拆解循环经济:一篇有问题的评论

IF 7.5 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS
Tulin Dzhengiz, Elizabeth M. Miller, Jukka-Pekka Ovaska, Samuli Patala
{"title":"拆解循环经济:一篇有问题的评论","authors":"Tulin Dzhengiz,&nbsp;Elizabeth M. Miller,&nbsp;Jukka-Pekka Ovaska,&nbsp;Samuli Patala","doi":"10.1111/ijmr.12329","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Transitioning to a circular economy (CE) model has been proposed to solve many grand environmental challenges. While research on CE has been extensively reviewed, less is known about the implicit underlying assumptions of this work. Understanding these assumptions is critical as they typically go unchallenged yet play a significant role in shaping research fields. In this paper we conduct a problematizing review to critically analyse and make explicit the in-house, root metaphor and ideological assumptions that inform the framing of CE. Firstly, we demonstrate various <i>in-house assumptions</i> about CE, such as an emphasis on the business case for CE and the relationship between CE and corporate sustainability. Secondly, <i>root metaphor assumptions</i> include circularity and industrial relationships resembling biological metabolisms. Finally, the dominant <i>ideological assumptions</i>-neoliberalism and ecological modernization-guide scholarly thinking about growth, consumption and profit maximization. Based on our analysis and drawing on the ongoing CE debates within broader environmental studies, we suggest new agendas for future research. We contribute to the growing literature on CE in business, management and organization studies by identifying assumptions that may be misleading or limiting for future CE research, as well as to the conversations on grand challenges by discussing the implications of how challenges and solutions are framed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48326,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Management Reviews","volume":"25 2","pages":"270-296"},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijmr.12329","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unpacking the circular economy: A problematizing review\",\"authors\":\"Tulin Dzhengiz,&nbsp;Elizabeth M. Miller,&nbsp;Jukka-Pekka Ovaska,&nbsp;Samuli Patala\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ijmr.12329\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Transitioning to a circular economy (CE) model has been proposed to solve many grand environmental challenges. While research on CE has been extensively reviewed, less is known about the implicit underlying assumptions of this work. Understanding these assumptions is critical as they typically go unchallenged yet play a significant role in shaping research fields. In this paper we conduct a problematizing review to critically analyse and make explicit the in-house, root metaphor and ideological assumptions that inform the framing of CE. Firstly, we demonstrate various <i>in-house assumptions</i> about CE, such as an emphasis on the business case for CE and the relationship between CE and corporate sustainability. Secondly, <i>root metaphor assumptions</i> include circularity and industrial relationships resembling biological metabolisms. Finally, the dominant <i>ideological assumptions</i>-neoliberalism and ecological modernization-guide scholarly thinking about growth, consumption and profit maximization. Based on our analysis and drawing on the ongoing CE debates within broader environmental studies, we suggest new agendas for future research. We contribute to the growing literature on CE in business, management and organization studies by identifying assumptions that may be misleading or limiting for future CE research, as well as to the conversations on grand challenges by discussing the implications of how challenges and solutions are framed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48326,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Management Reviews\",\"volume\":\"25 2\",\"pages\":\"270-296\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijmr.12329\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Management Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijmr.12329\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Management Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijmr.12329","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

摘要

人们提出向循环经济(CE)模式过渡,以解决许多重大的环境挑战。虽然对CE的研究已被广泛审查,但对这项工作的隐含潜在假设知之甚少。理解这些假设是至关重要的,因为它们通常不受挑战,但在塑造研究领域中发挥着重要作用。在本文中,我们进行了一个问题化的回顾,批判性地分析和明确内部的、根本的隐喻和意识形态假设,这些隐喻和假设为语言表达的框架提供了信息。首先,我们展示了关于CE的各种内部假设,例如强调CE的商业案例以及CE与企业可持续性之间的关系。其次,根隐喻假设包括循环和类似生物代谢的工业关系。最后,占主导地位的意识形态假设——新自由主义和生态现代化——指导了关于增长、消费和利润最大化的学术思考。根据我们的分析和在更广泛的环境研究中正在进行的行政长官辩论,我们建议未来研究的新议程。我们通过识别可能对未来的CE研究产生误导或限制的假设,以及通过讨论如何构建挑战和解决方案的含义来讨论重大挑战,从而为商业、管理和组织研究中越来越多的CE文献做出贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Unpacking the circular economy: A problematizing review

Unpacking the circular economy: A problematizing review

Transitioning to a circular economy (CE) model has been proposed to solve many grand environmental challenges. While research on CE has been extensively reviewed, less is known about the implicit underlying assumptions of this work. Understanding these assumptions is critical as they typically go unchallenged yet play a significant role in shaping research fields. In this paper we conduct a problematizing review to critically analyse and make explicit the in-house, root metaphor and ideological assumptions that inform the framing of CE. Firstly, we demonstrate various in-house assumptions about CE, such as an emphasis on the business case for CE and the relationship between CE and corporate sustainability. Secondly, root metaphor assumptions include circularity and industrial relationships resembling biological metabolisms. Finally, the dominant ideological assumptions-neoliberalism and ecological modernization-guide scholarly thinking about growth, consumption and profit maximization. Based on our analysis and drawing on the ongoing CE debates within broader environmental studies, we suggest new agendas for future research. We contribute to the growing literature on CE in business, management and organization studies by identifying assumptions that may be misleading or limiting for future CE research, as well as to the conversations on grand challenges by discussing the implications of how challenges and solutions are framed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.60
自引率
7.40%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Management Reviews (IJMR) stands as the premier global review journal in Organisation and Management Studies (OMS). Its published papers aim to provide substantial conceptual contributions, acting as a strategic platform for new research directions. IJMR plays a pivotal role in influencing how OMS scholars conceptualize research in their respective fields. The journal's reviews critically assess the state of knowledge in specific fields, appraising the conceptual foundations of competing paradigms to advance current and future research in the area.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信