Journal of Cleaner Production 319 (2021) 128549

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

A conceptual merging of circular economy, degrowth and conviviality

design approaches applied to renewable energy technology
Natalie Ralph, Associate Investigator
ARC (Australian Research Council) Centre of Excellence for Electromaterials Science, and Honorary Fellow, Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalization,
Faculty of Arts and Education, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Melbourne, Victoria, 3125, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling editor: Kathleen Aviso This article explores design criteria for renewable energy (RE) technology that align with Circular Economy (CE)
strategies, while considering social dimensions and enabling independence from the economic growth impera­
Keywords: tive. Technologies addressed are solar photovoltaic panels, wind turbines and lithium-ion batteries. A literature
Circular economy review of CE and Degrowth fields culminates in a 45 CE strategies framework being merged with two ‘convivial
Degrowth
technology’ design tools, identified in Degrowth literature, creating a ‘CE-Conviviality design tool’. This tool
Technology
facilitates a CE-conviviality criteria comparison, finding weaknesses in CE design approaches; and four contri­
Renewable energy
Design butions from conviviality – power distribution, equity and autonomy; localization; relatedness; and sufficiency.
Conviviality These contributions are applied to RE technology and their circular systems; identifying RE designers’ strategies
for action to foster growth independence and social wellbeing. The article calls for balance between design for
internationalized/industrial technology and localized, convivial technologies - and end-of-life systems. Designers
can promote: technology distributed through open-source technology, adaptable to multiple contexts; ‘related­
ness’ - bolstering social wellbeing; and low-tech and sufficiency-based business models - the ultimate balance to
international/industrial supply chains. Long-term, designers can collaborate internationally/nationally with
policy and supply chain stakeholders to design technology for ‘local’ production/maintenance in specific
geographical areas (e.g. countries), according to locally available materials or expanding CE systems; reducing
reliance on monopolistic international supply chains.

1. Introduction strategies (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017, p.765). Further, the CE is firmly

Disseminating renewable energy (RE) technologies is proposed as a
strategy to mitigate climate change and environmental degradation.
Concurrently, as the Circular Economy (CE) develops, stakeholders
along the RE technology supply chain are exploring ways to align
technology to CE strategies. The current linear economy of ‘produce-
consume-dispose’ depletes resources and creates waste and greenhouse
gas emissions. The CE aims at a ‘closed loop’ of resource and energy use;
reducing or eradicating resource inputs, waste and emissions along the
supply chain (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017).
Current CE approaches however, prioritize the technological, eco­
nomic and business aspects of constructing the CE. This creates eco­
nomic benefits but narrow definitions of social outcomes such as the
generation of jobs and businesses. In scholarship and practice, CE “is
virtually silent on the social dimension” (Murray et al., 2017, p.376;
Moreau et al., 2017; Schröder et al., 2019), restricting understanding of
the CE’s contribution to social wellbeing and deprioritizing social
based in the neoliberal capitalist economic growth paradigm; priori­
tizing growth and gross domestic product (GDP) as the measure of social
progress (Raworth, 2017). Challenges arising from positioning the CE
and related technological innovation within the ideologies of consum­
erism and growth, including ‘green consumerism’, are “underplayed”
despite it being unknown if the CE can meet global human needs within
planetary boundaries (Schröder et al., 2019, p.190; Kerschner and
Ehlers, 2016).
This article therefore explores alternative technology design criteria
complementary to CE strategies, but which more deeply engage social
dimensions while avoiding reliance on perpetual economic growth. The
article specifically focuses on solar photovoltaic (PV) panels and wind
turbines and accompanying lithium-ion batteries (batteries) applied to
enable energy storage. A key aim is to present a framework for appli­
cation by RE technology designers to conceptualize wider systemic im­
pacts (socio-political, economic and environmental) materializing from
design across the supply chain of a technology and its related CE

