4th International Conference on

Public Policy (ICPP4)

June 26-28, 2019 – Montréal

Panel T09-P05 Session 4

Barriers and Enablers of a Transformation to a Circular Economy

Title of the paper

Circular Economy and Food Systems: mobilising pragmatic solutions

to change organisational and consumer behaviour

Author

A. Cristina Ribeiro-Duthie

University of Tasmania

AnaCristina.RibeiroDuthie@Utas.edu.au

Date of presentation

June 27, 2019

 4th International Conference on
Public Policy (ICPP4)
June 26-28, 2019 – Montréal

Abstract
The Circular Economy (CE) concept has gained momentum in Europe from the 1990’s
onwards. It proposes a new production model that aims to reduce waste generation to zero by
transforming it into inputs to feed productive chains. It is the result of a new paradigm
contrasting with the traditional linear economy based on the extract, produce, use, discard
model. The CE proposal is that the value of products, materials or resources remain circulating
in the economy to reduce the extraction of natural resources. There are companies, countries,
government, NGOs, and people mobilising circular innovations in the food chain. Increasing
awareness of the CE empirical innovations may contribute to change organisational and
consumer behaviour. Hence, contributing to a pragmatic and tangible application of CE in
relation to food production and distribution. To have an entire production cycle attaining
circularity principles will require organisational change that will not be immediate in any sector.
For these reasons, a transition towards a CE paradigm is a valuable issue to discuss. This paper
reviews the academic and ‘grey’ literature (government, business, NGO) relating to CE and
food systems. The application of circular innovations occurs in different stages of a business
process: design, planning, supply chain, sales, waste management. Admitting the possibility of
a circularity model across a productive process is considered here as enablers for the transition
towards CE, not the final stage. The danger in using the concept of CE regarding food waste is
that companies may be tempted to merely adopt a piecemeal approach and engage in ‘circular
washing’, which can turn the initiative into a new form of ‘green washing’. Instead, the greatest
challenge is to design circular models that avoid waste, where inputs are re-integrated and play
roles in the economy for as long as possible, even in different functions or chains. CE
mobilisation within the food sector is a complex issue understood in the context of a necessary
pragmatism for immediate solutions addressing food insecurity and natural resources
management. Thus, food waste management can be considered a critical step for a transition
towards closing the loops of food systems. Supermarkets constitute one important realm where
CE principles are applicable to food systems; but food production, restaurants, private
companies’ canteens, and households can also be a target for changing behaviour and practices.
Altogether they contribute to generate around 1.3 billion tons/year of food waste, according to
the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Given those figures and the
complexities of food distribution worldwide, the transition of the food sector towards a CE
model is essential for a sustainable food system. This review will help inform theory and
practice by stressing how CE is being employed in food systems, by identifying actors and
actions to implement change, and whether these are consistent with ‘circular washing’ or
enablers of potential innovative solutions.

Key-words
Circular Economy; Consumer Behaviour; Change Management; Food Systems;
Organisational Behaviour; Policy-making.
 4th International Conference on
Public Policy (ICPP4)
June 26-28, 2019 – Montréal

Introduction
Policy-makers should focus on accelerating transition to a CE in a timescale
consistent with the response to climate change, water scarcity and other global
challenges. Smart regulation can reward private-sector leadership and align
incentives along the supply chain (Preston, 2012).

The Circular Economy (CE) concept has gained momentum in Europe from the 1990’s
onwards, following ecological and environmental economics and industrial ecology
contributions (Ghisellinni, Cialani & Ulgiat, 2016). Authors such as Ghisellini Cialani &
Ulgiat, (2016), and Su et al (2013) point out the introduction of the conception of the CE by
Pearce & Turner (1989), drawing on previous contributions from Stahel (1986), and Boulding
(1966). Moreover, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF) has been a strong catalyst to draw
attention to CE, putting forward the concept of an “economy that is restorative or regenerative
by intention and design” (2013, p. 14).

CE proposes a new production model that aims to reduce waste generation to zero by
transforming inputs to feedback productive chains in a more efficient way. It is the result of a
new paradigm contrasting with the traditional linear economy based on the extract, produce,
use, discard model. In the classical and linear approach, economic growth with the indicator
based on the increase of the gross domestic product is interpreted as a sign of well-being and
quality of life of the population in general by the correlation established with the access to
consumer goods. However, this model does not take enough accountability for the costs and
impacts to the environment given its regard to producing goods at the expenses of natural
resources as they had no cost and were inexhaustible.

While the classical economic model does not consider that natural resources are finite –
something that directly affects production capacity, the circular model integrates and proposes
to redeem resources into a regenerative model of production. In this proposed circular model,
the value of products, materials and resources should remain in the economy at the highest
utility since they return to the productive cycle (EMF, 2013), even if in other productive
processes.
 4th International Conference on
Public Policy (ICPP4)
June 26-28, 2019 – Montréal

The circular model thus aims to reduce the need for resource extraction and reduce the waste
generation to zero (WRAP, 2016). And the brand new product – which requires new resources
– is not considered as the best option. The industry practice of designing “products with built-
in obsolescence” (McDonough & Braungart, 2002, p. 98), following a “cradle-to-grave”
design” (McDonough & Braungart, 2002, p. 98) tends to become outdated in a circular
paradigm. EMF invites businesses and society to work on “an industrial model that decouples
revenues from material input” (EMF, 2013, p. 7). It is evident that the movement towards CE
requires changes in organizational culture (leading to changes in the production processes in
general), as well as changes in consumer behaviour. The CE principle proposes a ‘make-and-
re-make / use-and-reuse’ model integrating resources and products within innovative and more
efficient ways of producing and consuming, as already highlighted by the European
Commission in the action plan for the Economic and Social Committee (European Commission,
2014).

