See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/303749092

The circular economy – a reappraisal of the 'stuff' we love

Article  in  Geography (Sheffield, England) · January 2016

CITATIONS READS

7 641

4 authors, including:

Simon James Trent Pollard Fiona Charnley

Cranfield University Cranfield University
209 PUBLICATIONS   4,179 CITATIONS    40 PUBLICATIONS   414 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Energy Resilient Manufacturing 2: Small is Beautiful Phase 2 (SIB2) View project

Small is Beautiful View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Fiona Charnley on 02 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

© Geography 2016
The circular
economy – a
reappraisal of
the ‘stuff’ we
love
Simon Pollard, Andrew
Turney, Fiona Charnley
and Ken Webster
ABSTRACT: New paradigms on systems thinking,
natural resources and manufacturing futures
provide opportunities to re-examine the relationship
between humans, the things we buy and use, and
the interconnected world that supplies them from
primary resources. The role geography plays within
industrial strategy can be strengthened, we argue,
through the opportunities provided by a ‘circular
economy’, i.e. one that is restorative by intent. Here,
we consider some of the founding stimuli that
underpin this reappraisal of our relationship with
the things we buy and how circular economy
thinking might play out in practice. As we
demonstrate, there is a central role for geography
here, and systems thinking, the trans-disciplinary
analysis of trends and flows, temporal-spatial
factors and the human condition are all central to
this reappraisal.
Geography Vol 101 Part 1 Spring 2016
The circular
economy – a
reappraisal of
the ‘stuff’ we
love
Context
Exploring the relationship between humans, the
‘stuff’ we buy and the economy in which it
circulates is neither new, nor particularly
fashionable in these straitened economic times.
Nevertheless, a radical reappraisal is underway. In
The Waste Makers, Vance Packard (a prominent
1960s social commentator and communicator)
described, with much irony, some of the
undesirable characteristics of unchecked mass
production in his exploration of the 1950s
automotive industry (Packard, 1960). Since
painting his satirical ‘Cornucopia City’, a pastiche
metropolis where material goods are produced in
over-abundance beyond demand (Packard, 1960),
other commentators have espoused a nagging
concern about the business and environmental
sustainability of globalisation. Reflecting on the
challenges of resource efficiency and the industrial
economy, geographers have become used to
asking: how should businesses continue to create
value for citizens, through the goods and services
they provide, in a resource-constrained world? In
the new ‘circular economy’ (for overviews, see
Webster et al., 2013 and Webster, 2015) we
discuss below, we might rephrase this question as:
how can citizens access long-lasting service and
performance from the stuff they value, and how
might businesses function in response?
Here, we summarise the context and purpose of a
circular economy and introduce readers to the
practical consequences of a transition for industry
and society. Our discussion raises many themes
familiar to the subject of environmental
governance.
In the late 1990s, the commentator, George
Monbiot, remarked that ‘no one ever rioted for
austerity’ (Monbiot, 2006), and notions of cutting
consumption, or innovating our way out of the
economic corner we find ourselves in have fallen,
largely, on deaf ears. These might be caricatures,
but environmentalists seem too preachy, business
leaders hold fervently to the bottom line, activists
appear distant from commercial reality and
corporate environmental goals are fine as long as
the product portfolio grows. Thankfully, the 17
 Geography Vol 101 Part 1 Spring 2016
The circular
economy – a
reappraisal of
the ‘stuff’ we
love
Figure 1:
Price volatility and
resource security. After:
Ellen MacArthur
Foundation, 2012.
Figure 2: Market failure
and the consumer: fridges
piled up for disposal in the
absence of take-back
routes. Photo: © Nicholas
Nova, reproduced under
Creative Commons licence
(CC BY 2.0).
18
unhelpful dichotomy of ‘environment versus
business’ is now being put aside. Moving beyond
the ‘triple bottom line’ objective of economic,
social and environmental value (Elkington, 1997),
serious efforts are now being directed at teasing
out the practicalities of how business and
environmental agendas might coexist to forge a ‘no
regrets’ future (Martin and Kemper, 2012) within a
21st-century economy – i.e. one that creates value
for society and opportunity for business within
environmental limits (Aldersgate Group, 2010,
2014; European Commission (EC), 2012; Webster
et al., 2013).
Business leaders, industrial designers, systems
engineers and environmental technologists are all
working together to explore what an alternative
economy might look like and the practical