E-mail address: ralphnatalie8@gmail.com.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128549
Received 15 December 2020; Received in revised form 15 July 2021; Accepted 4 August 2021
Available online 5 August 2021
0959-6526/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
N. Ralph
systems. The article is primarily targeted at RE technology designers and
researchers (‘RE designers’) such as academic materials scientists and
battery scientists. However, discussing circular supply chains, it is also
relevant to RE technology manufacturers, related CE businesses (e.g.
recyclers), sales and installers, energy system planners and related
policymakers.
The article first outlines CE theory and practice to identify concepts,
challenges, strategies and design methodologies, highlighting links to
RE technology. Next, to identify design criteria which align with CE
strategies yet are agnostic regarding economic growth and alert to social
wellbeing aspects, the article explores Degrowth theory and design tools
for technology. In Degrowth scholarship, Illich’s (1973) theory of
‘conviviality’ is identified as a useful approach for developing technol­
ogy design criteria (for alternative Degrowth design criteria, see Ker­
schner et al., 2018). Briefly, conviviality indicates human satisfaction of
needs through individual skills, learning and creativity, and autonomy
from industrialization and commoditization (Illich, 1973; Deriu, 2015;
Samerski, 2018). Convivial technologies:
“tend to support sufficiency and creativity; favour labour intensive
and open source technology; are broadly affordable, durable and
repairable; empower the community and are incompatible with
‘social engineering’ (Samerski, 2018), support traditional knowledge
and local skills and promote decentralised small scale local produc­
tion and local supply chains” (Kerschner et al., 2018, p.1628).
The application of ‘design for conviviality’ frameworks to RE tech­
nology and systems is rare (Muraca and Neuber, 2018; and Vetter, 2018
in a seminal Special Issue on ‘Technology and Degrowth’ in Journal of
Cleaner Production). This research gap is even more acute for solar
energy and battery technology, and more so when comparing with CE
strategies. This article addresses the research gap, clarifying pathways
for more sustainable RE trajectories, and challenges likely arising. A
comparison of conviviality criteria with CE strategies and design goals is
provided across the supply chain (materials sourcing, production, use,
and end-of-life), identifying CE weaknesses. Four major contributions
from design for conviviality are identified and discussed in relation to
solar panels and batteries (and due to the need for brevity, to a lesser
extent, small wind turbines), and their related CE systems. Specific
challenges, and strategies of action by designers are proposed.
2. Methodology and literature review
This article’s key research question is: when considering RE tech­
nology, which design criteria could complement CE strategies, but
facilitate deeper analysis of socio-political impacts of design, and sup­
port growth independent sustainability? A review of relevant CE and
Degrowth literature was undertaken. For CE, this included identifying
and analyzing over 38 journal articles (peer-reviewed only, no limit to
which academic databases (e.g. Scopus, Science Direct), articles be­
tween 2010 and 2020 with earlier articles included when identified
through bibliographies, and primary journals being Journal of Cleaner
Production; Ecological Economics; and Journal of Industrial Ecology).
Search terms applied in title and subject terms included combinations
and variances on circular economy, social, political, cultural, degrowth,
steady-state, design, renewable energy, solar, wind, battery, business
model and supply chain. Grey literature was sought via Google and
websites of relevant organizations and state agencies. This identified CE
concepts/theory and practice, and articles discussing CE and socio-
political, cultural and socio-economic themes. Concurrently, a search
and analysis of CE- and eco-design tools was undertaken, including those
aimed at RE (articles being peer-reviewed only, between 2011 and 2021;
no limit to databases), identifying 82 articles primarily in Journal of
Cleaner Production; Sustainability; Resources, Conservation and Recy­
cling; and Journal of Industrial Ecology). Search terms applied to title
and subject terms included CE, design, tool, design for X (and variances
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 319 (2021) 128549
e.g. recycling), sustainability, RE, battery/solar/wind, social and polit­
ical. This sought a tool and platform of analysis from which CE design
approaches could be compared with conviviality criteria. From this,
Kalmykova et al.‘s (2018, pp.193, 196) ‘CE Strategies Database’ was
identified as a comprehensive framework to utilize as a foundation for
this article’s analysis. It includes 45 CE strategies applied across the
supply chain, which the authors identify from their literature review and
over 100 CE cases.1 The authors provide analysis of the strategies and
their implementation internationally. CE strategies are focused on in this
article rather than individual CE- and eco-design tools or criteria.
Analysis of the latter demonstrated that none provided a broad foun­
dation from which to compare conviviality criteria with CE design goals
as well as Kalmykova et al.’s (2018) identified strategies. Copious CE
and eco-design tools and criteria exist; none offer an overall picture.
However, CE- and eco-design tools are discussed, and referenced to
guide designers to tools where required.
Exploration of Degrowth scholarship identified two convivial tech­
nology design tools as providing practical, relevant criteria. Lizarralde
and Tyl (2018) present their ‘Design for Conviviality’ tool, analyzing
bicycle industry case studies. Vetter (2018) applies her ‘Matrix for
Convivial Technology’ (Matrix) to grassroots technologies such as small
Piggot wind turbines and composting toilets. Together, these tools
provide ‘convivial technology’ criteria, with slightly varying perspec­
tives. Merged with Kalmykova et al.‘s CE strategies, they form a unique
‘CE-conviviality design tool’, enabling this article’s novel exploratory
application to solar panels, batteries and wind turbines and their related
circular systems. Analysis of Degrowth literature included monographs,
36 peer reviewed articles on Degrowth, plus 18 peer reviewed articles
relating to technology and Degrowth, primarily in Journal of Cleaner
Production and Ecological Economics (no limits on databases; articles
between 2005 and 2020). Search terms included Degrowth, RE, tech­
nology, solar/wind/battery, and design.
Regarding RE technology, grey literature by key international and
national agencies, organizations and industry, and online articles and
commentaries assisted identification of international advances and
challenges in RE technology and related CE systems development.
Specific advances and challenges in RE technology innovation were also
researched via searches for topical peer-reviewed journal articles and
special issues (no limit on databases; 2010–2020). The author’s working
alongside materials scientists and RE technology developers provided
supporting background knowledge.
2.1. Circular economy theory, strategies and challenges
CE definitions, and proposed practice and policy remain contested
(Schröder et al., 2019; Kalmykova et al., 2018; Korhonen et al., 2018;
Kirchherr et al., 2018). CE implementation is still emerging, with some
countries in Asia (e.g. China) and the European Union (EU) making it a
central plank in environmental policy (Bocken et al., 2017). Some
contributing schools of thought include industrial ecology, ecological
and environmental economics, and cradle to cradle (Murray et al., 2017;
Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Ellen MacArthur Foundation [EMF], 2019a;
2019b; Ghisellini et al., 2016). The CE aims at closed loop products,
business models and supply chains that reduce energy and materials use
while maximizing resource use value by applying particular strategies
1
Kalmykova et al.‘s second tool, ‘CE Implementation Database’ assesses over
100 case studies assembled from the literature, and presents the current level of
implementation internationally of the 45 strategies, including gaps in imple­
mentation. While this second database is not analyzed in this article, it
strengthens the usefulness of their ‘CE Strategies Database’, enabling RE tech­
nology designers to gain further insight into CE strengths and weaknesses in
implementation relating to scope (system, sector, product, material or sub­
