Inese Zepa , Vivian Z. Grudde , Catharina R. Bening
{"title":"Legitimising technologies for a circular economy: Contested discourses on innovation for plastics recycling in Europe","authors":"Inese Zepa , Vivian Z. Grudde , Catharina R. Bening","doi":"10.1016/j.eist.2024.100811","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The European Commission aims to increase the recycling of plastic packaging to 60% by 2025, requiring fundamental changes towards a more circular economy. Pathways for this transition require policy support that largely depends on their legitimacy in the public discourse. These normative aspects remain poorly understood for ‘in-between’ technologies, i.e., technologies that are no longer novel but struggle to move to the growth phase within the technological innovation system. Therefore, we ask: How do discourses shape technology legitimacy for in-between technologies? Drawing on the empirical example of chemical recycling, the analysis renders two principal findings. First, legitimising and delegitimising storylines present contesting views on in-between technologies regarding their technological aspects, environmental and social impacts, and economic and policy implications. Second, how discourses contribute to technology legitimacy depends on the actors and interests that drive the prevalent storylines in particular contexts.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54294,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210422424000029/pdfft?md5=7bb9b1b0bfb3268add4ee6bfb616afa1&pid=1-s2.0-S2210422424000029-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210422424000029","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The European Commission aims to increase the recycling of plastic packaging to 60% by 2025, requiring fundamental changes towards a more circular economy. Pathways for this transition require policy support that largely depends on their legitimacy in the public discourse. These normative aspects remain poorly understood for ‘in-between’ technologies, i.e., technologies that are no longer novel but struggle to move to the growth phase within the technological innovation system. Therefore, we ask: How do discourses shape technology legitimacy for in-between technologies? Drawing on the empirical example of chemical recycling, the analysis renders two principal findings. First, legitimising and delegitimising storylines present contesting views on in-between technologies regarding their technological aspects, environmental and social impacts, and economic and policy implications. Second, how discourses contribute to technology legitimacy depends on the actors and interests that drive the prevalent storylines in particular contexts.
期刊介绍:
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions serves as a platform for reporting studies on innovations and socio-economic transitions aimed at fostering an environmentally sustainable economy, thereby addressing structural resource scarcity and environmental challenges, particularly those associated with fossil energy use and climate change. The journal focuses on various forms of innovation, including technological, organizational, economic, institutional, and political, as well as economy-wide and sectoral changes in areas such as energy, transport, agriculture, and water management. It endeavors to tackle complex questions concerning social, economic, behavioral-psychological, and political barriers and opportunities, along with their intricate interactions. With a multidisciplinary approach and methodological openness, the journal welcomes contributions from a wide array of disciplines within the social, environmental, and innovation sciences.