Book contents
- Representations and Rights of the Environment
- Series page
- Representations and Rights of the Environment
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Epigraph
- Contents
- Illustrations
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- 1 An Introduction
- Part I Challenges
- Part II Recollection
- Part III Perspectives
- 10 Rights of Nature, a New Perspective in Law
- 11 Property for Nature
- 12 Reimagining the Common Law
- 13 Democratic Representation, Environmental Justice and Future People
- 14 The Normative and Social Dimensions of the Transition towards a Responsible, Circular Bio-Based Economy
- 15 New Perspectives on Guardianship of Nature
- Index
- References
14 - The Normative and Social Dimensions of the Transition towards a Responsible, Circular Bio-Based Economy
from Part III - Perspectives
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 March 2023
By
Book contents
- Representations and Rights of the Environment
- Series page
- Representations and Rights of the Environment
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Epigraph
- Contents
- Illustrations
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- 1 An Introduction
- Part I Challenges
- Part II Recollection
- Part III Perspectives
- 10 Rights of Nature, a New Perspective in Law
- 11 Property for Nature
- 12 Reimagining the Common Law
- 13 Democratic Representation, Environmental Justice and Future People
- 14 The Normative and Social Dimensions of the Transition towards a Responsible, Circular Bio-Based Economy
- 15 New Perspectives on Guardianship of Nature
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter reflects on the normative and social dimensions of the transition to a circular bio-based economy (CBE). It first argues that current practices in a CBE are framed within the market or economic logic and miss the normative dimension of the call for circularity. The transition to a CBE requires a fundamental reflections on the role of economic actors in the social and ecological environment with significant consequences for their business practices. Second, the chapter argues that the transition to a CBE requires an acknowledgement of the normative and social dimension of this transition at the meso and macro levels, and the establishment of an environmental and social logic on the micro level of business practices. Third, it argues that the concept of responsible innovation can help to articulate the normative and social dimension of the transition to a CBE, and enables the operationalisation of the environmental and social logic at the micro level. In this respect, responsible innovation can be understood as a driver for the transition to a CBE.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Representations and Rights of the Environment , pp. 334 - 352Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Beames, A., Goedhart, J. and Kanellopoulos, A. (2019). Biobased economy: Critical foundation for achieving sustainable development goals. In Leal Filho, W. et al. (eds.), Decent Work and Economic Growth. Dordrecht: Springer, 49–69, https://doi.org/10.1007/978–3-319-71058-7_35-1Google Scholar
Bilitewski, B. (2012). The circular economy and its risks. Waste Management 32(1): 1–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Birch, K. and Tyfield, D (2013). Theorizing the bioeconomy. Biovalue, biocapital, bioeconomics or … What? Science, Technology and Human Values 38(3): 299–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blok, V. (2016). Biomimicry and the materiality of ecological technology and innovation: Toward a natural model of nature. Environmental Philosophy 13(2): 195–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blok, V. (2018a). Information asymmetries and the paradox of sustainable business models: Towards an integrated theory of sustainable entrepreneurship. In Moratis, L., Melissen, F. and Idowu, S. O. (eds.), Sustainable Business Models. Dordrecht: Springer: 204–25.Google Scholar
Blok, V. (2018b). Technocratic management versus ethical leadership: Redefining responsible professionalism in the agri‑food sector in the Anthropocene. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 31(2–3): 583–91.Google Scholar
Blok, V. (2019a). From participation to interruption: Toward an ethics of stakeholder engagement, participation and partnership in CSR and responsible innovation. In Schomberg, R. von and Hankins, J. (eds.), Handbook of Responsible Innovation: A Global Resource. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 243–57.Google Scholar
Blok, V. (2019b). Innovation as ethos: Moving beyond CSR and practical wisdom in innovation ethics. In Neesham, C. and Segal, S. (eds.), Handbook of Philosophy of Management. New York: Springer, 1–14, http://doi.org/10.1007/978–3-319-48352–8_19-1Google Scholar
