Exploratory Study on Circular Economy Approaches A Comparative Analysis of Theory and Practice

10 2 Theoretical Foundations

2.2 Resource Management and Sustainable Development

As described in the previous chapter, the concept of sustainable development has

increased in attention since the 1970s. Not only are politicians and governmental

and non-governmental organizations showing interest in the topic, but in academia

this fairly new research field has become more and more important. As mentioned

previously, the definition of sustainable development in the Brundtland Report is

probably the best-known but following its publication the concept of sustainable

development advanced significantly and took on various different definitions and

descriptions, e.g. Barbier 1987; Pearce et al. 1989; Lélé 1991; Common and Perrings

The most recent debate has tended to focus on the differentiation between

weak and strong sustainability (Grissom et al. 2014).

The origin for these two paradigms is that capital is a key concept for human

well-being and should for that reason remain at a permanent level and under no

circumstances decline. Capital can be defined as the “stock that possesses the ca-

pacity of giving rise to flows of goods and/or services” (Ekins et al. 2003, p. 166).

The controversial subject in this debate between weak and strong sustainability

concerns the substitutability of all forms of capital: man-made capital, human

capital, and natural capital (Pearce and Atkinson 1998). Natural capital represents

every structure and process that provides ecosystem functions. Whereas human

and man-made capital describes e.g. production plants, infrastructure but also

skills and knowledge (Ang and van Passel 2012).

Weak sustainability assumes that all forms of capital are substitutes, which means

that they can replace each other without any loss or change in social wellbeing.

Supporters of this view therefore argue that the exploitation of one kind of capital

(particularly natural capital) can be replaced by other forms of capital. Solely the

aggregate stock level of capital matters, which should therefore be maintained or

ideally added to. Degradation of natural capital can be compensated by the esti-

mated equivalent amount of other forms of capital (Pelenc and Ballet 2015). The

theory requires sufficient technological innovations to compensate environmental

damage and to maintain human well-being (Ang and van Passel 2012). Prominent

supporters of this view are P. Dasgupta and Heal, J. M. Hartwick and R. M. Solow.

Strong sustainability on the other hand contradicts the view that capital can be

kept at the same level by replacing one form of capital with another one. Instead,

advocates (such as Ekins et al. 2003; Chiesura and Groot 2003; Groot et al. 2003;

Neumayer 2003) of strong sustainability see different forms of capital as comple-

mentary for human well-being with a qualitative difference (Ekins et al. 2003; Daly

1995). Supporters are skeptical or even pessimistic when it comes to the question,

if technological progress is sufficient to e.g. replace exploited natural capital.