Ecological sustainability of material resources – Why material efficiency just isn’t enough

Deckert, Carsten

doi:10.1007/s00550-016-0419-2

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Innovation with regard to resource efficiency, thus, may remain the core challenge for sustainable resource management for the coming decades. Beneath the classic approaches of exploration of new deposits and the increase of resource efficiency, the enlargement of current linear business models to closed-loop ("circular") business models, contains the potential of desired corporate longevity [62].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potentials of business model innovation and values-based management approaches in the mining sector

Drusche

Krause

2021

E3S Web Conf.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mining is known to cause high ecological and social impacts especially due to its extractive nature on one hand and its resources and reserves mostly being located in developing or emerging economies on the other hand. Thus, it can be considered to have a paramount role in terms of making a significant contribution to sustainable development. Bearing in mind the growing economic output generated by humans and the growing world population, it is no wonder that related human-driven activities have never had such a strong (and at the same time burdening) influence on the biosphere resulting in exceedance of the planetary system boundaries. The critical reflection of the interaction between material cycles and economic growth is essential for reducing environmental burdens resulting from unthinking consumption patterns and production, and initial material extraction. The latest findings in academia confirm this assumption and point out that most practitioners are already aware of the urgent need for a redefinition of the sector’s understanding of success, taking into account the needs of both shareholders and stakeholders. Furthermore, the extractive sector has gained an image of being outdated. Agrowing number of decision-makers sees the necessity for a sustainable approach to business models that also embraces digitalization. The purpose of the paper is to analyze the standard business model that still dominates the mining industry, followed by a comparison of recent scientific findings on sustainability-oriented business model innovation and values-based innovation management to derive recommendations for potential sector-specific business model archetypes that contribute to the urgent redefinition.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potentials of business model innovation and values-based management approaches in the mining sector

Drusche

Krause

2021

E3S Web Conf.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(2019), Geyer et al. (2016a), 2016b, Deckert (2016), European Commission (2013), Gala et al. (2015), Gößling (2001), Haas et al.…”

Section: Development Of a Downcycling Conceptmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(2018), Benton and Hazell (2013), Binnemanns et al. (2013), Blomsma and Tennant (2020), Cullen (2017), Deckert (2016), Dewulf et al. (2021), Eriksen et al.…”

Section: Development Of a Downcycling Conceptmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bachmann et al (2018),Benton and Hazell (2013), Binnemanns et al (2013),Blomsma and Tennant (2020),Cullen (2017),Deckert (2016), Dewulf et al (2021), Eriksen et al (2020), Gandenberger et al (2012), Godoy León et al (2020), Gößling (2001), Ihnát et al (2020), Johansson and Krook (2021), Lèbre et al (2017), Schaubroeck et al (2021),Valero and Valero (2015),van Eygen et al (2016),Worrell et al (2016), and Ziemann et al …”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…is taken byBachmann et al (2018),Bakker et al (2019),Corona et al (2019), Geyer et al (2016a), 2016b, Deckert (2016, European Commission (2013),Gala et al (2015),Gößling (2001),Haas et al (2015),Huysman et al (2015),Horodytska et al (2020),Koffler and Florin (2013),Kristof and Hennicke (2010),Mohajan (2020),Ortego et al (2018a),Orzol and Lieberwirth (2018),Risse et al (2019), Sanchis-Sebastiá et al (2021), Tanguay et al (2021), and Worrell et al (2016.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A terminology for downcycling

Helbig

Huether

Joachimsthaler

et al. 2022

J of Industrial Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The term downcycling is often used anecdotally to describe imperfections in recycling. However, it is rarely defined. Here, we identify six meanings of the term downcycling as used in scientific articles and reports. These encompass the material quality of reprocessed materials, target applications, product value, alloying element losses, material systems, and additional primary production. In a proposal for harmonized and more specific terminology, we define downcycling as the phenomenon of quality reduction of materials reprocessed from waste relative to their original quality. We further identify that the reduced quality can express itself thermodynamically, functionally, and economically, covering all perspectives on downcycling. Dilution, contamination, reduced demand for recycled materials, and design-related issues can cause those downcycling effects. We anticipate that this more precise terminology can help quantify downcycling, keep materials in the loop longer, use materials more often and at higher quality, and therefore assist in reducing material-related environmental impacts.

show abstract