IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/circec/v3y2023i2d10.1007_s43615-022-00194-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Circular Decision-Making Tree: an Operational Framework

Author

Listed:
  • Rachel Greer

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Timo Wirth

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Derk Loorbach

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

Abstract

Because of the need to limit extraction of raw materials and reduce amounts and impacts of waste, countries and businesses are challenged to transition to a circular economy: an economic system in which the materials are reduced, reused, or recycled, but not wasted. Yet, transitioning from a linear to a circular economy implies societal-level, structural changes that have deep implications for existing business models and practices–and the current economic system is still largely organized around virgin material extraction and linear modes of production and consumption. Despite stated ambitions at various geographical scales to become more or fully circular, the outcomes still fall short of such visions. One important reason why the transition towards a circular economy is not proceeding as quickly as hoped can be found in the decision processes used by companies, investors, and policy makers. Suitable frameworks that support decision-making could thus be a key enabler of this transition, if based upon a circular and transformative, rather than a linear optimization logic. In this paper, we therefore explore a different decision-making logic that is developed based on circularity. This provides the basis for an operational framework designed to help decision-makers such as policymakers, investors, and entrepreneurs navigate tradeoffs and take decisions considering the quality of innovation circularity and its respective diffusion potential. To develop, test, and refine our framework—the “Circular Decision-Making Tree”—we synthesized insights from existing frameworks and conceptually integrated these with our understanding of transition theory and the circular economy. We then verified the internal logics and applicability of the framework in a series of usability workshops across four application contexts (Netherlands, Brazil, UK, and South Africa) with feedback from a total of n = 50 stakeholders from policy, practice, and academia. We critically discuss the application potential as well as the limitations and describe implications for future research to further validate the framework’s logics and operationalization.

