations and time constraints
Lack of practical frameworks and tools to ensure improved CE performance
Material-intensive student expectations (value for money)
Conservative culture and rigid governance structure
Seasonal changes in campus operations
Business competing demands, goals and priorities
<c> Baseline circularity and sustainability performance of the university
Table 3 presents the findings from the application of the CSBMC in the workshop to get an
overview of the circularity and sustainability performance of the University of Manchester. As
can be seen, although there are some sustainability activities in place (UoM 2015) the CE
principles are not embedded explicitly in the strategy and operation of the university. These
activities can be extended further to make the CE mainstream. The university can also build
strong customer relationships (e.g. feedback loops) around CE by taking advantage of its
engagement mechanisms (e.g. living labs) and communication channels (e.g. websites). This
could lead to the creation of novel user-centric CE services and engagement strategies, such
as the setting up of a CE programme for sustainable resource management that could
motivate students and staff to co-create innovative solutions for implementation across the
campus.
However, it is crucial first to build a meaningful business case showing the benefits that the
university could achieve by “going circular”. This includes the analysis of the return on
investment and the implementation of measures to overcome risks. It is also important to
analyse if the deployment of a CE across the campus (e.g. through product-life extension
and virtualisation) could affect the well-being of the maintenance staff through potential job
losses.
A cost-benefit analysis should also include a comparison of alternative scenarios and
pathways, such as access to services vs purchase of circular products. The implementation
of these CE alternatives would require a redesign of current procurement mechanisms,
including the integration of CE criteria in procurement processes, the enhancement of the
This is a draft chapter. The final version of the paper will be available in the Handbook of the Circular
Economy, edited by Brandão, M., Lazarevic, D., Finnveden, G. (December 2020). Edward Elgar
Publishing Ltd. The material cannot be used for any other purpose without further permission of the
publisher, and is for private use only.
Link to the forthcoming handbook: https://www.e-
elgar.com/shop/gbp/catalog/product/view/_ignore_category/1/id/16687/s/handbook-of-the-circular-
economy-9781788972710/.
9
current stakeholder network by bringing new strategic partners into place and the re-
orientation of campus management policies and protocols.
Table 3 An overview of the university based on the application of the circular and
sustainable business model canvas (CSBMC).
Value
proposition
Service
offering
Campus operations that create opportunities for an efficient use of
resources, including financial savings and social wellbeing
enhancement
Value
creation
Key partners
8,000+ suppliers, constructors, utility providers, consultancies
Key resources
12,000 staff, 229 buildings, 270 hectares, equipment, infrastructure
Key activities
Teaching, research, campus management and social outreach.
Annual campus operations consume a significant amount of resources
(247 GWh of energy + 742,000 m3 of water) that lead to environmental
impacts (72,000 t of Scope 1 CO2 emissions) and waste generation
(7,000 t, only 30% recycled)
Key activities to enhance campus environmental sustainability include:
energy, water and waste management, encouragement of sustainable
travel, development of green spaces, sharing of research equipment,
sustainable construction, responsible purchasing, sustainable catering
Value
delivery
Customer
segments
Main customer segment: students (40,000+ undergraduate and
postgraduate students from 160 countries); others: industry, hospitals,
government, charities, local communities, society
Customer
relationships
Students´ Union, social media, mentorship and counselling, marketing,
student and staff engagement programmes (green impact teams,
sustainability champions and living labs)
Channels
Websites, public events, staff promoters, research beacons, advisors,
publications, conferences, experimentation, Manchester corridor
Value
capture
Cost structure
£943M annually: 10-year capital investment programme from 2012 to
2022 (£1.75bn), utilities (£50,000/day for energy), goods and services
(£383M annually), maintenance, security, staff, fixed costs
Revenue
streams
Annual income £943M: fees (£424M), grants (£276M), councils
(£128M), other (£158M). Total economic output generated throughout
the UK equals £2.3bn due to ‘knock-on’ effects
<b> Steps C & D: Key findings from the workshop on opportunity assessment
Building on the outcomes from the previous two steps, a second workshop was focused on
the evaluation and prioritisation of strategic CE actions as discussed below.
