What exactly is the circular economy (CE) and how does it work? Essentially its about reducing and ultimately eliminating the waste that our society produces from what we consume. It’s the opposite to the current predominantly ‘linear’ economy, which operates on a ‘take-make-dispose’ basis. The CE by contrast seeks to avoid wasting anything by finding some sort of use for stuff. If something can’t be used, it should be recycled. If it can’t be recycled, it could be burned in an incinerator to produce energy. There are pros and cons to incineration, but the point is to avoid wasting anything by whatever means necessary.
A considerable body of research on the circular economy has been done by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation. This has largely formed the basis for policy makers looking to engage in CE initiatives.
This article will focus on the work of the Scottish Government’s (SG) CE strategy, specifically looking at how this has been (or will be) adopted by Glasgow City Council (GCC) as an ongoing policy and how this relates to the SANE Collectives’ Critical City project.
Scottish Government strategy
The foundations for the SG’s CE approach was laid out in 2010 with the publication of its Zero Waste Plan. This has now evolved into the Managing Waste Policy. This is driven by five policy actions:
• Resource efficiency
• Food waste
• Deposit return scheme
• Litter and flytipping
• New Plastics Economy global commitment
In 2015, the Charter for Household Recycling was rolled out across local authorities in Scotland, who will commit:
• To improve our household waste and recycling services to maximise the capture of, and improve the quality of, resources from the waste stream, recognising the variations in household types and geography to endeavour that our services meet the needs of all our citizens.
• To encourage our citizens to participate in our recycling and reuse services to ensure that they are fully utilised.
• To operate our services so that our staff are safe, competent and treated fairly with the skills required to deliver effective and efficient resource management on behalf of our communities.
• To develop, agree, implement and review a Code of Practice that enshrines the current best practice to deliver cost effective and high-performing recycling services and tell all of our citizens and community partners about both this charter and the code of practice.
The aim will be to engage citizens as well as Business and industry, who will also be expected to engage with the Charter.
In Glasgow, a waste strategy was set out, following the SG’s zero waste plan in 2010. This was a 10 year plan and is now up for assessment. Following a review in 2015. GCC updated its ‘action plan’. The Relevant documentation can be found here.
As part of this process, a system of coloured bins was rolled out to households around the city and information provided to help citizens dispose of their waste in the proper bins. Recycling bins were also provided in various locations outside such as supermarkets to allow bulk recycling of materials, e.g. glass bottles. Businesses would establish their own recycling procedures. GCC has an online FAQ’s page.
Public Procurement has an important role to play. This is covered by the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, which was subsequently supplemented by the Procurement (Scotland) Regulations 2016.
GCC has published its ‘Corporate Procurement Strategy & Annual Procurement Report’. The strategy runs from 2018 – 2022. The report covers the period January 2018 - March 2019.
Circular economy principles can be realised through public procurement through the likes of leasing, repair and remanufacture. This means acquiring products that can be repaired rather than just thrown away. Would it be more cost effective to lease something rather than buy outright? And can products be remanufactured i.e. rebuilt or refurbished? Procurement is a broad area and it is important for local authorities to consider the sustainability of the products and services they purchase.
SANE has already reported on the importance of pubic procurement and is an element in the critical city project. As Kevin Hattie put it in part 1 of this series (see below)
The progressive potential of public procurement is twofold: first of all, the opportunity to retain money in the local economy exists when procurement is aimed at supporting local businesses. If public institutions purchased their goods and services from local suppliers, the community in which these institutions are rooted would stand to benefit. Secondly, the businesses that benefit from a progressive procurement policy could take the form of worker co-operatives. This would mean that the workers, rather than the sole business owner or shareholders, would benefit.
A negative effect of improper waste disposal is litter and flytipping. One way of dealing with the problem is through education and advice to encourage people to dispose of waste responsibly. This also feeds into food waste, which is a major problem. Over a third of all food produced from farm to fork is wasted, with almost two thirds of that waste coming from consumers.
There are various schemes to help people reduce food waste:
• Love Food Hate Waste offers tips and recipes to help people to reuse and store excess food.
• To Good to Go offers a ‘doggy bag’ to consumers to avoid food waste when eating out.