stance) and implementation level (e.g. plan/policy, R&D or market
implementation).
N. Ralph
(EMF, 2019b; Schröder et al., 2019; Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). Guiding
principles/strategies are widely used including the ‘3Rs’ (reduction,
reuse and recycle) (Ghisellini et al., 2016) or ‘9Rs’ - in order of priority -
refuse, rethink, reduce, re-use, repair, refurbish, remanufacture, repur­
pose, recycle, recover (Potting et al., 2017; van Buren et al., 2016). Tools
for eco-design (or ‘design for environment’ and ‘design for sustainabil­
ity’ for example) assist product design and performance assessment.
Despite weaknesses regarding (or a lack of aim for) integrating circu­
larity in design (see Sassanelli et al., 2020 on Design for X), some tools
support CE strategies. Examples include Design for X such as design for
disassembly (Favia et al., 2019) and design for recycling (Norgren et al.,
2020). Life-Cycle Assessment (Thakker and Bakshi, 2021) usually as­
sesses environmental impacts from sourcing resources to
end-of-life/disposal and exemplifies how such tools may not aim at
integrating a product/service into the CE (e.g. Tsang et al., 2016
cradle-to-grave life-cycle only).
Reviews of CE-focused indicators and assessment methodologies are
useful for identifying indicators/methodologies for specific CE strate­
gies, industries and/or micro, meso and macro levels and to mediate
trade-offs and impact transfers (Saidani et al., 2019; Parchomenko et al.,
2019; Kristensen and Mosgaard, 2020). CE competencies (knowledge,
skills, attitudes) are discussed alongside exemplary assessment meth­
odologies (Sumter et al., 2021). Across the board, these omit or mini­
mally incorporate, social dimensions (e.g. Kristensen and Mosgaard,
2020).
Challenges to the CE arise from rebound effects (or Jevon’s Paradox)
culminating in benefits from recycling and material efficiency being
countered as efficiency is offset by increased use (Kerschner and Ehlers,
2016; Zink and Geyer, 2017; Schröder et al., 2019). Uncertain success
lies in creating a fully circular system due to entropy, and the value of
recycling diminishing until it is too economically and environmentally
costly (Ghisellini et al., 2016, p.15). Despite the preferred order of pri­
ority of the 9Rs (e.g. ‘re-use’, or ‘reduce’ materials use in manufacturing,
over ‘recycling’, the last resort), internationally, CE implementation in
practice has initially focused on waste management, recycling and re­
covery more than product reuse, or preventative strategies in the design,
manufacturing and sales stages (Ghisellini et al., 2016, pp.15-16; Kal­
mykova et al., 2018, p.199; Potting et al., 2017, p.41). Yet, as identified
for certain RE technologies, eco-design can often enable the majority of
materials and energy savings rather than recycling (Gallagher et al.,
2019, pp.138-139). Tremendous amounts of energy and materials will
be required to sustain RE systems (World Economic Forum [WEF] &
Global Battery Alliance, 2019, p.16; Gallagher et al., 2019; Murray et al.,
2017) including common commodities like cement (Ali et al., 2017,
p.369) and ‘critical materials’ with security of supply risks and current
low levels of recycling such as rare earth elements (e.g. neodymium),
indium, tellurium, lithium and cobalt (Hancock et al., 2018, p.488;
Giurco et al., 2014, p.433). Gallagher et al. (2019) argue there is
insufficient research on the viable production of RE technologies within a
CE system. Meanwhile, Geissdoerfer et al. (2017, pp.766-767) suggest
perceiving the CE as only “one among several solutions for fostering a
sustainable system”. Key to this, is designers’ self-reflection and
awareness of diverse attitudes towards technology’s role in relation to
societal challenges. Technological optimism is a dominant discourse,
along with ‘technology and innovation for growth’; arguably the driving
narrative behind CE approaches. There are alternative narratives,
among them that of Degrowth. Explicit attitudes enable transparent
debate, and research and design goals; countering unquestioned priority
for technological or ‘green growth’ solutions, and specific technologies
due to invested (such as corporate) interests at a particular time (Ker­
schner and Ehlers, 2016; Strand et al., 2018; Kerschner et al., 2018;
Gunderson et al., 2018; Pansera and Owen, 2018). This is needed, as few
CE advocates question technological solutions and/or economic growth.
Still, some scholars contrast CE and Degrowth or related concepts
(Friant et al., 2020; Ghisellini et al., 2016; Hobson and Lynch, 2016;
Moreau et al., 2017) or call for the two fields to collaborate (Schröder
3
Journal of Cleaner Production 319 (2021) 128549
et al., 2019).
2.2. Degrowth, conviviality and renewable energy
Degrowth may be defined as:
“an equitable downscaling of throughput, with a concomitant
securing of wellbeing. If there is a fundamental coupling of economic
activity and resource use, …serious environmental or climate pol­
icies will slow down the economy. Vice versa, a slower economy will
use less resources and emit less carbon” (Kallis et al., 2018, p.297).
Degrowth scholarship does not wholesale suggest GDP decline and
negative growth (Kerschner et al., 2018, p.1630), but a growth agnostic
(Raworth, 2017) or ‘agrowth’ perspective, with precautionary ap­
proaches for handling low or no growth and maintaining human
well-being, democracy and social justice (van den Bergh, 2017). Social
and economic strategies are proposed such as reducing consumption and
work hours or collective ownership of energy systems (Schröder et al.,
2019; Hobson and Lynch, 2016; Gunderson et al., 2018). Energy
socio-technical transitions are called for (Ferrari and Chartier, 2018;
Rommel et al., 2018; Alexander and Yacoumis, 2018; Gladkykh et al.,
2018). For example, Kunze and Becker (2015; Gunderson et al., 2018)
suggest collective ownership with politically motivated goals is impor­
tant for growth independent energy transitions. While warning of sig­
nificant challenges, Rommel et al. (2018), analyzing ‘community RE’ in
Germany, identify six Degrowth concepts potentially demonstrated by
community RE including convivial technology, localization of produc­
tion, sustainable consumption, promoting equity, enhancing a sense of
community, and collaborative and democratic business models.
Degrowth discussions on technology are emerging and contested, but
generally admonish reliance on technological solutions as insufficient
for overcoming resource limits and the rebound effect (Kerschner et al.,
2018; Rommel et al., 2018; Kerschner and Ehlers, 2016; Gunderson
et al., 2018). Research explores technologies for thriving without growth
dependence including ‘convivial’ and low-tech systems (discussed
below) (Kallis et al., 2018; Alexander and Yacoumis, 2018). Lizarralde
and Tyl (2018, p.1767) posit that despite recent attention to technology
in Degrowth literature, the role of designers “is underappreciated and
neglected”.
Applying conviviality concepts to assist the design of products, ser­
vices and related technologies highlights the “social and political aspects
for selecting technologies” (Kerschner et al., 2018, p.1630), and is
therefore, complementary to CE strategies and eco-design tools that are
weak on such aspects. It enables a more systemic design approach
countering short-term, narrow technological solutions prevalent in
eco-design that “shift the problem elsewhere in the system” and risk
rebound effects and externalities (Lizarralde and Tyl, 2018, p.1769). In
Tools for Conviviality, Illich (1973) analyzed ‘tools’ – that which humans
create to realize their goals ranging from hand-held tools to institutions
or systems such as health or education (or energy) systems. Illich (1973,
pp.46-83) argued that tools, beyond a certain scale, facilitate six threats
to fragile societal balances and conviviality. These threats are: biological
degradation of the ecosystem; radical monopoly (of ready-made, ubiq­
uitous industrial solutions versus individual action and need satisfac­
tion); polarization (unequal division of power, generating frustration
and further demands for goods and services via industrialization; un­
equal power between stakeholders in supply chains such as users versus
corporations controlling centralized energy provision or overseas pro­
duction); over-programming (necessitating institutionalized expertize
and specialization (e.g. for repairs) versus individuals’ autonomous
ability, creativity and learning); planned obsolescence (generating sales
versus maintenance; threats to traditional skills/knowledge); and frus­
tration caused by the realization of several threats simultaneously.
N. Ralph Journal of Cleaner Production 319 (2021) 128549

