Beyond closing the loop – integrating social considerations into circular economy transitions in cities

The paper examines stakeholder perceptions of the circular economy (CE) transition in Umeå, Sweden. It finds that current social impact considerations are narrow, focusing primarily on employment shifts and community cohesion, while neglecting health, well-being, and property rights. The authors argue for a broader assessment framework that includes job quality, accessibility for vulnerable groups, and the implications of digitalization.

• Stakeholders in Umeå generally perceive the circular economy as a means to achieve positive environmental and economic gains, often associating it with the sharing economy and sustainability. Their understanding focuses on four main areas: prolonging product lifespans through reusing, rethinking, and recycling; sharing initiatives; sustainable production and consumption; and the use of renewable resources.
• Employment is the most frequently discussed social impact area, with stakeholders identifying potential job gains from CE strategies but also significant job losses in the retail market, construction sector, and car industry. There is a noted risk that local circular gains could lead to negative impacts on exporting nations with emerging economies.
• While many stakeholders believe CE initiatives can enhance social cohesion and trust by creating new social ties, others highlight pitfalls. These include the lack of sustainability in some sharing services (e.g., Uber), physical and digital accessibility barriers, and the time-intensive nature of CE activities.
• There is a perceived social divide in the governance of Umeå's CE transition. Many stakeholders, particularly from civil society, feel that current collaborations are insufficient and that grassroots participation is limited to those already supportive of the vision.
• Digital transformation within the circular economy is identified as a risk for marginalized groups, specifically elderly people and migrants, who may lack the necessary technology and skills for digital empowerment.
• The study concludes that social impact considerations in circular city transitions are currently too narrow. The authors recommend expanding assessments to include job quality (rather than just quantity), the accessibility of initiatives, and the impacts on personal and property rights, which are currently barely discussed.

APA

S., R., F., V., & K., A. (2022). Beyond closing the loop – integrating social considerations into circular economy transitions in cities. Stockholm Environment Institute. https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/rezaie-et-al.-2022-beyond-closing-the-loop.pdf

Chicago

S., Rezaie,, Vanhuyse, F., and André, K. Beyond closing the loop – integrating social considerations into circular economy transitions in cities. Stockholm Environment Institute, 2022. https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/rezaie-et-al.-2022-beyond-closing-the-loop.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=S. |first1=Rezaie, |last2=F. |first2=Vanhuyse, |last3=K. |first3=André, |title=Beyond closing the loop – integrating social considerations into circular economy transitions in cities |publisher=Stockholm Environment Institute |date=2022 |url=https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/rezaie-et-al.-2022-beyond-closing-the-loop.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{s2022beyond, author = {S., Rezaie, and F., Vanhuyse, and K., André,}, title = {{Beyond closing the loop – integrating social considerations into circular economy transitions in cities}}, institution = {Stockholm Environment Institute}, year = {2022}, url = {https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/rezaie-et-al.-2022-beyond-closing-the-loop.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }