❉✉r❤❛♠ ❘❡s❡❛r❝❤ ❖♥❧✐♥❡
❉❡♣♦s✐t❡❞ ✐♥ ❉❘❖✿
✵✶ ❉❡❝❡♠❜❡r ✷✵✶✹
❱❡rs✐♦♥ ♦❢ ❛tt❛❝❤❡❞ ✜❧❡✿
❆❝❝❡♣t❡❞ ❱❡rs✐♦♥
P❡❡r✲r❡✈✐❡✇ st❛t✉s ♦❢ ❛tt❛❝❤❡❞ ✜❧❡✿
P❡❡r✲r❡✈✐❡✇❡❞
❈✐t❛t✐♦♥ ❢♦r ♣✉❜❧✐s❤❡❞ ✐t❡♠✿
●r❡❣s♦♥✱ ◆✐❝❦② ❛♥❞ ❈r❛♥❣✱ ▼✐❦❡ ❛♥❞ ❋✉❧❧❡r✱ ❙❛r❛ ❛♥❞ ❍♦❧♠❡s✱ ❍❡❧❡♥ ✭✷✵✶✺✮ ✬■♥t❡rr♦❣❛t✐♥❣ t❤❡ ❝✐r❝✉❧❛r
❡❝♦♥♦♠② ✿ t❤❡ ♠♦r❛❧ ❡❝♦♥♦♠② ♦❢ r❡s♦✉r❝❡ r❡❝♦✈❡r② ✐♥ t❤❡ ❊❯✳✬✱ ❊❝♦♥♦♠② ❛♥❞ s♦❝✐❡t②✳✱ ✹✹ ✭✷✮✳ ♣♣✳ ✷✶✽✲✷✹✸✳
❋✉rt❤❡r ✐♥❢♦r♠❛t✐♦♥ ♦♥ ♣✉❜❧✐s❤❡r✬s ✇❡❜s✐t❡✿
❤tt♣✿✴✴❞①✳❞♦✐✳♦r❣✴✶✵✳✶✵✽✵✴✵✸✵✽✺✶✹✼✳✷✵✶✺✳✶✵✶✸✸✺✸
P✉❜❧✐s❤❡r✬s ❝♦♣②r✐❣❤t st❛t❡♠❡♥t✿
❚❤✐s ✐s ❛♥ ❆❝❝❡♣t❡❞ ▼❛♥✉s❝r✐♣t ♦❢ ❛♥ ❛rt✐❝❧❡ ♣✉❜❧✐s❤❡❞ ❜② ❚❛②❧♦r
❋r❛♥❝✐s ●r♦✉♣ ✐♥ ❊❝♦♥♦♠② ❛♥❞ ❙♦❝✐❡t② ♦♥ ✷✷ ❆♣r✐❧
✷✵✶✺ ❛✈❛✐❧❛❜❧❡ ♦♥❧✐♥❡ ❛t✿ ❤tt♣✿✴✴✇✇✇✳t❛♥❞❢♦♥❧✐♥❡✳❝♦♠✴✶✵✳✶✵✽✵✴✵✸✵✽✺✶✹✼✳✷✵✶✺✳✶✵✶✸✸✺✸
❆❞❞✐t✐♦♥❛❧ ✐♥❢♦r♠❛t✐♦♥✿
❯s❡ ♣♦❧✐❝②
❚❤❡ ❢✉❧❧✲t❡①t ♠❛② ❜❡ ✉s❡❞ ❛♥❞✴♦r r❡♣r♦❞✉❝❡❞✱ ❛♥❞ ❣✐✈❡♥ t♦ t❤✐r❞ ♣❛rt✐❡s ✐♥ ❛♥② ❢♦r♠❛t ♦r ♠❡❞✐✉♠✱ ✇✐t❤♦✉t ♣r✐♦r ♣❡r♠✐ss✐♦♥ ♦r ❝❤❛r❣❡✱ ❢♦r
♣❡rs♦♥❛❧ r❡s❡❛r❝❤ ♦r st✉❞②✱ ❡❞✉❝❛t✐♦♥❛❧✱ ♦r ♥♦t✲❢♦r✲♣r♦✜t ♣✉r♣♦s❡s ♣r♦✈✐❞❡❞ t❤❛t✿
• ❛ ❢✉❧❧ ❜✐❜❧✐♦❣r❛♣❤✐❝ r❡❢❡r❡♥❝❡ ✐s ♠❛❞❡ t♦ t❤❡ ♦r✐❣✐♥❛❧ s♦✉r❝❡
• ❛ ❧✐♥❦ ✐s ♠❛❞❡ t♦ t❤❡ ♠❡t❛❞❛t❛ r❡❝♦r❞ ✐♥ ❉❘❖
• t❤❡ ❢✉❧❧✲t❡①t ✐s ♥♦t ❝❤❛♥❣❡❞ ✐♥ ❛♥② ✇❛②
❚❤❡ ❢✉❧❧✲t❡①t ♠✉st ♥♦t ❜❡ s♦❧❞ ✐♥ ❛♥② ❢♦r♠❛t ♦r ♠❡❞✐✉♠ ✇✐t❤♦✉t t❤❡ ❢♦r♠❛❧ ♣❡r♠✐ss✐♦♥ ♦❢ t❤❡ ❝♦♣②r✐❣❤t ❤♦❧❞❡rs✳
P❧❡❛s❡ ❝♦♥s✉❧t t❤❡ ❢✉❧❧ ❉❘❖ ♣♦❧✐❝② ❢♦r ❢✉rt❤❡r ❞❡t❛✐❧s✳
❉✉r❤❛♠ ❯♥✐✈❡rs✐t② ▲✐❜r❛r②✱ ❙t♦❝❦t♦♥ ❘♦❛❞✱ ❉✉r❤❛♠ ❉❍✶ ✸▲❨✱ ❯♥✐t❡❞ ❑✐♥❣❞♦♠
❚❡❧ ✿ ✰✹✹ ✭✵✮✶✾✶ ✸✸✹ ✸✵✹✷ ⑤ ❋❛① ✿ ✰✹✹ ✭✵✮✶✾✶ ✸✸✹ ✷✾✼✶
❤tt♣✿✴✴❞r♦✳❞✉r✳❛❝✳✉❦
Interrogating the Circular Economy: the Moral Economy of Resource Recovery in the EU.
Nicky Gregson#1, Mike Crang1, Sara Fuller 2 & Helen Holmes3
# Corresponding author
1. Department of Geography, Durham University, Lower Mountjoy, South Road, Durham, DH1 3LE,
UK.
2. Department of Environment and Geography, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia
3. Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN
This research was conducted at Durham University, where Fuller and Holmes were employed under
the ESRC and EPSRC grants acknowledged at the end of the paper.
Email addresses:
nicky.gregson@durham.ac.uk
m.a.crang@durham.ac.u
sara.fuller@mq.edu.au
h.holmes@sheffield.ac.uk
Biographical notes:
Nicky Gregson is a Professor of Human Geography at Durham University. She led the ESRC-funded
Waste of the World programme and has published extensively on waste and recycling in economies.
Mike Crang is a Professor of Geography at Durham University who has worked on waste, cultural
values and landscape. He has published several books and is currently finishing ‘Unbecoming Things’
with Nicky Gregson and a work on Wastescapes in photography.
Helen Holmes is a Research Assistant at the University of Sheffield, currently working on the EPSRCfunded interdisciplinary project ‘Solar Energy for Future Societies’. As the project’s ethnographer,
Helen’s role builds upon her interest in practice by exploring interdisciplinary practices among the
research team.
Sara Fuller is a lecturer in the Department of Environment and Geography at Macquarie University,
Australia. Her research explores concepts and practices of justice and democracy in the field of
environment, with empirical focus on grassroots, community and activist responses to climate
change. Prior to joining Macquarie, she worked and conducted research in the UK and Hong Kong.
1
Abstract
The concept of the circular economy has gained increasing prominence in academic, practitioner and
policy circles and is linked to greening economies and sustainable development. However, the idea is
more often celebrated than critically interrogated. Analysis shows the concept circulates as an idea
and ideal, exemplified by industrial symbiosis and extended product life. Yet, its actual enactment is
limited and fragile. Instead, circular economies are achieved mostly through global recycling
networks which are the primary means by which wastes are recovered as resources. European
policies eschew these circuits. Resource recovery through global recycling networks is regarded as a
dirty and illegal trade. In its place, EU circular economies attempt to transform wastes to resources
within the boundaries of the EU. Through an analysis of two case studies of resource recovery in the
UK, we highlight the challenges that confront making circular economies within the EU, showing that
these are borne of a conjuncture of politically created markets, material properties and morally
defined materials circuits. We show resource recovery in the EU to be framed by moral economies,
driven by discourses of ecological modernisation, environmental justice and resource (in)security,
the last of which connects to China’s resource-intensive development.
Key words:
Circular economies; recycling; resource recovery; anaerobic digestion; waste.