The CE model seek to find economic solutions for the costly long-term effect of having
considered natural resources as disposable with no imputable financial costs, which may result
in depletion of natural resources and pollution. Those externalities, meant to be addressed
through internalisation of financial costs can be considered a misconception, not enough to stop
harmful effects to the environment, threatening species and human life – which can be
understood within a scenario of climate change. The circular model attempts to integrate
businesses within the proposed paradigm change by establishing close dialogue with private
companies, as well as NGO’s and government bodies – all potential stakeholders for a shift
from a linear to a circular economy.

As Stahel (2017) points out, the transition to the CE model was considered by the Club of Rome
with potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 70% and to grow demand for labour force
by 4% (Stahel, 2017, p. 3). To do so, it is necessary to rethink current production and
consumption models, as well as business models, and to manage the necessary changes for a
“cradle-to-cradle” (McDonough & Braungart, 2002) design. Authors as Preston (2012) and
Frosch & Gallopoulos (1989) have highlighted how some industries have integrated on a local
level to use the waste stream of one as resources for other industries or consumers (Preston,
2012, p. 5; Frosch & Gallopoulos, 1989), and these flows of materials and resources constitute
 4th International Conference on
Public Policy (ICPP4)
June 26-28, 2019 – Montréal

grassroots’ conceptions and practices that the CE model built upon. Such scenario of new
possibilities indicates a cultural change to be embraced when one think on food systems,
specially food trade and consumption, as materials could flow in diverse directions along the
supply chain.

The CE proposal is that the value of products, materials or resources remain circulating in the
economy in closed loops to reduce the extraction of natural resources. As the change to a
circular model will not happen overnight as Preston (2012) highlighted, it is worth learning
from the application of circular innovations that occurred in different stages of a business
process: design, planning, supply chain, sales, waste management. It is of note that the
possibility of a circularity model across productive processes is considered here as enablers for
the transition towards CE, not the final stage.

Attention is required so the use of the circular economy model is not simply dissolved and
sprinkled into small actions to attain a mere ‘circularity washing’ façade, not advancing the
radical proposal of paradigm change from a ‘produce-use-discard’ to a ‘produce-reproduce/use-
reuse’ paradigm. Instead of creating a process where the waste is an outcome together with the
product, requiring the systematic exploitation of natural resources, businesses are invited to
conceive productive systems where waste is not a necessary outcome. Instead, design circular
models that avoid waste, where inputs are re-integrated and play roles in the economic system
for as long as possible, even in different functions or sectors. This means that the CE paradigm
entails the radical avoidance of residual waste. Whether systems are not conceived since the
start of the production planning to flow in closed loops, the internalisation of waste generated
is seen as a palliative solution. The CE proposal represents a counterpart to the planned
obsolescence that feeds the market and business machinery with new products created
indefinitely to assure continuing profits. In this sense, the proposal of CE can be revolutionary
with significant effects over marketing strategies.

It was possible to identify some companies, countries, governments, NGOs, and consumers
mobilising circular innovations in the food chain as it is demonstrated in the findings section of
this article. Nevertheless, a question from seven years ago remains applicable: “which types of
 4th International Conference on
Public Policy (ICPP4)
June 26-28, 2019 – Montréal

firms, sectors and regions stand to gain from the shift to a circular economy?” (Preston, 2012,
p. 4).

Circular Economy seems to be not only an alternative to the linear economy, but also an attempt
for a more pragmatic response than that which the sustainability conception has so far achieved
(Ghisellini, Cialani & Ulgiat, 2016; Murray, Skene & Hynes, 2017). The sustainability
spectrum from strong to weak conceptions has allowed for its overuse by a variety of businesses
or institutions targeting more of a “green washing” than balanced socioeconomic and
environmental practices, and this is understood occurred given the vagueness of the concept of
sustainable development to be operationalized, as discussion by Hobson (2016) and Van Den
Brand, Happaerts & Bouteligier (2011). In 2015, the United Nations has released the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), a framework making sustainability tangible by
expressing areas that society could address to attain sustainable development.

On another hand, CE has grown offering a theoretic and pragmatical framework that businesses
and policymakers can adopt, which may also trigger job creation and services together with
environmental benefits. Such targets may constitute pathways for attaining some of the SDGs.
Those can be attained even though the interconnections of CE to sustainable development are
not clearly established; and CE is not clearly defined, as Kirschherr, Reike & Hekkert (2017)
noted in their systematic review of 114 CE definitions.

An important differentiation is that CE cannot be defined by the triple bottom line of

sustainability: social, economic, and environmental1. Authors such as Geissdoerfer et al (2016)
have differentiated circular economy from sustainability based on the focus on social aspects,
represented unequivocally in the latter but only indirectly addressed in the former, according to
Geissdoerfer et al (2016). As indicated by Kirschherr, Reike & Hekkert (2017), this can be
problematic “since a CE understanding only entailing one or two of the three dimensions of
sustainable development can result in CE implementation that is not sustainable, e.g. one
lacking social considerations” (Kirschherr, Reike & Hekkert, 2017, p. 227).

1
Notwithstanding some practices on the ground see CE as addressing the “quadruple bottom line”, defined as
“people, planet, profit and progress”(Horse, 2019), refer to table 2.
 4th International Conference on
Public Policy (ICPP4)
June 26-28, 2019 – Montréal

Given this brief theoretical background, CE mobilisation within the food sector can play a role
for the necessary pragmatism and immediate solutions regarding better natural resources
management – which embodies environmental protection, health and well-being, climate
change, and partnerships for sustainable development. Consideration of food systems is of
paramount importance as they constitute a cornerstone for a combination of impacts, and a
variety of opportunities. As remarked by the United Nations Environment Programme, "the
food and drink processing industry is strongly connected with down- and upstream value chain
actors like agriculture, life sciences, packaging companies, distribution and retail, each of which
can also play an important role in eco-innovation activities" (UNEP, 2017, p. 19). Contributions
from the food sector for this economy redesign are incipient and were mapped and analysed
below, but they need to be expanded and improved in order to attain greater outcomes. After
all, as highlighted by Schanes, Dobernig & Gözet, (2018), “if food is wasted by households at
the end of the supply chain, all (fossil) energy (and greenhouse gas emissions) put into its
production, processing, transportation, cooling and preparation, was in vain” (Schanes,
Dobernig & Gözet, 2018, p. 978).

