Circular economy as assistance for sustainable development in OECD countries

Abstract

Research background: Circular economy is of great importance, as it plays a vital role in ensuring the reuse of waste created and, therefore, reduces the waste of limited resources, which is the primary goal of the general economic concept. In line with the circular economy, sustainable development gains great attention, as the United Nations announced the sustainable development goals that should be reached by 2030. Hence, the current paper aims at examining whether the circular economy could be treated as an effective assistance tool for sustainable development of OECD countries.

Purpose of the article: The paper aims to investigate whether the circular economy could serve as an assistance tool for sustainable development and, therefore, seeks to determine if the circular economy could directly impact a country?s sustainable development.

Methods: First, the countries chosen were prioritised using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the Evaluation Based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS) methodologies. AHP method was used for weight assignment to the circular economy indicators that were further used for OECD countries? prioritisation procedure for which multi-criteria decision-making method EDAS was employed. Second, to reveal a link between the circular economy ranking results and sustainable development, a comparative analysis was done. Third, the impact of the country?s circular economy on sustainable development was evaluated using the fixed-effect regression model on four years of panel data from 2016 to 2019 for the sample of 32 OECD countries.

Findings & value-added: The comparative analysis of the circular economy?s prioritisation results and Sustainable Development Goals Index (SDGI) ranking showed 20 out of 32 matches, assuming a link between the circular economy and sustainable development could be made. The fixed-effect regression equation results demonstrate that the unemployment rate, poverty rate, air pollution exposure, and CO2 emission per capita negatively influence sustainable development. In contrast, indicators such as gross domestic expenditure on R&D, renewable energy, number of passenger cars in use, and households with Internet access positively impact SDGI. The hypothesis that the circular economy is seen as an assistance for sustainable development and directly affects a country?s sustainability was approved. The paper contributes to the scientific literature in the field of circular economy and sustainable development interaction and could be seen as an assumption for new research directions, focusing on the linkage between circular economy and sustainable development. Moreover, the obtained results could contribute to a country?s policy-makers by highlighting the essential indicators of a circular economy that should be considered while forming the strategy of a country?s sustainable development.