Blok, V. (2019c). Politics versus economics: Philosophical reflections on the nature of corporate governance. In Neesham, C. and Segal, S. (eds.), Handbook of Philosophy of Management. New York: Springer, 69–87, http://doi.org/10.1007/s40926–019–00118–9Google Scholar
Blok, V. and Gremmen, B. (2018). Agricultural technologies as living machines: Toward a biomimetic conceptualization of technology. Ethics, Policy and Environment 21(2): 246–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blok, V., Gremmen, B. and Wesselink, R (2016). Dealing with the wicked problem of sustainable development: The role of individual virtuous competence. Business and Professional Ethics Journal 34(3): 297–327.Google Scholar
Bos, J. and Munnichs, G (2016). Digitalisering van Dieren. Verkenning precision livestock farming. Den Haag, Rathenau.Google Scholar
Bosman, R. and Rotmans, J(2016). Transition governance towards a bioeconomy: A comparison of Finland and the Netherlands. Sustainability 8: 1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, A. (2004). Biodiversity and agricultural landscapes: Can the wicked policy problem be solved? Pacific Conservation Biology 10(2): 124–42.Google Scholar
Constanza, R., Cumberland, J. H., Daly, H., Goodland, R., Norgaard, R. B., Kubiszewski, I and Franco, C (2015). An Introduction to Ecological Economics. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, P. R. and Ehrlich, A. H. (2009). The population bomb revisited. Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development 1(3): 63–71.Google Scholar
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2010). Iconographics, www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/concept/infographicGoogle Scholar
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2019). Completing the picture: How the circular economy tackles climate change, www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.orgGoogle Scholar
Farigone, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S. and Hawthorne, P (2008). Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319(3): 1235–38.Google Scholar
Gardiner, S. M. (2006). A perfect moral storm: Climate change, intergenerational ethics and the problem of moral corruption. Environmental Values 15(3): 397–413.Google Scholar
Garver, G. (2013). The rule of ecological law, the legal complement to degrowth economy. Sustainability 5(3): 316–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy 31: 1257–74.Google Scholar
Geels, F. W. and Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy 36(3): 399–417.Google Scholar
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M. P. and Hultink, E. J. (2017). The circular economy: A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production 143: 757–68.Google Scholar
Goven, J. and Pavone, V (2015). The bioeconomy as political project: A Polanyian analysis. Science, Technology and Human Values 40(3): 302–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grin, J., Rotmans, J. and Schot, J. (2010). Transitions to Sustainable Development: New Directions in the Study of Long Term Transformative Change. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inigo, E. A. and Blok, V. (2019). Strengthening the socio-ethical foundations of the circular economy: Lessons from responsible research and innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production 233: 280–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inigo, E. A. and Blok, V. (2020). System barriers for socio-technical transitions driven by niche and regime-level agents: The case of the circular economy in the Netherlands. Working Paper.Google Scholar
Jacobsson, S. and Bergek, A (2011). Innovation system analyses and sustainability transitions: Contributions and suggestions for research. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transition 1: 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamieson, D. (2007). The moral and political challenges of climate change. In Moser, S. C. and Dilling, L. (eds.), Creating a Climate for Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 475–82.Google Scholar
Jonker, J., Stegeman, H., Faber, N. R. and Kothman, I. (2017). Een zwaluw voorspelt veel goeds; resultaten van het landelijk onderzoek 2016–2017 naar business modellen voor de circulaire economie. Doetinchem: Stichting OCF 2.0.Google Scholar
Kirchherr, J., Reike, D. and Hekkert, M. (2017). Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resource Conservation and Recycling 127: 221–32.Google Scholar
Korakandy, R. (2008). Fisheries Development in India. The Political Economy of Unsustainable Development. Delhi: Kalpaz.Google Scholar
Korhonen, J., Nuur, C., Feldmann, A. and Birkie, S. E. (2018). Circular economy as an essentially contested concept. Journal of Cleaner Production 175(544): 544–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, T. B. and Blok, V. (2019). Innovation for grand societal challenges by start-up firms: Overcoming tensions within responsible innovation. Working paper.Google Scholar