conditions necessary for it to work. There is a
• Since 2000, the arithmetic average of four
commodity sub-indices (food, non-food
agricultural items, metals and energy) were
higher than at any time in the past century.
• Dramatic price increases have also hit base
metals, precious metals and rare earth
oxides.
• Small shifts in demand for resources are
producing disproportionate price swings.
• The exhaustion of easy-to-access reserves
has increased the technology costs of
continued extraction for zinc and gold, oil
and gas.
© Geography 2016
central role for geography here: systems thinking –
the trans-disciplinary analysis of trends and flows –
temporal-spatial factors and the human condition
are all on display in this reappraisal. Moreover, an
examination of the risks, values and our
behavioural responses to the ‘stuff we have grown
to love’ will be a key part of this reappraisal. The
debate turns the spotlight on a rather visible
dilemma, however: we recognise the central place
of systems yet hang on to linear throughput
models for our economic, industrial and food chain
analyses. What is missing are narratives on, and
exemplars of, the concepts of feedback (the
modification of a system based on its
performance), synergy, complexity and system
metabolism (input–output models) – all of which
are Earth system principles (Graedel and Crutzen,
1993), and, some argue, are central to the new
approach which geographers have a head start on.
New resource futures
Our changing relationship with the natural
resources humans need both for sustenance and
to maintain our global economy is entering a new
phase. Price volatility and growing concerns about
secure access to resources in the future (Figure 1)
are forcing a reappraisal of resource economics
and industrial strategy that has far-reaching
geopolitical implications (Lee et al., 2012).
Natural resources, the foundation of our global
economy, are viewed as being under increasing
strain because demand for them is outstripping
perceived accessible supply. The effects of
© Geography 2016
combined resource constraints on energy, water
and food have been likened to a ‘perfect storm’ for
the near future, let alone the long term
(Beddington, 2012), with widespread implications
for global economies. The interconnectedness of
what is being termed the energy–water–food nexus
(Dobbs et al., 2011; Royal Society, 2012) that
creates these conditions has been widely
asserted, though poorly analysed in mechanistic
detail. The addition of industrial materials (e.g.
strategic or critical metals) to this debate, as
another class of resource under threat posing a
vulnerability that could check manufacturing
growth, has strengthened these concerns (see,
e.g., World Economic Forum, 2012; Markillie,
2012) as increased demand for new products
(including smartphones, flat screen televisions and
plasma displays) places pressure on the materials
used in their manufacture. Resource security and
our responses to it (including the reappraisal of
supply chains, and the business models that
support them) are a growing feature of foreign
policy discussions, national industrial strategies
and environmental policies (EC, 2012). As a result,
the linear ‘take–make–dispose’ model of
production is under review, with recognition that a
continuation of business as usual will do little to
move us away from the types of consequences
illustrated in Figure 2. The two perspectives
Geography Vol 101 Part 1 Spring 2016
offered below are illustrative of the current context
and of the practical challenges of moving to a The circular
circular economy.
economy – a
reappraisal of
Manufacturing systems in a
the ‘stuff’ we
global context love
Manufacturing is conventionally thought of as a set
of operations for producing goods, for use or sale,
which utilises labour and machines, tools or
industrial processes. Manufacturing a modern
aircraft, for example, is a complex, global activity
operating under demanding spatial, temporal and
human requirements. In relation to the modern
manufacturing at Airbus, Figure 3 shows the flow of
processes and countries involved in producing just
the wing of an Airbus A360 XWB. In many ways this
is the epitome of systems and relational thinking
and practice in an interconnected world. Working
under exceptional demands for safety, reliability
and quality, Airbus must source its materials (e.g.
aluminium, carbon fibre composite) globally; then
tap into an international talent pool for research,
design, manufacture and assembly; and bring
innovative aircraft designs to market over 20 years
or more – all within an evolving geopolitical and
market climate. In doing so, aircraft manufacturers
generate enormous societal and market value, but
they also face the challenges of security over
resources and parts and the rising energy costs of
Figure 3:
The international flow of
production for an Airbus
A350 XWB wing. After:
Gardiner, 2011.
19
 Geography Vol 101 Part 1 Spring 2016 © Geography 2016

