Denise Reike’s research while affiliated with Utrecht University and other places

Scholars have long called out the flaws in academic publishing. However, a nuanced and constructive discussion of this issue is still lacking. We advocate that these flaws are symptoms of broader and intensifying marketization of academic research. To address this, we first discuss the two dimensions of marketization: the commodification of academic output and the 'managerialization' of academic governance. We then argue that sustainability research is especially vulnerable to marketization trends because of its broader set of values that cannot merely be reflected in academic output. We illustrate these values by discussing the nature of the challenges faced by sustainability researchers, their relationships with non-academic stakeholders, and the intrinsic normativity of their research. We explore potential ways forward to reform existing academic organizational structures and research funding system, embrace more inclusive and democratic research approaches, and support the development of nonprofit open-access journals.

The circular economy has been proposed to transform global textile supply chains which are currently challenged by a complex nexus of sustainability issues related to the dominant fast fashion trend. Research on circular economy in the textile sector often focuses on businesses or consumers as key enablers in circular transitions, yet it treats them as independent entities and thereby neglects the study of interactions that can provide insight at the systems level. The proclaimed “circular textile mission” in the Netherlands setting a national target for 100% circularity by 2050 is used as case study to address this research gap. We explore the circular textile transition processes found in the context of the Dutch mission and compare the development and interactions among various technical and non‐technological solutions produced by engaged actor constellations for assessing key factors driving and blocking the overall mission fulfilment. To these ends, we derive a theoretical framework based on innovation system theory and conceptualize the Dutch circular textile transition as a Mission‐oriented Innovation System (MIS). Analyzing the structure and functioning of the Dutch mission‐oriented innovation system, we show that (1) there is a good match between the formal Dutch circular textile mission and system actor perceptions; (2) system actors have formed structures around three dominant solution trajectories in the Dutch system: secondhand, mechanical recycling, and chemical recycling; (3) these trajectories expose distinct key virtuous and vicious cycles, which characterize (4) the entire system as formative. Overall, the secondhand trajectory shows most developed structures and most positive dynamics, chemical recycling carries most technological breakthrough potential, whereas mechanical recycling is a mature technology but lacks market demand and supply. We compare the three solution trajectories, discuss the disruptive nature of the Dutch circular textile transition, and suggest installing Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) as a potential intervention for accelerating system transformation. The study concludes with reflections on the case learnings and considerations for further research on mission‐oriented innovation systems.

This chapter provides several illustrative examples, mainly from the Dutch context, showing the application of the 10R framework of value retention options presented in the previous chapter, both for the product produce and use lifecycle, the product concept, and design lifecycle.

Over the last decade, the circular economy (CE) concept has regained attention, especially regarding efforts to achieve a more sustainable society. Controversies and confusions have accompanied the “revival” of the circular economy concerning its meaning across different actors in science and practice. In Chaps. 3 and 4, we advance clarity in the field through a historical analysis of the evolution of circular economy as a concept and provide a heuristic typology around the stratified use of resources, which forms one of the fundamental principles and strategies in the circular economy. Chapter 3 is primarily based on our earlier published review of circular economy research and the 10R typology of resource value retention options (ROs) for products we suggested until 2018 in academic publications. A more detailed discussion is given in “The circular economy: New or Refurbished as CE 3.0? - Exploring Controversies in the Conceptualization of the Circular Economy through a Focus on History and Resource Value Retention Options” in Resources, Conservation and Recycling (2018). In Chap. 3, we summarize the review core message and reflect upon the role that CE definitions and CE strategies take in shaping CE uptake and in directing implementation actions by societal actors. In the next chapter, we give illustrations on the application of the 10Rs. In Chap. 4, the reader can find the operationalization of the framework in the form of short sector case studies – these illustrate how Dutch(−based) firms in the sector of mobility, clothing, and electronics apply and combine these ten-value retention options in practice. Below, we first distinguish three phases in the evolution of the circular economy, showing that the concept is not as new as frequently claimed and demonstrating the change of meaning and terminology the concept underwent over time. We continue to show the confusion around the circular economy, and it meanings, more specifically, the cacophony around the principle of resource value retention that we had identified in our literature review. To unite the existing views for more clarity in the field, we introduce a 10R typology synthesizing the most common views.

Society has been operating in a linear way which implies rapid waste generation. Previous research has shown business models able to reclaim products at end-of-use are currently poorly developed and implemented. A shift should be made to Circular Business Models (CBM) that focus on the re-use and recycling of materials. However, little is known about consumers’ acceptance and willingness to participate in CBMs. The present study aims to enrich the existing research on CBM consumer acceptance which currently lacks generalisable quantitative insights on preferential CBM design. The consumer intention to participate in three types of CBMs (take-back management, product lease and pay-per-use) is analysed emphasising three key characteristics: ownership, responsibility and payment structure. We use an established consumer behaviour theory, the Theory of Planned Behaviour and extend it with two main factors (environmental attitude and habits) in order to make it apt for analysing consumer pref- erences regarding environmental decision-making. Results show consumers’ clear preference for take- back management models over leasing or pay-per-use models. In particular, habits and consumer opinion regarding payment structures are revealed to have a large influence on consumer intention to participate in CBMs. Altered payment structures in leasing and pay-per use seem a crucial reason for lower acceptance. Ownership on the other hand had a marginal influence, which was not expected based on CBM literature. This suggests that institutionalised consumer habits have to be acknowledged and alternative characteristics have to be introduced gradually to reform habits. The results can serve as guidance for companies in their design and implementation of circular strategies to reclaim products after use. Future research should aim to more deeply understand the relation between consumers acceptance and the responsibility and payment structure characteristics of CBMs.