A significant challenge that CE then encompasses is the design of circular models that include
food systems, and avoidance of food waste, where inputs are re-integrated to play roles in
different business processes, functions or production chains. In this sense, a transition towards
a CE paradigm is a necessary discussion to facilitate implementation of necessary policies to
guide business practices and governance, marketing strategies and consumer/household
behaviour related to food systems. Such steps might require strengthening the links to other
production processes, with beneficial outcomes for society.

II. Methods:

This paper reviews the academic, and ‘grey’ literature, including government, business, NGO
reports and database relating to CE and food systems solutions to inform about theory and
practices on how the term CE is being employed. The literature was selected through search per
keywords “circular economy” AND “food systems”; and refined via a form of snowball
sampling in conjunction with a rhizomatic approach, as per Stehlik (2004). Discussion of
 4th International Conference on
Public Policy (ICPP4)
June 26-28, 2019 – Montréal

findings allows to identify actors and actions to implement some of the necessary changes to
facilitate the transition towards a CE model within the food supply chain. Comparative analysis
demonstrates whether the identified theory and practice are consistent with a circular façade or
enablers of potential innovative solutions that may contribute for policymaking and social
change.

III. Findings on CE initiatives applied to Food Systems:

3.1. Definition of CE:

The definition of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF) states that CE is a system that is
regenerative by design. Considering this approach, one can address the enablers for the
transition towards a CE, not yet the final stage. In this sense, CE models should avoid waste
and predict the reutilisation of its by-products in closed loops, which represents a systemic shift
from the linear paradigm to a circular one. This advanced step requires planning and design and
is meant to be the final target of a circular model operating in its entirety.

While productive systems are already operating and were not conceived according to the
circularity paradigm, there are transitional possibilities according to the model of the 4Rs –
reduction, reuse, recycling, recovery. It is of note that the model states a hierarchy where each
stage should be attempted before the next. Such practice could facilitate improvements
regarding closing the loops of food systems, where waste is generated in every stage of the
supply chain. Into a CE paradigm, novel business models are required, as highlighted by the
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF, 2013). The models that avoid disposal of waste or
reintegrates materials into productive processes by intention or design are highly desirable.

The proposed CE definition by Kirschherr, Reike & Hekkert (2017) developed after a
systematic review of 114 definitions seems to contemplate all the peculiar aspects involved:

“A circular economy describes an economic system that is based on business models

which replace the ‘end-of-life’ concept with reducing, alternatively reusing, recycling
and recovering materials in production/distribution and consumption processes, thus
 4th International Conference on
Public Policy (ICPP4)
June 26-28, 2019 – Montréal

operating at the micro level (products, companies, consumers), meso level (eco-
industrial parks) and macro level (city, region, nation and beyond), with the aim to
accomplish sustainable development, which implies creating environmental quality,
economic prosperity and social equity, to the benefit of current and future generations”
(Kirschherr, Reike & Hekkert, 2017, p. 225).

This proposed definition stresses the interconnections of CE to sustainable development,

placing the former as the means or as available tools to attain the latter. CE is comprised by the
series of actions named the 4Rs that ranges across micro, meso and macro levels.

3.2. Approach to CE within Food Systems:

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) recognizes CE as a model
to tackle food systems challenge, which today are failing to guarantee food security and
nutrition as well as “exacerbating pressure on natural resources” (FAO, 2019). According to
FAO Agroecology Knowledge Hub: “Re-designing food systems based on the principles of
circular economy can help address the global food waste challenge by making food value chains
shorter and more resource-efficient” (FAO, 2019).

Despite recycling constitutes one option among all the possibilities available for closing the
loops within food systems, CE related to food has been more often performed by recycling
activities (Kirschherr, Reike & Hekkert, 2017). A definition of CE applied to food was provided
in 2015 in the HENVI2 Science Days titled Towards Circular Economy – Designing a
Sustainable Food Cycle, and compiled by Jurgilevitch et al (2016):

“Circular economy regarding the food system implies reducing the amount of waste
generated in the food system, re-use of food, utilization of by-products and food waste,
nutrient recycling, and changes in diet toward more diverse and more efficient food

2
HENVI Science Days are organized by Helsinki University Centre for Environment (HENVI), and provide a
forum for interdisciplinary environmental scientists, researchers, policymakers, and society to discuss latest
findings.
 4th International Conference on
Public Policy (ICPP4)
June 26-28, 2019 – Montréal

patterns. The measures must be implemented both at the producer and consumer levels,
and finally in the food waste and surplus management” (Jurgilevitch et al, 2016, p. 3).

This definition implicitly integrates health concerns. There is an illustration provided by the
EMF in the 2019 report named “Cities and a Circular Economy for food” that is very instructive
– reproduced below, as per figure 1 – and demonstrates that circularity happens within the
process of producing/distributing food. After food is distributed to consumption, if there is a
surplus non efficiently avoided, or wastage, there are palliative actions that can remediate the
failure of the circular design, although apart from prioritizing the offer of edible food to citizens,
no strict hierarchy is suggested by EMF (EMF, 2019, p. 38). This remark is of value in a context
of food-insecure populations, and it addresses a social concern to eliminate hunger whenever
possible.