production as well as the environmental impacts Food systems, shortages and

The circular associated with issues of production waste, carbon
emission penalties, hazardous substance
commodity prices
economy – a management and end-of-life disposal. In many
Similarly, consider our global food production
reappraisal of ways, global manufacturers such as Airbus are at
systems. Open supply to the market and fair trade
the ‘stuff’ we within it are deteriorating, impacting adversely on
the heart of the debate on value, sustainability and
commodity price levels and their volatility. As
love the supply chain (World Business Council for
Figure 4 shows, food prices fell in real terms
Sustainable Development, 2011; Airbus, 2013).
between 1900 and 2000; however prices doubled
between 2000 and 2011 (Food and Agriculture
As demand for global travel increases, resource
Organization, 2012), with underlying factors
implications are forcing a reappraisal of how the
including population growth, economic
aerospace sector (and the automotive, defence,
development, increased urban and peri-urban
marine and consumer goods sectors, likewise) can
populations, changing diets and demand for biofuel
continue to provide sustained value to their
on the consumption side, and, on the supply side,
customers under the pressures of resource
natural resource limitations and a falling trend in
constraint. Unsurprisingly major aircraft
the increase in agricultural productivity. Efforts to
manufacturers have invested substantially in
achieve open world markets for commodities by
change programmes which reconsider their
the removal of export and import restrictions and
resource footprint over the life cycle of their
tariffs and of subsidies for producers, have
manufacturing operations (Airbus, 2013). Moving
achieved only a partial success.
towards circularity for this sector requires in-depth
examination of systems design, business models
In 2012, global agricultural subsidies stood at
and resource impacts. These might include, for
US$260 billion per year (Beddington et al., 2012),
example: (i) potential opportunities for extending
and faced with potential short-term domestic food
the useful life of components nearing the end of
shortages, some countries (e.g. Russia) have
their certified life through re-accreditation and
imposed temporary export restrictions. Others
responsible reuse in the production chain; (ii) the
(notably Saudi Arabia and China) have adopted
application of additive manufacturing whereby
longer-term strategies of the large-scale acquisition
successive layers of material are laid down to
of agricultural land in Africa, Asia and Latin
create three-dimensional products, thus
America (all distant from their own lands) in order
dramatically reducing waste; (iii) reducing the
to secure future food supplies (von Braun and
reliance on critical materials, and (iv) the increased
Meinzen-Dick, 2009). Bilateral agreements outside
leasing of aircraft and their parts (such as
world market mechanisms, such as between the
engines).
Figure 4:
Fluctuating resource
prices: having fallen for
nearly 100 years up to
early 2000, between 2000
and 2011 prices attained
their previous level.
Source: Ellen MacArthur
Foundation, 2012.

For years 1900–2001: McKinsey Commodity Price Index = 100. Based on arithmetic average of a
commodity sub-indices – food, non-food agricultural items, metals and energy. Prices for 2011 are
20 based on the average for the first eight months of 2011.
© Geography 2016
USA and Brazil on the supply of sugar for biofuel
production in the USA and maize to Brazil say,
mean additional uncertainties in terms of access,
trade barriers and sustainability (Oosterveer and
Mol, 2010). One might argue we are witnessing a
progressive concentration of large-scale food
production, of brokers, and of processing and
retailing to fewer multi-national enterprises.
Both manufacturing and food systems are a good
place to explore the weaknesses of linear systems
and the drive for efficiency through a reduction in
labour. Our dependence on extended supply
chains, coupled with ‘just in time’ delivery and
tightly optimised stock control, can create brittle
and vulnerable supply/demand systems, in
contrast to natural systems where a diversity of
system components and function tends to exert
resilience to systemic shock (Goerner et al.,
2009). Some global supply chains have become
increasingly and ultimately fragile. In a drive for
efficiency, companies have responded to external
drivers such as tax systems, where there are
allowances for plant and equipment. These,
coupled with subsidies for oil, have led to a
reduction in local/regional labour-based systems
and the move towards transporting goods further.
A shift to the circular economy could redress this
imbalance and build capital in regional and local
economies, through a move to end-users being
able to access performance and service over
ownership (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013a) as
well as an emphasis on user-driven innovation
enabled through a data-informed, redistributed
model of manufacturing (Manyika et al., 2012;
Morey et al., 2015). This shift could be advanced
further with changes to the tax systems, by placing
the tax burden on single-life linear products.
Stimuli for change
Scarcity, security and efficiency are three terms
used to characterise the geopolitical debate on
resources; a frontline policy issue where economic
growth meets environment policy head-on (see, for
example, ODI et al., 2012). Resolving these issues
should clear the path to a resource-efficient,
resource-resilient future (Benton and Hazell,
2013). Here, a pragmatic reflection should focus
on ‘we are where we are’. Transitional
opportunities, illustrated by the above contexts,
must account for the current market position, the
mix of technology in place and the committed
future policy context. While a blank slate for new
thinking is not realistic, there is a pressing need
for a penetrating analysis of feasible policy
responses at national, regional and international
scales, as long as this does not prove an
Geography Vol 101 Part 1 Spring 2016
impediment to action itself. We might begin by
considering afresh the total material resource The circular
flows for economies and the associated feedbacks
and categories of materials deemed critical, in
economy – a
order to clarify opportunities towards a more reappraisal of
secure and sustainable economy (see Allwood et the ‘stuff’ we
al., 2011). love
The circular economy
So, what is the ‘circular economy’ and what
implications does it have for industrial economies?
Building on related paradigms such as ecodesign,
industrial ecology, ‘biomimicry’ and product-service
systems thinking, a circular economy questions the
fitness for purpose of the linear ‘take–make–
dispose’ model (see Figure 5 for explanation of
terms) which essentially employs large quantities
of accessible resources and energy (Ellen
MacArthur Foundation, 2012, 2013a; Webster et
al., 2013).
Figure 5: Explanation of
• Biological nutrients: products of active
biotransformation and/or biodegradation
useful terms for a circular
economy. After: Ellen
MacArthur Foundation,
obtained from the cascade of biodegradable
2013; Webster et al.,
products.
2013.
• Biomimicry: the deployment of design
inspired by nature, to solve human
problems.
• Cascading: a range of ‘end-of-life’ strategies
employed to extend material and energy
efficiency.
• Circular economy: an industrial system
restorative and regenerative by intent and
design. It seeks to design out waste and
increase material productivity.
• Linear economy: one that operates on
‘take–make–dispose’ production and
consumption, by and large the current
production template.
• Performance economy: one that focuses on
selling services as opposed to products to
generate wide ranging societal value.
• Technical nutrients: product sub-
assemblies, components and materials with
opportunity for reuse, refurbishment and
remanufacturing.
Working incrementally towards resource efficiency
(Figure 6), in isolation of a more radical rethink
about the whole ‘system’ itself, is unlikely to
address the finite nature of resource stocks. It will
only delay the inexorable path to a tipping point
that dramatically constrains our range of
responses (Charnley et al., 2011).
21
 Geography Vol 101 Part 1 Spring 2016 © Geography 2016