2
1: Introduction
The concept of the circular economy has emerged recently as a policy goal in the context of rising
resource prices and climate change. The aim is to move away from the linear economic model,
summarised as ‘take-make-dispose’ with raw materials in at one end and externalised wastes at the
other. Instead, in a circular economic model, wastes become resources to be recovered and
revalorised, through recycling and reuse. Through the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe, the
EU has committed to becoming a recycling and recovery society by 2020 (EC 2005, 2011a). This
vision is underpinned by the promotion of a circular economy within its member states and the
territorial boundaries of the EU (EC, 2014). Organisations such as the Ellen MacArthur Foundation,
working in partnership with the consultants McKinsey, have also championed the potential of the
circular economy for EU economies, through a series of reports (2012, 2013, 2014) and through the
medium of the Circular Economy Platform, a knowledge exchange network which seeks to bring
together leading companies, innovators and regions. In academia the concept of the circular
economy has gained purchase in a number of fields including sustainability science, environmental
studies and a wide swathe of development studies shaped by low carbon imperatives. It is not hard
to see its appeal. The concept appears to decouple economic growth from increasing resource use as
well as promoting waste reduction or minimisation. Hence, its use in both practitioner and academic
literatures tends to be approbatory, uncritical, descriptive and deeply normative. Given its
prominence it is important that the circular economy be subjected to critique.
As a concept, the circular economy has a longer history. This is located in the allied but distinctive
fields of ecological and environmental economics. A concern with limits to growth and resource
scarcity in economic thought goes back at least as far as Malthus and Ricardo, resurfacing as
ecological economics in the 1960s, first in response to Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring and then in Ken
Boulding’s 1966 essay on Spaceship Earth. In the latter, the planet’s finite supply of energy, water
and materials is used to argue that sustainable futures rest on materials reuse and recycling, an
argument later taken up by Georgescu-Roegen (1971), who argued that economic systems must
3
therefore involve the maximum use of recycling and renewables. These arguments are the basis of
ecological economics, a field in which circular metaphors continue to hold sway. This can be seen in
the two veins of thought which exemplify current circular economy thinking: industrial ecology and
extended product life.
The industrial ecology field has its origins in work by Frosch and Gallopoulos (1989), drawing
analogies with material and energy flows in natural ecosystems to argue that the means to
sustainable development is to close material loops through the exchange of by-products and wastes.
In such a way, so they argued, economies would shift from being linear to circular. Roughly parallel
to this, other work began to apply the concept of the life cycle to manufactured objects. Ideas about
extending product life, through repairing and reconditioning goods through remanufacturing, were
first rehearsed by Robert Lund in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Bras & McIntosh, 1999),and in a
1982 paper by Walter Stahel, who now features prominently in the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s
work on the circular economy. Extending product life was seen as a means to waste prevention and
as key to a transition to sustainable modes of production and consumption (Cooper, 2005, 2010).
Subsequently dubbed ‘cradle-to-cradle’, to distinguish from ‘cradle-to-grave’ approaches to product
life cycle thinking, this set of arguments focuses on the design of manufactured objects, in which
disassembly, adaption and reuse are considered from the outset. It envisages an economy based
around reconditioning, remanufacturing and recycling.
Within the EU, circular economies have been justified through environmental economics that applies
largely neo-classical economic theory to the environment (Pearce, 2002). The key move is to view
nature not as an uncosted externality but as a set of stocks, potential resources, flows and services
that can be measured and assigned a value. Various methods and tools to account for materials and
energy flows have been developed, including life-cycle analysis, materials flow analysis and triple
bottom line accounting (Alexander & Reno, 2012). Related areas of activity have urged the
4
development of carbon accounting, through for example, carbon foot-printing (Minx et al. 2009) and
the potential pricing of the environment through ecosystem services (Costanza et al. 1997).
The circular economy then is a diverse bundle of ideas which have collectively taken hold. This
constitutes the starting point for our analysis, which aligns with Alexander & Reno (2012), when they
state that “the key [...] to contemporary recycling discourse is the extent to which the idea (their
emphasis) of a perfect circle is taken for reality” (p 5). Critical engagement means more than just
reciting the idea as a challenge to orthodox economics but that its instantiation be interrogated. This
necessitates examining not just the idea of the circular economy but also the messy world of circular
economies, and examining which wastes are being recovered as resources, and where. Taking
account of recovery activities also challenges heterodox accounts to take note of the importance of
materials and materiality within contemporary economies. One part of this, as Alexander & Reno
(2012) and their contributors demonstrate, is the emergence of Global Recycling Networks (Gregson
et al. 2010; Crang et al. 2013). The global trade in wastes, and their recovery, is a key means by
which materials are recovered for reuse and recycling. It defines in part what is new about
contemporary recycling, and reconfigures conventional accounts of the relationship between Global
North and Global South. As Alexander & Reno state: “familiar economic geographies and
understandings of how the global economy works are upturned as the developed North becomes a
source for scrap/raw materials; marginal regions add value before (re)finished goods are sold,
sometimes back to where they came from” (p 4). But, such recovery via global flows is also the result
of the inability to transform wastes to resources within the Global North. And yet such an
internalised transformation is to what a range of European policy instruments, constructed following
the precepts of environmental economics, aspire. This paper focuses on attempts at fostering
transformations of waste to resource within the EU, in so doing showing that whilst the circular
economy continues to be recited as an ideal, the actuality of forging circular economies within the
EU entails challenges borne of a conjuncture of politically created markets, material properties and
morally defined material circuits
5
We begin in Section 2 by examining the two lines of thought which define the idea of a circular
economy: industrial symbiosis and extended product life. These traditions are both producer led but
they perform different and often idealised visions of the circular economy. They are also notable for
a key absence: both write out global recovery and recycling, the primary means by which wastes are
recovered and materials keep circulating through economies. This absence signals that the idea of
the circular economy is also a moral economy: there are right and wrong ways of constituting the
economic circulation of materials and, within the EU, the revalorisation of wastes through global
recycling networks increasingly counts as the wrong way to do this. To see how the economies of the
EU are being reshaped in ways which attempt to turn wastes into a resource, but within the
boundaries of the EU, section 3 considers two categories of materials identified by the World
Economic Forum as ‘demonstrating the viability of the circular economy’ (WEF 2014, p11). The first
is what they call a ‘golden oldie’ of recycling, consumer-generated, or municipal, waste, representing
‘well-established, high-volume recyclates with a remaining purity challenge’; the second is food and
organic waste, described by the WEF as exemplifying ‘rough diamonds’ comprising large-volume byproducts with new technologies of valorisation. Through a focus on UK municipal waste recovery, as
‘dry recyclables’ (section 3.1), and organic waste ‘markets’ (section 3.2), we show that EU circular
economies are also moral economies, where judgements on the merits of different circuits of
materials drive attempts to create new markets. We conclude the paper in Section 4 by reflecting
more widely on the politics that underpin EU circular economies as moral economy.
2: The idea of the producer-led circular economy: industrial symbiosis, extended product life and
the moral economy of resource recovery
Industrial ecology, and particularly industrial symbiosis, is often taken as synonymous with a circular
economy. The focus is mostly on three scales of closed loop initiatives: within single firms; clusters,
or groups, of co-located firms, and city, or municipality-based, activities (Matthews & Tan, 2011).
Comparing interventions at all three scales forms the basis for a number of case studies in the
6
industrial symbiosis literature in China (e.g. Zhu et al. 2007; Xu et al. 2008; Geng et al. 2009; Yuan &
Shi, 2009; Shi et al. 2010). In the EU the focus of the Roadmap for a Resource Efficient Europe is on
clusters, highlighting as best practice the UK’s National Industrial Symbiosis Programme, which looks
to localised open loop exchanges between industries, and the eco-industrial park at Kalundborg,
Denmark (Lombardi & Laybourn, 2012).
Lombardi & Laybourn (2012, p 33) describe Kalundborg as industrial symbiosis’ ‘poster child’. It
figures as the must-cite case in paper after paper in the industrial symbiosis literature. We have
reviewed this body of work elsewhere (Gregson et al. 2012), but to recap, Kalundborg, first
described by Ehrenfeld & Gertler (1997), is a complex emerging over some 25 years featuring four
core plants: a coal-fired power station, an oil refinery, a pharmaceutical plant and a plasterboard
manufacturing plant. Waste heat is exchanged from the power station to the other plants and to a
CHP (combined heat and power) district heating system. Cascading exchanges of ground water,
surface water and waste water, link the plants and there are other residue exchanges, of ash,
scrubber sludge and sulphur, which circulate both within Kalundborg and which are traded out of
the municipality (Deschenes & Chertow, 2004). Each of the symbiotic links is a separately negotiated
business deal. However, amidst the papers that describe Kalundborg only one (Brings Jacobsen,
2006) goes into analytical, financial depth. Brings Jacobsen focuses on the water and steam
exchanges at the core of the complex and shows that the motivations for low value exchanges, such
as water, are grounded in indirect economic returns on longer term operational performance
whereas higher value exchanges, such as steam, are more likely to be related to the direct value of
the by-product.