Keywords

circular economy, sustainability, sustainable development goals, OECD countries

References

1. Aiking, H., & de Boer, J. (2020). The next protein transition. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 105, 515?522. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2018.07.008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2018.07.008
   View in Google Scholar
2. Ajwani-Ramchandani, R., Figueira, S., Torres de Oliveira, R., Jha, S., Ramchandani, A., & Schuricht, L. (2021). Towards a circular economy for packaging waste by using new technologies: the case of large multinationals in emerging economies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 281, 125139. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125139
   View in Google Scholar
3. Avdiushchenko, A., & Zaj, P. (2019). Circular economy indicators as a supporting tool for European regional development policies. Sustainability, 11(11), 3025 doi: 10.3390/su11113025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113025
   View in Google Scholar
4. Bocken, N. M. P., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42?56. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039
   View in Google Scholar
5. Bravo, G. (2014). The Human Sustainable Development Index: new calculations and a first critical analysis. Ecological Indicators, 37(PART A), 145?150. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.10.020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.10.020
   View in Google Scholar
6. Bressanelli, G., Adrodegari, F., Perona, M., & Saccani, N. (2018). Exploring how usage-focused business models enable circular economy through digital technologies. Sustainability, 10(3), 639. doi: 10.3390/su10030639. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030639
   View in Google Scholar
7. Calicioglu, Ö., & Bogdanski, A. (2021). Linking the bioeconomy to the 2030 sustainable development agenda: can SDG indicators be used to monitor progress towards a sustainable bioeconomy? New Biotechnology, 61, 40?49. doi: 10.1016/j.nbt.2020.10.010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2020.10.010
   View in Google Scholar
8. Ecologic Institute (2020). Support to the public consultation on a new circular economy action plan. Retrieved form https://www.ecologic.eu/17330.
   View in Google Scholar
9. EEA (2016). Circular economy in Europe. Developing the knowledge base. EEA Report, 2. doi: 10.2800/51444.
   View in Google Scholar
10. Ellen Macarthur Foundation (2013). The circular model ? brief history and school of thought. Retrieved form https://bit.ly/31MgEtd.
    View in Google Scholar
11. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2015). Delivering the circular economy: a toolkit for policy-makers. (Vol. 1). Retrieved form https://bit.ly/3cOHsiQ.
    View in Google Scholar
12. Emas, R. (2015). The concept of sustainable development: definition and defining principles. Florida International University. Brief for GSDR 2015, 1?3. Retrieved form https://bit.ly/3uoSyRK.
    View in Google Scholar
13. Esty, D. C., Levy, M., Srebotnjak, T., & De Sherbinin, A. (2005). Environmental sustainability index: benchmarking national environmental stewardship. New Haven: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, 47?60.
    View in Google Scholar
14. European Commission (2014). Towards a circular economy: a zero waste programme for Europe. Retrieved form http://bit.ly/33KsjIA.
    View in Google Scholar
15. European Commission (2020a). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. Publications Office of the EU.
    View in Google Scholar
16. European Commission (2020b). Consumption.
    View in Google Scholar
17. European Commission (2020c). Raw materials.
    View in Google Scholar
18. Eurostat (2001). Environmental pressure indicators for the EU. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-statistical-books/-/KS-36-01-677.
    View in Google Scholar
19. Fan, J., Cheng, R., & Wu, M. (2019). Extended EDAS methods for multi-criteria group decision-making based on IV-CFSWAA and IV-CFSWGA operators with interval-valued complex fuzzy soft information. IEEE Access, 7, 105546?105561. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2932267. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2932267
    View in Google Scholar
20. Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M. P., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The circular economy ? a new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 757?768. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048
    View in Google Scholar
21. Hickel, J. (2020). The sustainable development index: measuring the ecological efficiency of human development in the anthropocene. Ecological Economics, 167, 106331. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.05.011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.05.011
    View in Google Scholar
22. Jin, H., Qian, X., Chin, T., & Zhang, H. (2020). A global assessment of sustainable development based on modification of the Human Development Index via the Entropy method. Sustainability, 12(8), 3251. doi: 10.3390/su12083251. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083251
    View in Google Scholar
23. Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., & Hekkert, M. (2017). Conceptualising the circular economy: an analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 127, 221?232. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005
    View in Google Scholar
24. Korhonen, J., Nuur, C., Feldmann, A., & Birkie, S. E. (2018). Circular economy as an essentially contested concept. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175, 544?552. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.111
    View in Google Scholar
25. Kraujalien?, L. (2019). Comparative analysis of multicriteria decision-making methods evaluating the efficiency of technology transfer. Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 17(1), 72?93. doi: 10.3846/bme. 2019.11014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/bme.2019.11014
    View in Google Scholar
26. Kumar, B., & Verma, P. (2021). Biomass-based biorefineries: an important architype towards a circular economy. Fuel, 288, 119622. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel. 2020.119622. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.119622
    View in Google Scholar
27. Li, X. X., Liu, Y. M., & Song, T. (2014). Calculation of the green development index. Social Sciences in China, 6, 69?95.
    View in Google Scholar
28. Libby, R., & Blashfield, R. K. (1978). Performance of a composite as a function of the number of judges. Organisational Behavior and Human Performance, 21(2), 121?129. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(78)90044-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(78)90044-2
    View in Google Scholar