The circular
economy – a
reappraisal of
the ‘stuff’ we
love

Figure 6: Working towards
resource efficiency: is
closing the loop enough?
After: Devins, 1982.
Conventional approaches to resource efficiency have concentrated on the product cycle and human
responses at various points of intervention. For example:
• Discretion (a) over the use of appropriate raw materials and performance characteristics
• The management of material demands (b)
• Working towards better resource-efficient design (c)
• Consumer desire for finished goods (d)
• Increased discernment (e) on when to dispose (f) of products
• A consideration of the motivations and behavioural drivers (g) that promote reuse
• The development of schemes that encourage households to be more determined (h) about recycling
• Deliberative (i) approaches to the acceptance of materials and energy recovery technologies.

Figure 7: The circular

economy, which is
restorative by intent.
Source: Ellen MacArthur
Foundation, 2012.

22
© Geography 2016
While some argue that the strategies listed in
Figure 6 are unlikely to deliver system change
without a radical rethink, advocates of the circular
economy approach argue a change of the
economic system is necessary for a number of
reasons. These include that it offers an alternative
future where the economy is restorative by intent;
is reliant on renewable energy; encourages efforts
to made to minimise, track and separate out
hazardous chemicals; and eradicate waste up front
and through purposeful, sustainable design.
Drawing on the work of leading academics
(including Stahel and Reday-Mulvey, 1981; Pearce
and Turner, 1990; Benyus, 1997; McDonough and
Braungart, 2002;) and with growing traction within
businesses, their trade bodies and the
professional institutions, as well as schools,
colleges and universities (Ellen MacArthur
Foundation and National Grid, 2012; Ellen
MacArthur Foundation, 2013a), circular economy
enables thinking to stretch beyond the linear
mechanics of production and consumption in order
to redefine the system afresh. It is receiving
serious consideration by business leaders – in
large part because the circular economy opens
with an economic rationale, and, rather than a
focus on ‘harm prevention’, it prompts us to think
creatively about how things might tangibly be
different.
The circular economy has its roots in the study of
non-linear and, particularly, living systems. Key to
the process is the notion of optimising systems,
rather than their component parts. For natural
resources, system redesign infers a careful
management of materials flows. In the circular
economy the flows are of two types: first, biological
Geography Vol 101 Part 1 Spring 2016
nutrients designed to re-enter the biosphere safely,
restoring it and building natural capital; and, The circular
second, technical nutrients, that are purposefully
designed to circulate at high quality, ideally without
economy – a
entering the biosphere (Figure 7). Achieving this reappraisal of
requires access to a prioritised suite of ‘cascades’ the ‘stuff’ we
– or recirculating loops – that reintroduce materials love
and components into new value streams. Here the
cascades represent increasing material entropy
(mixing) at distance from the consumer or end-user
(see Gutowski and Dahmus, 2005).
As a result, a circular economy draws a sharp
distinction between the choice, the consumption
and the use of materials (see Figure 8). Some of
the current thinking on additive manufacturing and
3D-printing, for example, advocates technology-
enabled design to be global and mobile, with
materials choices made locally (D’Aveni, 2013). A
functional service model is advanced, in which
manufacturers or retailers increasingly retain
ownership of their products and, where possible,
act instead as service providers – selling the use
of products for their intended function, rather than
the physical products themselves. Thus, washing
machines that deliver the service of clean clothes
rather than the consumer status of white goods,
airplane turbines that deliver ‘power by the hour’
(Rolls Royce, 2012) rather than being supplied as
major assemblies for keeps by recipient airlines,
and carpets that provide interior furnishing as a
service, rather than a glued product that is difficult
to dispose of 20 years later when the carpet is
worn.
This shift has clear implications for the redesign of
products and services, and the development of
Figure 8: Companies such
These green packaging as Ecovative of Green
products have been developed Island, New York, are
from organic materials and developing green products.
wastes sourced in New York, Photo: © Ecovative.
including mushroom roots, oat
and buckwheat hulls and
paper mill residuals. Using
materials sourced within 200
miles (362km) of its facility
enables Ecovative to reduce
the energy consumed during
transport and the burden on
landfill. The result is a
significant reduction in
embodied energy and a
sustainable competitive
advantage over synthetic
foams.
23
 Geography Vol 101 Part 1 Spring 2016 © Geography 2016