Long, T. B., Blok, V. and Coninx, I. (2019). The diffusion of climate-smart agricultural innovations: Systems level factors that inhibit sustainable entrepreneurial action. Journal of Cleaner Production 232: 993–1004.Google Scholar
Lubberink, R., Blok, V., van Ophem, J. and Omta, O (2018). Responsible innovation by social entrepreneurs: An exploratory study of values integration in innovations. Journal of Responsible Innovation 6(2): 179–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mead, T. (2014). Biologically-inspired innovation in large companies: A path for corporate participation in biophysical systems? International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics 9(3): 216–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mignon, I. and Bergek, A (2016). System- and actor-level challenges for diffusion of renewable electricity technologies: An international comparison. Journal of Cleaner Production 128: 105–15.Google Scholar
Muijsenberg, S. van den and Blok, V. (2019). Towards a normative framework for conducting business in the bioeconomy: The case of biomimetic enterprises. Working paper.Google Scholar
Muijsenberg, S. van Den, I. Boom and Blok, V. (2019). Biomimicry as an approach to generate sustainable business models: A typology of biomimetic businesses. Working paper.Google Scholar
Murray, A., Skene, K. and Haynes, K. (2017). The circular economy: An interdisciplinary exploration of the concept and application in a global context. Journal of Business Ethics 140(3): 369–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, R., Stilgoe, J., Macnaghten, P., Gorman, F., Fisher, E. and Guston, D (2013). A framework for responsible innovation. In Owen, R., Bessant, J. and Heintz, M. (eds.), Responsible Innovation. Chichester, UK: Wiley, 27–50.Google Scholar
Rittel, H. W. J. and Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4(2): 155–69.Google Scholar
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K. et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461: 472–75Google Scholar
Ruggiu, D. (2015). Anchoring European governance: Two versions of responsible research and innovation and EU fundamental rights as ‘normative anchor points’. NanoEthics 9(3): 217–35.Google Scholar
Schlaile, M., Urmetzer, S., Blok, V. et al. (2017). Innovation systems for transformations towards sustainability? Taking the normative dimension seriously. 1–20 Sustainability, http://doi.org/10.3390/su9122253Google Scholar
Von Schomberg, Rene (2012). Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. In M. Dusseldorp and R. Beecroft (eds), Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren: Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methode. Wiesbaden: Springer, 39–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sira Consulting (2011). Botsende belangen in de bioeconomy, www.biobasedeconomy.nl/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Botsende-belangen-in-de-BBE-SIRA-consulting.pdfGoogle Scholar
Stahel, W. R. (2013). Policy for material efficiency: Sustainable taxation as a departure from the throwaway society. Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Societal A, A 371: 20110567.Google Scholar
Stubbs, W. (2017). Sustainable entrepreneurship and B corps. Business Strategy and the Environment 26(3): 331–44.Google Scholar
Veraart, R., Blok, V. and Lemmens, P. (2019). Efficiency versus enjoyment: Looking after the human condition in the transition to the bio-based economy. Working paper.Google Scholar
Verbong, G. and Geels, F. (2007). The ongoing energy transition: Lessons from a socio-technical, multi-level analysis of the Dutch electricity system (1960–2004). Energy Policy 35: 1025–37.Google Scholar
Wathes, C. M. (2009). Precision livestock farming for animal health, welfare and production. In Aland, A. and Madec, F. (eds.), Sustainable Animal Production: The Challenges and Potential Developments for Professional Farming. Wageningen, Wageningen Academic Publishers, 411–19.Google Scholar
Weber, M. and Hemmelskamp, J. (2005). Towards Environmental Innovation Systems. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Winans, K., Kendall, A. and Deng, H. (2017). The history and current applications of the circular economy concept. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review 68: 825–33.Google Scholar
Zhang, H., Feng, J., Zhu, W. et al. (2000). Chronic toxicity of rare-earth elements on human beings. Biological Trace Element Research 73(1): 1–17.Google Scholar
Zwier, J., Blok, V., Lemmens, P. and Geerts, R. J. (2015). The ideal of a zero-waste humanity: Philosophical reflections on the demand for a bio-based economy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28(2): 353–74.Google Scholar