4.7 Article

Do we need a 'circular society'? Competing narratives of the circular economy in the French food sector

Journal

ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS
Volume 187, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107086

Keywords

Sustainability; Social and solidarity economy; Circularity; Waste; Discourse; France

Funding

  1. Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Germany [031B0018]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The impact of circular economy (CE) narratives on promoting social equity remains unknown, with a focus on how these narratives affect waste management in the French food sector. New narratives in CE may propose market-focused solutions, but could potentially exacerbate social and environmental issues.
How a circular economy (CE) can promote social equity remains largely unknown. We analyze how CE narratives affect interpretations of problems and actions on waste in the French food sector, particularly around the Loi Garot. We identify CE narratives that challenge the sector's previous discourse of a social and solidarity economy (SSE) by advancing market-focused solutions and actors. We show how these narratives create solutions that do not automatically serve social goals and demand food waste instead of mitigating it. Our results suggest that the new CE narratives may either open sector debates to more viable solutions for limited access to food or exacerbate the social and environmental problems of food waste. If we want CE policies and initiatives to address pressing issues of distributive justice and equality of opportunity that often underpin wastefulness, CE narratives need to foreground these issues. A possible way to do so could be to develope narratives for a 'circular society' instead of a 'circular economy'. We suggest future research to explore options for such new narratives, emphasizing problems of social equity and offering visions for a 'circular society'.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available