The circular
economy – a
reappraisal of
the ‘stuff’ we
love
Figure 9: In recycling a
mobile phone, only a
portion of the CO2e
(carbon dioxide equivalent)
impact of its component
materials. After: Benton
and Hazell, 2013.
efficient and effective take-back systems (producer
and consumer responsibility). Therefore, these
business models generate durable products,
facilitate disassembly and refurbishment and
increase dematerialisation from conception – all
within a regulatory framework that allows
innovation to thrive and one which provides firm
signals for the market (Gottberg et al., 2006).
The case of strategically
important metals
For these ambitions to be realised, practical
realities must be addressed. Consider, for example,
the debate on ‘critical metals’ (House of Commons
Science and Technology Committee, 2011; Benton
and Hazell, 2013). Figure 9 shows those metals
whose availability is essential for high-tech, green
technology and defence applications, yet which are
also vulnerable to geopolitical fluctuations in
supply. Such strategic minerals, metals and rare
Earth elements (REE) are vital to the
manufacturing, construction, energy and food
sectors at many levels. As Du and Graedel (2013)
have shown, these include as catalysts, magnets,
data storage, batteries, flat panel displays, electro-
optics, specialist alloys, fertiliser additives,
scintillants, ceramics, semi-conductor dopants and
in the generation of renewable power. Bulk supply
of these materials arises from relatively few
sources and, where there are limited alternatives,
technological development may well be restricted
(Ernst & Young, 2012; Hadlington, 2014).
In China, where circular economy thinking has
increasing traction (Geng and Doberstein, 2008),
REE are viewed as ‘industrial vitamins’, or
essential components, for technologies in the
production of such products as electric cars, solar
panels and wind turbines (Foster, 2011). With
some 3 billion more middle-class consumers
expected to enter the global economy in the next
20 years, domestic demand is expected to soar,
thus leading to increases in export prices and
costs for materials from the rest of the world. This
situation has the potential to lead to long-term
supply availability issues for the UK, for example.
Conversely, increased export prices might also
present an opportunity for the minerals sector,
through the development of new techniques of
mineral processing, extraction from deep deposits
and through re-worked tailings (Defra, 2012),
coupled with remanufacturing, substitution and
dematerialisation strategies which can constrain
and reduce use and dependency. Given their high
relative economic importance and high relative
supply risk, the European Commission (EC, 2010,
2014) has identified concern with access to the
following materials: antimony, beryllium, cobalt,
fluorspar, gallium, germanium, graphite, indium,
magnesium, niobium, platinum group metals
(PGMs), REE, tantalum and tungsten. Many of
these raw materials are identified as having a high
relative risk to supply (British Geological Survey,
2011, 2012). The EC (2010) has identified that
projected demand from emerging technologies
between 2006 and 2030 could rise for gallium by
2054%; indium: 717%, germanium: 686%,
neodymium: 598%, titanium: 278%, palladium:
235%, silver: 196%, copper: 162%, tantalum:
156% and cobalt by 110%. These levels of
increase in demand might well also stimulate a
radical rethink of their use and abuse.
Practical implications
There is no shortage of opportunity here for the
geography curriculum (see Ellen MacArthur
Foundation website for resources). Redefining