Suggested Citation

  • Rachel Greer & Timo Wirth & Derk Loorbach, 2023. "The Circular Decision-Making Tree: an Operational Framework," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 693-718, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:circec:v:3:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s43615-022-00194-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s43615-022-00194-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s43615-022-00194-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s43615-022-00194-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fenna Blomsma & Geraldine Brennan, 2017. "The Emergence of Circular Economy: A New Framing Around Prolonging Resource Productivity," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 21(3), pages 603-614, June.
    2. Lea Fuenfschilling & Niki Frantzeskaki & Lars Coenen, 2019. "Urban experimentation & sustainability transitions," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(2), pages 219-228, February.
    3. Smith, Adrian & Raven, Rob, 2012. "What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1025-1036.
    4. Snyder, Hannah, 2019. "Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 333-339.
    5. Pauline Deutz & Giuseppe Ioppolo, 2015. "From Theory to Practice: Enhancing the Potential Policy Impact of Industrial Ecology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-15, February.
    6. Timo von Wirth & Lea Fuenfschilling & Niki Frantzeskaki & Lars Coenen, 2019. "Impacts of urban living labs on sustainability transitions: mechanisms and strategies for systemic change through experimentation," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(2), pages 229-257, February.
    7. Bergek, Anna & Jacobsson, Staffan & Carlsson, Bo & Lindmark, Sven & Rickne, Annika, 2008. "Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 407-429, April.
    8. Geels, Frank W., 2010. "Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 495-510, May.
    9. Zolfagharian, Mohammadreza & Walrave, Bob & Raven, Rob & Romme, A. Georges L., 2019. "Studying transitions: Past, present, and future," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    10. Dijkgraaf, Elbert & Vollebergh, Herman R.J., 2004. "Burn or bury? A social cost comparison of final waste disposal methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(3-4), pages 233-247, October.
    11. Edgar Towa & Vanessa Zeller & Wouter M. J. Achten, 2021. "Assessing the circularity of regions: Stakes of trade of waste for treatment," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 25(4), pages 834-847, August.
    12. Alan Murray & Keith Skene & Kathryn Haynes, 2017. "The Circular Economy: An Interdisciplinary Exploration of the Concept and Application in a Global Context," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 140(3), pages 369-380, February.
    13. Trevor Zink & Roland Geyer, 2017. "Circular Economy Rebound," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 21(3), pages 593-602, June.
    14. Smith, Adrian & Voß, Jan-Peter & Grin, John, 2010. "Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 435-448, May.
    15. Mateusz Lewandowski, 2016. "Designing the Business Models for Circular Economy—Towards the Conceptual Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-28, January.
    16. Geels, Frank W., 2002. "Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1257-1274, December.
    17. Anna J. Wieczorek & Marko P. Hekkert, 2012. "Systemic instruments for systemic innovation problems: A framework for policy makers and innovation scholars," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(1), pages 74-87, February.
    18. Edgar Battand Towa Kouokam & Vanessa Zeller & Wouter Achten, 2021. "Assessing the circularity of regions: Stakes of trade of waste for treatment," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/332186, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    19. Johan Hultman & Hervé Corvellec, 2012. "The European Waste Hierarchy: From the Sociomateriality of Waste to a Politics of Consumption," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 44(10), pages 2413-2427, October.
    20. Jan Rotmans & Derk Loorbach, 2009. "Complexity and Transition Management," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 13(2), pages 184-196, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Armaghan Chizaryfard & Paolo Trucco & Cali Nuur, 2021. "The transformation to a circular economy: framing an evolutionary view," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 475-504, April.
    2. Attila Havas & Doris Schartinger & K. Matthias Weber, 2022. "Innovation Studies, Social Innovation, and Sustainability Transitions Research: From mutual ignorance towards an integrative perspective?," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 2227, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    3. Raven, Rob & Walrave, Bob, 2020. "Overcoming transformational failures through policy mixes in the dynamics of technological innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    4. Pesch, Udo, 2015. "Tracing discursive space: Agency and change in sustainability transitions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 90(PB), pages 379-388.
    5. Walrave, Bob & Raven, Rob, 2016. "Modelling the dynamics of technological innovation systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1833-1844.
    6. Zolfagharian, Mohammadreza & Walrave, Bob & Raven, Rob & Romme, A. Georges L., 2019. "Studying transitions: Past, present, and future," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    7. Haddad, Carolina R. & Bergek, Anna, 2023. "Towards an integrated framework for evaluating transformative innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    8. Dahesh, Mehran Badin & Tabarsa, Gholamali & Zandieh, Mostafa & Hamidizadeh, Mohammadreza, 2020. "Reviewing the intellectual structure and evolution of the innovation systems approach: A social network analysis," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    9. Laatsit, Mart & Grillitsch, Markus & Fünfschilling, Lea, 2022. "Great expectations: the promises and limits of innovation policy in addressing societal challenges," Papers in Innovation Studies 2022/9, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    10. Jenkins, Kirsten & Sovacool, Benjamin K. & McCauley, Darren, 2018. "Humanizing sociotechnical transitions through energy justice: An ethical framework for global transformative change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 66-74.
    11. Fuenfschilling, Lea & Truffer, Bernhard, 2014. "The structuration of socio-technical regimes—Conceptual foundations from institutional theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 772-791.
    12. Markard, Jochen & Raven, Rob & Truffer, Bernhard, 2012. "Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 955-967.
    13. Fenna Blomsma & Thomas Bauwens & Ilka Weissbrod & Julian Kirchherr, 2023. "The ‘need for speed’: Towards circular disruption—What it is, how to make it happen and how to know it's happening," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 1010-1031, March.
    14. Cheng Wang & Tao Lv & Rongjiang Cai & Jianfeng Xu & Liya Wang, 2022. "Bibliometric Analysis of Multi-Level Perspective on Sustainability Transition Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-31, March.
    15. Hamid El Bilali, 2020. "Transition heuristic frameworks in research on agro-food sustainability transitions," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 1693-1728, March.
    16. Catia Milena Lopes & Annibal José Scavarda & Mauricio Nunes Macedo de Carvalho & André Luis Korzenowski, 2018. "The Business Model and Innovation Analyses: The Sustainable Transition Obstacles and Drivers for the Hospital Supply Chains," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-17, December.
    17. Hellsmark, Hans & Frishammar, Johan & Söderholm, Patrik & Ylinenpää, Håkan, 2016. "The role of pilot and demonstration plants in technology development and innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1743-1761.
    18. McMeekin, Andrew & Geels, Frank W. & Hodson, Mike, 2019. "Mapping the winds of whole system reconfiguration: Analysing low-carbon transformations across production, distribution and consumption in the UK electricity system (1990–2016)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1216-1231.
    19. Andersen, Allan Dahl & Markard, Jochen, 2020. "Multi-technology interaction in socio-technical transitions: How recent dynamics in HVDC technology can inform transition theories," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    20. Frans Sengers & Bruno Turnheim & Frans Berkhout, 2021. "Beyond experiments: Embedding outcomes in climate governance," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 39(6), pages 1148-1171, September.

    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:spr:circec:v:3:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s43615-022-00194-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.