Brings Jacobsen’s work remains a rare example in the industrial symbiosis literature where the focus
shifts from describing material flows to examining the business economics which make symbiotic
exchanges possible. By contrast, other work has focused on case studies of what has turned out to
be a very small number of localised symbiotic clusters (Korhonen, 2001, 2002; Geng & Côte, 2002;
7
Mirata & Emtairah, 2005; Chertow, 2007; van Beers et al. 2007; Deutz & Lyons, 2008). Given the
paucity of other cases, Kalundborg has become not just an exemplar case of industrial symbiosis but
the paradigmatic case, from which a number of principles have been distilled and then assembled
into the policy concept of the eco-industrial park (EIP). EIPs figure across the industrial symbiosis
literature, emphasising shared infrastructure and joint provision of services to promote the creation
of exchanges of by-products, wastes and energy between firms co-located in the park. However, in
North America and Europe they remain largely promotional devices (Hewes & Lyons, 2008) and
struggle to get beyond aesthetics, landscaping and waste/energy services, or, at best, reuse surplus
heat or power from an energy intensive anchor firm (Gibbs & Deutz, 2005). In response, the
industrial symbiosis field has gone back to another lesson from Kalundborg; the short mental
distance between its firms which suggests that intangible business and local mores are as important
as technical possibilities in deciding what actually gets reused.
The industrial symbiosis field is thus moving from analogies with natural ecosystems and turning to
economic sociology and geography accounts of embeddedness for explanatory purchase (Chertow &
Ehrenfeld, 2012). The analysis of Kalundborg also signals that the circular economy of industrial
symbiosis is grounded in business-to-business transactions in which environmental benefits (and
circles) are effects not causes (Brings Jacobsen 2006). At the same time, the case clearly shows open
loops outnumber closed ones. Most residues leave the Kalundborg system to be re-valorised
elsewhere. Recognising this, along with the conspicuous failure of spatial policies such as EIPs, is to
cast doubt on the veracity of an approach which continues to see planned co-location and territorial
agglomerations as the basis for the circular economy (Chertow, 2000; Chertow & Ehrenfeld, 2012). It
is a point acknowledged in the UK’s National industrial Symbiosis Programme, in which a network
model of knowledge exchange and innovation prevails, where very few of the nearly 1000 resource
exchanges it identifies are bound to contiguous parks, but are framed by serendipitous geographical
proximity (Jensen et al. 2011, p 705).
8
In focusing attention on exchanges of by-products and wastes in planned complexes of co-located
manufacturing plants, industrial symbiosis’ approach to the circular economy is to increase the
intensity of localised resource use; literally squeezing more value from the same initial inputs
through co-located manufacturing processes. This contrasts with the extended product life
approach. Here the circular economy seeks to stretch the economic life of goods and materials by
retrieving them from post-production consumer phases. This approach too valorises closing loops,
but does so by imagining object ends in their design and by seeing ends as beginnings for new
objects. Unlike industrial symbiosis, the aim is to reuse or repurpose products at a later date after
their consumption.
Notwithstanding that the idea has been around for over three decades, extended product life is an
approach which, as with industrial symbiosis, continues to recite the aspiration as an endlessly
deferred, but attainable, future (Bras & McIntosh, 1999; Guitini & Gaudette, 2003; Imojah et al.
2007; Imojah, 2010; Hatcher et al. 2011). And again, as with industrial symbiosis, the idea of the
perfect circle is recited so much that it becomes tantamount to being taken for a real trend.
Nonetheless, the evidence for extended product life in manufacturing is demonstrably lacking: a
2008 survey among 36 of China’s larger electrical and electronic manufacturers, for example, found
little evidence of eco-design in their products (Su et al. 2013: 217), whilst the Circular Economy
Platform, hosted by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, showcases just a few instances of product life
thinking in action (and see too: Russell et al. 2010; Chen et al. 2014). At the Resource 2014
Conference in London, the WRAP1 Chief Executive stated: “I am quite disappointed at how much
progress we have made because it has been pitifully slow. We need some real examples of
businesses getting a circular economy working and that will help” (http://www.letsrecycle.com –
[21]).
1
Until 2014, W(aste) R(esources) A(ction) P(rogamme) was a UK-based not-for-profit company supported by
funding from Defra (the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) and charged with promoting
sustainable waste management by creating stable, efficient markets for recycled materials and products. Defra
is the lead government department for waste policy in England and Wales.
9
Disappointments aside, the issue here is that to effect this vision of a circular economy would
require not just producers (that is retailers, manufacturers and their component suppliers) to widely
adopt ‘take-back’ schemes for used goods and either incorporate reconditioning and
remanufacturing within their business operations, or create onward linkages with firms specialising
in such activities, but also a recasting of goods as stocks and consumption as an activity grounded in
the leasing, rather than ownership and possession, of goods. The whole basis of the ‘economy shifts
from selling and buying products to (…) the utilization of (…) products’ (Su et al. 2013: 217). Ease of
disassembly and repurposing also runs against trends to secure proprietary technologies through
hardening objects against hacking and repurposing. To argue for extended product life, therefore, is
to propose nothing short of a wholesale transformation of the basis of contemporary capitalism and
consumption.
Critical scrutiny shows that the approaches that define the circular economy exemplify how the idea
of a perfect circle comes to be taken for reality. These visions of a circular economy are just that:
ideals which, at best, describe a few instances where reordering the activity of the firm on these
lines makes business sense. As striking is the obvious omission in these accounts. Notwithstanding
that the founding texts of ecological economics valorised the planetary circulation of materials, one
scale of materials circulation is absent from these representations. This is global recycling networks;
the major means by which loops are closed and materials do indeed keep circulating around the
planet and through the world’s economies. In this way, the circular economy emerges as a form of
moral economy. There are right and wrong ways of keeping materials circulating. Global recycling
also figures as the antithesis in EU documentation to ‘high quality recycling’; here publications
around the EU Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe speak of a ‘Dirty trade' challenging the EU
vision of recycling society (http://www.euractiv.com/), whilst EC documentation refers to the
shipments of wastes outside the EU as an ‘illegal trade’ resulting in ‘significant loss of resources for
the EU’ and links this to key areas of resource insecurity, particularly rare earth metals (EC, 2011b p
10
19) most of which are supplied by China, and phosphate fertilizer, 90% of which comes from
Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara.
In the following section we turn away from the circular economy as an idealised producer-led model.
Instead, we focus on how circular economies are being enacted within the EU, using as examples
two case studies drawn from the UK. The EU is more than an economic area in which the idea of the
circular economy is at the forefront of thinking, debate and policy formation on sustainable
economies. The EU is that for sure, but it is also the arena where the circular economy, as moral
economy and political economy, meets. To create an EU circular economy requires closing the EU to
outflows of materials and capturing materials currently destined for global recycling networks.
Circular economies linked to a vision of clean green ecological modernisation are predicated upon
enacting the EU as a bounded material system. At the same time, interventions in the EU highlight
the challenges of implementing circular economy thinking in real world economies. Given the limited
uptake of producer-led models in the EU, circular economies have instead been enacted here by
measures and policy instruments drawn from environmental economics, addressing wastes as they
are currently generated, in open, still predominantly ‘linear’ economies, and then attempting to turn
these to recovered resources, or tradable goods for EU processors. The focus therefore has been on
consumer-generated, or municipal, waste, its recovery, and attempts to reconfigure this as a
resource for multiple manufacturing sectors, and on interventions with organic or bio-wastes,
including food waste, which also seek to reformat such materials as a resource for diverse sectors.
The UK provides an illuminating EU member state through which to examine the challenges facing
both sets of interventions, and for two reasons. First, an historic reliance on landfill as the primary
‘dispose’ option for the UK’s linear economy has meant that resource recovery has been closely
allied to meeting policy targets for diversion from landfill, rather than focused on producing
materials suitable for processors. WRAP’s Chief Executive states: “we have actually made fantastic
progress over the last few years and we are increasing recycling rates. That is something that we
should all be very proud of” (http://www.letsrecycle.com – [21]). But, in emphasising diversion, the
11
UK case highlights the legacy effects of linear economies and their importance in any transition to
circular economies. Second, a political commitment on the part of successive governments to the
primacy of the market and to market-making, and increasing tendencies to see the green economy
as a site for new business opportunities and innovation, mean that the impetus to develop markets
in recovered resources has here been strong. Yet, as we show, collisions of morality, materiality and
market logics indicate that the transition to an EU circular economy will be politically contested .
Indeed, the matching of material properties and standards with specific market mechanisms looks
increasingly certain to pit member state against member state, as across the EU differing waste
regimes (Gille 2010) have created different legacies and issues of transition. For the EU to foster a
circular economy will mean choosing specific configurations of materiality and market, with differing
moral values, and not just physical or technical mechanisms, to rekindle value in recalcitrant waste
materials – in ways that compete with global resource and recycling markets.
3: Post-consumption circular economies: turning waste to resource in the EU
To attempt to turn waste from the classic uncosted or negative externality of economics to a
resource is a considerable task. This is not just a matter of adding externalities to a spreadsheet,
though as we shall see such devices play a key practical role. In the real world economies of the EU
turning wastes to resources also requires the wholesale transformation of the waste management
sector to a secondary resource recovery sector and its integration with a manufacturing sector which
continues to rely on virgin resources.
Within the UK waste management business the source of revenue has been receiving waste, not
reselling it or its products. Waste management facilities, be that a landfill, an incinerator or a
recycling plant, charge the customer/client to deposit wastes. Charges relate primarily to weight and
materials characterisation; a broad rule of thumb is the greater the weight and the more
problematic the material, the higher the charge, and these “gate fees” have long been the main
revenue stream in the waste management sector.