Where the weight of the component parts is 100g (a), the weight of the CO2e embedded in this mobile
phone’s component materials (here the major materials/elements used in production are shown) is
24 200g (b), and using recycled materials reduce the total CO2e (c) to 100g, or 50%.
© Geography 2016
models of product/service value, the labour that
generates it and the physical world on which our
stuff depends and interacts, are all core to the
subject. Many themes emerge from considerations
of circularity with those below being of particular
interest to the authors. Indeed, Webster et al.
(2013) offer a compelling and comprehensive
analysis of the wider landscape of implications for
society; Anderson (2007) and Gutowski and
Dahmus (2005) discuss the economic limitations
and boundaries of how far society might go in the
recycling and cascade of materials. Here, we
highlight just three possible themes: open- versus
closed-loop thinking; re-mining; and behaviours,
risks and values.
Open- versus closed-loop
thinking
Materials and resource management technologists
have become used to thinking about closed-loop
recycling, the retention of material within a single
or successive recycling loop or loops. A circular
economy suggests something different – benign
biological materials ultimately leak to the
environment, cascading as they do, with their
material and energy value optimised. Biological
nutrients are purposefully utilised through a
number of cycles and can then be released to the
environment as ‘food’ (via anaerobic digestion or
composting technology, for example, as soils
conditioner). The structured cascade of biological
and technical nutrients requires not only the
business models, jobs and infrastructures to
support it, but revised policy and regulatory
objectives that, for example, declassify biological
wastes as they become useful products with
realisable value.
Opportunities for re-mining
hidden flows
Valuable work over recent years on materials flow
analysis has highlighted the fate and flow of
materials through international and domestic
economies. Imported and domestic material inputs
also have ‘hidden flows’; materials extracted
during production, but that are not used in
products themselves. An example of a domestic
hidden flow is the material disturbed (overburden)
when minerals are extracted from quarries; for
example during china clay extraction. Hidden flows
have significant environmental impacts because
their mass, or volume, may be considerably greater
than the material requirement of the product in
question. Their hitherto unacknowledged existence
has been employed to illustrate the hidden
impacts of waste generation (Schiller et al., 2010)
Geography Vol 101 Part 1 Spring 2016
and their presence has important implications for
a circular economy, both in terms of the The circular
opportunity they present for material recovery in
their current unutilised form (e.g. re-extracting
economy – a
mine waste and reprocessing tailings) and as a reappraisal of
cautionary tale as we look to redesign supply the ‘stuff’ we
chains. love
Behaviours, risks and values
Resolution of the challenges raised by this article
will require a closer appraisal of the spatial and
temporal aspects of production, all within the
context of our resource budget. They therefore
require a review of the cascades and cycles across
material, water, energy and land use (Figure 10).
Figure 10: A circular
economy advocates both
net savings on materials
costs and reduced
pressure on scare natural
resources. Source: Ellen
MacArthur Foundation,
2012.
At its heart, however, circularity calls for a new
relationship between citizens, manufacturers and
the ‘stuff’ we have grown to love. The current linear
mechanistic system (at best a case more suited to
an outdated view of engineering in isolation of the
wider Earth system) has been superseded by
knowledge and demonstration that all real-world
systems are dynamic and non-linear. Natural
systems are interconnected, complex, less
predictable and awash with indeterminacy (Arthur,
1998). Working with systems, we have discovered
volumes about the physical world, our role within it,
and how the world reacts to inputs and
perturbations over space and time; all this is of
critical value as we undertake our reappraisal. If
we want to build resilient systems that withstand
systemic shocks, we might wisely reappraise what
it is we truly value in the products we desire and
the services they provide. Arthur’s (1998)
reflections on the economy offer a useful anchor:
‘In the standard view of the economy, which has
an intellectual lineage that goes back to the
enlightenment, the economy is mechanistic. It
can be viewed as a complicated set of objects
(products, markets, resources, technologies,
demands) and linkages between them. Subject
and object – agents and the economy they 25
 Geography Vol 101 Part 1 Spring 2016
perform in – can be neatly separated. The view I
am giving here is different. It says that the
The circular
economy itself emerges from our subjective
economy – a beliefs. These subjective beliefs, taken in
reappraisal of aggregate, structure the micro economy. They
the ‘stuff’ we give rise to the character of financial markets.
love They direct flows of capital and govern strategic
behavior and negotiations. They are the DNA of
the economy. These subjective beliefs are a-
priori or deductively indeterminate in advance.
They co-evolve, arise, decay, change, mutually
reinforce, and mutually negate. Subject and
object can not be neatly separated. And so the
economy shows behavior that we can best
describe as organic, rather than mechanistic. It
is not a well-ordered, gigantic machine. It is
organic. At all levels it contains pockets of
