IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i23p6834-d293049.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards a Circular Economy: Using Stakeholder Subjectivity to Identify Priorities, Consensus, and Conflict in the Irish EPS/XPS Market

Author

Listed:
  • Jeffrey E Black

    (Centre for Marine Renewable Energy, College of Science, Engineering and Food Science, University College Cork, MaREI Centre, ERI, Beaufort Building Haulbowline Rd, P43 C573 Ringaskiddy, Ireland)

  • Kathrin Kopke

    (Centre for Marine Renewable Energy, College of Science, Engineering and Food Science, University College Cork, MaREI Centre, ERI, Beaufort Building Haulbowline Rd, P43 C573 Ringaskiddy, Ireland)

  • Cathal O’Mahony

    (Centre for Marine Renewable Energy, College of Science, Engineering and Food Science, University College Cork, MaREI Centre, ERI, Beaufort Building Haulbowline Rd, P43 C573 Ringaskiddy, Ireland)

Abstract

In European Seas, plastic litter from fishing activities, river transport, and poor waste management is one of the fastest growing threats to the health of the marine environment. Extruded polystyrene (XPS) and expanded polystyrene (EPS), specifically, have become some of the most prominent types of marine litter found around Europe’s coastlines. To combat this problem, the European Commission has ratified a series of regulations and policies, including the Single-Use Plastics Directive and the EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy. However, in order to ensure that the benefits of such regulations and policies are realized at a scale that can adequately address the scope of the problem, decision-makers will need to integrate the opinions, values, and priorities of relevant stakeholders who operate across the EPS/XPS product lifecycle. In this study, we apply a 35-statement Q-methodology to identify the priorities of stakeholders as they relate to the Irish EPS/XPS market and the wider societal transition to a circular economy. Based on the responses of nineteen individuals representing industry, policy-makers, and community leaders, we identified three distinct perspectives: System Overhaul; Incremental Upgrade; and Market Innovation. The results demonstrate that the type and format of policy interventions linked to Ireland’s EPS/XPS circular economy are heavily contested, which presents significant challenges for driving the debate forward. These results provide valuable information on viewpoints that can be used by different stakeholders at national and EU levels to address areas of conflict, ultimately fostering the development of more effective, broadly supported co-developed policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeffrey E Black & Kathrin Kopke & Cathal O’Mahony, 2019. "Towards a Circular Economy: Using Stakeholder Subjectivity to Identify Priorities, Consensus, and Conflict in the Irish EPS/XPS Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-20, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:23:p:6834-:d:293049
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/23/6834/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/23/6834/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Iofrida, Nathalie & De Luca, Anna Irene & Gulisano, Giovanni & Strano, Alfio, 2018. "An application of Q-methodology to Mediterranean olive production – stakeholders' understanding of sustainability issues," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 46-55.
    2. de Jesus, Ana & Mendonça, Sandro, 2018. "Lost in Transition? Drivers and Barriers in the Eco-innovation Road to the Circular Economy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 75-89.
    3. McCauley, Darren & Heffron, Raphael, 2018. "Just transition: Integrating climate, energy and environmental justice," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 1-7.
    4. Toddi A. Steelman & Lynn A. Maguire, 1999. "Understanding participant perspectives: Q-methodology in national forest management," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 361-388.
    5. Kirchherr, Julian & Piscicelli, Laura & Bour, Ruben & Kostense-Smit, Erica & Muller, Jennifer & Huibrechtse-Truijens, Anne & Hekkert, Marko, 2018. "Barriers to the Circular Economy: Evidence From the European Union (EU)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 264-272.
    6. Matthew David Cotton & Ahmed A. Mahroos-Alsaiari, 2015. "Key actor perspectives on stakeholder engagement in Omani Environmental Impact Assessment: an application of Q-Methodology," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(1), pages 91-112, January.
    7. Barry, John & Proops, John, 1999. "Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 337-345, March.
    8. Cuppen, Eefje & Breukers, Sylvia & Hisschemöller, Matthijs & Bergsma, Emmy, 2010. "Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 579-591, January.
    9. Clare Ostle & Richard C. Thompson & Derek Broughton & Lance Gregory & Marianne Wootton & David G. Johns, 2019. "The rise in ocean plastics evidenced from a 60-year time series," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 10(1), pages 1-6, December.
    10. Bob Castelein & Ron van Duin & Harry Geerlings, 2019. "Identifying Dominant Stakeholder Perspectives on Sustainability Issues in Reefer Transportation. A Q-Method Study in the Port of Rotterdam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-21, June.