12
To turn waste to a resource, however, requires going beyond gate fees and tonnage. It necessitates
that wastes are turned to commodities bought and sold in markets. Discarded goods, objects or
materials, require separation and segregation, sorting, and sometimes treatment, to render them
tradable commodities suitable for purchasing by manufacturers. The challenge facing the drive to
create circular economies from wastes in Europe, then, is three-fold. First, to process discarded
goods and materials in such a way that they become tradable as goods within EU markets (EEA,
2011); secondly, to do this in the face of well-established global recycling markets which turn wastes
to resources but where the demand for recyclates is international (Alexander & Reno, 2012; Gregson
et al. 2012; Crang et al, 2013); and thirdly, to do this in conditions of strong environmental
regulation, clean production and high labour costs. EU plans correctly point out the need for high
quality, that is, pure recyclates. They therefore look to ‘high quality’ recycling as defined by being
located in the EU, where high costs will, it is implied, lead to high quality output. It is this elision we
show to be problematic.
A set of policy instruments seeks to aid the transition to circular economies in the EU, including the
Waste Hierarchy (Hultman & Corvellec, 2012) and the Waste Framework Directive (WFD). The Waste
Hierarchy is a preferential ranking which prioritises ways of managing wastes on the basis of their
environmental benefit. At the top of the hierarchy is waste prevention. Below this is recovery for
reuse, followed by recycling in which waste materials are reprocessed into products, materials or
substances which may be for their original or other purposes, be that either ‘up-cycled’ or ‘downcycled’. Recovery for energy, and for heat, (incineration) are less favoured than recycling, whilst
landfill is the least favoured option and is regarded as ‘disposal’. This thinking has informed EU waste
policy since the late 1990s.
The Waste Framework Directive (WFD) emerged in response to environmental justice concerns over
the dumping of wastes on the people and environments of the Global South. It prohibits the
shipment of materials designated as hazardous waste beyond the OECD area, and sets a target that
13
individual EU states should move towards self-sufficiency in waste disposal and recovery. It is the
chief means for promoting the proximity principle, which emphasises that wastes should be dealt
with close to their point of generation. Waste prevention, minimisation and reduction are key
imperatives within the WFD, as is the diversion of waste from landfill which is also allied to actions
on climate change, since methane (generated by landfill) is a key greenhouse gas.
The primary means by which environmental values regarding waste have been turned to economic
value in the EU is via a form of ‘cap and trade’ scheme, enacted in the Landfill Tax. Since 1999, a
progressively increasing tax on tonnage sent to landfill is meant to provide a strong incentive for
municipal authorities to divert waste from landfill to ‘beneficial reuse’. And indeed it does but the
incentive is about the diversion rather than enabling reuse. Concurrently, infrastructure oriented to
the collection and recovery of waste materials has been developed across EU member states,
focused in the first instance primarily on household or consumer-derived wastes (Municipal Solid
Waste), of which the most recent data shows ~246 million tonnes was collected across the EU-27
with 23 million tonnes in England (Eurostat, 2012). The details of how these recovered materials are
to be turned to resources are left to individual member states but, as we show through a focus on
the UK, for the most part England, EU circular economies are distinctly moral economies in which
there are right and wrong ways to achieve resource recovery, even within the EU’s boundaries. We
use two case studies to highlight the challenges confronting the shift from linear to circular
economies in the EU. Through a focus on the municipal waste sector in England we show how the
confluence of politically created markets and the material properties of wastes can all too easily
result in the production of low value products reliant on global markets. Increasingly, at EU-level this
is seen as doing resource recovery the wrong way. Then, through a focus on anaerobic digestion2,
again in England, we show how the same confluence of politically-induced markets and material
2
Anaerobic digestion is ‘a process of controlled decomposition of biodegradable materials under managed
conditions where free oxygen is absent ... that convert[s] the inputs to biogas and whole digestate’ (BSI, 2010:
3.2).
14
properties poses difficulties in attempting to turn organic wastes into energy and fertiliser.3 Again,
the issue of doing recovery the wrong way raises its head.
3.1: UK municipal waste: materials recovery facilities and the weighty legacy of political
accounting
In the UK the need to achieve the EU statutory target of 50% of municipal waste diverted from
landfill has posed a major challenge. This is because the waste regime (Gille 2010) of the UK
historically relied on landfill, unlike for instance Scandinavia that was geared to incinerate most
waste. The task of transforming the waste regime fell to local authorities, which subsequently have
been centrally involved in the development of a recycling infrastructure for the UK, chiefly through
tendering contracts for municipal materials recovery facilities (MRFs). Both the number and capacity
of MRFs have increased rapidly in England and Wales. In 2006, WRAP data listed 55 plants, of which
roughly half had been commissioned post 2000. By 2007, numbers had risen to 82, with an annual
processing capacity of 2.5 million tonnes and by 2010 94 plants with capacity to handle ~ 3.1 million
tonnes. Statutory requirements to reach a 50% recycling rate by 2020 have underpinned a turn to
large capacity, capital intensive MRFs, whose capital costs are supported by Private Finance Initiative
funding (http://www.letsrecycle.com – [2], [6], [7], [8], [14]). Long contracts with local authorities,
typically of the order of 15 years, guarantee the supply of waste and thus plant throughput that
secures the financial investment on multi-million pound capital plant. This has led to concentration
in the sector, with a few firms dominating the market. Inside plants, segregation and sorting rely on
a small number of manual ‘pickers’ and mechanised processing. Incoming waste is tipped and
materials are placed on conveyor belts for pre-screening. Pickers remove all materials that are either
non-recyclable or too problematic to be mechanically processed. These residue materials are sent to
‘dirty MRFs’ for further recovery, for incineration or to landfill. Then mechanised processing
separates materials using material recognition technologies. Trommel systems separate different
3
The case studies are based on interviews conducted in 2011/12 with 16 facilities, of varying scale and size,
spread equally across both sectors, and analysis of policy documents and the trade press from 2011-14.
15
types of paper and card; optical recognition technologies separate plastics; and magnets and eddy
currents ferrous metals from aluminium. A final line of pickers removes anything that has come
through processing that should not be there, before the materials streams are sent for baling.
Typically some 95% of materials received by any one plant would be recovered to be sold into the
commodities markets.
For circular economies to work, MRFs must not only be a means of diverting materials from landfill
but also the means to supply quality recycled materials for (re-)manufacture (WRAP, 2009). The
relation between diversion, recovery and recycling, however, is complex and contradictory. For both
waste companies (seeking to amortise large capital investments) and local authorities (looking at
‘diversion’ targets), what counts remains the tonnage through the gate. Weight is the primary
financial driver. In terms of circular economies, however, what counts is the usability of the outputs.
Output quality has very little to do with the volume or weight of materials processed by a MRF.
Instead, quality has everything to do with collection systems, the categories used to turn materials
to products, and the quality of segregation, sorting and treatment inside a MRF plant. The
development of the UK’s MRF infrastructure has been keenly influenced by simple costing tools
based on Excel spreadsheets. Two tools are of particular importance: KAT (a kerbside analysis
toolkit) and a MRF costing tool. KAT is a public domain model developed by WRAP which allows local
authority waste managers to make projections for the numbers and kinds of kerbside collection
required to deliver different patterns of waste streams to facilities (WRAP, 2008). It is therefore a
calculative market device: one which translates a public sector statutory service (household waste
collection) into a calculative economic task, in which collection becomes an economic cost
calculation. KAT uses categories to turn wastes into potential saleable materials, so called ‘dry
recyclables’: ‘news and pams’ (newspaper, magazines), plastic bottles, mixed steel and aluminium
cans, various types and colours of glass, and textiles. Largely as an effect of the KAT tool’s modelling
assumptions, collection systems for dry recyclables in the UK mostly collect comingled, rather than
16
source-segregated, waste. That is, all the materials are placed in a single container and in the same
truck rather than being sorted into and collected in different containers. Comingled systems are
controversial, particularly at EU-level, because although they lead to higher diversion rates from
landfill for the least cost, but also increase cross-contamination of materials, making them harder to
reprocess (http://www.letsrecycle.com – [10], [17]).
The MRF costing tool - also developed by WRAP - works on similar principles to KAT (WRAP, 2006a).
It assumes economies of scale coming with increased processing capacity, the importance of
guaranteed tonnage to achieving economies of scale, and hence the desirability of commissioning
large MRFs and assuring guaranteed tonnage throughput. Using it predetermines that outcome. As
with KAT, the costing tool emphasises a limited range of eight materials categories: three grades of
paper and five types of containers.
Both costing tools have encouraged local authorities to continue to think about materials recovery
through weight and volume of a relatively small number of categories of materials. This has had
profound effects. For local authorities, dry recyclables become a source of revenue, but revenue
derived from material categories, tonnes and price/tonne. In recyclables markets, however, value is
added through the work of separation and sorting (Rivoli, 2005; Crang et al. 2013; Gregson et al.
2013), with an open question being just how much separation and sorting is economically optimal
(Spencer, 2005). Segregation and sorting are closely related to the categories and grades of
materials used. The more separation and sorting the finer the grades produced, with less
contamination in the end product and the more value realised. Some international MRFs work with
as many as 16 or more grades (WRAP, 2006b). By contrast, UK municipal MRFs work with 5 – 10,
with most below 8. So, whilst UK MRFs accept a considerable array of material, they reduce this to a
relatively small number of output categories, which means many of those outputs are mixed and
thus have, at most, the value of the lowest grade.