Figure 1. Depiction of the CE for food systems proposed by the EMF (2019, p. 38).
 4th International Conference on
Public Policy (ICPP4)
June 26-28, 2019 – Montréal

While there are other alternatives, recycling is prevalent in the literature and practices
associated to CE. This can be understood as a result of the familiarity with the conceptions of
recycling present in society. Another aspect remarked upon by some authors is due to recycling
being able to smooth business acceptance as it requires changing “only a small part of their
operation, without the needed overhaul of the entire supply chain, mode of operation and the
radical change in product materials” (Kirschherr, Reike & Hekkert, 2017, p. 227). Even this
perspective can be considered very optimistic, as Andersen (2007) has argued, “if companies
are rational and profit-seeking, the recycling and reuse options should already have been
realised” (Andersen, 2007, p. 134). It is worth noting that CE promotes interlinkages to
business, however CE is not merely about profit maximization. The latter and the rational
choice were assumptions built within the linear economic paradigm. Therefore, opting for
recycling activities without other commitments to CE principles and vision can be the easiest
gateway for adopting a façade of circularity, benefiting a business public image but restricting
or undermining the more ambitious impacts of the CE model.

3.3. Policies related to CE:

Practices related to food systems in France and USA are usually based on establishing a
hierarchy of solution regarding 3Rs: firstly try to prevent food surplus by reducing or reusing
potential waste; if that is not possible, redistribute food surplus for human consumption; if failed
to redistribute, then recycling – which includes feeding animals, producing composts and
energy (Mourad, 2016). According to Davis & Hall (2006), Japan and Europe have proposed
initiatives beyond waste management to reduce materials throughput. Germany has
implemented a waste packaging program since 1991, shortly followed by European Union
(EU). EU has changed their outdated waste management framework from 1975. Netherlands
has successfully implemented an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) regime that is
voluntary or negotiated (Luz, 2017). Canada has adopted the EPR in 2009, and recently has
adhered to the smart cities initiative, with the vision of building a Circular Food Economy by
2025. China, inspired by programs in Germany and Japan, has since 2008 adopted the CE as a
target for eco-efficiency and cleaner production initiatives (Geng & Doberstein, 2008). A
framework for CE implementation was part of the Chinese 12th Five-Year Plan 2011-2015
 4th International Conference on
Public Policy (ICPP4)
June 26-28, 2019 – Montréal

(Matthews & Tan, 2011). Brazil has pioneered Latin American countries with the
implementation of the Solid Waste Policy in 2010. This national act has anticipated subsequent
potential changes towards a CE paradigm, as for instance by aiming at the 3Rs model regarding
all types of waste – food included, despite the terminology CE is not employed in the policy.
The country has recently joined the ‘CE for Food’ within urban settings promoted by the EMF.
Policies already implemented with relations to or impacts on food systems that might support
or facilitate the transition to a CE model of operation are outlined in table 1.

Table 1. Examples of policies and regulations related to Food Systems and CE.
 4th International Conference on
Public Policy (ICPP4)
June 26-28, 2019 – Montréal

In the USA, financial incentives for recycling has resulted in large companies entering the
market to compete for waste from bakeries, or oil from restaurants (Mourad, 2016). The effect
of an increasing demand has turned food waste into commodities, from which small farmers
can no longer benefit as they cannot buy the food waste they used to collect (Mourad, 2016).
This side effect may diverge efforts from the priorities in the hierarchy of 3Rs, as prevention of
food surplus and redistribution should come first. Recycling seems to be the easiest way to go
circular, and the supplementary tax incentive may contribute to undermine more effective
actions that could avoid recycling, as this should be the last option for a transition to a CE
model. This example demonstrates how complex it can be to implement successful new policies
and change organisational behaviour towards a circular model of operation. In Australia, a
Circular Economy Alliance was established to bring together leaders, experts, practitioners,
educators and thinkers to share knowledge and collaborate to widening the adoption of CE
(CEAA, 2018).

Ghisellina, Cialani & Ulgiat (2016) analysing CE worldwide observed that in China CE has
been adopted from a top-down initiative through government policies, whereas in Europe the
change has been directed from a bottom-up movement (Ghisellina, Cialani & Ulgiat, 2016).
Change in policies, regulations, and organisational behaviour seem to be the main drivers; and
consumers have seldom been recognised as enablers of the CE (Kirschherr, Reike & Hekkert,
2017). However, in their view, CE is understood as “enabled by novel business models and
responsible consumers” (Kirschherr, Reike & Hekkert, 2017, p. 229 – emphasis is mine).

Schanes, Dobernig & Gözet (2018) outlined strategies to address household habits on food
waste in a recent systematic review. It is worth noting that in regard to consumers, there remains
the identified gap between attitude and behaviour. I.e., being thoughtful of environment does
not necessarily reflect the actual behaviour of protecting the environment. Despite the
knowledge and concerns many consumers reveal about climate change and the necessary
environmental protection actions, studies have shown that not many households link their
practices regarding food to broader environmental effects (Thyberg & Tonjes, 2016; Pearson,
Minehan, & Wakefield-Rann, 2013). Broader research in this area is required, with a
multidisciplinary approach to better inform policymaking and address the necessary
behavioural change.
 4th International Conference on
Public Policy (ICPP4)
June 26-28, 2019 – Montréal

3.4. Examples of initiatives associated to CE and Food Systems:

Building on policies and regulations, but also on peculiar experiences, several initiatives related
to food systems were identified, and the empirical evidence may contribute to the improvement
of the necessary directives. For Jurgilevitch et al. (2016), “small-scale experiments offer
opportunities for local, and also national, policy development” (Jurgilevitch et al, 2016, p. 2).
Both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USDA) and the EU have recognised that their
policies on food safety leads to food wastage. Technical and managerial solutions within food
systems found are outlined as per table 1. The initiatives to avoid food waste associated to CE
models applied to food systems included: to re-distribute the oversupply of food that does not
attend cosmetic requirements of commercial shelves; to share leftovers within urban settings;
donation of food surplus to charities; to re-integrate food waste into composting; treating and
enhancing soil; to generate energy for households from biomass; carbon capture; experimental
investigation promoted by the EMF to test potential benefits and contribute into building
circularity models for diverse cities3.

