RESUMEN
The circular economy (CE) gives rise to paradigm shifts in the understanding, practice and regulation of waste, challenging a waste sector built for the linear waste paradigm of waste streams rather than value streams. We examine how a waste management company developed value streams, caught between increasing competition for waste types with high market value, and rigid regulation limiting the development of new streams. This cross-pressure necessitates new knowledge and practices to not only transform waste streams into value streams, but also to prioritize the inner circles prescribed by the CE paradigm. There is a potential for increasing reuse of products that have been collected as waste or handed in at municipal recycling stations. However, if the product value is not sufficient to be attractive for the existing market, then the value must be added, and a market must be created. There is a great deal still to learn about what it takes to create value out of waste products and what the role of municipal waste companies is in that process. Our findings indicate that unlocking the potential of waste (in this case, old bricks and waste electrical and electronic equipment) has been far from straightforward. Value must be created through several activities, requiring collaboration between a range of actors as well as new knowledge and business competencies. This contribution aims to open discussion on what it takes for waste management companies to navigate the new complexities in the transition from waste to resource management.
Asunto(s)
Administración de Residuos , Residuos , Reciclaje , Electrónica , Dinamarca , Residuos Sólidos/análisisRESUMEN
A circular economy (CE) aims to reduce waste and encourages keeping products, components, and materials circulating in the economy. Furthermore, following the European waste hierarchy, preparing for re-use (PfR) is regarded as a better waste management option than recycling. Nevertheless, too many products with a reuse potential end up as waste. This includes residuals from products that have no major value and are therefore not demanded by the current system. As a result, products are prematurely recycled. This contradicts both the priority order of the waste hierarchy and the principles of a CE. This article investigates the potential of and constraints to reusing products that are disposed of at municipal recycling stations. It aims to improve our understanding of these issues and offers possible solutions that could enable municipal waste companies to transition from waste to resource management and reach the upper levels of the waste hierarchy, preparing waste for re-use. Interviews with relevant stakeholders, desk studies and knowledge obtained from participating in waste conferences over the past 3 years are all used to analyze PfR practice at five municipal waste management companies in Denmark. Pioneers with respect to circularity in the waste sector, which have been experimenting with and initiating PfR schemes concerning a range of products, including building materials, furniture, white goods and bicycles, are considered because they support the inner cycles of the CE. However, results reveal that the current transition consists of complex processes connected to an ambivalent legal framework and struggles over access and rights to resources. Further, a more coherent conceptual understanding of PfR is needed as the current understanding has a too narrow focus on restoring product value rather than coupling PfR processes to the market. Thus, challenges to achieving higher PfR rates seem to go beyond engaging in strategic partnerships, creating financial incentives and setting separate targets for PfR. Consequently, a more holistic investigation appears to be necessary to deepen our understanding of processes of resource management and use and the contestation that exists over these. Furthermore, a wider mapping of the actors operating in the tension area of PfR, including their willingness to cooperate and negotiate a zone of agreement, could prove beneficial to practitioners and policy developers alike.