17
Looked at in this light, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that not only is value being lost by UK
MRFs but that far from capital intensive processes creating high quality output, their products are
often low grade. As such, they are destined inexorably for global export markets, where lower labour
costs allow for bales to be broken, re-sorted and the untapped value to be realised -- although at
times the quality of UK recycled materials has been so poor it has led to them being rejected from
markets such as China. Contamination controversies over UK MRF outputs abound, with a number of
high profile cases demonstrating the rejection of MRF output by both UK manufacturers and Chinese
importers as it fails to pass quality criteria (http://www.letsrecycle.com –[12, 13]). UK paper mills
have stated publicly that they will not accept paper that has been collected with glass, and thus most
municipal MRF-sourced paper (WRAP, 2006a), whilst cross-contamination with plastics poses
another set of problems. Glass recovery firms too find municipal MRF-sourced glass to be low grade
material which is hard to separate to the purity levels required by glass manufacturers
(http://www.letsrecycle.com – [1]).
Issues with product quality go to the heart of the challenge in constituting circular economies in the
EU. To succeed as a circular economy these MRFs must turn waste to a recovered resource suitable
for EU processors and, at the same time, recovery operations themselves must be economic. Yet,
the UK’s municipal MRFs are the effect of a political settlement with municipal waste in which
diversion from waste, rather than resource recovery, has been the driving metric. Further, the low
quality outputs are materialisations of modelling tools and long contracts which meet statutory
targets for diversion from landfill by guaranteeing long term financial returns on capital investment,
based on volume throughput, for MRF operators. This processing infrastructure is a weighty legacy
for any attempt to create markets in recyclates. The disjuncture of diversion and recyclable outputs
has registered at many levels, from pronouncements by ministers in 2011 and 2012 affirming the
need for quality uplift (http://www.letsrecycle.com – [4], [16]), to repeated journalistic exposés that
threaten continued public participation in recycling. At EU level, this issue is recognised in the
revised WFD (rWFD) which added the criterion that collection systems and infrastructure must
18
deliver high quality recyclate, with a clear preference for separate collection systems. Yet, although
challenged through Judicial Review in 2013, the UK government remained committed to comingled
systems of collection (http://www.letsrecycle.com – [20]). As we write (in August 2014), the political
imperative to upgrade UK MRF products to comply with the rWFD is signalled strongly in Defra’s
Quality Action Plan (Defra, 2013a) and by new requirements on local authorities to review existing
arrangements and instigate separate collection systems for dry recyclables by 2015 unless
comingling can be demonstrated to provide high quality recycling (EA, 2014). But it is an open
question whether one form of waste processing based on the financialization of weight and volume
can easily be shifted to produce recyclables of the material quality demanded by EU processors.
3.2: Formatting organic wastes for markets: qualifying materials as by-products, or wastes?
Dry recyclables are not the only materials that need to be diverted from landfill. Defra’s 2014 figures
show that the UK produces some 7.2 million tonnes per annum of food waste whose decomposition
is a major source of green-house gas emissions, and which, since the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic,
has been debarred from being recycled as livestock feed. In 2011, the UK government identified
Anaerobic Digestion (AD) as the best strategy to divert this material from the waste stream. At that
time there were 214 AD facilities, classified as: agricultural (farm-fed), ‘community’ food waste
treatment plants, taking food waste from consumers/households, supermarkets and the
hospitality/catering sector; and industrial on-site plants for food processors (WRAP 2011a). 2011
figures showed 46 were new ‘community’ plants with the capacity to process 1.8 million tonnes per
annum, and to generate 5 MW of electricity, with an additional 12 at various stages of construction
(0.68 milion tonnes; 30 MW). Those under construction are thus 50% larger by input and geared
much more strongly to energy production. The sector continues to grow, with a goal of 3 – 5 TWh
heat/electricity generation by 2020 (Defra, 2013).
Agricultural, farm-based AD operations are predominantly small-scale, closed loop systems mostly
based on cow slurry or crops which exemplify the circular economy principles of industrial symbiosis.
19
With rising costs of fertiliser, and ‘peak phosphate’, digestate has commercial advantages for
farmers who can operate a credentialised system, providing bio-fertiliser to spread on-farm at
radically reduced costs. The requirement for credentials showing the agricultural provenance of
digestate means this circuit is separate from food waste diversion. In contrast, larger AD plants are
open systems, sourcing heterogeneous feedstock, including food waste, from a wide geographical
area. They rely financially on a combination of an energy product (electricity, heat or biogas) and
gate fees. The demand for such energy and its price are driven by incentives from the renewables
electricity generation market in the form of Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs), Feed in Tariffs
(FiTs) and Renewable Heat Incentives -http://www.letsrecycle.com – [3], [5], [9], [15]. As with MRFs,
these AD operations are dominated by the majors in the waste management sector, and often form
parts of PFI-financed waste recovery complexes.
Farm-based AD operations frequently describe the material process of anaerobic digestion in ways
that draw analogies with a cow’s stomach. Quality, clean feedstock with the right bacteria present is
seen as important; the digester’s operation is seen as a bio-process, and tinkering is commonplace.
By contrast, larger scale ‘community’ plants render a bio-process industrial-mechanical. By common
consent in the sector, this is where problems arise. Food waste, particularly in large quantities, is a
problematic feedstock. Its material composition is highly variable seasonally and it is often
contaminated with inorganic matter. Cautionary tales of cutlery, trolley wheels, whole trolleys and
even televisions, as well as of plastic, packaging and pallets being mixed into waste consignments,
abound in the sector. This contamination means there has to be pre-screening, and animal byproducts biosecurity regulations mean the input or output has to be pasteurised. The added
difficulty in reprocessing means companies charge higher rates for handling it, or in waste
economics terms, it commands high gate fees. These high gate fees, together with the large plants
favoured within PFI set-ups, have effects. The former encourage the acceptance of more tonnage
and the latter put pressure to increase throughput to spread overhead costs, encouraging minimal
pre-screening and sorting and shorter times within the digester. This may be economically rational,
20
but digesters and digestion object. Although the process continues to produce energy and hence
money (in the form of ROCs and FiTs), there are major odour issues and ensuing public objections –
http://www.letsrecycle.com – [19]).4 A number of ‘pollution incidents’ are also cause for concern
(Defra, 2013b). Contamination also causes blockages which are costly to remove, creating a process
with more than a hint of indigestion about it.
The current challenge for commercial AD plants is to turn food waste into enough money via gate
fees, ROCs and FiTs. At the same time, the plants generate approximately 90% of the tonnage input
as digestate (whole, liquid and fibre). UK regulators are attempting to redefine that digestate from a
waste to a by-product. In the AD Strategy Defra state:
“Digestate from AD plants is still considered a relatively new material (...). There is a
need to develop markets for digestate, and to build confidence within these markets on
the safety and efficacy of its use. Lack of such markets could significantly constrain the
development of the AD sector (...) and will be a missed opportunity to recycle valuable
nutrients to the soil” (Defra, 2012, paragraph 28).
The approach combines product qualification via quality protocols and certified standards, with
demonstration through experimental field trials.
Quality protocols such as that produced for AD (ADQP - EA/WRAP, 2010; WRAP/EA, 2014) seek to
establish the point at which ‘waste having been the subject of a complete recovery operation may
become a non-waste product or material that can be either reused by business or industry, or
supplied into other markets, enabling such recovered products to be used without the need for
waste management controls’ (ibid, 2010, p 3). To qualify, digestate must have been produced using
only specified source-segregated input materials; it must demonstrate compliance standards; but it
still has limited approved uses, currently agriculture, forestry, soil/field-grown horticulture and land
4
The most high profile case of odour ‘overflow’ in the UK AD sector is Biffa’s Cannock plant, which was forced
by the EA to undertake £800k of odour abatement measures in 2012, just one year after opening.
21
restoration. PAS 110 is the UK-certification process by which AD-derived digestate may be qualified
as a bio-fertiliser (PAS 110 – BSI, 2010). 5 It has four main criteria: pathogens, potential toxic
elements, stability (volatile fatty acids and residual biogas potential) and contaminants. The last two
are problematic for food waste-based AD plants. The main element of the test is the residual biogas
potential but short containment times driven by turnover needs result in higher residual gas
content. The visible presence of plastic in fibre digestate, exacerbated by reduced sorting and
screening, is another difficulty (http://www.letsrecycle.com – [22]). Correspondingly, only a small
number of plants have PAS 110 accreditation (http://www.letsrecycle.com – [11], [18]). In 2014 food
waste AD operators were pushing to replace volatile fatty acid tests within PAS 110 with a more
‘flexible’ biogas test with wider limits that might give more favourable results to food waste
processors. Qualification is thus emerging as a key criterion in the struggle to turn digestate to a byproduct of AD, and the material qualities of digestate also need to be shown as comparable to
established, non-renewable bio-fertiliser products.