Table 1
A Circular Economy-Conviviality Design Tool
Circular Economy Strategy Conviviality in design. Guide for the (a) product scope or (b) Assessing technologies for conviviality & Degrowth. Five
(Kalmykova et al., 2018) sociotechnical system scope (Lizarralde and Tyl, 2018) criteria; and examples of antagonistic terms (Vetter, 2018)

1. MATERIALS SOURCING

Diversity and cross-sector
linkages/collaboration
Energy production/
Energy autonomy
Life Cycle Assessment
Material substitution
Taxation
Tax credits & subsidies
Design & raw material extraction and processing:
(a) Is the product designed to be adapted to local raw materials?
(b) Can raw materials be obtained with traditional and simple techniques
accessible to an average person and in a sustainable way?
• Relatedness: what does it bring about between people? E.g.
Organization centralized vs. organization distributed
• Access: who can produce/use it where & how?
Secret or patented vs. knowledge freely accessible
• Adaptability: how independent or linkable is it?
Special materials vs. standardized materials
• Biointeraction: how does it interact with living organisms?
Toxic waste vs. biodegradable
• Appropriateness: what is the relation between input and output
considering the context?
Far away vs. locally available

2. DESIGN

Customization/made to Lizarralde & Tyl focus on design, so do not provide separate criteria. Vetter focuses on design, so does not provide separate criteria/
order antagonistic terms.
Design for disassembly/
recycling
Design for modularity
Eco-design
Reduction

3. MANUFACTURING/PRODUCTION

Energy efficiency Design & product manufacturing: (a) Does the product support users’ creative
Material productivity process, allowing them to produce their own product? Do producers own the means
Reproducible & adaptable of production? Can the product be manufactured locally? Does the user really need
manufacturing this product? (b) Is production based on local skills? Is the product/innovation’s
added value shared equally between stakeholders across the value chain? Can
the product be manufactured using well-known, non-privatized techniques?
Do materials/characteristics of the product/innovation allow it to be produced
with traditional and simple techniques accessible to an average person? Can it
be produced in a distributed way (with small-scale production)?
• Relatedness: what does it bring about between people? E.g.
Distance creating vs. conjoint experience
• Access: who can produce/use it where & how?
Elitist vs. open to anyone
• Adaptability: how independent or linkable is it?
Special machines vs. everyday tools
• Biointeraction: how does it interact with living organisms?
Hazardous potential vs. safety proven & tested
• Appropriateness: what is the relation between input and output
considering the context?
Thriftless material use vs. frugal material use

4. DISTRIBUTION AND SALES

Optimized packaging design See below. See below.

Redistribute and Resell

5. CONSUMPTION AND USE

Community involvement Design & use: (a) Can the product be acquired by most citizens e.g. low-income • Relatedness: what does it bring about between people?
Eco-labelling people? Is it designed to be durable? If it remains functional, why does the user wish Fosters individual advantage vs. supports community
Product as a service or to change it? Does the product encourage learning and sharing during usage? Does it • Access: who can produce/use it where & how?
Product Service System allow users to understand how it fulfils its function? Can it be redistributed and Cost intensive vs. low cost
Product labelling modified/improved without restrictions? Is it designed to be repaired/upgraded by • Adaptability: how independent or linkable is it?
Re-use an average person? Infrastructure needed vs. independent use possible
Sharing (b) Does the product/innovation promote sufficiency-based thinking to reduce • Biointeraction: how does it interact with living organisms?
Socially responsible consumption? Is the sociotechnical system accepted/controlled by the users’ Air polluting vs. supports clean air
consumption community? Does the product/innovation enable users to identify a solution • Appropriateness: what is the relation between input and output
Stewardship adapted to their needs? Does it avoid the use of uncontrolled technologies (that considering the context?
Virtualize require expertize and centralized tools)? Does it guarantee the user Encourages waste vs. sustains sufficiency
accessibility to other technologies? Can it be used with local resources (skills,
materials, infrastructure)?

6. COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL

Extended Producer Design & end-of-life (a) Does the product facilitate learning and sharing for Vetter’s ‘end-of-life’ antagonistic terms are included in the author’s
Responsibility maintenance and repair? Can the user perform minimal repairs with standard tools? ‘Materials’ column. See below examples of antagonistic terms for
Incentivized recycling (b) Is maintenance based on local skills? Can the product be repaired with end-of-life.
Logistics/Infrastructure minimal, simple infrastructure? Does the system prevent obsolescence in
Separation components?
Take-back and trade-in
systems

7. RECYCLING AND RECOVERY

By-products use As above (under Collection & Disposal). • Relatedness: what does it bring about between people?
Cascading Alien implementation vs. respects local traditions

(continued on next page)

4
N. Ralph
Table 1 (continued )
Circular Economy Strategy Conviviality in design. Guide for the (a) product scope or (b)
(Kalmykova et al., 2018) sociotechnical system scope (Lizarralde and Tyl, 2018)
Downcycling
Element/ substance recovery
Energy recovery
Extraction of bio-chemicals
Functional recycling
High quality recycling
Industrial symbiosis
Restoration
Upcycling
8. REMANUFACTURE
Refurbishment/ As above (under Collection & Disposal).
Remanufacture
Upgrading, Maintenance
and Repair
9. CIRCULAR INPUTS
Bio-based materials As above (under Collection & Disposal).
Adapted from: Kalmykova at al. (2018, pp.193-196); Lizarralde and Tyl (2018, pp.1774-1775) (authors’ writing is abbreviated); and Vetter (2018, p.1780).
3. Results: circular economy-conviviality design tool
Attempting to counter Illich’s (1973) threats to conviviality,2 Liz­
arralde and Tyl (2018) develop guiding questions to integrate convivi­
ality criteria into the design process of a product and its socio-technical
system, across the supply chain (materials extraction, manufacturing,
usage, end-of-life). Vetter (2018, p.1780) also presents criteria as
questions applied across the supply chain including materials (this in­
cludes end-of-life considerations), production, use and infrastructure.
Vetter’s “antagonistic terms” help apply the criteria; examples are pro­
vided in Table 1 such as ‘Need of foreign expert vs. use of local knowl­
edge’. These frameworks are applied (see Table 1) alongside Kalmykova
et al.‘s (2018, p.190) ‘CE Strategies Database’ which outlines CE stra­
tegies across a nine part, closed-loop supply chain.
The CE-conviviality tool (Table 1) is neither exhaustive nor exclu­
sive. The following comparison discussion is organized according to the
supply chain; design is the central perspective so is not discussed sepa­
rately. The discussion takes into account examples of CE strategies
identified by Kalmykova et al., the 9Rs, and relevant CE practices and
CE- or eco-design tools.
Regarding ‘materials sourcing’, CE strategies include ‘resource effi­
ciency’ to ‘reduce’ consumption of resources through design, and
applying ‘material substitution’ for more abundant and/or less toxic
materials (IRP, 2018; Kalmykova et al., 2018). ‘Taxation’ encouraging
use of abundant, environmentally sound materials (Kalmykova et al.,
2018), could further prioritize ‘locally abundant’ to catalyze localized
supply chains. ‘Industrial collaboration’ and ‘symbiosis’ support busi­
ness ‘relatedness’, and with individual end-users becoming important
supply chain stakeholders (e.g. returning products after end-of-life)
(Vegter et al., 2020), may facilitate community ‘relatedness’ (support­
ing wellbeing and ‘sense of community’ (Rommel et al., 2018)).
Conviviality criteria highlight design strongly promoting the use of
locally available, ‘standardized’ rather than ‘specialized’, non-toxic
materials obtained sustainably and without restrictions on knowledge
and application such as by patents. For conviviality, the application of
materials should be ‘needs driven, not market driven’, done with locally
‘traditional and simple’ techniques (e.g. in manufacturing), and in a
distributed rather than centralized manner to increase ‘access’ to tech­
nology and ‘relatedness’.
2
Illich’s (1973) sixth threat (frustration caused by realization of several of
the threats simultaneously) is not considered by Lizarralde and Tyl (2018,
p.1767) as “it is not an empirical criterion”.
5
Journal of Cleaner Production 319 (2021) 128549
Assessing technologies for conviviality & Degrowth. Five
criteria; and examples of antagonistic terms (Vetter, 2018)
• Access: who can produce/use it where & how?
Need of foreign expert vs. use of local knowledge
• Adaptability: how independent or link-able is it?
Special machines vs. use of everyday tools
• Biointeraction: how does it interact with living organisms?
Hazardous potential vs. safety proven/tested
• Appropriateness: what is the relation between input and output
considering the context?
Non-recyclable vs. easily recycled
As above (under Recycling & Recovery).
As above.
In ‘manufacturing/production’, CE strategies promote ‘energy effi­
ciency’ and ‘recovery’, and ‘material productivity’ (Kalmykova et al.,
2018). Similar to ‘reduce’, conviviality underlines ‘frugal material use’,
and sufficiency-thinking in production (do users really need this pro­
duct/component/complex material?). CE strategies include ‘reproduc­
ible and adaptable manufacturing’ (Kalmykova et al., 2018; Sassanelli
et al., 2020), while conviviality further advocates the application of
local skills, non-hazardous manufacturing and non-privatized tech­
niques. Conviviality encourages local ownership of the means of pro­
duction rather than centralized or outsourced international production.
Further, users (including the ‘average person’) should be able to increase
‘relatedness’ through ‘conjoint experience’ in production/repair, not
rely on ‘distant manufacturing’, and use ‘everyday tools’ rather than
‘special machines’ to produce products. Socio-technical systems should
promote distributed, small-scale production and equal sharing of added
value (and thus power) across supply chain stakeholders.
In ‘consumption and use’ (including ‘distribution/sales’), CE strate­
gies of ‘eco- or product (materials) labelling’ (Kalmykova et al., 2018;
WEF & Global Battery Alliance, 2019) inform users, and support disas­
sembly and end-of-life strategies. The CE strategy of ‘socially responsible
consumption’ (Kalmykova et al., 2018), aligns with ‘green consum­
erism’, based on ‘green growth’ economic models (Trainer and Alex­
ander, 2019) rather than consumption or sales according to need and
decreased consumption (Kerschner et al., 2018, p.1620). To ‘refuse’
(abandon a product-service function or offer function via a different
product (Potting et al., 2017)), ‘reuse’ or ‘re-sell’ (Kalmykova et al.,
2018), decreases new product/material use and in sales, attention can
encourage ‘sufficiency-based’ business models (see below). To ‘re-think’
product-service systems such as community ‘sharing’ of products and
knowledge and ‘stewardship’ of resources (Kalmykova et al., 2018;
Bocken and Short, 2016; Bocken et al., 2014), can generate ‘relatedness’
and socio-economic transformations supporting sustainability (although
rebound effects can occur when increasing access to a product, Potting
et al., 2017). Conviviality underlines sufficiency-thinking during usage
and fostering community over individual advantage, accessibility (e.g.
for low-income people) and thus low-cost technology, and user learning
(e.g. how a product fulfils its function). For conviviality, design of
socio-technical systems can facilitate user/community development of
solutions for their needs, and independent product use without external
infrastructure and expertize.
Lifespan extension strategies (e.g. reverse-logistics, repair, refurbish,
remanufacture, repurpose (IRP, 2018; Potting et al., 2017), recycling
and energy recovery (Reuter et al., 2019; Kalmykova et al., 2018)) are
N. Ralph
core to CE and related design (Sassanelli et al., 2020; Favia et al., 2019;
Norgren et al., 2020). Alongside durability, conviviality arguably pro­
motes a more robust focus on user ability to apply ‘standard tools’ to
repair, modify or upgrade (without restrictions or ‘foreign experts’).
Users’ learning and sharing during end-of-life processes assists related­
ness between users/communities, and people and their environment.
Vetter’s (2018, p.1780) antagonistic terms suggest ‘bottom-up control’,
‘distributed’, ‘low-cost’, ‘useable by anyone’ and ‘everywhere possible’.
Notably, this is difficult for, even at odds with, current solar, wind and
battery end-of-life options (see Discussion section).
The above demonstrates that certain design aspects are highlighted
in conviviality criteria, while being weakly or not at all addressed by CE
strategies. These are summarized into four key conviviality contribu­
tions, discussed next in relation to RE technology. This identifies chal­
lenges, and potential strategies for action by designers when creating
circular RE technology and systems, to support growth independent
sustainability and social wellbeing.
4. Discussion: four conviviality contributions
4.1. Socio-political power distribution, equity and autonomy
Measures addressing power distribution are rarely considered in
(eco-)design tools (Lizarralde and Tyl, 2018, p.1768). This risks tech­
nologies/tools (e.g. solar panels, even large energy systems) and related
corporate CE systems, instead of being a means to human ends, become
self-serving ends themselves when their scale forces humans to adapt to
them. No longer mastering these ‘tools’, humans are mastered by them
(Illich, 1973; Samerski, 2018, p.1639) and their agents (e.g. corpora­
tions). Illich (1973, pp.xii, 73; Samerski, 2018, p.1641) did not oppose
industrial production but promoted “responsibly limited tools”. Recent
research identifying conviviality criteria for design considers power
distribution, resulting in promotion of small-scale, distributed technol­
ogy production and end-of-life systems (i.e. localization). This enhances
autonomy from industrialized infrastructure, and equity with affordable
access and knowledge to produce and maintain technologies (Lizarralde
and Tyl, 2018; Kerschner et al., 2018, p.1628). Importantly, RE de­
signers applying conviviality support balance between industrial,
centralized technology production, end-of-life systems and energy sys­
tems (e.g. national electricity grids and arguably, to a lesser extent but
still reflecting industrialization and complexity, community-based
Distributed Energy Systems (DES) such as micro-grids), and peer pro­
duction of wind and solar energy technology, and ‘low-tech’ (e.g.
Alexander and Yacoumis (2018)), with accompanying end-of-life sys­
tems (see Fig. 13). These examples are discussed below.
3
Fig. 1 visually illustrates the article’s following discussion which applies
conviviality concepts to RE technologies and their CE end-of-life systems, from
current large-scale, corporate and/or international technology production,
supply chains and end-of-life systems, to increasingly localized, community-
based production and CE systems. Conviviality criteria are applied in the
article, which suggest for example, applying in this simplified representation,
scale/size of the technology itself, relating supply chains and production, and
geographical reach of energy supply (e.g. industrial/international compared to
user/peer level production); complexity of technology/components/materials;
and socio-political power distribution (e.g. corporate/international to commu­
nity/user). It is not exact, as for example, in terms of complexity, micro-grids
remain highly complex; and peer production of less complex technologies
may potentially still require for some time, international supply chains of
components/materials (e.g. magnets for wind turbines) and also could generate
significant waste and use of resources such as via 3D printing. Research on
trade-offs and impact transfers is required. This article calls for balance between
these examples of technology implementation, and discusses issues arising if
reaching for this balance. This article does not propose either end of the
‘spectrum’ is of higher value or positive overall impact; research is needed to
assess this.
6
Journal of Cleaner Production 319 (2021) 128549
Crucially, despite designers potentially increased attention to
convivial technology, challenges remain to enabling greater balance,
and strategies are thus proposed below. For example, when conceptu­
alizing convivial technologies, solar panels and batteries (e.g. that
comprise community energy microgrids) fall short, with their embedded
complexity in design or materials. For many countries (especially
beyond the EU and Asia), the current production and end-of-life systems
for solar panels (International Renewable Energy Agency [IRENA] and
International Energy Agency [IEA], 2016) and lithium-ion batteries are
internationalized, undertaken by distant ‘overseas’ corporations domi­
nating global markets. This diminishes user autonomy and power in the
supply chain (and national energy security). For example, in Australia,
over 70 per cent of solar panels are imported from Asia. Second-hand
panels are predominantly exported; being unattractive to domestic
consumers (Gentilini and Salt, 2019). Limited solar panel recycling
services only recycle approximately 20 per cent of materials (Shaibani,
2020). Despite Australia’s potential to domestically mine most minerals
required for lithium batteries, Australia has been slow to manufacture
batteries (Austrade, 2018). In 2016, only two percent of lithium battery
waste was collected; exported for recycling. Slowly, companies are
investing in recycling or manufacturing lithium batteries (King et al.,
2018; Manufacturers Monthly, 2019).
Initial strategies to address these challenges will include regulatory
action. As in the EU and China, regulation can catalyze in-country, and
increasingly localized, RE technology end-of-life systems and poten­
tially, manufacturing. Under the EU’s WEEE (Waste Electrical and
Electronic Equipment) Directive 2012/19/EU and Extended Producer
Responsibility (EPR) schemes, solar panel producers are responsible for
end-of-life management regardless of where they manufacture, and
some producers are developing recycling facilities to support local
production (e.g. United States company, First Solar in the EU) (Filatoff,
2020; Gentilini, 2020; IRENA & IEA, 2016, pp.51-63, 88; Gentilini and
Salt, 2019, pp.37-47; WEF & Global Battery Alliance, 2019; King et al.,
2018). Regulation in China requires battery and Electric Vehicle (EV)
manufacturers to recover batteries for reuse or recycling, and recycling
companies are working with battery producers to adopt easily disman­
tled designs (Pagliaro and Meneguzzo, 2019; Melin, 2017, pp.4-6).
Further, international collaboration between designers, manufacturers,
sales, installation and recycling industries will be important, enabling
data exchange for improved design standardization and for disassembly
(Gentilini and Salt, 2019, pp.22, 43–45; WEF & Global Battery Alliance,
2019, pp.6-9). Such strategies can expand in-country and increasingly
localized CE systems and production, supporting power dispersion to­
wards local businesses and users.
4.2. Supporting localization
Additional strategies potentially supporting localization include
design advances for RE technology composition (e.g. where fewer ma­
terials are required or imported) and end-of-life processes such as
remanufacturing and recycling and thus, production that uses recovered
materials and components, or 3D printing. Such advances could have the
goal of localization prioritized where possible. Exemplary advances
include material reduction and efficiency such as designs for batteries
requiring less cobalt, a ‘critical material’ (Deign, 2019), and solar panels
requiring less hazardous material (e.g. lead, cadmium and selenium),
facilitating recyclability (IRENA & IEA, 2016, pp.14, 76–77).
Sodium-ion batteries (large-scale commercialization is expected after
2030 (WEF & Global Battery Alliance, 2019, p.34)) use sodium, abun­
dant in seawater, and developments demonstrate their potential appli­
cation in more contexts, not simply as now, where large-sized batteries
are possible. Advanced chemistry is developing battery anodes consist­
ing of plant-based biomass (e.g. apples, rice husks) (Notman, 2019; Gao
et al., 2018; Professor M. Forsyth, personal communication, May 4,
2020). 3D printing facilitates small-scale, distributed and customized
manufacturing such as currently possible for some lithium batteries
N. Ralph Journal of Cleaner Production 319 (2021) 128549

Fig. 1. Considered examples of RE technology implementation and CE systems.

(Berger, 2019) and emerging thin-film, organic, flexible solar cells rather than from overseas, even if this initially determines less than
(Bürckstümmer, 2018). Manufacturing with 3D printing can use recy­ premium but still viable technology in a sufficiency-based society. Un­
cled materials, encouraging local metal recovery (Giurco et al., 2014). derstanding the specific local needs for energy/electricity, particularly
Design advances in disassembly and labelling of products and ma­ sufficiency levels for public and industry, and the extent that sufficiency
terial composition will foster more economically viable in-country CE can be met, will be primary. The complexity of this cannot be over­
systems (WEF & Global Battery Alliance, 2019, pp.6-9; Gentilini and estimated, but the goal can be eventual total production of batteries,
Salt, 2019, p.22). Establishing global databases of solar panel/battery solar panels and wind turbines domestically; and where non-localized
designs and materials (IRENA & IEA, 2016, p.79; Gentilini and Salt, supply chains and materials are utilized, this will be to avoid significant
2019, pp.22, 45) and national traceability platforms to track used solar impact transfers and where no other option is available. This will require
panel/battery origin (Pagliaro and Meneguzzo, 2019) could facilitate from designers, supply chain stakeholders and society, considerable
in-country repair or recycling (see the International Resource Panel planning and collaboration to generate circular products and infra­
Global Material Flows Database (UN Environment Programme, 2020), structure, policy and legal responses, and international and scientific
and proposed data system for the flow of recycled materials by the State diplomacy to enable knowledge sharing to enable this shift. Importantly,
of Victoria, Australia (Victoria State Government, 2020)). Design for systemic trade-offs must be assessed, and criteria developed to assist this
disassembly enables standardized tooling and automation, and and to find the optimal local-international balance in technology
dispersed logistics operators and service stations for low-cost repairs development; recognizing this will change with scientific advancements.
(WEF & Global Battery Alliance, 2019, p.32-33; Gentilini and Salt, 2019,
pp.21-22). This may counter ‘radical monopoly’ and ‘over-programing’.
4.3. Relatedness
Distributed, mobile disassembly such as for solar PV panels could in­
crease locally accessible recycling. An example is ‘microfactories’
Vetter (2018, p.1782) highlights ‘relatedness’ as a central criterion.
developed by the University of New South Wales, Australia (Gentilini
Relatedness connotes enhancing relationships between people (e.g.
and Salt, 2019, p.41). Waste sorting and dismantling can occur locally,
through “conjoint experience”) and between people and their environ­
while processing infrastructure travels to key locations (King et al.,
ment. Relatedness can enhance human wellbeing (Putnam, 2000) and
2018, pp.30-31). These examples of potentials for localization over time
non-material relational goods (Kallis et al., 2018, p.299); an antidote to
are not to detract from the significant challenge of current low recycled
industrial growth’s commodification of human relationships that di­
volumes (such as for lithium) in relation to increasing demands for
minishes social ties (Rommel et al., 2018, p.1750). CE strategies are
materials (Hancock et al., 2018). Conviviality criteria stress ‘frugal
relatively weak in prioritizing relatedness despite eliciting community
material use’. Indeed, ‘frugal innovation’ (Santos et al., 2020) that aims
involvement for sharing and repair platforms, and industrial symbiosis.
at affordable, less complex products comprising fewer materials can
As a strategy fostering greater balance towards conviviality, RE de­
provide designers a response to fewer materials available and low
signers can incorporate design for relatedness during design (e.g. peer
recycling rates, but also a first step towards withdrawing from the
learning while creating designs for Open Source technology (Vetter,
‘technology for economic growth’ narrative (Professor D. Macfarlane,
2018, p.1782)), and during production and end-of-life options (e.g. local
personal communication, February 7, 2020).
manufacturing of RE technology in shared ‘makerspaces’).
Designers can work with policy and supply chain stakeholders to
Although debated in the Degrowth movement (Samerski, 2018),
plan for developing RE technology for specific geographical areas (e.g. a
relatedness is supported by ‘design global, manufacture local’ (DGML),
country). They can assess to what extent a technology can currently be
open-source technology, and peer-to-peer learning. DGML advocates
produced ‘locally’ (ie. in-country), and if it cannot, what challenges
open-source design shared via the global digital commons, applied in
must be overcome and the approximate timeframe for this. This includes
shared community production hubs such as fab labs and makerspaces,
if comprising materials are available ‘locally’ and/or efficient circular
with local manufacturing using low-tech tools and 3D printing to create
(e.g. recycling) infrastructure for metals/materials and resources must
easily maintained technologies including small wind-turbines (Kostakis
be developed (Reuter et al., 2019). This will require significant national
et al., 2018, p.1692; Kallis et al., 2018, p.305). Open-source technology
and international collaboration (Sumter et al., 2021), diplomacy and
and peer production facilitate collaborative, democratic processes for
knowledge sharing on building CEs, including international collabora­
manufacturing and community capacity-building. No prior expertize is
tion on trade of critical materials until domestic secondary sources of
required, increasing access for low-income communities (Kostakis et al.,
materials are sufficient or domestic substitutes found. Designers will
2018). Kostakis et al. (2018) discuss DGML in terms of wind turbine
need depth of knowledge regarding materials characteristics and ‘local’
designs that are not patented and can be modified. The designs are
availability, and local manufacturing and CE strategies implementation
adaptable to multiple local environmental conditions, available mate­
(Sumter et al., 2021). Knowing whether materials are available locally
rials, waste and know-how, and support technology transfer practices
from domestic mining or CE strategies, or will be required from inter­
that are socially and culturally sensitive for different countries. A global
national supply chains and for how long will be key. Planning can help
online network, with the assistance of local organizations, provides
identify research needed to enable the use of ‘locally’ available materials
technical support to communities (Kostakis et al., 2018). This approach,