Table 2. CE initiatives applied to food systems found, and a proposed classification according
to the hierarchy of Rs*.
CE initiative Supply stage R hierarchy How it operates
(country)
Food Shift Avoid waste Prevention Organisation that redistributes
[USA] between Recovery food surplus from producers by
production and Redistribution using ‘ugly for shelf’ foods to
distribution prepare nutritional meals sold to
stage of the charities that feed food-insecure
supply chain population. (Food Shift)
Food Banks Waste Redistribution Canadian National charitable
[Canada] management Recovery organisation that redistributes
food to food-insecure population.
(Food Banks Canada)
Connecting Restaurants Waste Redistribution Applicative set to connect
and Caterers to Charity management restaurants and caterers to
groups

3
This initial experiment focusses on four cities: Brussels (Belgium); Guelph (Canada); Porto (Portugal); and São
Paulo (Brazil).
 4th International Conference on
Public Policy (ICPP4)
June 26-28, 2019 – Montréal

[USA] donate food to charities, in

Chicago. (Mourad, 2016)
Organic Resources Waste Recovery Organic resources treated to go
Recovery Center management Recycling through anerobic digestion,
[Hong Kong] producing biogas and compost.
Love food, hate waste Food surplus Redistribution A movement of food
[UK] and food waste redistribution that counts upon
management an applicative to connect
households and local businesses
in urban areas to share surplus
meals. (Findon, 2018)
OLIO Food surplus Redistribution Applicative created in London to
[UK] and food waste enable neighbours of up to 5
management postcodes to share their spare
meals. App available at App Store
and Google Play. (OLIO)
Waste-to-Energy Waste Recycling US Dairy industry aim to put 1300
[USA] management methane digesters into dairy
farms by 2020. (Mourad, 2016)
Mandate on Waste Recycling A mandatory composting law to
Composting management enforce households to turn food
[USA] scraps into compost. (Mourad,
2016)
St1 Bioenergy Production Recycling Sugar from bread surplus
[USA] (closing loops to processed into bioethanol, which
enhance food is then sold to petrol station
production) networks to be mixed to fuel.
Milk and Carbon Production Recycling 5,300 farmers trained to start
Farmers capturing carbon and storing in
[Finland] the soil via photosynthesis, to
mitigate climate change.
Mineral By-products Production Reuse A recycling and recovery
enhancing Organic (closing loops to Recycling organisation extract calcium and
Fertilizers enhance food carbonate from sludge of a paper
[France] production) plant to produce compost sold to
farmers so they can reduce soil
acidification. Production: 30,000
tonnes per year of compost.
Zero Budget Natural Production and Recovery Creation of biologically active
Farming Waste Recycling soils via microbial culture; natural
[India] management treatment for diseases of seeds
 4th International Conference on
Public Policy (ICPP4)
June 26-28, 2019 – Montréal

and plants; organic material used

to enhance soil; avoidance of
overwatering. Reducing 40% of
costs of rice production for small
farmers.
Suez and Total Waste Recycling Used cooking oil transformed into
[France] management biofuel for cars and planes (bio jet
fuels).

Renewall Mill Production Prevention By-product from almond milk and

[USA] (avoiding food soymilk production turned into
waste from gluten-free flours for human
industrial consumption.
process)

HORSE Waste Recycling High-solids Organic-waste Re-

[USA] management cycling System with Electrical
output, developed since 2015 to
provide energy generation on
site, independent of fossil
fuels. The vision is the "quadruple
bottom line: people, planet,
profit and progress" (HORSE,
2019).
FAO’s Codex All All Platform that inform on food
Alimentarius safety to protect consumers
health, which may facilitate safe
nutrient loops. (FAO/WHO, 2019)
*Examples of initiatives reproduced from EMF (2019), except when otherwise indicated.

CE initiatives happening within food systems in different countries carries its peculiar
characteristics that should not be overlooked by policies design. Drawing from the comparison
between USA and France, Mourad (2016) stressed the research finding that while surplus and
waste may occur all along the supply chain, it is more intense at the consumption stage.
Although it is usually caused by choices upstream in the supply chain, such as: packaging;
special deals practiced by supermarkets as the buy-two-take-three; or restaurant portions
provided (Mourad, 2016, p. 463). Hence, the producer-consumer relationship goes beyond a
dichotomy and have mutual influences. This aspect gives a hint to policymakers of the scale of
 4th International Conference on
Public Policy (ICPP4)
June 26-28, 2019 – Montréal

this “public goods dilemma” (Mourad, 2016, p. 463). There is a crucial role for communication
tactics and engaged advertisement to address CE principles.

In addition, the proposal of the fair trade (FT) movement can also be considered an initiative
with potential synergy to a CE model implementation. While not as a direct consequence of the
circularity model, but as a reflection of social change driven by consumers’ concerns about
social responsibility practices. It seems the FT system may help to make actions within food
systems more efficient by working closely to small farmers, a key stakeholder for the CE if they
embrace a regenerative production system. Besides, there are FT principles that can reinforce
CE principles and vice-versa, such as: environment protection standards required from
producers; priority to organic agriculture practices; avoidance of chemicals that are harmful to
environment and human health, which are conditions for reuse of soil and compost making;
business model improvement which aims at reducing poverty, inequality and hunger; offer of
a stable price above the market price for agri-foods produced by small farmers meeting
sustainability standards – which may also cooperate with job opportunities creation. The
participation of the World Fair Trade Organisation (WFTO) in the Food Smart Cities for
Development project is an indicator of potential interconnections of FT and CE, as that project
aims at enabling cities to adopt and share sustainable practice related to food (FSC4D, 2015).