<c> Evaluation of CE opportunities for implementation in the university
The findings from the analysis of CE case studies related to the three ReSOLVE actions
considered here (virtualisation, sharing and optimisation) are summarised in Table 4. These
three actions share a number of common challenges, including the need to change
governance structures, procurement mechanisms, conservative mindsets and behaviour,
cultural barriers and allocation of resources between university units. Also, it is important to
evaluate risk and safety issues to ensure an appropriate management of CE solutions.
Likewise, cost-effectiveness analysis was highlighted as a key requirement.
This is a draft chapter. The final version of the paper will be available in the Handbook of the Circular
Economy, edited by Brandão, M., Lazarevic, D., Finnveden, G. (December 2020). Edward Elgar
Publishing Ltd. The material cannot be used for any other purpose without further permission of the
publisher, and is for private use only.
Link to the forthcoming handbook: https://www.e-
elgar.com/shop/gbp/catalog/product/view/_ignore_category/1/id/16687/s/handbook-of-the-circular-
economy-9781788972710/.
10
<c> Action plan to start building the case for CE implementation
Based on the findings from Table 4, the workshop participants chose a number of CE
solutions that they considered a priority for developing a business case for the
implementation of a CE within the university (Table 5). These solutions are related to the
virtualise and share actions. The participants did not find it a priority to implement the
optimise action in the short term. The selected CE solutions were mostly aimed at
responding to students’ needs and expectations in a more efficient and sustainable way as
they are the most relevant customer segment for the university (Table 3).
Table 4 Outcomes from the evaluation of circular economy opportunities by the workshop
participants.
CE opportunities
Workshop participants suggestions
Virtualise
Access to all-inclusive leasing contracts based on “pay-per-use”: lighting,
office equipment and buildings
Sensor networks could be used to monitor and collect real-time data to
improve the university’s performance (e.g. internet of things, preventative
maintenance)
Greater control of campus operations (e.g. products usage)
More comfortable built environment (e.g. lighting in buildings)
Novel value-capture mechanisms (e.g. students personalised fees)
Engagement of staff and students in sustainable resource use (e.g. data
gathering and analysis)
Share
The design of flexible spaces and seasonal renting of spare space to
optimise space usage (current utilisation rate: 20%)
A centralised security and administrative management system in
collaboration with neighbouring universities could optimise resource use
further
Reusable food containers for students can reduce waste generation
Optimise
Optimise the management of packaging materials and mattresses from
students’ residences
Implement take-back systems (e.g. reverse vending machines) for the
collection of drinks packaging
Table 5 Circular economy action plan proposed by the workshop participants.
Action plan
Workshop participants suggestions
Circular
furniture
Refurbish the large existing stock and get access to remanufactured
products through leasing contracts
Develop a dynamic monitoring system to inventory, track and check the
location, condition and availability of the furniture across the campus
Create a responsible team and allocate space to undertake refurbishments
Integrate CE criteria in new tender processes focusing on service provision
through full life cycle management of remanufactured furniture or brand-new
products with a buy-back offer
Circular mugs
and food
containers
Offer students the possibility to purchase reusable food containers and mugs
Implement take-back systems to clean and distribute reusable products
Raise awareness and engage students and staff by offering discounts and
special deals, such as an express ‘green line’ to purchase food
Circular
appliances
Deliver fridges and vacuum cleaners in student residences as service
through pay-per-use contracts
This is a draft chapter. The final version of the paper will be available in the Handbook of the Circular
Economy, edited by Brandão, M., Lazarevic, D., Finnveden, G. (December 2020). Edward Elgar
Publishing Ltd. The material cannot be used for any other purpose without further permission of the
publisher, and is for private use only.
Link to the forthcoming handbook: https://www.e-
elgar.com/shop/gbp/catalog/product/view/_ignore_category/1/id/16687/s/handbook-of-the-circular-
economy-9781788972710/.