7
N. Ralph
along with advances in design as discussed above, can generate more
localized, convivial RE technologies globally; while enhancing com­
munity and social wellbeing. RE designs distributed via open-source
technology do raise questions regarding research funding for what
may essentially be non-profit if publicly shared. Beyond philanthropy,
government subsidizing could be encouraged or other (e.g. crowd
funding) strategies sought. Open-source can reach more numerous
developed and developing countries’ users; potentially enticing social
investment organizations. Importantly, research is required on
discouraging rebound effects and waste of energy and materials in
DGML approaches and 3D printing (Giurco et al., 2014; Kostakis et al.,
2018, pp.1686, 1692).
4.4. Sufficiency
A systemic approach to design considers social and economic prac­
tices related to how technologies are consumed (Lizarralde and Tyl,
2018, p.1769). Generally, demand-side strategies in CE promote ‘green
consumption’ but ‘sufficiency’ which has nascent backing in CE litera­
ture in terms of business models (Friant et al., 2020) aims at reducing
consumption, while maintaining human wellbeing (Vita et al., 2019;
Jackson, 2005; Gladkykh et al., 2018). Design and business models for
sufficiency are pertinent when considering RE designers often work with
industry partners or become entrepreneurs when taking advancements
to market. Sufficiency-based businesses moderate demand and resour­
ce/energy consumption through consumer education, demand reduc­
tion services, sharing, and providing a service rather than ownership.
They satisfy ‘needs’ rather than ‘wants’, refrain from aggressive sales,
may promote users’ involvement in collaborative production and
maintenance, and develop progressive revenue models based on reuse,
repair and recycling (Bocken and Short, 2016; Bocken et al., 2014;
Rommel et al., 2018, p.1748).
Considering this, Alexander and Yacoumis (2018, p.1841) highlight
that ‘low-tech’ strategies for sufficiency and deep decarbonization have
“received insufficient attention in the literature” yet can build house­
hold resilience and autonomy. Low-tech (e.g. solar shower bags,
washing lines) along with ‘mindfulness’ practice such as being mindful
of taking shorter showers can foster conditions for households to adapt if
necessary to future Degrowth circumstances triggered by economic or
climate crises (Alexander and Yacoumis, 2018, p.1840). Low-tech con­
tributes to avoiding addiction to the industrial satisfaction of heteron­
omous needs (Samerski, 2018, pp.1637, 1645). The urgency of
expanding innovation for low-tech and sufficiency approaches in energy
provision is arguably apparent when considering RE infrastructure de­
mands for resources. Watari et al. (2021) find the decarbonization of
electricity and transport sectors may by 2050 increase resource extrac­
tion for metal production more than seven times relative to 2015 levels.
CE strategies can moderate extraction, but new mine development will
be inevitable. Hence, low-tech and sufficiency approaches may help
reduce societal RE infrastructure demands. For designers, they present
an ultimate balance to industrial and international-scale technological
solutions; underlining that designers’ choices on the type of technology
they develop can have powerful socio-political, economic and cultural
outcomes.
5. Conclusion
This article addresses the design of RE technology, specifically solar
PV panels, small wind turbines and lithium-ion batteries and their
related CE systems. Because current CE theory and practice is positioned
in the perpetual economic growth paradigm and lacks rigorous focus on
social dimensions, this article explores both CE strategies and design
tools for technology proposed by Degrowth theorists. Kalmykova et al.’s
(2018) ‘CE Strategies Database’ is merged with two ‘design for conviv­
iality’ tools (Vetter, 2018; Lizarralde and Tyl, 2018) to create a
‘CE-Conviviality design tool’. Convivial design criteria elicit non-growth
8
Journal of Cleaner Production 319 (2021) 128549
reliant perspectives on design and technology use in society; culmi­
nating in a complementary balance to CE strategies and the ‘technology
and innovation for growth’ discourse (Strand et al., 2018; Kerschner and
Ehlers, 2016). Conviviality criteria may foster more systemic and thus
sustainable design. A comparison of CE strategies and conviviality
criteria identifies gaps in CE strategies, and four key contributions from
conviviality criteria – power distribution, equity and autonomy; locali­
zation; relatedness; and sufficiency. Discussing these four contributions
in terms of RE technology and related CE systems identifies challenges,
and strategies for action by designers to support production and
end-of-life options contributing to growth independent sustainability
and social wellbeing.
A major challenge is the predominance in current RE technology
production and CE systems of centralized, international supply chains.
This distributes power away from users; perpetuating ‘radical monop­
oly’ (as seen for example, in specialized designs limiting dispersed, local
recycling). This strengthens users’ path dependency towards growth
dynamics via a lack of autonomy in production and maintenance of
technologies, and the need for ‘distant’, specialized materials and
expertize (‘over-programming’). Despite climate change mitigation
benefits, solar panels and batteries for example, can lock communities
into technology transitions that may ultimately be unsustainable, and
weak in generating positive social outcomes. This highlights the need for
balance in design goals between internationalized large-scale, industrial
RE technology, infrastructure and related CE systems, and convivial,
localized technologies and CE systems. Convivial technologies support
user autonomy and learning, and more equitable power distribution
along the supply chain.
Strategies therefore proposed for attention by RE designers include
calling for in-country regulatory action, international design collabo­
ration for disassembly, and a conscious focus to develop particular ad­
vancements in solar panel, wind turbine and battery composition and CE
processes. These may enhance countries’ abilities to expand in-country
and localized end-of-life systems and production. Exemplary advance­
ments are outlined. ‘Frugal innovation’ is posited as a first step for de­
signers focusing on design for contexts with fewer materials/
components and withdrawing from the ‘technology for economic
growth’ narrative. Beyond this, this article calls for planning for even­
tual full localization of RE technology production/maintenance and
suggests ways forward for designers and key stakeholders to enable
technology development for specific geographical areas. Meanwhile,
designers can create (simplified) designs for RE technologies distributed
through open-source technology and which enable peer production;
exemplified by small wind turbines. This also facilitates localized,
community manufacturing and maintenance of technologies but with
non-patented designs, adaptable to multiple local contexts. Crucially,
this approach fosters relatedness: beneficial for social ties and wellbeing,
user learning and potentially, sustainability due to dispersed knowledge
and use of local materials and waste. Innovation for low-tech and
sufficiency-based business models is also called for, as the ultimate
balance to international/industrial-scale technology design, and a
strategy to support user resilience and autonomy. Overall, research on
curtailing undesirable rebound and other secondary effects will be a
central plank in action.
This article’s research is limited by its conceptual, exploratory
approach rather than empirical application alongside RE designers. The
latter is to be undertaken in future research. Assessing designers’
application of the CE-conviviality tool to the full supply chain of their
design can identify if and how, the tool reveals hidden, systemic socio-
political and economic impacts and therefore, over time could support
more sustainable technology design and social wellbeing. Finally, in
collaboration with designers and key stakeholders, pilot empirical
studies for assessing the article’s proposed strategies could be under­
taken. Priority could be given to assessing the desirability and plausi­
bility of designing RE technologies for production and maintenance in
specific geographical areas worldwide, rather than relying on
N. Ralph
international supply chains; with accompanying analysis of trade-offs.
Funding information
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors but has been
conducted under funding from the Australian Research Council Centre
of Excellence Scheme (Project Number CE 140100012). This is grate­
fully acknowledged. ARC Centre of Excellence for Electromaterials Sci­
ence: www.electromaterials.edu.au.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Natalie Ralph is the sole author, and is responsible for all parts of
the article submitted.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence Scheme
(Project Number CE 140100012: ARC Centre of Excellence for Electro­
materials Science) provided financial support for the conduct of the
research but played no role in the writing of the report; and in the de­
cision to submit the article for publication.
References
Alexander, S., Yacoumis, P., 2018. Degrowth, energy descent, and ‘low-tech’ living:
potential pathways for increased resilience in times of crisis. J. Clean. Prod. 197,
1840–1848.
Ali, S.H., Giurco, D., Arndt, N., Nickless, E., Brown, G., Demetriades, A., Durrheim, R.,
Enriquez, M.A., Kinnaird, J., Littleboy, A., Meinert, L.D., Oberh€ansli, R., Salem, J.,
Schodde, R., Schneider, G., Vidal, O., Yakovleva, N., 2017. Mineral supply for
sustainable development requires resource governance. Nature 543, 367–372.
Austrade, 2018. The Lithium-Ion Battery Value Chain. Australian Trade and Investment
Commission, Canberra.
Berger, M., 2019. 3D Printing Batteries. NanoWerk. November 4. https://www.nanower
k.com/spotlight/spotid=53955.php.
Bocken, N.M.P., Short, S.W., 2016. Towards a sufficiency-driven business model:
experiences and opportunities. Environ. Innovat. Soc. Trans. 18, 41–61.
Bocken, N.M.P., Olivetti, E.A., Cullen, J.M., Potting, J., Lifset, R., 2017. Editorial: taking
the circularity to the next level. Special issue on exploring the circular economy.
J. Ind. Ecol. 21 (3), 471–795.
Bocken, N.M.P., Short, S.W., Rana, P., Evans, S., 2014. A literature and practice review to
develop sustainable business model archetypes. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 42–56.
Bürckstümmer, H., 2018. Printable, Flexible, Organic Solar Cell [Video]. Ted. May 9.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erm4vP1vTn8.
Deign, J., 2019. How the Battery Sector Is Looking to Improve Lithium-Ion. GTM.
October 17. https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/how-the-battery-sect
or-is-looking-to-improve-lithium-ion.
Deriu, M., 2015. Conviviality. In: D’Alisa, G., Demaria, F., Kallis, G. (Eds.), Degrowth: A
Vocabulary for a New Era. Routledge, pp. 79–82.
Ellen Macarthur Foundation (EMF), 2019a. Schools of Thought. https://www.ellenmac
arthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/concept/schools-of-thought.
Ellen Macarthur Foundation, 2019b. Methods. https://www.circulardesignguide.co
m/methods.
Favia, C., Marconi, M., Germani, M., Mandolini, M., 2019. A design for disassembly tool
oriented to mechatronic product demanufacturing and recycling. Adv. Eng. Inf. 39,
62–79.
Ferrari, C.A., Chartier, C., 2018. Degrowth, energy democracy, technology and social-
ecological relations: discussing a localised energy system in Vaxjo, Sweden. J. Clean.
Prod. 197, 1754–1765.
Filatoff, N., 2020. Arup Report on Photovoltaics and the Circular Economy. PV Magazine.
January 13. https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2020/01/13/arup-report-
on-photovoltaics-and-the-circular-economy/.
Friant, M.C., Vermeulen, W.J.M., Salomone, R., 2020. A typology of circular economy