In spite of the consumer behaviour role to drive the trend towards sustainability and
environmentally-friendly initiatives, initial research have demonstrated that the greater amount
of food waste happens on the consumers level, at the household level of the food chain
(Schanes, Dobernig & Gözet, 2018; Mourad, 2016). Little is known about the determinants of
the “consumer-generated food waste” (Schanes, Dobernig & Gözet, 2018, p. 978). According
to Mourad, reports show that from the 1.3 billion tones of food waste generated per year (FAO,
2011), “half happens at the consumer level of developed countries” (Mourad, 2016, p. 461). It
has been demonstrated that higher income levels allow for food surplus, therefore a greater
amount of food waste is likely to be generated (Jurgilevitch et al., 2016). But other
sociodemographic variables affecting those figures still require further research. Analysis
provided by Mourad (2016) within food systems in the USA and France shows that the
mobilization to change this scenario towards more sustainable outcomes has until now been
minimal (Mourad, 2016, p. 462).
 4th International Conference on
Public Policy (ICPP4)
June 26-28, 2019 – Montréal

According to Thyberg & Tonjes (2016), “policies to prevent food waste should address the
range of behaviours and motivations for wastage. They should be multi-faceted so that they
target people’s values, provide them with skills to prevent waste, and facilitate logistical
improvements to encourage prevention” (Thyberg & Tonjes, 2016, p. 20). Those are valuable
contributions, although it can be observed that data abovementioned mainly addresses food
waste, but not substantially CE, whose priority is to prevent food wastage.

The EMF in a recent publication has offered not only examples of initiatives being undertaken
but also envisaged scenarios within a CE paradigm for food systems that is worth considering
in order to plan and design out food waste. There are actors that can play critical roles for such
a change. Identified stakeholders to be involved for a transition to a CE within food systems
include: farmers; restaurants; menu designers; chefs; marketing designers; marketing
campaigners; government decision-makers; hospitals; schools; food processing industry;
supermarkets. I.e., all those who influence or shape consumers’ food options, habits, practices,
and taste (EMF, 2019), as depicted in figure 3. Those potential stakeholders can influence and
reshape tastes for food, help to frame healthier habits, influence consumer behaviour and
become critical players for a transition towards a circular model within food systems.

Figure 2. Potential stakeholders for making food systems circular. Data source: EMF, 2019.
 4th International Conference on
Public Policy (ICPP4)
June 26-28, 2019 – Montréal

Again, further research is required to understand those complex relationships, to envisage

change management strategies, and to facilitate the adequate and effective policies related to
the food supply chain. Moreover, a political economy approach would add robustness to
research by identifying actors and institutions or organisations likely to be impacted – positively
or negatively – with the operationalisation of CE models within food systems.

IV. Discussion:
According to present findings, the variety of CE conceptions and definitions are somehow
blurred, as previously remarked upon by a number of authors (Kirschherr, Reike & Hekkert,
2017; Jurgilevitch et al., 2016; Mourad, 2016). The efforts to align definitions is worthwhile to
implement coordinated actions. More can be found on CE applied to other sectors than related
to food systems. Given the cornerstone occupied by the food supply chain; also due to the
characteristic of CE in establishing interconnections, food systems can influence and receive
influence of different stakeholders. In this sense, food supply chain is a case recognised as
important to drive change within a CE paradigm. Main contributions to the CE for the food
sector are relatively recent, from 2015 onwards, with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2019
report describing several cases of implementation of CE initiatives for food.

To go circular in many cases will not be the easiest option. It can be time consuming and may
involve upfront costs, but a reason to make this shift is to reduce environmental impacts, not
only the financial returns. This is where financial incentives based on cost-benefit analysis
should be considered. Whereas food waste management can be considered a critical step for a
transition towards closing the loops of food systems, it cannot encompass the ambitious agenda
ahead of the necessary changes for a CE operationalisation. To the contrary, under a radical
perspective, waste management would still be a linear solution. CE requires the avoidance of
waste generation, or if that is unavoidable, the planned reuse of materials discarded in a
productive process, with significant effects for climate change remediation. Worth noting the
amount of water that agriculture requires, and water scarcity is a sensible matter also requiring
attention. Food production brings a lot of pressure on natural resources.
 4th International Conference on
Public Policy (ICPP4)
June 26-28, 2019 – Montréal

The danger in using the concept of circularity regarding food waste is that companies may be
tempted to merely adopt a piecemeal approach and engage in circular washing, which risks
reducing the CE impacts. This may happen by merely adopting recycling, the less robust action
associated to CE, the one that promotes less change, which is also the easiest way to go circular.
Such an outcome has the potential to produce negative effects in a similar way that “green
washing” has in relation to sustainability. One reason can be that to implement CE principles
within food systems one has to face health policies and safety standards related to food.

Supermarkets constitute a strategic intersection where circularity principles are applicable, with
the chance to articulate important stakeholders of food systems. Also of relevance are food
production, restaurants, private companies’ canteens, and households – all those can constitute
a target for changing behaviour and practices towards a CE model for food. Additional players
to enable implementation of CE principles can be the fair trade organisations, which might
increase in synergies with the recent initiatives within the fair trade movement to promote
North-North and South-South relations, which can provide space for local food networks to
develop.