29. Liu, Y., Li, H., An, H., Guan, J., Shi, J., & Han, X. (2021). Are the environmental impacts, resource flows and economic benefits proportional? Analysis of key global trade routes based on the steel life cycle. Ecological Indicators, 122, 107306. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107306
    View in Google Scholar
30. Marino, A., & Pariso, P. (2020). Comparing European countries? performances in the transition towards the Circular Economy. Science of The Total Environment, 729, 138142. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138142. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138142
    View in Google Scholar
31. Marti, L., & Puertas, R. (2020). Assessment of sustainability using a synthetic index. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 84(January), 106375. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106375. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106375
    View in Google Scholar
32. Millar, N., McLaughlin, E., & Börger, T. (2019). The circular economy: swings and roundabouts? Ecological Economics, 158, 11?19. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon. 2018.12.012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.12.012
    View in Google Scholar
33. Morseletto, P. (2020). Targets for a circular economy. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 153, 104553. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104553. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104553
    View in Google Scholar
34. Murray, A., Skene, K., & Haynes, K. (2017). The circular economy: an interdisciplinary exploration of the concept and application in a global context. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(3), 369?380. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2693-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2693-2
    View in Google Scholar
35. OECD (2019). Waste management and the circular economy in selected OECD countries (OECD Envir). OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264309395-en. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264309395-en
    View in Google Scholar
36. Philp, J., & Winickoff, D. E. (2018). Realising the circular bioeconomy. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, 60. doi: 10.1787/31bb2345-en. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/31bb2345-en
    View in Google Scholar
37. Ranta, V., Aarikka-Stenroos, L., & Väisänen, J.-M. (2021). Digital technologies catalysing business model innovation for circular economy?multiple case study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 164, 105155. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105155. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105155
    View in Google Scholar
38. Rashid, A., Asif, F. M. A., Krajnik, P., & Nicolescu, C. M. (2013). Resource conservative manufacturing: an essential change in business and technology paradigm for sustainable manufacturing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 57, 166?177. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.012
    View in Google Scholar
39. Razminiene, K. (2019). Circular economy in clusters? performance evaluation. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 14(3), 537?559. doi: 10.24136/eq.2019.026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24136/eq.2019.026
    View in Google Scholar
40. Roblek, V., Meško, M., Bach, M. P., Thorpe, O., & Šprajc, P. (2020). The interaction between internet, sustainable development, and emergence of society 5.0. Data, 5(3), 80. doi: 10.3390/data5030080. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/data5030080
    View in Google Scholar
41. Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234?281. doi: 10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5
    View in Google Scholar
42. Saaty, T. L. (1985). Decision making for leaders. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-15, 3, 450?452. doi: 10.1109/TSMC.1985.631 3384. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1985.6313384
    View in Google Scholar
43. Saidani, M., Yannou, B., Leroy, Y., Cluzel, F., & Kendall, A. (2019). A taxonomy of circular economy indicators. Journal of Cleaner Production, 207, 542?559. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.014
    View in Google Scholar
44. Shahbazi, S., & Jönbrink, A. K. (2020). Design guidelines to develop circular products: action research on Nordic industry. Sustainability, 12(9), 3679. doi: 10.3390/su12093679. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093679
    View in Google Scholar
45. Shyamprasad, V., & Kousalya, P. (2020). Role of consistency and random index in analytic hierarchy process?a new measure. In D. Dutta & B. Mahanty (Eds). Numerical optimization in engineering and sciences. Advances in intelligent systems and computing, Vol 979. Singapore: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-3215-3_22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3215-3_22
    View in Google Scholar
46. Souter, D. (2012). ICTs, the Internet and sustainability: a discussion paper. Retrieved from www.iisd.org.
    View in Google Scholar
47. Tadić, S., Krstić, M., & Brnjac, N. (2019). Selection of efficient types of inland intermodal terminals. Journal of Transport Geography, 78, 170?180. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.06.004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.06.004
    View in Google Scholar
48. Tjahjono, B., & Ripanti, E. F. (2019). Circular economy ? what does it mean for remanufacturing operations? EFFEKTIVITET, 1, 5?7.
    View in Google Scholar
49. UNDP (1990). Human development report 1990. Concept and measurement of human development. In United Nations development programme. New York: United Nations.
    View in Google Scholar
50. United Nations (2007). Indicators of sustainable development?: guidelines and methodologies. New York: United Nations.
    View in Google Scholar
51. United Nations (2015). Sustainable development goals. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org.
    View in Google Scholar
52. United Nations (2020a). Take action for the sustainable development goals. New York: United Nations.
    View in Google Scholar
53. United Nations (2020b). The sustainable development goals report. New York: United Nations.
    View in Google Scholar
54. Veleva, V., Bodkin, G., & Todorova, S. (2017). The need for better measurement and employee engagement to advance a circular economy: lessons from Biogen?s ?zero waste? journey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 154, 517?529. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.177
    View in Google Scholar
55. Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1996). Footprints and sustainability. In Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth. New Society Publishers.
    View in Google Scholar
56. Weitz, N., Persson, ?., Nilsson, M., & Tenggren, S. (2015). Sustainable development goals for Sweden: insights on setting a national agenda. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2Olpon4.
    View in Google Scholar