11
Gather data on product performance over time (e.g. energy consumption)
through digital technologies as a vehicle to offer students a better service
(e.g. personalised solutions) and raise their CE and sustainability awareness
Analyse risk and safety issues related to service delivery and the required
changes in students’ behaviour and expectations
Circular lighting
Enable access to pay-per-lux contracts to avoid purchasing and maintaining
lighting equipment and installations
Design mechanisms for charging students personalised fees based on their
energy use in residences
Deploy a network of sensors and create a software to monitor energy use in
buildings across the campus
Analyse first the potential energy and cost savings for the university,
including the implications for the maintenance staff
<b> Step E: Circular economy implementation and review
The proposed action plan was then used by the Environmental Sustainability Team to initiate
the development of a CE programme to help achieve the goals and targets of the university’s
Sustainable Resources Plan (UoM 2017a). This is an important first step towards making the
CE mainstream. However, the implementation of CE actions requires continuous
organisational learning and operational change. Likewise, the development of robust
analytical tools and meaningful KPIs is crucial for measuring the sustainability implications of
different CE solutions and improving the action plans over time.
<a> Conclusions and recommendations
The use of the proposed action-led CE framework has shown it to be a useful and effective
tool for identifying, evaluating and prioritising the implementation of CE solutions in
universities, as demonstrated by the example of the University of Manchester.
The framework enabled identification of gaps in current sustainability policies, strategies and
decision-making processes of the university. These included the lack of comprehensive
sustainability decision-support tools, data gathering systems and KPIs as well as the need
for better allocation of competences and budgets and stakeholder engagement. This analysis
revealed that environmental sustainability strategies already in place were limited in scope
and not specifically related to CE.
Nevertheless, the university has a number of actions in place that can be extended further
and/or redesigned to facilitate CE implementation, including how it creates, delivers and
captures value from customers. The workshop participants agreed on a CE action plan
containing four priority solutions where the university can make a difference in the way
resources are managed across the campus to improve the sustainability performance
substantially compared to the implementation of conventional (linear) eco-efficiency
solutions.
However, it is crucial first to build a practical and meaningful business case showing the
benefits that the university could achieve by “going circular. Access to such robust CE
business case would facilitate a “buy-in” from senior managers and, ultimately, the
operational staff. Likewise, it would encourage university´s suppliers and partners to
collaborate in the co-creation of CE solutions.
This is a draft chapter. The final version of the paper will be available in the Handbook of the Circular
Economy, edited by Brandão, M., Lazarevic, D., Finnveden, G. (December 2020). Edward Elgar
Publishing Ltd. The material cannot be used for any other purpose without further permission of the
publisher, and is for private use only.
Link to the forthcoming handbook: https://www.e-
elgar.com/shop/gbp/catalog/product/view/_ignore_category/1/id/16687/s/handbook-of-the-circular-
economy-9781788972710/.
12
This chapter has illustrated the first steps that need to be taken to build a CE business case.
Future research should focus on quantifying the sustainability implications of implementing a
CE in universities. This includes definition of meaningful KPIs, development of suitable data
gathering systems, the use of systems-based tools, stakeholder engagement and the use of
university living labs as places for experimentation towards CE implementation. These
research activities could lead to the development of innovative CE policies, standards and
reporting frameworks for universities, helping to monitor and communicate CE progress as
well as benchmark them on their circularity and sustainability performance.
<a> Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all the stakeholders that participated in the interviews and
workshops. We are also grateful to Emma Gardner and Helen Cutts for their help with the
stakeholder engagement process.
<a> References
Arup, (2016), The circular economy in the built environment, London, UK.
Carbon Trust (2012), Further and higher education: training colleges and universities to be
energy efficient. London, UK.
Circle Economy (2017), Circular economy reports and insights, Circle Economy, accessed
September 2018 at https://www.circle-economy.com/.
Crul, M.R.M. and J.C. Diehl (2009), Design for sustainability: A step by step approach, United
Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and Delft University of Technology, France,
Paris.
EAUC (2016), Insight guide: education for a circular economy, Cheltenham, UK.
