The notion of circularity in economics, inspired by ecological thought, takes on different meaning in different contexts. The container word ‘circular economy’ is understood differently in different practices. The term is undeniably en vogue, but what do people mean by it and what is usually understood as circularity?
In recent years circularity, and more specifically the circular economy, has gained in popularity and attention in both academia and business (Ghisellini et al. 2016; Moreau et al. 2017). In Western-Europe it is edging towards mainstream dominant logic in policy and in how people set up their businesses and think about the economy (NL 2016; EU 2015). It seems that the way circularity has gained such momentum is mostly through its promise of increased material and energy efficiency. While of course this isn’t necessarily a false promise it is a one-sided understanding of circularity and its consequences. The translation of a complex systems approach rooted in ecology into two dominant notions (material and energy efficiency) is a simplification that does not do justice to the idea of circular economy and might eventually be counterproductive (Zink & Geyer 2017). Thinking the circular economy as an engineering model to be applied to society is an often occurring type of simplification that blinds one for the intricate, dense and complex nature of social, political and economic relations and forces at play in society. It renders invisible the actual taking place of circular economy. So, how should we envision and think the circular economy to do it justice?
The most dominant understanding of the CE is based on closing material cycles and increasing resource efficiency (Morreau et al. 2017), as epitomized by the widely cited definition put forward by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation that is now used by governments as well.
A circular economy is restorative and regenerative by design, and aims to keep products, components, and materials at their highest utility and value at all times. The concept [ . . . ] is a continuous positive development cycle that preserves and enhances natural capital, optimises resource yields, and minimises system risks by managing finite stocks and renewable flows. It works effectively at every scale. A recent special issue of the Journal of Industrial Ecology, Exploring the Circular Economy, shows in myriad ways the downside of such a one sided approach in which effectively only the flow of materials is seen as a factor and all things (material and human) are referred to in notions of capital. An economic systems change has profound effects on, and flows from, many different fields of (human)life. And while the business models of a circular economy have been known since the 1970s, a systems change does not occur in a vacuum. The socio-cultural hinterland of legislation, tradition, politics, practices, economic frameworks and culture are all involved (Stahel 2013; Cullen 2017; Morreau et al. 2017; Zink & Geyer 2017).
To use such a definition of circular economy, with a main focus on material flows, puts forward a false sense of grip and hierarchical influence on the subject (as if it were a matter of closing some envisioned material loop out-there by drawing up the model on a piece of paper in-here). For the sake of practicality and swift action one might think of this definition as useful and clear. However, ‘swift action’ and clarity might not be notions that necessarily will hold up in the face of complexity and change. The actual instances of circular economy situations are highly complex and situated.
In Industrial Ecology, a ‘parent research field’ of the circular economy if you will, industrial systems and processes are viewed in concert with their surrounding systems (Allenby 2006; Kay 2002). Ecology in general, as “a branch of science concerned with the interrelationship of organisms and their environments” (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary) adheres to a view of the world as complex and highly entangled. It is informed by the sense of ‘things taking place’. In their analysis of the historical and conceptual background of the Circular Economy, Morreau et al. show through the work of economists such as Georgescu-Roegen, William Kapp, and Ayres and Kneese, that a proper understanding of circular economy is one in which a holistic or ecological approach is taken that consequently does not allow for or create externalities. This means that to better grasp circular economy integrating the institutional and social dimensions into our understanding of it is essential (Morreau et al. 2017).
In the (scientific) discussions surrounding circular economy, questions of scale often arise. Inevitably, generalizations are made to talk about certain phenomenon. Models are drawn up for the sake of policymakers to scale up from several local cases to more general assumptions about trends. While such things are not necessarily bad or good, it is important to keep in mind that the socio-material side of circular economy is very much real in the sense that the practical manifestations of circular economy phenomenon exist and produce new and mutate existing relations. Their messiness exists alongside the seemingly free-from-ambiguity reality produced by these models, these inscription devices of abstraction.
In some recent publications on the Circular Economy this messiness is touched upon. Both Zink and Geyer in discussing circular economy rebound effects (Zink & Geyer 2017) and Morreau and colleagues in exploring the social dimensions of circular economy (Morreau et al. 2017) point towards the complexities (in the form of practices, economic, political, or other) that underlie these abstract schemes and models and indeed the more local and practical approaches from for instance the social solidarity economy. The observation of this messiness by different scholars edges us towards questions involving notions such as participation and publics, questions regarding who gets affected and notions of ‘problematicness’ or ambiguity. Designerly Research performed in the RE-source project will supplement the understanding of the term ‘circular economy’ as a model with circular economy ‘as practices’ involving many objects, people, institutions, locations, and actors. In doing so we begin to open up the black box of circular economy. How does this work?
Inviting designers into something framed as a specific instance of a circular economy situation, investigation of a residual material urban flow, is a type of moving-in-from-the-outside. The ‘outside’ in ‘moving-in-from-the-outside’ brings with it a sense of (at least) two domains. This is important to realize as it allows for a stepping back (or continuing on) to that place, the outside, in the act of reflection. This temporality or nomadic nature of the outside-inside move is what gives it its impetus. The outsider-insider relationship is thus very important to maintain as a productive relationship and is truly different from moving in and becoming part of the ‘inside’.
If we approach our circular economy situation, residual material flows, along the lines of Actor-Network-Theory we can say that circular economy (CE) gets performed differently in different situations, practices and places. One of the dominant ways of performing CE is through governmental policy that focuses on material efficiency and profitability. The way CE gets performed in a permaculture community or Social Solidarity principle inspired co-op differs a great deal from the way CE gets performed by for instance the waste treatment industry or the Dutch government. Creating the opportunity to move into a CE from the outside is thus a rather broad statement; which CE are we moving into? This is precisely what gives this research project its relevance.
The designers in the RE-source project are not simply investigating how circularity, specifically residual material use, is currently performed in the city of Rotterdam. Through envisioning, proposing and trying out future possibilities the designers stretch our narrow understanding of CE and bring into the world actual propositions of new ways of performing and understanding a CE. Through their Designerly Research they make use of a dynamic we refer to as RE-framing. In doing so they explore and contribute new knowledge to what we call circular economy. We learn by doing and think through making. By making things experiential, by designing close encounters with the possible, we explore circularity.