indeterminacy. It emerges from subjectivity and
falls back into subjectivity’ (Arthur, 1998)
Arthur’s (1998) invitation is to be pragmatic and
accept a more rounded perspective of the economy
in which we operate. Clear-cut answers to the
challenges of resource scarcity, security and
efficiency are not possible without substantive
caveats, because a range of pressures influence
current and future trends. To a large extent, our
responses to the issues discussed here will
depend on the future trajectories we choose for
ourselves (Cambridge Econometrics et al., 2011;
Lee et al., 2012; EC, 2012), and how we manage
the risks and opportunities to get us there.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the Higher Education
team at the Ellen MacArthur Foundation for their
comments on early drafts.
References
Airbus (2013) Airbus Environment. Sustainable aviation,
environmental innovations. Blagnac Cedex, France:
Airbus SAS.
Aldersgate Group (2010) Beyond Carbon: Towards a
resource efficient future. London: Aldersgate Group.
Aldersgate Group (2014) An Economy That Works: Strong
today, great tomorrow. London: Aldersgate Group.
Allwood, J.M., Ashby, M.F., Gutowski, T.G. and Worrell, E.
(2011) ‘Material efficiency: a white paper’, Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 55, 3, pp. 362–81.
Anderson, M.S. (2007) ‘An introductory note on the
environmental economics of the circular economy’,
Sustainability Science, 2, 1, pp. 133–40.
Arthur, W.B. (1998) ‘The end of certainty in economics’ in
Aerts, D. (ed) Einstein Meets Magritte. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 255–65.
Beddington, J. (2012) Food, Energy, Water and the
Climate: A perfect storm of global events? London:
Government Office for Science.
Beddington, J., Asaduzzaman, M., Clark, M., Fernández,
26 A., Guillou, M., Jahn, M., Erda, L., Mamo, T., Van Bo, N.,
Nobre, C.A., Scholes, R., Sharma, R. and Wakhungu, J.
© Geography 2016
(2012) Achieving Food Security in the Face of Climate
Change: Final report from the Commission on
Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change.
Copenhagen: CGIAR Research Program on Climate
Change, Agriculture and Food Security.
Benton, D. and Hazell, J. (2013) Resource Resilient UK: A
report from the Circular Economy Task Force. London:
Green Alliance.
Benyus, J.M. (1997) Biomimicry: Innovation inspired by
nature. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
British Geological Survey (BGS) (2011) Rare Earth
Elements. Nottingham: BGS.
BGS (2012) Current Supply Risk Index for Chemical
Elements of Element Groups which are of Economic
Value. Nottingham: BGS.
Cambridge Econometrics, Wuppertal Institute and SERI
(2011) Sustainability Scenarios for a Resource Efficient
Europe: Final report for the European Commission (DG
Environment). Cambridge: Cambridge Econometrics.
Charnley, F., Lemon, M. and Evans, S. (2011) ‘Exploring
the process of whole system design’, Design Studies,
32, 2, pp. 156–79.
D’Aveni, R. (2013) ‘3D printing will change the world’,
Harvard Business Review, March, p. 34
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(Defra) (2012) Resource Security Action Plan: Making
the most of valuable materials. London: Defra.
Devins, D.W. (1982) Energy: Its physical impact on the
environment. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
Dobbs, R., Oppenheim, J., Thompson, F., Brinkman, M.
and Zornes, M. (2011) Resource Revolution: Meeting
the world’s energy, materials, food and water needs.
London: McKinsey Global Institute.
Du, X. and Graedel, T.E. (2013) ‘Uncovering the end uses
of the rare Earth elements’, Science of the Total
Environment, 461–462, pp. 781–4.
Elkington, J. (1997) Cannibals with Forks: The triple
bottom line of 21st-century business. Oxford: Capstone.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation website:
www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/schools (last
accessed 18/09/2015).
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2012) Towards the Circular
Economy: Economic and business rationale for an
accelerated transition. Isle of Wight: Ellen MacArthur
Foundation.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation and National Grid (2012) The
Future of Energy: Energy challenges in a circular
economy. Isle of Wight: Ellen MacArthur Foundation.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013a) Towards the Circular
Economy: Opportunities for the consumer goods sector.
Isle of Wight: Ellen MacArthur Foundation.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013b) Ahead of the Curve:
Impact report: education programmes. Isle of Wight:
Ellen MacArthur Foundation.
Ernst & Young (2012) Business Risks Facing Mining and
Metals 2012–2013. London: Ernst & Young.
European Commission (EC) (2010) Critical Raw Materials
for the EU: Report of the Ad hoc Working Group on
Defining Critical Raw Materials. Brussels: EC.
EC (2012) Proposal for a Decision of the European
Parliament and of the Council on a General Union
Environment Action Programme to 2020 ‘Living well,
within the limits of our planet’ 2012/0337 (COD),
Brussels, 29 November. Brussels: EC.
EC (2014) Report on Critical Raw Materials for the EU:
Report of the Ad hoc Working Group on Defining Critical
Raw Materials. Aylesbury: Oakdene Hollins. Available
online at
www.oakdenehollins.co.uk/media/EC%20315/crm-
© Geography 2016
report-on-critical-raw-materials_en.pdf (last accessed
07/09/2015).
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2012) The State
of Food and Agriculture: Investing in agriculture for a
better future. Rome: FAO.
Forster, P. (2011) ‘Rare earths: why China is cutting
exports crucial to Western technologies’, The
Telegraph, 19 March. Available online at
