Search

A paradigm shift towards the circular economy (CE) is proposed by academics to foster a sustainable future. However, in the current CE concept, the social dimension of sustainability is marginally considered. Here, circular social enterprises (SEs) can play a role in integrating the social dimension in the CE concept to foster a socially just CE, as they prioritise their social objectives. Therefore, this research examined the strategies through which circular SEs can foster a socially just CE. In particular, this research used an environmental justice perspective (including procedural, recognitional and distributive justice) to identify the social issues and injustices in the CE. Moreover, the research looked into the differences in the employed strategies between three SE types, the entrepreneurial non profit, social cooperative and the social business, as the features that address the social issues manifest differently in these SEs. A comparative case study was therefore employed, analysing twelve SEs based on 24 interviews and 56 archival data sources. The results emphasise that the circular SEs can address all three dimensions of environmental justice holistically through five of their main features. First, the circular SEs utilise their economic surplus for environmental and social impact, reconceptualising surplus (distributive justice). Moreover, the economic surplus can be reinvested by the circular SEs in potential environmental injustices in the CE, fostering a socially just CE. Moreover, the circular SEs embody behavioural, financial, educational and technological accessibility through four different strategies (addressing distributive justice), namely: explicitly integrating accessibility in their social mission, providing (circular) capabilities to socially excluded groups, adopting technological accessibility in their business model and including access to CE information. Especially the entrepreneurial non-profits were found to include access to CE in

The dominant conception of the circular economy presents it as a politically neutral, technology-driven process of efficiency improvements and green market expansion. However, it does not consider the social embedding of circularity and thereby risks undermining the transition out of de facto linear economies. This paper begins with a critique of the dominant conception of the circular economy and its shortcomings in relation to allocation, justice, and sustainable scale. Second, the paper contributes toward theorizing an alternative, social economy-based embedding of circularity. We theorize how the social economy embeds circularity through: (1) business models reflecting the needs and interests of their stakeholders and, with them, a primacy of social value creation; (2) production and consumption based on active citizen involvement in deliberation and decision-making; (3) an approach to technology that seeks to empower technology users; and (4) the promotion of regional economies and circular value chains based on a sense of place. Our theory propositions are inspired by prior empirical research at the intersection of the circular economy and the social economy. We discuss the potential and the challenges of a social economy embedding of circularity against the background of vested interests and incumbents profiting from low circularity and unsustainability.

Community-based energy systems are gaining traction among policymakers and practitioners as promising models for implementing a low-carbon energy transition. As a result, there has been a proliferation of concepts in the scientific literature, such as community energy, energy communities, community solar, and community wind. However, what scholars mean by “community” in these contexts is often unclear and inconsistent. This paper provides further conceptual clarity in the field by analyzing how the term of community is conceptualized in the scholarly literature on energy systems, through a systematic review of 405 articles. We combine an author keyword network analysis of this corpus with an in-depth analysis of 183 definitions extracted from these articles and systematically coded across three dimensions: meanings, activities and objectives of communities. Our findings show that the meanings attached to the notion of community and the alleged objectives pursued by communities vary substantially across concepts and over time. In particular, there has been a shift away from a notion of community understood as a process that emphasizes participatory aspects toward a notion of community primarily referring to a place. Furthermore, there is a growing focus on communities' economic objectives rather than their social or political goals. These findings suggest a weakening of scholars’ attention to “transformative” notions of community emphasizing collective and grassroots processes of participation in energy transitions, to the benefit of “instrumental” notions. This trend runs the risk of placing the sole emphasis on the market value of communities, thereby diluting their distinctiveness from more commercial actors., Integral Design and Management

Technological innovations are a key part of the energy transition. However, the social sphere as a force to facilitate the energy transition must not be neglected. While the socio-technical transition theory provides a framework to connect the technological with the social sphere, the role of the individuals within the transition process remains limited (Upham et al. 2020). Individuals are reduced to the role of consumers and technology users (Avelino and Wittmayer 2016; Nijhof et al. 2022), and the social sphere is subject to change rather than an instigator of it (Kivimaa et al. 2021). Potentially alternative concepts need to be developed and employed to understand the role of the individual within the energy transition. With a focus on the energy transition, this special feature is dedicated to compiling scientific contributions that provide insights into how the individual is embedded within the larger system and how individuals are facilitating the energy transition. Thus, the role of the individual is not limited to the consumer or the user of technology. Rather special feature contributions identify how individuals are agents of change within the energy transition. Furthermore, the seed of change is not limited to technological or market innovations but includes, for example, social innovations contributing to the energy transition. Scientific articles will also provide insights into how individuals are embedded within the larger system. To shed fresh light on interconnections and the role of individuals in the energy transition, alternative approaches to socio-technical or socio-economic transition theory are welcomed., Organisation & Governance, Energie and Industrie