Restaurants wants to attract and please the costumer and tend to serve as much as possible in
terms of options, quality and comfort, often at the expenses of the environment. Food use and
reuse, dietary culture (with many parts of vegetables possible to be consumed) may clash with
individuals need to indulge themselves and restaurant’s business. The issue of class status, the
poverty association to consuming food shared (or donated) need to be faced and understood in
its multiple aspects. Such issues may be sensitive to handle, albeit a social debate that involves
everyone in different levels. A focus for change management techniques that requires massive
communications strategies, and insightful inputs from professionals such as psychologists,
marketing designers and campaigners.

A necessary political and regulatory agenda in different levels of governance is rising. European
countries and Japan have pioneered CE policies implementation, and changes are on the way
in countries such as China, USA, Canada, Brazil. Because of the potential for large impact from
the food systems to climate change; and the great impact of households to food-waste
generation, they both constitute focus of attention for strategic actions on policies decisions.
 4th International Conference on
Public Policy (ICPP4)
June 26-28, 2019 – Montréal

In a strict sense, CE models should avoid waste and predict the reutilisation of by-products in
closed loops. This advanced step requires planning and designing out food waste, the final aim
of a circular model for food systems. While productive systems are already operating and were
not conceived according to the circular system, there are transitional possibilities. Avoid food
waste can be considered a very first step to enable the CE principles introduction and could lead
to improvements towards closing the loops of food systems. There is a role for business, also
for consumers and government.

As per “circular washing” trend, it was found that recycling is the prevalent activity undertaken
by organisations and this is not a good indicative for a sound pathway to make food systems
circular. Instead, recycling is a remediation practice from a linear model, and more needs to be
done to change organisational behaviour and achieve greater outcomes for everyone’s best
interest.

To date, not enough evidence on the human factors influencing the change of behaviour towards
more sustainable actions has been produced, and this represents a relevant arena for research.
Government policies have a crucial role in mobilisation to change behaviour. An example of
this is the long term effects of many health campaigns relating to washing hands, drinking
potable water, brushing teeth, anti-smoking, even in cases when the harms are not so
perceivable or immediate, it is clear that the means to change behaviour exist and they can be
mobilised. However, it is necessary “to do so in a manner that accounts for the unique cultural,
political, geographic and economic forces that influence behaviour in each specific context”
(Pearson, Minehan, & Wakefield-Rann, 2013, p. 120).

CE allows business to address ecological footprints in a tangible manner, and the dialogue of
the EMF to private sector can be seen as an enabler of the necessary changes – as one knows,
change management is grounded massively on communication. By including and establishing
dialogue with businesses, CE creates the potential that the circularity model is assimilated
instead of just superficially copied and pasted.

The point of contact to businesses, food processing plants, food retailers, to government and
non-governmental organisations, to consumers, and the way of reframing social responsibility
targets to this range of potential stakeholders facilitates the engagement of different
 4th International Conference on
Public Policy (ICPP4)
June 26-28, 2019 – Montréal

communities. In this sense, the model is seen as capable of returning pragmatical outcomes to
society.

V. Final considerations:

This article reviewed some conceptions on CE to focus on the pragmatical applications of the
circularity paradigm to food production and distribution. Drawing from a comparative analysis
of literature, potential players were identified and insights for policymaking related to the CE
initiative for food systems were suggested.

CE allows business and consumers to address ecological footprints in a tangible manner. This
approach to private sector and households can be considered an enabler of the necessary
changes. By including and establishing dialogue in society, CE creates conditions where a
circularity model can be implemented instead of just reproducing business as usual practices.

CE applied to food potentially offers points of contact to farmers, businesses, government, non-
governmental organisations, consumers. This way of reframing sustainable development
targets a range of potential stakeholders while promoting the engagement and collective
participation. In the context of climate change and warning of natural resources scarcity, CE
brings a sensible alternative so business growth can be maintained separate from resources use,
and in turn contributing to the resilience of food systems.

VI. Acknowledgements:
I acknowledge the Australian Government for the Research Training Program Scholarship
provided. And my supervisors at the University of Tasmania, Dr. Fred Gale and Dr. Hannah
Murphy-Gregory.
 4th International Conference on
Public Policy (ICPP4)
June 26-28, 2019 – Montréal

VII. References:
Andersen, M. S. (2007). An introductory note on the environmental economics of the circular
economy. Sustainability Science, 2(1), pp. 133-140.

Boulding, K. E. (1966). The economics of knowledge and the knowledge of economics. The
American Economic Review, 56(1/2), 1-13.

Brasil. (2010). Brazilian Solid Waste Policy. Law nº 12,305 of 2010.

CEAA - Circular Economy Alliance Australia. (2018). An alliance of global leaders &
decision makers. Retrieved from https://ceaa360.com/

Davis, G.G. & Hall, J.A., (2006). Circular Economy Legislation. In The International
Experience. World Bank. Retrieved
from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEAPREGTOPENVIRONMENT/Resources/Circ
ularEconomy_Legal_IntExperience_ExecSummary_EN.doc

European Commission. (2014). Coping study to identify potential circular economy actions,
priority sectors, material flows and value chains. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union. Retrieved
from http://www.ieep.eu/assets/1410/Circular_economy_scoping_study_-_Final_report.pdf

EMF - Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2019). Cities and Circular Economy for food.

EMF - Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2017). A Circular Economy in Brazil: an initial

exploration. Ellen MacArthur Foundation Publishing, 2017a, 31 pp.