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/8385189/Rare-
earths-why-China-is-cutting-exports-crucial-to-Western-
technologies.html (last accessed 07/09/2015).
Gardiner, G. (2011) ‘A350 XWB update: smart
manufacturing’, High Performance Composites,
September. Available online at
www.compositesworld.com/articles/a350-xwb-update-
smart-manufacturing (last accessed 26/08/2015).
Geng, Y. and Doberstein, B. (2008) ‘Developing the
circular economy in China: challenges and
opportunities for achieving “leapfrog development”’,
International Journal of Sustainable Development, 15,
3, pp. 231–9.
Goerner, S.J., Lietaer, B. and Ulanowicz, R.E. (2009)
‘Quantifying economic sustainability: implications for
free-enterprise theory, policy and practice’, Ecological
Economics, 69, 1, pp. 76–81.
Gottberg, A., Morris, J., Pollard, S., Mark-Herbert, C. and
Cook, M. (2006) ‘Producer responsibility, waste
minimisation and the WEEE Directive: case studies in
eco-design from the European lighting sector’, Science
of the Total Environment, 359, 1–3, pp. 38–56.
Graedel, T.E. and Crutzen, P.J. (1993) Atmospheric
Change. An Earth systems perspective. New York, NY:
W.H. Freeman & Company.
Gutowski, T. and Dahmus, J. (2005) ‘Mixing entropy and
product recycling’. Paper presented at IEEE
International Symposium on Electronics and the
Environment, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 16–19
May.
Hadlington, S. (2014) ‘Rare element substitution: a tricky
proposition’, Chemistry World, February, p. 12.
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
(2011) Strategically Important Metals. Fifth report of
session 2010–12, HC 726. London: HMSO.
Lee, B., Preston, F., Kooroshy, J., Bailey, R. and Lahn, G.
(2012) Resource Futures. Chatham House Report.
London: Chatham House.
Markillie, P. (2012) ‘A third industrial revolution’, The
Economist, 21 April. Available online at
www.economist.com/node/21552901 (last accessed
18/09/2015).
Manyika, J., Sinclair, J., Dobbs, R., Strube, G., Rassey, L.,
Mischke, J., Remes, J., Roxburgh, C., George, K.,
O’Halloran, D. and Ramaswamy, S. (2012)
Manufacturing the Future: The next era of global growth
and innovation. London: McKinsey Global Institute.
Martin, R. and Kemper, A. (2012) ‘The big idea: saving
the planet: a tale of two strategies’, Harvard Business
Review, April, pp. 48–56
McDonough, M. and Braungart, M. (2002) Cradle to
Cradle: Remaking the way we make things. New York,
NY: North Point Press.
Monbiot, G. (2006) Heat: How to stop the plant burning.
London: Allen Lane.
Morey, T., Forbath, T. and Schoop, A. (2015) ‘Customer
data: designing for transparency and trust’, Harvard
Business Review, May, pp. 3–11.
Oosterveer, P. and Mol, A.P. (2010) ‘Biofuels, trade and
sustainability: a review of perspectives for developing
countries’, Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 4, 1,
View publication stats
Geography Vol 101 Part 1 Spring 2016
pp. 66–76.
Overseas Development Institute, European Centre for
Development Policy Management and German The circular
Development Institute/Deutsches Institut für economy – a
Entwicklungspolitik (2012) Confronting Scarcity:
Managing water, energy and land for inclusive and
reappraisal of
sustainable growth. The 2011/2012 European Report the ‘stuff’ we
on Development. Brussels: European Union.
Packard, V. (1960) The Waste Makers. Brooklyn, NY: Ig
love
Publishing.
Pearce, D.W. and Turner, R.K. (1990) Economics of
Natural Resources and the Environment. London:
Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Rolls Royce (2012) ‘Rolls-Royce celebrates 50th
anniversary of Power-by-the-Hour’. Rolls Royce Press
Release, 30 October. Available online at www.rolls-
royce.com/news/press-releases/yr-2012/121030-the-
hour.aspx (last accessed 07/09/2015).
Royal Society (2012) People and the Planet. The Royal
Society Science Policy Centre Report 01/12. London:
The Royal Society.
Schiller, F., Raffield, T., Angus, A., Herben, M., Young, P.J.,
Longhurst, P.J. and Pollard, S.J.T. (2010) ‘Hidden flows
and waste processing – an analysis of illustrative
futures’, Environmental Technology, 31, 14, pp. 1507–
16.
Stahel, W.R. and Reday-Mulvey, G. (1981) Jobs for
Tomorrow: The potential for substituting manpower for
energy. New York, NY: Vantage Press.
von Braun, J. and Meinzen-Dick, R. (2009) ‘“Land
grabbing” by foreign investors in developing countries:
risks and opportunities’, IFPRI Policy Brief 13.
Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research
Institute.
Webster, K. (2015) The Circular Economy: A wealth of
flows. Isle of Wight: Ellen MacArthur Foundation.
Webster, K., Blériot, J. and Johnson, C. (eds) (2013) A
New Dynamic: Effective business in a circular economy.
Isle of Wight: Ellen MacArthur Foundation.
World Business Council for Sustainable Development
(WBCSD) (2011) Collaboration, Innovation,
Transformation: Ideas and inspiration to accelerate
sustainable growth – a value chain approach. Conches-
Geneva: WBCSD.
World Economic Forum (2012) The Future of
Manufacturing: Opportunities to drive economic growth.
A World Economic Forum Report in collaboration with
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. Geneva: World
Economic Forum.
Simon Pollard is Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Energy,
Environment and Agrifood at Cranfield University,
UK (email: s.pollard@cranfield.ac.uk).
Andrew Turney is Education Programme Manager
at the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, UK (email:
Andrew@ellenmacarthurfoundation.org).
Fiona Charnley is Director for the Master of
Design Programme at Cranfield University, UK
(email: f.j.charnley@cranfield.ac.uk).
Ken Webster is Head of Innovation at the Ellen
MacArthur Foundation, UK (email:
ken.webster@ellenmacarthurfoundation.org). 27