EEA (2014), Annual European Union greenhouse gas inventory 1990-2012 and inventory
report 2014, Submission to the UNFCCC Secretariat, Technical report No 09/2014,
European Environment Agency (EEA), Belgium, Brussels.
EMF (2015), Growth Within – A circular economy vision for a competitive Europe, Ellen
MacArthur Foundation (EMF), Isle of Wight, UK.
EMF (2017), Circular economy case studies, Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF), accessed
September 2018 at https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/case-studies.
Elton, L. (2003), Dissemination of innovations in higher education: a change theory
approach, Tertiary Education and Management, 9, 199–214.
Eurostat (2018a), Annual net earnings – single person without children, accessed December
2018 at https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/labour-market/earnings/database.
Eurostat (2018b), Municipal waste generated per person in the EU, accessed December
2018 at https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/DDN-20180123-1.
Ferrer-Balas, D., J. Adachi, S. Banas, C.I. Davidson, A. Hoshikoshi, A. Mishra, Y. Motodoa,
M. Onga and M. Ostwald (2008), An international comparative analysis of sustainability
transformation across seven universities, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education, 9 (3), 295-316.
Joyce, A. and R.L. Paquin (2016), The triple layered business model canvas: A tool to design
more sustainable business models, Journal of Cleaner Production, 135 (1), 1474-1486.
Mendoza, J.M.F., M. Sharmina, A. Gallego-Schmid, G. Heyes and A. Azapagic (2017),
Integrating backcasting and eco-design for the circular economy: the BECE framework,
Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(3), 526-544.
This is a draft chapter. The final version of the paper will be available in the Handbook of the Circular
Economy, edited by Brandão, M., Lazarevic, D., Finnveden, G. (December 2020). Edward Elgar
Publishing Ltd. The material cannot be used for any other purpose without further permission of the
publisher, and is for private use only.
Link to the forthcoming handbook: https://www.e-
elgar.com/shop/gbp/catalog/product/view/_ignore_category/1/id/16687/s/handbook-of-the-circular-
economy-9781788972710/.
13
Mendoza, J.M.F., A. Gallego-Schmid and A. Azapagic (2019a). Exploring the implementation
of circular economy thinking in higher education institutions, Under review in Journal of
Cleaner Production.
Mendoza, J.M.F., A. Gallego-Schmid and A. Azapagic (2019b). Building the business case
for implementation of circular economy in higher education institutions, Under review in
Journal of Cleaner Production.
Lozano, R. (2006), Incorporation and institutionalization of sustainable development into
universities: breaking through barriers to change, Journal of Cleaner Production, 14 (9–
11), 787-796.
OECD (2010), Higher education for sustainable development, Final report of International
Action Research Project. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD), France, Paris.
Osterwalder, A. and Y. Pigneur (2010), Business Model Generation - a Handbook for
Visionaries, Game Changers and Challengers. US: Wiley.
Stephens, J.C., M.E. Hernandez, M. Román, A.C. Graham and R.W. Scholz (2008), Higher
education as a change agent for sustainability in different cultures and contexts,
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9 (3), 317-338.
UoM (2012), Campus Masterplan 2012-2022, The University of Manchester (UoM), accessed
September 2018 at http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=15305.
UoM (2015), Manchester 2020: The University of Manchester’s strategic plan, The University
of Manchester (UoM), accessed September 2018 at
http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=25548.
UoM (2016), Environmental sustainability strategy: building on our heritage to create a
sustainable future, The University of Manchester (UoM), accessed September 2018 at
http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=33155%20.
UoM (2017a), Sustainable resources plan: supporting the responsible use of natural
resources and materials, The University of Manchester (UoM), accessed September 2018
at http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=33195.
UoM (2017b), Living campus plan: a living campus where we work alongside nature and
nature works alongside us, The University of Manchester (UoM), accessed September
2018 at http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=33154%20.
Vergragt, P.J. and J. Quist (2011), Backcasting for sustainability: Introduction to the special
issue, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 78: 747–755.
Wells, P. (2013), Business models for sustainability, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