The technical viability of AD plants was shown through a series of demonstrator projects (Reno
2011); now the potential of their digestate is likewise being demonstrated as a replacement biofertiliser for agricultural use in a series of field trials (WRAP 2011b). These trials require farmers to
bear witness to the beneficial effects of digestate (WRAP 2011c; 2012b). Demonstration field trials
are also currently being conducted for digestate applications as a soil additive/improver in sports
turf, soil manufacture and energy crop production on post-industrial land. They ask businesses to
bear witness to the effects of digestate, but this time in amenity and landscape grass, tree species,
and biomass crops. Recent market-based research in landscaping, sports turf, land remediation and
horticulture, however, has raised the material properties as an impediment, with odour, wetness,
and variability emerging as problems when compared to established products (WRAP, 2011d, 2013).
5
PAS 110 is a Publicly Available Standard, designed as a fast-track precursor to a potential future British
standard (BSI, 2010). It is ‘a voluntary, industry-led specification (which) sets out the minimum quality required
for whole digestate, separated liquor and separated fibre which may be used as a fertiliser or soil improver’
(BSI, ibid 0.2).
22
An open question, however, is the degree to which these trials can demonstrate that liquid digestate
has a sufficiently large market, given its material qualities restrict economically viable haulage
distances and low concentrations of nutrients make it difficult to apply. Volume reduction, in the
form of drying and pelleting, or catalytic nutrient extraction is therefore necessary to extend
agricultural markets beyond the immediate geographical locale and to a sufficient scale to support
large plants. Qualification alone then does not turn digestate into an economically viable biofertiliser or soil additive/improver. For digestate to become a bio-fertiliser a wet, slurry-like and
strongly waste-odoured material requiring high-volume application rates needs to be rendered more
akin, both in substance and nutrient balance, to the standardised bags of dry fertiliser which
currently dominate these markets (WRAP 2011d). For food waste-fed ‘community’ AD plants, the
future for digestate appears likely to be limited to a (free) soil additive in post-industrial land
remediation and/or energy crop production; the latter itself supported by the market in carbon
credits by offsetting CO2 emissions through planting biomass crops.
Whilst the struggle to marketise AD-derived digestate continues, a further political qualification trial
lies ahead. This is the EU-wide End of Waste Directive. EU bio-fertiliser qualifications currently are
tied to German AD plants, these being the acknowledged industry leaders. The AD industry in
Germany is widespread with nearly 7000, mostly farm-based, plants dependent upon either crops
(maize for the most part) or slurry. Containment times are long (130 days, compared to an average
of 40-50, and sometimes shorter, in the UK). The result is that there is very limited residual biogas
present in German digestate. Materially there is no possibility for digestate derived from food-waste
based UK plants to pass this qualification trial. Given UK food waste plants are already trying to
loosen the existing UK-test standards, a move to this even higher standard would result in large
volumes of AD digestate in the UK becoming categorised as an organic waste
(http://www/letsrecycle.com - [5]). With moves to ban food waste from landfill across the EU, this
could become a pressing problem indeed.
23
In AD, as with dry recyclables, the onus is on UK regulators to intervene to bolster a waste-toresource regime which threatens to be politically disqualified on the grounds of doing resource
recovery the wrong way. As the drive to create circular economies in the EU intensifies, the
question of whose technologies, and whose regime, get to define the measurements which
determine which wastes qualify as products and become tradable goods, and which remain wastes,
will become increasingly contentious. The case demonstrates conclusively that, at the heart of the
EU’s emerging circular economy are questions of material politics as well as of moral markets.
4: Conclusions
This paper has subjected the concept of the circular economy to critical interrogation, by examining
its instantiation in real world economies. The concept is an endlessly recited ideal. Yet, to effect a
circular economy driven by producers through either industrial symbiosis or cradle-to-cradle
manufacturing would require radical transformations to the economic order, including fundamental
recasting of manufacture, retail, consumption and property rights. Beyond the ideal, in the messy
world of how circularity is being enacted in actual economies, post-consumer wastes have become
the basis for circular economies. One way in which this occurs is through global recycling networks,
and new research has done much to make these activities visible. However, they do not count as
appropriate forms of resource recovery and recycling in EU policies, where they are regarded as
deeply suspect. Instead, under the rubric ‘high quality recycling’, policy aims for the transformation
of waste to resource within the EU. However, as we have shown through an examination of dry
recyclables and organic wastes in the UK, the challenges of turning waste to resource within the
boundaries of the EU are considerable. ‘High quality’ EU recycling can struggle to meet the quality
standards demanded by the market for recycled products and products are (politically) disqualified
from the recyclate market. Further, EU circular economies are moral economies; not only do they
say that global recovery and recycling is the wrong way to ensure the extended circulation of
materials in economies, they also define some forms of European resource recovery as wrong. The
24
question that remains is what form of politics lies behind this increasingly moral European market in
resource recovery.
There are three answers to this question. The first is a technocratic politics. One element to this
rests in the EU’s condemning of landfill. Landfill is the bête noir of circular economy ideals; its
function as a ‘grave’ enables the persistence of the ‘linear’ economy. Landfills should be obsolete in
a circular economy. So, part of the argument about low quality recycling in the Global South is that it
continues to depend on dumping materials, often harmful ones, into the environment, often in
uncontrolled landfills. Landfills beyond the EU are thus doubly wrong as inadequate versions of an
inappropriate technology. The underlying premise of this technocratic politics, however, is the
technical dream of the perfect circle achieved via perfect recovery. This is technologically impossible,
as is illustrated by both dry recyclables and anaerobic digestion, both of which, whilst they recycle,
also generate troublesome wastes as remainders of processing, and which continue to rely on
landfill and/or incineration for their disposal.
The second form of politics is environmental, driven by environmental justice concerns. In
continuing to portray global recycling as the global dumping of wastes on the people and
environments of the Global South by the consumers and businesses of the Global North, accounts
imply that global circuits of materials break the circular economy. While most materials are not
dumped but recycled, these global recycling networks are seen as the wrong form of resource
recovery enacted by unprotected labour working in both socially and environmentally degrading
ways. A more accurate reading would be to see this kind of resource recovery operation as allied to
the global shift – primarily to Asia - of low value manufacturing activities and as responding to that
manufacturing demand. Recognising that much resource recovery is a low value activity, akin to
resource extraction, a very real question is just how profitable such activities can be when located
within European economies, or whether, in order to be financially viable, plants within the EU must
sacrifice the very quality of output that their location is meant to guarantee. Moreover, there are
25
now numerous waste management/resource recovery facilities in China particularly which fully
comply with international standards in resource recovery (Minter, 2013). To continue to insist that
resource recovery can only be done appropriately within the EU, then, is not just incorrect; it is also
an example of a wider Euro-centrism with respect to China, in which the EU continues to figure itself
as the model and/or leader for the rest of the world (Jacques, 2012).
The third form of politics framing the morality of the EU’s circular economies is located in the
political economy of resources and particularly resource security. For the most part, this politics is
articulated in terms of the degree to which EU resource demand can be met through secondary
resources. Answers range from around 50% with respect to certain materials, such as paper and iron
and steel, but much less for many others, even with a technically impossible 100% recovery rate, and
there are some 14 raw materials, mostly metals, which feature on the high supply risk list for the EU
economies. These are metals critical to high value EU-based manufacturing, including in the
aerospace, automotive and communications sectors. The figure that haunts these discussions
though is China, and its resource-intensive form of development, particularly fears that it is securing
control of resources from Africa. Indeed, the vulnerability of important sectors of EU manufacturing
to Chinese resource use has been demonstrated recently through China’s dramatic cut backs in rare
earth metal exports. With China accounting for 95% of global rare earth supply, the 30% export
reduction of 2010 led to rapid price hikes and a much publicised rare earth panic in the US, EU and
Japan. Along with opening up new and abandoned mines, and the possibilities of mining waste
tailings, recovering rare earths from end-of-life goods, including e-waste and fluorescent light bulbs,
has emerged as one response. In agricultural sectors, dependence on phosphate fertilizer was
highlighted by the ten-fold surge in mineral phosphate prices in 2007-8 which was seen as presaging
the effects of increasing non-western demand. EU resource recovery, then, is couched as a means to
resource efficiency, but it is also a form of mercantilism. It is a means of capturing end-of-life goods
within the boundaries of the EU, to stretch resources to accommodate a multi-polar development.
Increasingly, it appears as a form of geo-political insurance; in a world where rampant economic
26
growth in the developing world threatens the stability of economies long accustomed to having
resources their own way, it offers insurance against the EU’s increasingly apparent resource
insecurity.
We end the paper, however, back with the laudable attempt to decouple economic growth from
primary resource consumption that sits at the heart of the idea of a circular economy. The EU
roadmap for the current year (2014) states the priority is to ‘Stimulate the secondary materials
market and demand for recycled materials through economic incentives and developing end-ofwaste criteria’ (p 8). To achieve this requires close scrutiny of how materials qualify for such
markets. But it is also increasingly apparent that previous technologies of waste diversion do not fit
smoothly with the current goal of recovering secondary resources from waste materials. Just as the
UK is wrestling with a high volume, low quality output problem, systems in Scandinavia, previously
held up as exemplary, are struggling with how to shift from recovering energy to recovering
materials, given huge infrastructural commitments and the need to change incentives for different
actors in the value chain (Corvellec and Hultmann 2012). To turn wastes to resources, then, is a
challenge in which different logics clash. This is not just the familiar case of business logics pitted
against environmental ones. Rather, as we have shown, in forging circular economies EU policy is
creating markets and proxy markets in materials recovery in increasingly moral and moralising ways.