    11. Risdon, Andrea & Eccleston, Chris & Crombez, Geert & McCracken, Lance, 2003. "How can we learn to live with pain? A Q-methodological analysis of the diverse understandings of acceptance of chronic pain," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 375-386, January.
    12. McNicholas, Grace & Cotton, Matthew, 2019. "Stakeholder perceptions of marine plastic waste management in the United Kingdom," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 77-87.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Adams, Marshall Alhassan & Carodenuto, Sophia, 2023. "Stakeholder perspectives on cocoa’s living income differential and sustainability trade-offs in Ghana," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. McNicholas, Grace & Cotton, Matthew, 2019. "Stakeholder perceptions of marine plastic waste management in the United Kingdom," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 77-87.
    2. Kupabado, Moses Mananyi & Mensah-Bonsu, Akwasi, 2024. "Mapping of community perspectives on land acquisition for biofuel investment in northern Ghana," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    3. Sneegas, Gretchen & Beckner, Sydney & Brannstrom, Christian & Jepson, Wendy & Lee, Kyungsun & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2021. "Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    4. Christine Corlet Walker & Angela Druckman & Claudio Cattaneo, 2020. "Understanding the (non-)Use of Societal Wellbeing Indicators in National Policy Development: What Can We Learn from Civil Servants? A UK Case Study," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 911-953, August.
    5. Huaranca, Laura Liliana & Iribarnegaray, Martín Alejandro & Albesa, Federico & Volante, José Norberto & Brannstrom, Christian & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2019. "Social Perspectives on Deforestation, Land Use Change, and Economic Development in an Expanding Agricultural Frontier in Northern Argentina," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Ghoochani Omid M. & Bakhshi Azadeh & Cotton Matthew & Nejad Azar Hashemi & Ghanian Mansour, 2015. "Environmental values in the petrochemical industry: A Q-method study in South West Iran," Environmental & Socio-economic Studies, Sciendo, vol. 3(4), pages 1-10, December.
    7. Armatas, Christopher A. & Venn, Tyron J. & Watson, Alan E., 2014. "Applying Q-methodology to select and define attributes for non-market valuation: A case study from Northwest Wyoming, United States," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 447-456.
    8. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    9. Francesca Gennari, 2023. "The transition towards a circular economy. A framework for SMEs," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 27(4), pages 1423-1457, December.
    10. Jeff Mangers & Meysam Minoufekr & Peter Plapper & Sri Kolla, 2021. "An Innovative Strategy Allowing a Holistic System Change towards Circular Economy within Supply-Chains," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-17, July.
    11. Magdalena Rusch & Josef‐Peter Schöggl & Rupert J. Baumgartner, 2023. "Application of digital technologies for sustainable product management in a circular economy: A review," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 1159-1174, March.
    12. Elena Zepharovich & Michele Graziano Ceddia & Stephan Rist, 2020. "Land-Use Conflict in the Gran Chaco: Finding Common Ground through Use of the Q Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-16, September.
    13. Muhammad Asif, 2020. "Role of Energy Conservation and Management in the 4D Sustainable Energy Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-3, November.
    14. Antonella Zucchella & Pietro Previtali & Roger Strange, 2022. "Proactive and reactive views in the transition towards circular business models. A grounded study in the plastic packaging industry," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 1073-1102, September.
    15. J. Brusselaers & J. Gillabel, 2024. "How Circular Is the European Policy Landscape?," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 1559-1585, June.
    16. Gavin Melles, 2021. "Figuring the Transition from Circular Economy to Circular Society in Australia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-20, September.
    17. Concepción Garcés-Ayerbe & Pilar Rivera-Torres & Inés Suárez-Perales & Dante I. Leyva-de la Hiz, 2019. "Is It Possible to Change from a Linear to a Circular Economy? An Overview of Opportunities and Barriers for European Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise Companies," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-15, March.
    18. Andrés Lorente de las Casas & Ivelina Mirkova & Francisco J. Ramos-Real, 2021. "Stakeholders’ Perceptions of the Possible Energy Sustainability Solutions in the Hotels of the Canary Islands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-26, June.
    19. Anita Ollár & Paula Femenías & Ulrike Rahe & Kaj Granath, 2020. "Foresights from the Swedish Kitchen: Four Circular Value Opportunities for the Built Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-21, August.
    20. Nallapaneni Manoj Kumar & Shauhrat S. Chopra, 2022. "Leveraging Blockchain and Smart Contract Technologies to Overcome Circular Economy Implementation Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-18, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:23:p:6834-:d:293049. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.