Existing circularity is circular greenwashing – it has no environmental benefit
Steve Harris et al, 2021 - IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Life Cycle Management “Circularity for circularity's sake? Scoping review of assessment methods for environmental performance in the circular economy.” Sustainable Production and Consumption Volume 26, April 2021, Pages 172-186, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352550920305236 //DH
Recently there has been a rise in circularity indicators (at both product and macro-level) with Saidani (2018) reviewing 55 indicators and Parchomenko (2019) reviewing 63 indicators. Many of these measure material or value re-circulation, apparently as a proxy for environmental impact (Elia et al., 2017; European Commission, 2019; Saidani et al., 2019). Such measurements arguably risk driving action based on increased circularity and not necessarily on improved environmental performance – leading to what we refer to as “circularity” for circularity's sake. Moreover, there is currently limited evidence that company-level actions (e.g. developing product-service systems) and products designed for increased circularity (e.g. increasing longevity or recyclability) have increased environmental performance, particularly from a macro- perspective (Tukker, 2015).
In accordance, Esty and Porter (1998) (pg. 40) referring to industrial ecology, note that “The belief in the perfection of the circle can be taken too far. Even when company gains and social benefits are summed, the costs of closing some loops may exceed the benefits.” There is also a risk of “circular [green]washing”, reminiscent of the so-called “green-washing” that emerged in the 1990’s (Welford, 1997), where a company uses inaccurate information for marketing purposes.