Acknowledgements
Research for this paper was supported by ESRC grant number RES 000-23-0007 (The Waste of the
World) and by EPSRC ‘Bridging the Gap’ grant number EP/J501323/1. Thanks to Ray Hudson, Paul
Langley and Colin McFarlane for comments on earlier versions and to the journal’s Editorial Board
for encouraging a reframing of the paper.
Websites
http://www.biogas-info.co.uk/ - Last accessed 11 April, 2013
http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy - Last accessed 8 January, 2014.
http://www.euractiv.com/ - Last accessed 31 January, 2014
27
11 October 2011: Dirty trade challenges EU vision of recycling society
(http://www.euractiv.com/specialreport-recycling-society/dirty-trade-challenges-eu-vision-news508255)_
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/resource_efficiency/about/roadmap/index_en.htm - Last
accessed 1 February 2014
http://www.letsrecycle.com
[1]
29 June 2007: Mixed blessings for the future of glass recycling
[2]
19 May 2009: MWDA signs £640 million deal with Veolia
[3]
15 January 2010: Anaerobic digestion – let’s not waste the opportunity
[4]
31 October 2011: Minister warns recycling market needs to improve
[5]
26 January 2012: AD industry ‘under threat’ from End of Waste
[6]
2 April 2012: Shanks and SSE sign £750m Yorkshire PFI deal
[7]
6 June 2012: Veolia opens £20 million Merseyside MRF
[8]
19 June 2012: Wakefield PFI deal to complete in September
[9]
21 June 2012: Gate fees are key part of AD financial model
[10]
25 June 2012: Comingled recycling allowed, says Commission
[11]
9 July 2012: PAS110 awarded to Cassington AD plant
[12]
16 July 2012: China clamps down on imports of poor quality paper
[13]
19 July 2012: Market for waste paper recycling under pressure
[14]
23 July 2012: Viridor signs £250 million Glasgow contract
[15]
25 July 2012: ROCs banding review ‘a disaster’ for AD industry
[16]
27 July 2012: Lord Taylor interview exclusive
[17]
1 August 2012: Welsh Councils appeal for clarity over comingling
[18]
15 August 2012: Number of plants to achieve PAS 110 grows
[19]
28 January 2013: Odour main cause of biowaste permit breaches
[20]
11 March 2013: Judicial Review ruling: analysis
[21]
5 March 2014: Progress towards circular economy ‘disappointing’
[22]
31 July 2014: PAS 110 Anaerobic Digestion specification updated
http://www.nispnetwork.com/ - Last accessed 8 January, 2014.
http://www.waste-management-world.com/index.html
28
Recycling: rarely so critical - http://www.waste-management-world.com/articles/print/volume12/issue-5/features/recycling-rarely-so-critical.html
http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/digestate-use-landscape-and-regeneration - Last accessed 11
April, 2013
Reports and policy documents
British Standards Institute (2010). PAS 110: 2010. Specification for whole digestate, separated liquor
and separated fibre derived from anaerobic digestion of source-segregated biodegradable materials,
Retrieved from: http://www.biofertilser.org.uk/pdf/PAS-110.pdf
DEFRA (2012). Anaerobic Digestion Strategy and Action Plan – Annual Report 2011/12, Retrieved
from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/anaerobic-digestion
DEFRA (2013a). Quality Action Plan: proposals to promote high quality recycling of dry recyclables,
Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment
DEFRA (2013b). AD Strategy and Action Plan, Annual Report 2012 – 13. Retrieved from:
https://www..gov.uk/government/publications/anaerobic-digestion
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2012). Report Volume 1: Towards the circular economy: economic and
business rationale for an accelerated transition, Retrieved from:
http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/business/reports/ce2012
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013). Report Volume 2: Towards the circular economy: opportunities
for consumer goods. Retrieved from
http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/business/reports/ce2013
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2014) Report Volume 3: Towards the circular economy: accelerating
the scale-up across global supply chains. Retrieved from
http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/business/reports/ce2014#
Environment Agency/WRAP (2010). Quality Protocol: anaerobic digestate, Retrieved from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/quality-protocol-anaerobic-digestate
Environment Agency (2014). Separate collection of recyclables – Briefing Note 27 June 2014,
Retrieved from: www.biffa.co.uk/assets/.../EA-briefing-note-seperate-collections-2014.pdf
European Commission (2005). Taking sustainable use of resources forward: a thematic strategy on
the prevention and recycling of waste (COM 666), Retrieved from:
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/environment/sustainable_development/l28168_en.htm
European Commission (2011a). Roadmap to a resource efficient Europe (COM 2011, 571), Retrieved
from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/resource_efficiency/about/roadmap/index_en.htm
European Commission (2011b). Commission Staff Working Paper: analysis associated with the
Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe, Part II, Retrieved from:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/resource_efficiency/about/roadmap/index_en.htm
European Commission (2014). The Circular Economy: connecting, creating and conserving value,
Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/
European Environment Agency (2009). Waste without borders: transboundary shipments of waste,
Retrieved from: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/waste-without-borders-in-the-eutransboundary-shipments-of-waste
29
European Environment Agency ( 2011). Earnings, jobs and innovation: the role of recycling in a green
economy, Retrieved from http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/earnings-jobs-and-innovation-the
WRAP (2006a). MRF Costing Model, Retrieved from:
www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/MRF_v6_19Dec06_LC.pdf
WRAP (2006b). Materials Recovery Facilities. An Introduction to MRFs and Comparison of Sorting
Operations Based on Site Visits to Selected Facilities in England, Europe and North America,
Retrieved from: www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/MRF_v6_19Dec06_LC.pdf
WRAP (2008a). Kerbside Recycling: Indicative Costs and Performance, Retrieved from:
www.wrap.org.uk/node/3594
WRAP (2009). Final Report: MRF Output Material Quality Thresholds: a Report on Materials Quality
Standards, Quality Measurement Techniques and the Implementation by UK MRFs and Materials
Reprocessors, Retrieved from:
www.wrap.org.uk/.../wrap/MRF%20Output%20Material%20Quality%20...
WRAP (2010). Analysis of Kerbside Dry Recycling Performance in the UK 2008/9, Retrieved from:
www.wrapni.org.uk/.../wrap/EVA143-000%20Kerbside%20Dry%20Ben...
WRAP (2011a). Anaerobic Digestion Infrastructure in the UK: September 2011, Retrieved from:
http://www.organicsrecycling.org.uk/page.php?article=2201&name=Anaerobic+Digestion+Infrastructure+in+the+UK
WRAP (2011b). Climate Change Drives High Profile Farmer-focused Digestate and Compost Research
Project, Retrieved from: www.wrap.org.uk/.../wrap/Bulletin%201%20-%20project%20overview_...
WRAP (2011c). Beat Rising Cost of Fertiliser and Extreme Weather by Using Digestate and Compost,
Retrieved from: www.wrap.org.uk/.../wrap/Bulletin%202%20-%20agronomic%20benefit...
WRAP (2011d). New Markets for Digestate from Anaerobic Digestion, Retrieved from:
www.wrap.org.uk/.../wrap/New_Markets_for_AD_WRAP_format_Final...
WRAP (2013). Market expectations and requirements for digestate, Retrieved from:
www.wrap.org.uk/.../market-expectations-and-requirements-digestate
WRAP/Environment Agency (2014). Quality protocol for Anaerobic Digestate: end of waste criteria
for the production and use of quality outputs from anaerobic digestion of source-segregated
biodegradable waste, Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/qualityprotocol-anaerobic-digestate
References
Alexander, C. & Reno, J. (Eds.) (2012). Economies of recycling: the global transformation of materials,
values and social relations. London: Zed Books.
Boulding, K. (1966). The economics of the coming spaceship. In H. Jarett (Ed.), Environmental Quality
in a Growing Economy (pp. 3 – 14). Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Bras, B & McIntosh, M. (1999). Product, process and organisational design for re-manufacture – an
overview of research. Robotics and Computer- Integrated Manufacturing 15 (3): 167 – 78. doi:
10.1016/S0736-5845(99)00021-6
30
Brings Jacobsen, N. (2006). Industrial symbiosis in Kalundborg, Denmark: a quantitative assessment
of economic and environmental aspects. Journal of Industrial Ecology 10 (1 – 2), 239 – 58. doi:
10.1162/108819806775545411
Carson, R. (1962). The Silent Spring. Cambridge MA: Riverside.
Chen, C., Wang, Y., Ou, H., He, Y. & Tang, X. (2014). A review on remanufacture of dies and
remoulds. Journal of Cleaner Production 64: 13 – 23. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.014
Chertow, M. & Ehrenfeld, J. (2012). Organising self-organising systems: toward a theory of industrial
symbiosis. Journal of Industrial Ecology 16 (1), 13 – 27. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00450.x
Chertow, M. (2007). ‘Uncovering’ industrial symbiosis. Journal of Industrial Ecology 11 (1): 11 – 30.
doi: 10.1162/jiec.2007.1110
Clapp, J. (2001). Toxic Exports: the Transfer of Hazardous Wastes from Rich to Poor Countries.
