People at the heart of the circular economy: turning trade-offs into synergies

The circular economy aims to benefit the environment, but how can the circular economy also benefit people? By talking to circular leaders in the Netherlands we find that both the environment and people can win from circularity, but only if ethical motives take precedence over economic growth motives.

Authors

Katinka Quintelier
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Koen van Bommel
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Amba Maria van Erkelens
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Johan Wempe
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

download the full study

Quintelier, K., Van Bommel, K., Van Erkelens, A., & Wempe, J. (2023). ‘People at the heart of circularity: A mixed method study about trade-offs, synergies, and strategies related to circular and social organizing’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135780  

17 July 2024

The social dimension of the circular economy

The circular economy (CE) is gaining momentum. The CE is a more sustainable alternative to the linear ‘take-make-waste’ economy which depletes resources and turns them into (often harmful) waste. The transition from a linear to a circular economy is supported by the Dutch government, which has committed itself to a fully circular economy in the Netherlands by 2050, and the CE is also one of the building blocks of the European Green Deal. This transition is believed to reduce emissions, resource depletion, and biodiversity loss, while at the same time enabling sustainable growth and new jobs.

A transition to the CE is laudable, yet there remains a rather deafening silence when considering the social rather than environmental aspects of the CE. When the social aspects are taken into account, it is often assumed that the CE will benefit people, for instance by creating jobs. However, the CE can also have negative social aspects. For instance, recycling, an important aspect of circularity, often requires contact with unhealthy chemicals. This opens up other possible issues: Can the emphasis on technology for waste reduction also reduce jobs rather than create them? And can the local repairing and recycling of textiles come at the detriment of industries in countries such as Bangladesh, China or India? These issues highlight the complex nature of the CE and its social aspects. Based on a study of the social aspects of the CE in the Netherlands, recently published in Journal of Cleaner Production, we put people at the heart of the CE and examine how to combine environmental and social benefits. We do so through a combination of interviews with strategic leaders in Dutch circular organizations and a Delphi study with experts in the CE.   

Social values, trade-offs and synergies

Our study highlights that social benefits in the CE do exist at multiple levels, and that these different social benefits can lead to both positive relationships (i.e. synergies) and negative relationships (i.e. trade-offs) between the CE and social benefits. Social benefits within the CE are visible at three levels: micro, meso and macro.

Social benefits in the CE do exist at multiple levels, and that these different social benefits can lead to both positive relationships (i.e. synergies) and negative relationships (i.e. trade-offs).

 

At the micro level, examples are well-being and meaningfulness at work or the creation of unique products for customers. At the meso level, telling examples are the inclusion of people with a distance to the labor market in the value network or generating inspiration and awareness. Finally, macro level benefits evolve around global justice, equality and making the world a better place.

We show that synergies exist mostly at the micro level. Circular working and organizing are considered intrinsically more meaningful and attractive, and come with positive feelings and interactions. Succinctly stated by one circular entrepreneur: it is great fun to create value this way!”. Circularity and social benefits are also positively connected as they lead to win-win situations regarding new jobs, skills, products, services, and innovation.

However, we also find that trade-offs are experienced between circularity and macro level social benefits. Tensions are, for instance, perceived between circularity and social justice. Tellingly put by one of the CE experts consulted:

“It is fabulous that a computer or ‘smartphone’ will be repurposed, or that energy garnered from sewage will heat a neighborhood, but what about the fact that MOST of our (Dutch) consumption relies on ‘ghost acres’ elsewhere. I am thinking of devastated ecosystems where mining takes place, I am thinking of children mining coltan”

In addition, experts find it difficult to scale up the benefits of circularity to the macro level because of the current economic system, as the example below illustrates:

“Circular business is less capitalist thinking. Capitalism is based on infinite growth. And we see what this does to inequality and destruction of the earth. Thinking more holistically, that is circular.”

How to turn trade-offs into synergies  

Turning trade-offs into synergies can be fostered by a communal sharing strategy. This is a strategy that consists of personal, structural and socio-circular strategic behaviors.

Turning trade-offs into synergies can be fostered by a communal sharing strategy. This is a strategy that consists of personal, structural and socio-circular strategic behaviors.