discourses: navigating the diverse visions of a contested paradigm. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 161 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104917.
Gallagher, J., Basu, B., Browne, M., Kenna, A., McCormack, S., Pilla, F., Styles, D., 2019.
Adapting stand-alone renewable energy technologies for the circular economy
through eco-design and recycling. J. Ind. Ecol. 23 (1), 133–140.
9
Journal of Cleaner Production 319 (2021) 128549
Gao, M., Pan, S.-Y., Chen, W.-C., Chiang, P.-C., 2018. A cross-disciplinary overview of
naturally derived materials for electrochemical energy storage. Mater. Today Energy
7 (March), 58–79.
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N.M.P., Hultink, E.J., 2017. The circular economy
A new sustainability paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 143, 757–768.
Gentilini, E., 2020. Circular Solution to PV’s Impending Crisis. Arup. March 5. https:
//www.ecogeneration.com.au/circular-solution-to-pvs-impending-crisis/.
Gentilini, E., Salt, M., 2019. Circular Photovoltaics: Circular Business Models for
Australia’s Solar Photovoltaics Industry. Arup. https://www.arup.com/perspectives
/publications/promotional-materials/section/circular-business-models-for-austra
lia-solar-photovoltaics.
Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., Ulgiati, S., 2016. A review on circular economy: the expected
transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J. Clean.
Prod. 114, 11–32.
Gladkykh, G., Spittler, N., Davíðsdóttir, B., Diemer, A., 2018. Steady state of energy:
feedbacks and leverages for promoting or preventing sustainable energy system
development. Energy Pol. 120, 121–131.
Giurco, D., Littleboy, A., Boyle, T., Fyfe, J., White, S., 2014. Circular Economy: questions
for responsible minerals, additive manufacturing and recycling of metals. Resources
3 (2), 432–453.
Gunderson, R., Stuart, D., Petersen, B., Yun, S., 2018. Social conditions to better realize
the environmental gains of alternative energy: degrowth and collective ownership.
Futures 99, 36–44.
Hancock, L., Ralph, N., Armand, M., Macfarlane, D., Forsyth, M., 2018. In the lab: new
ethical and supply chain protocols for battery and solar alternative energy laboratory
research policy and practice. J. Clean. Prod. 187, 485–495.
Hobson, K., Lynch, N., 2016. Diversifying and de-growing the circular economy: radical
social transformation in a resource-scarce world. Futures 82, 15–25.
Illich, I., 1973. Tools for Conviviality. Harper & Row, New York.
International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), International Energy Agency (IEA),
2016. End of Life Management: Solar Photovoltaic Panels. https://www.irena.or
g/documentdownloads/publications/irena_ieapvps_end-of-life_solar_pv_panels
_2016.pdf.
IRP - International Resource Panel, 2018. Re-defining Value: the Manufacturing
Revolution-Remanufacturing, Refurbishment, Repair and Direct Reuse in the
Circular Economy. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
Jackson, T., 2005. Live better by consuming less? Is there a “double dividend” in
sustainable consumption. J. Ind. Ecol. 9 (1–2), 19–36.
Kallis, G., Kostakis, V., Lange, S., Muraca, B., Paulson, S., Schmelzer, M., 2018. Research
on degrowth. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 43, 291–316.
Kalmykova, Y., Sadagopan, M., Rosado, L., 2018. Circular economy – from review of
theories and practices to development of implementation tools. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 135, 190–201.
Kerschner, C., Ehlers, M.H., 2016. A framework of attitudes towards technology in theory
and practice. Ecol. Econ. 126, 139–151.
Kerschner, C., Wachter, P., Nierling, L., Ehlers, M.-H., 2018. Degrowth and Technology:
towards feasible, viable, appropriate and convivial imaginaries. J. Clean. Prod. 197,
1619–1636.
King, S., Boxall, N.J., Bhatt, A.I., 2018. Lithium Battery Recycling in Australia.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Australia.
https://publications.csiro.au/publications/#publication/PIcsiro:EP181926.
Kirchherr, J., Piscicelli, L., Bour, R., Kostense-Smit, E., Muller, J., Huibrechtse-
Truijens, A., Hekkert, M., 2018. Barriers to the circular economy: evidence from the
European union (EU). Ecol. Econ. 150, 264–272.
Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A., Seppälä, J., 2018. Circular economy: the concept and its
limitations. Ecol. Econ. 143, 37–46.
Kostakis, V., Latoufis, K., Liarokapis, M., Bauwens, M., 2018. The convergence of digital
commons with local manufacturing from a degrowth perspective: two illustrative
cases. J. Clean. Prod. 197, 1684–1693.
Kristensen, H.S., Mosgaard, M.A., 2020. A review of micro level indicators for a circular
economy: moving away from the three dimensions of sustainability? J. Clean. Prod.
243 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118531.
Kunze, C., Becker, S., 2015. Collective ownership in renewable energy and opportunities
for sustainable degrowth. Sustain. Sci. 10, 425–437.
Lizarralde, I., Tyl, B., 2018. A framework for the integration of the conviviality concept
in the design process. J. Clean. Prod. 197, 1766–1777.
Manufacturers Monthly, 2019. Investment to Create Circular Economy in Lithium
Battery Manufacturing. November 27. https://www.manmonthly.com.au/Investme
nt+to+create+circular+economy+in+lithium+battery+manufacturing.
Melin, H.E., 2017. The Lithium-Ion Battery End-Of-Life Market – A Baseline Study.
Global Battery Alliance. Circular Energy Storage. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/
GBA_EOL_baseline_Circular_Energy_Storage.pdf.
Moreau, V., Sahakian, M., Griethuysen, P.v., Vuille, F., 2017. Coming full circle: why
social and institutional dimensions matter for the circular economy. J. Ind. Ecol. 21
(3), 497–506.
Muraca, B., Neuber, F., 2018. Viable and convivial technologies: considerations on
Climate Engineering from a degrowth perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 197 (2),
1810–1822.
Murray, A., Skene, K., Haynes, K., 2017. The circular economy: an interdisciplinary
exploration of the concept and application in a global context. J. Bus. Ethics 140,
369–380.
Norgren, A., Carpenter, A., Heath, G., 2020. Design for recycling principles applicable to
selected clean energy technologies: crystalline-silicon photovoltaic modules, electric
vehicle batteries, and wind turbine blades. J. Sustain. Metal. 6, 761–774.
N. Ralph
Notman, N., 2019. A Battery Technology Worth its Salt. ChemistryWorld. October 28.
https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/a-battery-technology-worth-its-sal
t/3010966 (article).
Pagliaro, M., Meneguzzo, F., 2019. Lithium battery reusing and recycling: a circular
economy insight. Heliyon 5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01866.
Pansera, M., Owen, R., 2018. Innovation for degrowth: a case study of counter-
hegemonic practices from Kerala, India. J. Clean. Prod. 197, 1872–1883.
Parchomenko, A., Nelen, D., Gillabel, J., Rechberger, H., 2019. Measuring the circular
economy - a multiple correspondence analysis of 63 metrics. J. Clean. Prod. 210
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.357.
Potting, J., Hekkert, M., Worrell, E., Hanemaaijer, A., 2017. Circular Economy:
Measuring Innovation in the Product Chain. PBL Netherlands Environmental
Assessment Agency. http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-
2016-circular-economy-measuring-innovation-in-product-chains-2544.pdf.
Putnam, R.D., 2000. Bowling Alone: the Collapse and Revival of American Community.
Simon and Schuster, New York.
Raworth, K., 2017. Doughnut Economics Seven Ways to Think like a 21st Century
Economist. Random House Business Books, London.
Reuter, M.A., van Schaik, A., Gutzmer, J., Bartie, N., Abadías-Llamas, A., 2019.
Challenges of the circular economy: a material, metallurgical, and product design
perspective. Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 49, 253–274.
Rommel, J., Radtke, J., von Jorck, G., Mey, F., Yildiz, Ö., 2018. Community renewable
energy at a crossroads: a think piece on degrowth, technology, and the
democratization of the German energy system. J. Clean. Prod. 197, 1746–1753.
Saidani, M., Yannou, B., Leroy, Y., Cluzel, F., Kendall, A., 2019. A taxonomy of circular
economy indicators. J. Clean. Prod. 207, 542–559.
Samerski, S., 2018. Tools for degrowth? Ivan Illich’s critique of technology revisited.
J. Clean. Prod. 197, 1637–1646.
Santos, L.L., Borini, F.M., Oliveira Júnior, M.dM., 2020. In search of the frugal
innovation strategy. Rev. Int. Business Strat. 30 (2), 245–263.
Sassanelli, C., Urbinati, A., Rosaa, P., Chiaroni, D., Terzi, S., 2020. Addressing circular
economy through design for X approaches: a systematic literature review. Comput.
Ind. 120 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2020.103245.
Schröder, P., Bengtsson, M., Cohen, M., Dewick, P., Hoffstetter, J., Sarkis, J., 2019.
Degrowth within – aligning circular economy and strong sustainability narratives.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 146, 190–191.
Shaibani, M., 2020. Solar Panel Recycling. PV Magazine. May 27. https://www.pv-mag
azine-australia.com/2020/05/27/solar-panel-recycling-turning-ticking-time-
bombs-into-opportunities/.
10
Journal of Cleaner Production 319 (2021) 128549
Strand, R., Saltelli, A., Giampietro, M., Rommetveit, K., Funtowicz, S., 2018. New
narratives for innovation. J. Clean. Prod. 197, 1849–1853.
Sumter, D., de Koning, J., Bakker, C., Balkenende, R., 2021. Key competencies for design
in a circular economy: exploring gaps in design knowledge and skills for a circular
economy. Sustainability 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020776.
Thakker, V., Bakshi, B.R., 2021. Toward sustainable circular economies: a computational
framework for assessment and design. J. Clean. Prod. 295, 126353.
Trainer, T., Alexander, S., 2019. The simpler way: envisioning a sustainable society in an
age of limits. Real-World Econ. Rev. 87, 247–260.
Tsang, M.P., Sonnemann, G.W., Bassani, D.M., 2016. Life-cycle assessment of cradle-to-
grave opportunities and environmental impacts of organic photovoltaic solar panels
compared to conventional technologies. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cell. 156, 37–48.
UN Environment Programme, 2020. Global Material Flows Database. https://www.res
ourcepanel.org/global-material-flows-database.
van Buren, N., Demmers, M., van der Heijden, R., Witlox, F., 2016. Towards a circular
economy: the role of Dutch logistics industries and governments. Sustainability 8 (7),
1–17.
van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., 2017. A third option for climate policy within potential limits to
growth. Nat. Clim. Change 7 (2), 107–112.
Vegter, D., Van Hillegersberg, J., Olthaar, M., 2020. Supply chains in circular business
models: processes and performance objectives. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 162 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105046.
Vetter, A.M.A., 2018. The matrix of convivial technology: assessing technologies for
Degrowth. J. Clean. Prod. 197, 1778–1786.
Victoria State Government, 2020. February 26). Ten-Year Plan to Boost Recycling. Media
release. https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/200226-Te
n-Year-Plan-To-Boost-Recycling-Reduce-Waste-And-Create-Jobs.pdf.
Vita, G., Lundstrom, J.R., Hertwich, E.G., Quist, J., Ivanova, D., Stadler, K., Wood, R.,
2019. The environmental impact of green consumption and sufficiency lifestyles
scenarios in Europe. Ecol. Econ. 164, 106322.
Watari, T., Nansai, K., Nakajima, K., Giurco, D., 2021. Sustainable energy transitions
require enhanced resource governance. J. Clean. Prod. 312, 127698. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127698.
World Economic Forum (WEF), Global Battery Alliance, 2019. A Vision for a Sustainable
Battery Value Chain in 2030: Unlocking the Full Potential to Power Sustainable
Development and Climate Change Mitigation. WEF. http://www3.weforum.org/
docs/WEF_A_Vision_for_a_Sustainable_Battery_Value_Chain_in_2030_Report.pdf.
Zink, T., Geyer, R., 2017. Circular economy rebound. J. Ind. Ecol. 21 (3), 593–602.