[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/fem/frepor/2019.10-30.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards an Innovation-Intensive Circular Economy. Integrating Research, Industry and Policies

Author

Listed:
  • Roberto Zoboli

    (Catholic University, Milan and SEEDS)

  • Nicolò Barbieri

    (University of Ferrara and SEEDS)

  • Claudia Ghisetti

    (Catholic University and SEEDS)

  • Giovanni Marin

    (University of Urbino and SEEDS)

  • Susanna Paleari

    (IRCrES-CNR)

Abstract
The report ‘Towards an Innovation-intensive Circular Economy. Integrating research, industry, and policies’ is a result of the cooperation between FEEM and Università Cattolica. The report proposes an original perspective to the circular economy as a paradigm of change that involves the whole production system. While material circularity is increasing under the pressure of decades of waste/recycling policies in Europe and Italy, a ‘new’ circular economy more intensive of technological and social innovation is establishing itself beyond the waste/recycling system, and it involves the material and organisational efficiency of enterprises and the whole production/consumption systems. The report starts from a stocktaking of definitions, public policies, quantifications, innovations, and institutional initiatives on the circular economy in Europe and in Italy. Two ‘integrative approaches’ are then proposed for achieving a better interaction between research, industry, and policies. The first approach exploits the concepts of ‘System of innovation’ (national, regional, sectoral) to redefine the process towards a circular economy. In such a ‘System of innovation’, enterprises are at the core, and the sub-systems of policies, finance, research/university, and civil society can contribute, through network interactions, to the change of the industrial and consumption paradigms towards resource efficiency and circularity. By means of this approach, it is easier to understand the importance of internal factors (for example industrial capabilities and strategies) as well external factors (for example European research programmes and finance) in creating opportunities or barriers to the circular economy. The second ‘integrative’ approach mirrors the intrinsically systemic features of the circular economy by suggesting to put it in connection to other major transitions of this phase, in particular decarbonisation and the bioeconomy, through a NEXUS-type approach. The interactions between circular economy, decarbonisation, and the bioeconomy are several but not necessarily they are synergic in that potential conflicts may arise. Synergies and conflicts, for example through an intensive use of biomass for energy, are not fully recognised by policies, which are still designed and implemented with a sector-minded approach. This can impair the performance of enterprises in pursuing a profitable circularity strategy. The report also addresses some open issues in the ‘economics of the circular economy’, like the low prices of primary commodities that do not create incentives to circularity innovations, thus assigning a major burden to policy instruments (for example fiscal instruments), and the changing attitude of the financial sector, which is moving towards the adoption of circularity criteria in the allocation for financial resources.