 

Personal strategic behaviors focus on developing intrinsic motivations, meaningfulness, community building, and information sharing among stakeholders with similar idea(l)s. Structural strategic behaviors aim to create resource efficiencies, leveraging government policies, and developing stakeholder relations based on trust and cooperation. Socio-circular strategic behaviors treat stakeholders as multifaceted human beings who are embedded in broader social networks. For instance, social benefits can be achieved when viewing a stakeholder as both community member, supplier and customer, as one strategic leader explained:

“youth have nothing to do, so let them clean up junk and bring it to the community center. Then we turn it into a skateboard and then they can get skate lessons. Then it’s also a community thing, that’s part of what you could do with it.”

Overall, a more ethically motivated communal sharing strategy works well to create synergies at, and between, the micro and meso level. However, it fares less well at, or scaling up to, the macro level. The reason is that economic growth motives seem essential to reach the macro level, but the pressures of these economic growth motives appear to be particularly at odds with the interests of social and circular organizations. This is summarized in the following observation:

“Circular business is less capitalist thinking. Capitalism is based on infinite growth. And we see what this does to inequality and destruction of the earth. Thinking more holistically, that is circular.”

CE practitioners and policy makers do well to remember this complex nature of the CE. A truly sustainable CE comprises next to economic and environmental benefits also social benefits, which manifest itself at micro, meso and macro level. Moreover, as the relation between social benefits and circularity shows trade-offs and synergies, communal sharing strategies can help to overcome trade-offs and turn them into synergies.  

Authors

Katinka Quintelier
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Katinka Quintelier is Associate Professor at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. In her research she applies stakeholder theory to the circular economy social and she investigates how corporate strategies can be environmentally and socially ethical.

Koen van Bommel
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Koen van Bommel is Associate Professor at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Taking an organization and management theory perspective, his research focuses in particular on corporate sustainability, sustainable business models, circular economy and non-financial disclosure.

Amba Maria van Erkelens
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Amba Maria van Erkelens is Assistant Professor at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Mostly taking a practice theory perspective, her research focuses on Social, Sustainable and Circular Entrepreneurship.

Johan Wempe
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Johan Wempe is Emeritus Professor of Business Ethics at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. His research concerns the moral foundations of companies, organizational integrity, corporate governance, sustainability and the circular economy.

Is ESG reporting ready to save the world?

ESG reporting is a mainstream topic among corporations. Standard-setters around the world seem to be trapped into the assumption that ESG reporting not only increases transparency, but also evokes more sustainable behavior. However, research shows that we lack understanding how ESG reporting can lead to real positive impact.

Authors

Rüdiger Hahn
Heinrich Heine University of Düsseldorf
Daniel Reimsbach
Nijmegen School of Management, Radboud University
Christopher Wickert
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Download the full study

Hahn, R., Reimsbach, D., & Wickert, C. (2023). Nonfinancial Reporting and Real Sustainable Change: Relationship Status—It’s Complicated. Organization & Environment, 36(1), 3–16.

21 March 2023

ESG reporting, the communication of environmental, social and governance issues by business firms, has been hailed as an important solution to tackle societal challenges such as the climate crisis. Yet, while it increases transparency, the “real” effects of ESG reporting on social and ecological conditions remain unclear. To address this shortcoming, we have solicited a special issue of research papers with a call to scrutinize how ESG reporting may accelerate, or even slow down, real sustainable change in organizations. This is crucial, because a report alone can only be a first step toward such change. We need to focus on whether and how ESG reporting evokes the transformation of organizational practices that would ultimately materialize into real impact for society at large, rather than being merely a PR exercise for business firms.

The topic is timely, because ESG reporting has recently been fueled by several regulatory initiatives around the world, most notably in the EU, the USA, as well as in China. Yet, the elephant in the room that remains to be tackled is how we can causally link the outputs of ESG reporting such as higher transparency, commitments and strategies to outcomes such as absolute emissions reductions and real impacts such as meeting the 1.5° target.

In an ideal world, and as often proclaimed by many reporting companies, advisory firms, and regulatory bodies, ESG reporting is critical for generating sustainable change. The argument goes that increased transparency would lead to increased accountability, thus stimulating change in organizational practices and procedures. However, it often appears that current ESG reporting practices are rather oriented at serving the demands of reporting entities, such as reputational gains, while offering attractive new markets for advisory and auditing firms. This is problematic, because the measurable impacts on societal well-being and other beneficiaries, such as marginalized stakeholders and ecological conditions, are often only a by-products of ESG reporting, rather than their core aim. It remains unclear whether there is a robust causal link between reporting and real sustainable change. In fact, whether, why, and how sustainable outputs, such as nonfinancial reports and other information distributed to stakeholders would actually materialize into sustainability-related outcomes, such as reduced carbon emissions, enhanced biodiversity, and improved human rights, which would ultimately lead to desirable impacts at the societal level of analysis remains ambiguous at best.