EMF - Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2013). Towards the Circular Economy: Economic and
business rationale for an accelerated transition. Retrieved from www.thecirculareconomy.org

FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2019). Agroecology
Knowledge Hub. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/agroecology/knowledge/10-
elements/circular-economy/en

FAO/WHO - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, World Health
Organization. (2019). Codex Alimentarius – International Food Standards. FAO/WHO Food
Standards Programme, Rome. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/fao-who-
codexalimentarius/about-codex/en/

Findon, R. (2018). It’s time to make square meals a little more circular. Circulate News.
Retrieved from https://circulatenews.org/2018/04/time-make-square-meals-little-circular/
 4th International Conference on
Public Policy (ICPP4)
June 26-28, 2019 – Montréal

Food Banks Canada. (n.d.). Our vision is a Canada where no one goes hungry. Retrieved from
https://hungercount.foodbankscanada.ca/about/

Food Shift. (n.d.). The Food Shift Kitchen: So food is not wasted, people are fed, and jobs are
created. Retrieved from http://foodshift.net/foodshiftkitchen/

Frosch, R. A. and Gallopoulos, N. E. (1989). ‘Strategies for Manufacturing’, Scientific

American, 189(3).

FSC4D - Food Smart Cities for Development. (2015). Recommendations for good practices.
WFTO/UN. Retrieved from http://www.milanurbanfoodpolicypact.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/02/FSC4D-Recommendation-and-good-practices.pdf

Geng, Y. & Doberstein, B. (2008). Developing the Circular Economy in China: Challenges
and opportunities for achieving ‘leapfrog development’. In International Journal of
Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 15, pp. 231-239.

Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C. & Ulgiat, S. (2016). A review on circular economy: The expected
transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems, Journal of Cleaner
Production, 114, pp. 11-32.

Goessdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, M. P., Hultink, E. J. (2017). The Circular Economy -
A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143(1), pp. 757-768.

Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., SonessonSave, U., Otterdijk, R. V. & Meybeck, A. (2011).
Save Food! In FAO. Global food losses and food waste – Extent, causes and prevention.
FAO-UN, Rome.

Hobson, K. (2016). Closing the loop or squaring the circle? Locating generative spaces for the
circular economy. Progress in Human Geography, 40(1), pp. 88-104.

HORSE - High-solids Organic-waste Re-cycling System with Electrical output.

(2019). Retrieved from http://impactbioenergy.com/horse-ad25/

Jurgilevich, A., Birge, E., Kentala-Lehtonen, J., Korhonen-Kurki, K., Pietikäinen, J., Saikku,
L., and Schösler, H. (2016). Transition towards Circular Economy in the Food System.
Sustainability, 8(69). Doi:10.3390/su8010069

Kirschherr, J., Reike, D. & Hekkert, M. (2017). Conceptualizing the circular economy: An
analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 127, pp. 221-232.

Luz, B. (Ed.). (2017). Economia Circular Holanda-Brasil: Da teoria à prática [Circular

Economy Netherlands-Brazil: From theory to practice], Rio de Janeiro: Exchange 4Change
Brasil.
 4th International Conference on
Public Policy (ICPP4)
June 26-28, 2019 – Montréal

Matthews, J. A. & Tan, H. (2011). Progress toward a Circular Economy in China. Journal of
Industrial Ecology, 15(3), pp. 435-457.

McDonough, W. & Braungart, M. (2002). Cradle to cradle: Remaking the way we make
things. North Point Press, New York, 202 pp.

Mourad, M. (2016). Recycling, recovering and preventing “food waste”: competing solutions
for food systems sustainability in the United States and France. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 126, pp. 461-477.

Murray, A., Skene, K., Haynes, K., (2017). The circular economy: an interdisciplinary
exploration of the concept and application in a global context. Journal of Business Ethics,
140(3), 369–380. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10551-015-2693-2

Pearce, D. M. & Turner, D. T. (1989). Economics of natural resources and the

environment. New York: Harvester Wheatheat.

Pearson, D., M. Minehan, and R. Wakefield-Rann. 2013. Food Waste in Australian

Households: Why does it occur? The Australasian-Pacific Journal of Regional Food Studies
(3), pp. 118-870.

Preston, F. (2012). A global redesign? Shaping the circular economy. London: Chatham
House. Retrieved from
https://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/papers/view/182376/bp0312_preston.pdf

Schanes, K., Dobernig, K., & Gözet, B. (2018). Food waste matters - A systematic review of
household food waste practices and their policy implications. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 182, pp. 978-991.

Stahel, W. (2017). Economy without waste: What are the challenges and opportunities of
moving towards a circular economy? In Sustainable Goals, March.

Stahel, W. R. (1986). The functional economy: cultural and organizational change. Science &
Public Policy, 13(4), 121-130. Retrieved from http://www.product-life.org/fr/node/153

Stehlik, D. (2004). From ‘snowball’ to ‘rhizome’: a rethinking of method. Rural

Society, 14(1), 36-45.

Su, B., Heshmati, A., Geng, Y., & Yu, X. (2013). A review of the circular economy in China:
moving from rhetoric to implementation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 42, 215-227.

Thyberg, K. L. & Tonjes, D. J. (2016). Drivers of food wastage and their implications for
sustainable policy development. In Technology & Society, Faculty Publications 11.Retrieved
from https://commons.library.stonybrook.edu/techsoc-articles/11
 4th International Conference on
Public Policy (ICPP4)
June 26-28, 2019 – Montréal

UNEP - United Nations Environment Programme. (2017). Eco - i Manual. Agri-food

supplement. UNEP / DTU University of Denmark.

WRAP - Waste & Resources Action Program. (2016). Waste and Resources Action Plan and
the Circular Economy. Retrieved from www.wrap.org.uk/content/wrap-and-circular-
economy.

Van den Brande, K., Happaerts, S., Bouteligier, S. (2011). Keeping the sustainable
development flame alive. Broker, 1–4.

Yuan, Z., Bi, J. & Moniguichi, Y. (2006). The Circular Economy: A New Development
Strategy in China. In Journal of Industrial Ecology, vol. 19(1-2), MIT& Yale University, pp.
4-8.