The social impacts of circular economy: disclosing epistemological stances and methodological practices
Nathalie Iofrida,Emanuele Spada,Giovanni Gulisano,Anna Irene De Luca,Giacomo Falcone
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-05438-z
IF: 4.08
2024-10-06
Environment Development and Sustainability
Abstract:The essence of circular economy is about closing the loop of material flows by reducing, reusing, recovering and recycling, ensuring the economic prosperity without any detriment for the environment. However, few information is available about the contribution of circular systems to the social dimension of sustainability (such as well-being, quality of life), how these aspects are evaluated and why they are deemed as important. The purpose of this study is to review those scientific studies that dealt with the social sustainability evaluations of circular systems to highlight new aspects: not only which are the most applied methodologies, which impact categories and indicators are mostly taken into account, but, above all, which is the most diffused epistemological position underlying the evaluation of social aspects of circularity. This last aspect is often disregarded but of utmost importance because it shapes the approaches and procedures choice, and legitimate and justify the insights provided: indeed, they can be the most diverse when dealing with social sciences, which are multiparadigmatic sciences. To the best of our knowledge, no studies have so far emerged that directly investigate the epistemological basis of social impacts within the circular economy. A systematic and hermeneutic review of the scientific literature has been led through a two steps method. The first step, dedicated to search and acquisition, consisted in a standardized replicable process called Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). In a second phase, a hermeneutic review has been conducted on the selected publications. Among the 42 studies reviewed, 7 papers were framed within the post-positivism paradigms, while 83,3% were based on interpretivist paradigms, showing how it is difficult to find consensus on standardized quantification methods for social impacts in circular economy studies. The most recurring qualitative methods relied on personal interpretations, perceptions or observations.
environmental sciences,green & sustainable science & technology