Sustainable Development Goals

What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.

The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields (Chinese Translation)

Characterization and Properties of Natural Fiber Polymer Composites: A Comprehensive Review

Sustainability assessment is being increasingly viewed as an important tool to aid in the shift towards sustainability. However, this is a new and evolving concept and there remain very few examples of effective sustainability assessment processes implemented anywhere in the world. Sustainability assessment is often described as a process by which the implications of an initiative on sustainability are evaluated, where the initiative can be a proposed or existing policy, plan, programme, project, piece of legislation, or a current practice or activity. However, this generic definition covers a broad range of different processes, many of which have been described in the literature as 'sustainability assessment'. This article seeks to provide some clarification by reflecting on the different approaches described in the literature as being forms of sustainability assessment, and evaluating them in terms of their potential contributions to sustainability. Many of these are actually examples of 'integrated assessment', derived from environmental impact assessment (EIA) and strategic environmental assessment (SEA), but which have been extended to incorporate social and economic considerations as well as environmental ones, reflecting a 'triple bottom line' (TBL) approach to sustainability. These integrated assessment processes typically either seek to minimise 'unsustainability', or to achieve TBL objectives. Both aims may, or may not, result in sustainable practice. We present an alternative conception of sustainability assessment, with the more ambitious aim of seeking to determine whether or not an initiative is actually sustainable. We term such processes 'assessment for sustainability'. 'Assessment for sustainability' firstly requires that the concept of sustainability be well-defined. The article compares TBL approaches and principles-based approaches to developing such sustainability criteria, concluding that the latter are more appropriate, since they avoid many of the inherent limitations of the triple-bottom-line as a conception of sustainability.

Conceptualising sustainability assessment

Over the last decade, the concept of the circular economy has regained attention, especially related to efforts to achieve a more sustainable society. The ‘revival’ of the circular economy has been accompanied by controversies and confusions across different actors in science and practice. With this article we attempt at contributing to advanced clarity in the field and providing a heuristic that is useful in practice. Initially, we take a focus on the historical development of the concept of circular economy and value retention options (ROs) for products and materials aiming for increased circularity. We propose to distinguish three phases in the evolution of the circular economy and argue that the concept – in its dominant framing – is not as new as frequently claimed. Having established this background knowledge, we give insights into ‘how far we are’ globally, with respect to the implementation of circularity, arguing that high levels of circularity have already been reached in different parts of the globe with regard to longer loop value retention options, such as energy recovery and recycling. Subsequently, we show that the confusion surrounding the circular economy is more far reaching. We summarize the divergent perspectives on retention options and unite the most common views a 10R typology. From our analyses, we conclude that policymakers and businesses should focus their efforts on realization of the more desirable, shorter loop retention options, like remanufacturing, refurbishing and repurposing – yet with a view on feasibility and overall system effects. Scholars, on the other hand, should assist the parties contributing to an increased circular economy in practice by taking up a more active role in attaining consensus in conceptualizing the circular economy.

The circular economy: New or Refurbished as CE 3.0? — Exploring Controversies in the Conceptualization of the Circular Economy through a Focus on History and Resource Value Retention Options

Circular Economy (CE) is a growing topic, especially in the European Union, that promotes the responsible and cyclical use of resources possibly contributing to sustainable development. CE is an umbrella concept incorporating different meanings. Despite the unclear concept, CE is turned into defined action plans supported by specific indicators. To understand what indicators used in CE measure specifically, we propose a classification framework to categorise indicators according to reasoning on what (CE strategies) and how (measurement scope). Despite different types, CE strategies can be grouped according to their attempt to preserve functions, products, components, materials, or embodied energy; additionally, indicators can measure the linear economy as a reference scenario. The measurement scope shows how indicators account for technological cycles with or without a Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) approach; or their effects on environmental, social, or economic dimensions. To illustrate the classification framework, we selected quantitative micro scale indicators from literature and macro scale indicators from the European Union 'CE monitoring framework'. The framework illustration shows that most of the indicators focus on the preservation of materials, with strategies such as recycling. However, micro scale indicators can also focus on other CE strategies considering LCT approach, while the European indicators mostly account for materials often without taking LCT into account. Furthermore, none of the available indicators can assess the preservation of functions instead of products, with strategies such as sharing platforms, schemes for product redundancy, or multifunctionality. Finally, the framework illustration suggests that a set of indicators should be used to assess CE instead of a single indicator.

https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8617340/file/8617343.pdf

Circular economy indicators: What do they measure?

The profitability and sustainability of future biorefineries are dependent on efficient feedstock use. Therefore, it is essential to valorize lignin when using wood. We have developed an integrated biorefinery that converts 78 weight % (wt %) of birch into xylochemicals. Reductive catalytic fractionation of the wood produces a carbohydrate pulp amenable to bioethanol production and a lignin oil. After extraction of the lignin oil, the crude, unseparated mixture of phenolic monomers is catalytically funneled into 20 wt % of phenol and 9 wt % of propylene (on the basis of lignin weight) by gas-phase hydroprocessing and dealkylation; the residual phenolic oligomers (30 wt %) are used in printing ink as replacements for controversial para-nonylphenol. A techno-economic analysis predicts an economically competitive production process, and a life-cycle assessment estimates a lower carbon dioxide footprint relative to that of fossil-based production.

/pdf/a-sustainable-wood-biorefinery-for-low-carbon-footprint-zp3p92lahc.pdf

Karel Van Acker

Papers

Circular economy indicators: What do they measure?

A sustainable wood biorefinery for low–carbon footprint chemicals production

Bridging the gap between LCA, LCC and CBA as sustainability assessment tools

Downcycling versus recycling of construction and demolition waste: Combining LCA and LCC to support sustainable policy making.

Metal recycling: opportunities, limits, infrastructure