The principle of cascading, the sequential and consecutive use of resources, is a potential method to create added value in circular economy (CE) practices. Despite conceptual similarities, no research to date has explored how cascading has been operationalised and how to integrate it with CE R-imperatives (Reduce, Reuse etc.) to facilitate implementation practices. CE practices emphasise value creation and retention, yet, there has been little reflexive examination of explicit and intrinsic value considerations; namely, how allocation choices, i.e. the decision-making process, for resource utilization are made. This paper aims to (1) examine how cascading has been operationalised (empirically and theoretically) to understand its normative underpinnings and value considerations; and (2) integrate cascading with the CE practices in a manner that accounts for the complexities of material allocation choices. Through a literature review of 64 articles from three bodies of literature (CE, cascading and up/downcycling), plus additional material on sustainable development, we show the cascading concept is a suitable framework to direct material uses and provides an overarching concept to integrate with CE R-imperatives. From this, we propose a new theoretical framework that considers the socio-organisational necessities for a CE-cascading system, specifically by deconstructing the allocation choices and exchanges of product material combinations between actor groups. This considers a dual perspective of the physical aspects of materials and the social context in which material allocation is made. The framework transcends individual value chain actor configurations to propose an overarching steering/governance framework, based on the triple-P of sustainability (People, Planet, Prosperity), to examine and direct CE-cascading exchanges, between and above individual users/firms.

The circular economy (CE) is perceived as a sustainable economic system where the economic growth is decoupled from the resources use, through the reduction and recirculation of natural resources. In the shift towards the CE, quantifying the circularity of products and services (or their contribution to the CE) is crucial in designing policies and business strategies, and prioritizing sustainable solutions based on evidence. New circularity metrics are being developed for that purpose, but they often present contradiction in both form and content, which contributes to confusion and misunderstanding of the CE concept. This review aims to map methodological developments regarding circularity metrics for products and services, in order to:(1)identify the foundations of circularity metrics used so far and their applications, (2) evaluate the validity of current circularity metrics, based on predefined requirements and a CE definition anchored in the sustainability concept, and (3) provide recommendations on how to measure circularity. The literature search provided a wide variety of CE metrics being developed and applied(seven measurement indices, nine assessment indicators and three assessment frameworks). However, none of them are addressing the CE concept in full, potentially leading to undesirable burden shifting from reduced material consumption to increased environmental, economic or social impacts. Additionally, new metrics under-represent the complexities of multiple cycles and the consequences of material downcycling. Circularity metrics intended to sustainable decision making should be comprehensive enough to avoid burden shifting, and clearly indicate how the benefits of recycling are allocated between the primary and secondary products. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104498

In recent years the concept of Circular Economy has received growing attention, both in the worlds of science and of policy making. Some scholars and practitioners present it as a novelty, but we have to acknowledge that it builds on the legacy of predecessors, like waste recycling and separation, industrial ecology, eco-industrial parks and industrial symbiosis. Various concepts go back to the 1980's, such as the concepts of waste hierarchies (3R's, 4R's etc.) and cascading. The 3R's concept has become commonplace in many national waste regulations all over the world. At best, we can frame the renewed attention as Circular Economy 3.0. By doing so, questions arise R0-> R9: Hierarchy of CE value retention options (RO's) for consumers and businesses R0 = Refuse R1 = Reduce R2 = Resell, Reuse R3 = Repair R4 = Refurbish R5 = Remanufacture R6 = Re-purpose R7 = Recycle materials R8 = Recover energy R9 = Re-mine C = Consumer B = Business

In anni recenti il concetto di economia circolare ha ricevuto sempre maggiore attenzione, sia nel settore scientifico che in ambito decisionale politico. Anche se vari studiosi e professionisti lo presentano come una novità, in realtà è stato costruito sull'eredità di alcuni predecessori, concetti come il riciclo e la separazione dei rifiuti, l'ecologia industriale, i parchi eco-industriali e la simbiosi industriale. Diversi di questi risalgono agli anni '80 dello scorso secolo, come i concetti di gerarchia dei rifiuti (delle 3R, delle 4R ecc.) e della ricaduta a cascata. Il concetto delle 3R è diventato usuale in molte normative nazionali sui rifiuti in tutto il mondo. R0-> R9: Gerarchia delle opzioni di conservazione del valore (R) nell'economia circolare per consumatori e business R0 = rifiutare R1 = ridurre R2 = rivedere, riusare R3 = riparare R4 = rinnovare R5 = rilavorare R6 = riproporre R7 = riciclare i materiali R8 = recuperare energia R9 = ri-estrarre C = consumatori B = business ESTRAZIONE PRODUZIONE DI MATERIALI Economia circolare 3.0 Fare ordine nei nuovi concetti di circolarità riorganizzando il concetto delle 3R in una gerarchia a 10R. di Walter J.V.

The circular economy concept has gained momentum both among scholars and practitioners. However, critics claim that it means many different things to different people. This paper provides further evidence for these critics. The aim of this paper is to create transparency regarding the current understandings of the circular economy concept. For this purpose, we have gathered 114 circular economy definitions which were coded on 17 dimensions. Our findings indicate that the circular economy is most frequently depicted as a combination of reduce, reuse and recycle activities, whereas it is oftentimes not highlighted that CE necessitates a systemic shift. We further find that the definitions show few explicit linkages of the circular economy concept to sustainable development. The main aim of the circular economy is considered to be economic prosperity, followed by environmental quality; its impact on social equity and future generations is barely mentioned. Furthermore, neither business models nor consumers are frequently outlined as enablers of the circular economy. We critically discuss the various circular economy conceptualizations throughout this paper. Overall, we hope to contribute via this study towards the coherence of the circular economy concept; we presume that significantly varying circular economy definitions may eventually result in the collapse of the concept.