With these premises in mind, we have put together a special issue in the journal Organization & Environment that presents a collection of research articles which shed important light on the phenomenon of how ESG reporting can contribute to real sustainable change, and disentangled the complicated linkages between outputs, outcomes, and impact. As the collection of research shows, it is no easy task and requires reconsidering some important assumptions of ESG reporting in companies.

The contributions to the special issue address several important themes in the ESG/nonfinancial reporting literature and collectively offer a deep dive into the state-of-the-art research in this field. The first contribution by Nicolas Garcia-Torea, Carlos Larrinaga and Mercedes Luque-Vílchez, titled “Bridging the Understanding of Sustainability Accounting and 17 Organizational Change,” reviews the literature on ESG reporting; the authors integrate research in the accounting and organizational studies domains and alert us to important blind spots in the literature. Then, two articles examine key input factors that may enable real sustainable change through ESG reporting, transparency, and voluntary versus involuntary reporting. Joel Andrus, Patrick Callery and Jake Grandy analyze The Uneven Returns of Transparency in Voluntary Nonfinancial Disclosures, and Dorota Dobija, Charles Cho, Chaoyuan She, Ewelina Zarzycka, Joanna Krasodomska and Dariouz Jemielniak investigate Involuntary Disclosures and Stakeholder-Initiated Communication on Social Media.

Another set of articles incorporates (quantitative) measures of real sustainable change as a dependent variable related to ESG reporting. For example, Limin Fu studies negative media coverage of ESG reporting, asking “Why Bad News Can Be Good News?”, and studies The Signaling Feedback Effect of Negative Media Coverage of Corporate Irresponsibility. In their work Under Pressure? The Link Between Mandatory Climate Reporting and Firms’ Carbon Performance, Tobias Bauckloh, Christian Klein, Thomas Pioch and Frank Schiemann make an important distinction between relative and absolute levels of real sustainable change, showing that firms tend to favor the former at the expense of the latter. Then, Logan Crace and Joel Gehman examine What Really Explains ESG Performance and Disentangle the Asymmetrical Drivers of the Triple Bottom Line. Finally, Koen van Bommel, Andreas Rasche and André Spicer, in their study “From Values to Value: The Commensuration of Sustainability Reporting and the Crowding Out of Morality,” show that ESG reporting shifted from an emphasis on morally charged values toward a focus on financial value creation, making it more difficult to associate sustainability issues with potential moral dilemmas.

Taken together, the research presented in this special issue takes our understanding of how ESG reporting relates to real sustainable change to the next level. Yet, the same research also alerts us to a number of important blind spots that we still need to investigate. In the introduction to the special issue, we offer a range of suggestions where future research should be heading and how open questions could be best addressed.

Authors

Rüdiger Hahn
Heinrich Heine University of Düsseldorf

Rüdiger Hahn is the Henkel-Endowed Chair of Sustainability Management at the Heinrich Heine University of Düsseldorf, Germany. He previously held chaired positions at the Universities of Hohenheim and Kassel, both Germany. His research focuses on nonfinancial reporting, stakeholder behavior, social enterprises, and the Base of the Pyramid. He has published in a diverse set of internationally renowned journals such as Organization & Environment, Business & Society, European Accounting Review, International Journal of Management Reviews, and Strategic Organization.

Daniel Reimsbach
Nijmegen School of Management, Radboud University

Daniel Reimsbach is currently Associate Professor of Accounting and Sustainability at the Nijmegen School of Management, Radboud University (The Netherlands). Much of Daniel’s research focusses on the role of accounting information in the realm of sustainability and corporate social responsibility (CSR). His research has been published in internationally renowned journals such as Organizations & Environment, Academy of Management Discoveries, Business & Society, European Accounting Review, and Strategic Organization.

Christopher Wickert
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Christopher Wickert (PhD, University of Lausanne) is Professor and Chair of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and Director of the VU Business & Society Knowledge Hub (www.business-society.org). He has published widely in leading scholarly journals on topics such as CSR, sustainability, business & society, and social entrepreneurship, as well as in practice-oriented outlets such as Harvard Business Review and The Financial Times. He is currently General Editor of the Journal of Management Studies, a leading scholarly journal in the field of management and organizational theory.