Suggested Citation

  • Roberto Zoboli & Nicolò Barbieri & Claudia Ghisetti & Giovanni Marin & Susanna Paleari, 2019. "Towards an Innovation-Intensive Circular Economy. Integrating Research, Industry and Policies," Reports, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:fem:frepor:2019.10-30
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.feem.it/m/publications_pages/rpt-economiacircolare.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Malerba, Franco, 2002. "Sectoral systems of innovation and production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 247-264, February.
    2. Valeria Costantini & Massimiliano Mazzanti (ed.), 2013. "The Dynamics of Environmental and Economic Systems," Springer Books, Springer, edition 127, number 978-94-007-5089-0, December.
    3. Mazzanti, Massimiliano & Zoboli, Roberto, 2006. "Economic instruments and induced innovation: The European policies on end-of-life vehicles," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 318-337, June.
    4. Winans, K. & Kendall, A. & Deng, H., 2017. "The history and current applications of the circular economy concept," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 68(P1), pages 825-833.
    5. Jacopo Zotti & Andrea Bigano, 2019. "Write circular economy, read economy’s circularity. How to avoid going in circles," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 36(2), pages 629-652, July.
    6. M. Fischer‐Kowalski & F. Krausmann & S. Giljum & S. Lutter & A. Mayer & S. Bringezu & Y. Moriguchi & H. Schütz & H. Schandl & H. Weisz, 2011. "Methodology and Indicators of Economy‐wide Material Flow Accounting," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 15(6), pages 855-876, December.
    7. Harri Kalimo & Reid Lifset & Chris van Rossem & Luk van Wassenhove & Atalay Atasu & Kieren Mayers, 2012. "Greening the economy through design incentives: Allocating extended producer responsibility," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/177827, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    8. Nascia, Leopoldo & Pianta, Mario, 2018. "Research and innovation policy in Italy," MPRA Paper 89510, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Kinnaman, Thomas C. & Shinkuma, Takayoshi & Yamamoto, Masashi, 2014. "The socially optimal recycling rate: Evidence from Japan," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 54-70.
    10. Reid Lifset & Atalay Atasu & Naoko Tojo, 2013. "Extended Producer Responsibility," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 17(2), pages 162-166, April.
    11. Willi Haas & Fridolin Krausmann & Dominik Wiedenhofer & Markus Heinz, 2015. "How Circular is the Global Economy?: An Assessment of Material Flows, Waste Production, and Recycling in the European Union and the World in 2005," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 19(5), pages 765-777, October.
    12. Jaco Huisman, 2013. "Too Big to Fail, Too Academic to Function," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 17(2), pages 172-174, April.
    13. Vanessa Oltra & Maïder Saint Jean, 2009. "Sectoral systems of environmental innovation: an application to the French automotive industry," Post-Print hal-00274413, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eugénie Joltreau, 2022. "Extended Producer Responsibility, Packaging Waste Reduction and Eco-design," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 83(3), pages 527-578, November.
    2. Rocsana Bucea-Manea-Țoniş & Aleksandar Šević & Milena P. Ilić & Radu Bucea-Manea-Țoniş & Nevenka Popović Šević & Larisa Mihoreanu, 2021. "Untapped Aspects of Innovation and Competition within a European Resilient Circular Economy. A Dual Comparative Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-16, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jacopo Zotti & Andrea Bigano, 2019. "Write circular economy, read economy’s circularity. How to avoid going in circles," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 36(2), pages 629-652, July.
    2. D. D’Amato, 2021. "Sustainability Narratives as Transformative Solution Pathways: Zooming in on the Circular Economy," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 231-242, June.
    3. Ghazinoory, Sepehr & Nasri, Shohreh & Ameri, Fatemeh & Montazer, Gholam Ali & Shayan, Ali, 2020. "Why do we need ‘Problem-oriented Innovation System (PIS)’ for solving macro-level societal problems?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    4. Romain Debref, 2012. "The Paradoxes of Environmental Innovations: The Case of Green Chemistry," Post-Print hal-02047209, HAL.
    5. Morvarid Rahmani & Luyi Gui & Atalay Atasu, 2021. "The Implications of Recycling Technology Choice on Extended Producer Responsibility," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(2), pages 522-542, February.
    6. Piciu Gabriela-Cornelia, 2021. "Ways To Accelerate The Circular Economy," Annals - Economy Series, Constantin Brancusi University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 5, pages 129-134, October.
    7. Faria, Lourenço Galvão Diniz & Andersen, Maj Munch, 2017. "Sectoral patterns versus firm-level heterogeneity - The dynamics of eco-innovation strategies in the automotive sector," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 266-281.
    8. Brian Chi-ang Lin & Siqi Zheng & Nicolò Barbieri & Claudia Ghisetti & Marianna Gilli & Giovanni Marin & Francesco Nicolli, 2016. "A Survey Of The Literature On Environmental Innovation Based On Main Path Analysis," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(3), pages 596-623, July.
    9. Michela Gallo & Veronica Marotta & Fabio Magrassi & Angela Celeste Taramasso & Adriana Del Borghi, 2017. "University campus waste prevention and reduction: A circular-economy approach," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2017(1-2), pages 235-252.
    10. Miatto, Alessio & Schandl, Heinz & Tanikawa, Hiroki, 2017. "How important are realistic building lifespan assumptions for material stock and demolition waste accounts?," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 143-154.
    11. Hervé Corvellec & Alison F. Stowell & Nils Johansson, 2022. "Critiques of the circular economy," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(2), pages 421-432, April.
    12. Magnusson, Thomas & Berggren, Christian, 2018. "Competing innovation systems and the need for redeployment in sustainability transitions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 217-230.
    13. Zhang, Jing & Liang, Xiong-jian, 2012. "Promoting green ICT in China: A framework based on innovation system approaches," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 997-1013.
    14. Hickle, Garth T., 2014. "An examination of governance within extended producer responsibility policy regimes in North America," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 55-65.
    15. Miatto, Alessio & Schandl, Heinz & Wiedenhofer, Dominik & Krausmann, Fridolin & Tanikawa, Hiroki, 2017. "Modeling material flows and stocks of the road network in the United States 1905–2015," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 168-178.
    16. Tobias Wendler & Daniel Töbelmann & Jutta Günther, 2019. "Natural resources and technology - on the mitigating effect of green tech," Bremen Papers on Economics & Innovation 1905, University of Bremen, Faculty of Business Studies and Economics.
    17. Faber, Albert & Hoppe, Thomas, 2013. "Co-constructing a sustainable built environment in the Netherlands—Dynamics and opportunities in an environmental sectoral innovation system," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 628-638.
    18. Thomas Wolfgang Thurner & Stanislav Zaichenko, 2016. "Sectoral Differences In Technology Transfer," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(02), pages 1-24, February.
    19. Safarzyńska, Karolina & Frenken, Koen & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2012. "Evolutionary theorizing and modeling of sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1011-1024.
    20. Euclides Santos Bittencourt & Cristiano Hora de Oliveira Fontes & Jorge Laureano Moya Rodriguez & Salvador Ávila Filho & Adonias Magdiel Silva Ferreira, 2020. "Modeling the Socioeconomic Metabolism of End-of-Life Tires Using Structural Equations: A Brazilian Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-28, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fem:frepor:2019.10-30. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Alberto Prina Cerai (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feemmit.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.