Indiana: Cornell University Press.
Cooper, T. (2005). Slower consumption: reflections on product life spans and the ‘throwaway
society’. Journal of Industrial Ecology 9 (1-2): 51 – 67. doi: 10.1162/1088198054084671
Cooper, T. (Ed.) (2010). Longer lasting products: alternatives to the throwaway society. London:
Gower.
Corvellec, H. & Hultman, J.(2012). From "less landfilling" to "wasting less": Societal narratives, sociomateriality, and organizations. Journal of Organizational Change Management 25 (2 ):297-314.
doi:10.1108/09534811211213964
Costanza, R., D’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Arber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem S.,
O’Neill, R., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R., Sutton, P. & van den Belt, M., (1997). The value of the world’s
ecosystem services and natural capital, Nature 387: 253 – 60. doi: 10.1038/387253a0
Crang, M., Hughes, A., Gregson, N., Norris, L. & Ahamed, F. (2013). Rethinking governance and value
in commodity chains through global recycling networks. Transactions Institute of British Geographers
38 (1), 12 – 24. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-5661.2012.00515.x
Deschenes, P. & Chertow, M. (2004). An island approach to industrial ecology: toward sustainability
in the island context. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 47(2): 201 – 17. doi:
10.1080/0964056042000209102
Deutz, P. & Lyons, D. (2008). Editorial: industrial symbiosis – an environmental perspective on
regional development. Regional Studies 42 (10): 1295 – 98. doi:10.1080/00343400802382190
Ehrenfeld, J. & Gertler, N. (1997). Industrial ecology in practice: the evolution of interdependence at
Kalundborg. Journal of Industrial Ecology 1 (1): 67 – 79. doi: 10.1162/jiec.1997.1.1.67
Frosch, R. & Gallopoulos, N. (1989). Strategies for manufacturing. Scientific American 261: 94 – 102.
[no doi]
Geng, Y. & Côte, R. (2002). Scavengers and decomposers in an eco-industrial park. International
Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 9 (4): 333 – 40. [no doi]
Geng, Y., Zhu, Q., Doberstein, B. & Fujita, T. (2009). Implementing China’s circular economy concept
at the regional level: a review of progress in Dalian, China. Waste Management 29 (2), 996 – 1002.
doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2008.06.036
31
Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1971). The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. Cambridge MA: Harvard
University Press.
Gibbs, D. & Deutz, P. (2005). Implementing industrial ecology? Planning for eco-industrial parks in
the USA. Geoforum 36 (4): 452 – 64. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.07.009
Gille, Z. (2010). Actor networks, modes of production, and waste regimes: reassembling the macrosocial. Environment and Planning A 42 (5):1049-1064. doi:10.1068/a42122
Gregson, N., Crang, M., Ahamed, F., Akter, N., Ferdous, R., Foisal ,S. & Hudson, R . (2012). Territorial
agglomeration and industrial symbiosis: Sitakunda-Bhatiary, Bangladesh, as a secondary processing
complex. Economic Geography 88 (1): 37 – 58. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-8287.2011.01138.x
Gregson, N., Watkins, H. & Calestani, M. (2013). Political markets: recycling, economization and
marketization. Economy and Society 42 (1): 1 – 25. doi: 10.1080/03085147.2012.661625
Guitimi, R & Guadette, K. (2003). Remanufacturing: the next great opportunity for boosting US
productivity. Business Horizons 46(6): 41 – 48. doi: 10.1016/S0007-6813(03)00087-9
Hatcher, G., Imojah, W. & Windmill, J. (2011). Design for remanufacture: a literature review and
future research needs. Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (17 – 18): 2004 – 14. doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.06.019
Hewes, H. & Lyons, D. (2008). The humanistic side of eco-industrial parks: champions and the role of
trust. Regional Studies 42 (10): 1329 – 42. doi: 10.1080/00343400701654079
Hultman, J. & Corvellec, H. (2012). The European Waste Hierarchy: from the sociomateriality of
waste to the politics of consumption. Environment and Planning A 44 (10): 2413 – 47.
doi:10.1068/a44668
Imojah, W. (2010). The application of remanufacturing in sustainable manufacture. Waste and
Resource Management 163 (4): 157 – 63. doi: 10.1680/warm.2010.163.4.157
Imojah, W., McMahon, C., Hammond, G. & Newman, G. (2007). Development of robust design-forremanufacturing guidelines to further the aims of sustainable development. Robotics and ComputerIntegrated Manufacturing 23 (6): 712 – 19. doi: 10.1016/j.rcim.2007.02.017
Jacques, M. (2012, Second Edition). When China Rules the World, London: Penguin.
Jensen, P. D., Basson, L., Hellawell, E., Bailey, M. & Leach, M. (2011). Quantifying 'geographic
proximity': experiences from the United Kingdom's National Industrial Symbiosis Programme.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55(7): 703-712. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.02.003
Korhonen, J. (2002). Two paths to industrial ecology: applying the product-based and geographical
approaches. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 45 (1): 39 – 57. doi:
10.1080/09640560120100187
Korhonen, J. (2001). Regional industrial ecology: examples from regional economic systems of forest
industry and energy supply in Finland. Journal of Environmental Management 63 (4): 367 – 75. doi:
10.1006/jema.2001.0477
Laybourn, P. & Lombardi, R. (2012). Industrial symbiosis in European policy: overview of recent
progress. Journal of Industrial Ecology 16 (1), 11 – 12. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00451.x
32
Lombardi, R. & Laybourn, P. (2012). Redefining industrial symbiosis: crossing academic-practitioner
boundaries. Journal of Industrial Ecology 16 (1), 28 – 37. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00444.x
Matthews, J. & Tan, H. (2011). Progress toward a circular economy in China: the drivers (and
inhibitors) of eco-industrial initiative. Journal of Industrial Ecology 15 (3), 435 – 57. doi:
10.1111/j.1530 doi:9290.2011.00332.x
Minter, A. (2013). Junkyard Planet: travels in the billion dollar trash trade. London: Bloomsbury.
Minx, J., Wiedmann, T., Wood R., Peters, G.P., Lenzen, M., Owen, A., Scott, K., Barrett, J., Hubacek,
K., Baiocchi, G., Paul, A., Dawkins, E., Briggs, J., Guan, D., Suh, S. & Ackerman, F. (2009). Input-output
analysis and carbon footprinting: an overview of applications. Economic Systems Research 21 (3):
187-216. doi: 10.1080/09535310903541298
Mirata, M. & Emtairah, T. (2005). Industrial symbiosis networks and the contribution of
environmental innovation: the case of the Landskrona industrial symbiosis programme. Journal of
Cleaner Production 13 (10-11): 993 – 1002. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.12.010
Pearce, D. (2002). An intellectual history of environmental economics. Annual Review of Energy and
Environment 27, 57 – 81. doi: 10.1146/annurev.energy.27.122001.083429
Reno, J. (2011). Managing the experience of evidence: England’s experimental waste technologies
and their immodest witnesses. Science Technology and Human Values 36 (6), 842 – 63. doi:
10.1177/0162243910376158
Rivoli, P. (2005). Travels of a T-shirt in the Global Economy. London: Wiley.
Russell, S., Morley, N., Tipper, M., Drivas, I. & Ward, G. (2010). Principles of the recovery and reuse
of corporate clothing. Waste and Resource Management 163 (4): 165 – 72. doi:
10.1680/warm.2010.163.4.165
Shi, H., Chertow, M. & Song, Y. (2010). Developing country experience with eco-industrial parks: a
case study of the Tianjin Economic Technological Development Area in China. Journal of Cleaner
Production 18 (3), 191 – 99. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.10.002
Spencer, D. (2005). The high speed identification and sorting of non-ferrous scrap. Journal of
Minerals, Metals and Materials Society 57 (4), 46 – 51. doi:10.1007/s11837-005-0081-6
Su, B., Heshmati, A., Geng, Y.,&and Yu, X.(2013). A review of the circular economy in China: moving
from rhetoric to implementation. Journal of Cleaner Production 42:215-227. doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.020
Van Beers, D., Corder, G,, Bossilkov, A. & van Berkel, R. (2007). Industrial symbiosis in the Australian
mining industry: the cases of Kwinana and Gladstone. Journal of Industrial Ecology 11 (1): 55 – 72.
doi: 10.1162/jiec.2007.1161
World Economic Forum, with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and McKinsey & Company (2014).
Towards the Circular Economy: Accelerating the scale-up across global supply chains. Geneva:
Switzerland.
Xu, H., Jia, X-P., Shi, L. & Zhang, T-Z. (2008). Societal metabolism in Northeast China: case study of
Liaoning Province. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (8/9), 1082 – 86. doi:
10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.04.007
33
Yuan, Z-W. & Shi, L. (2009). Improving enterprise competitive advantage with industrial symbiosis:
case study of a smeltery in China. Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (14), 1295 – 1302. doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.03.016
Zhu, Q., Lowe, E., Wei, Y. & Barnes, D. (2007). Industrial symbiosis in China: a case study of the
Guitang group. Journal of Industrial Ecology 11 (1), 31 – 42. doi: 10.1162/jiec.2007.929
34