• The FairShare scheme redistributes surplus food from Supermarkets to people who need help.
Looking good so far. But is a circular economy compatible with the current neoliberal economic model? A paper published in the journal Ecological Economics questions the narrative that creating a CE will offer a panacea to our economic woes.
The paper notes that "the narratives of EU and bioeconomy as presented in (global) politics and by important interest groups have a theoretical basis in neoclassic models that endorse a strategy of top-down planning of technological fixes typical of the neoliberal ideology."
paper goes on to question the assumptions made by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, that somehow CE principles can substitute energy consumption and other
resources. It notes ‘the list of failed grand technological promises’ related
to the ‘potentiality of market and human ingenuity’ and that, ‘It is very
doubtful that it will be possible to expand the complete recycling of products
and components at zero biophysical cost.’ There are many questions that we need to ask about circular economy in action, for example can it broaden out to incorporate the whole of the wider economy, rather than just burning waste for power at the giant Polmadie incinerator.
The continuous profit-driven growth model is killing ecosystems, humans and millions of other species. In our City, after 3 decades of neoliberalism, many people feel no benefits and must battle for survival. But things can change. Cities across the world are challenging the neoliberal status quo. This series looks at alternative economic models.
The recently published Cities Versus
Multinationals report offers a great deal of hope and inspiration for
Municipalist movements across Europe and beyond. From Berlin to Belgrade, the
hegemonic forces of neoliberalism are being challenged and turned away, as
people organise themselves to reclaim their homes and their communities. The
report documents examples of such resistance, as well as exploring the wider
lessons to be learned for the Municipalist movement as a whole. In our first
look at Cities Versus Multinationals, we begin relatively close to home,
in Preston, a city in the north of England. Like many other cities in the
northern part of the country, Preston has suffered from the effects of
de-industrialisation, as well as a decade of Tory-led austerity. Against this
background, new ideas have started to sprout that challenge the retrograde
assumptions built into the neoliberal worldview. At the heart of what has come
to be known as “the Preston model” is a re-imagining of public procurement
policy. It is to this issue that we now turn our attention.
The progressive potential of public procurement is twofold: first of all, the opportunity to retain money in the local economy exists when procurement is aimed at supporting local businesses. If public institutions purchased their goods and services from local suppliers, the community in which these institutions are rooted would stand to benefit. Secondly, the businesses that benefit from a progressive procurement policy could take the form of worker co-operatives. This would mean that the workers, rather than the sole business owner or shareholders, would benefit. Progressive procurement could, therefore, support the local economy as well as a different set of social relations within the economy. This is the basic idea behind the Preston model’s re-imagining of public procurement policy.
Martin O’Neill, a senior lecturer in political philosophy at the University of York, shares the Preston model’s enthusiasm for re-evaluating the role that public procurement can play in social transformation: “It’s the sense that procurement, which sounds like a dull and technocratic issue, is intensely political and we have massively undersold an important function of government to improve people’s lives by not seeing procurement as having this role” (CitiesvsMultinationals, p.76). O’Neill’s words highlight an unfortunate reality: the ideological assumptions of neoliberal capitalism are so deeply rooted in our culture, that something as politically important as public procurement policy has largely been ignored, and has, in fact, come to be viewed as an almost apolitical financial process. The first step in re-politicising this important function of public institutions is challenging this ideological assumption.
Prior to the Preston model, the Democracy Collaborative think-tank in the United States was commissioned by the Cleveland Foundation in 2007 to conduct a spending-analysis in the Ohio city. Cleveland had been suffering from years of disinvestment, as well as a shrinking population. Nevertheless, the city still had a number of “anchor institutions” rooted in it, such as schools, hospitals, and universities. The spending-analysis carried out by the Democracy Collaborative found that the city’s anchor institutions spent around $3 billion a year. Despite this massive sum of money being spent by Cleveland institutions, most of the cash was leaving the city. The impoverished neighbourhoods that existed around about the hospitals and university buildings received very little benefit from the investment. The Democracy Collaborative’s findings revealed that a lot of money was going to Mexico and Chicago based businesses. It then identified whether those contracts could be given to Cleveland-based suppliers in the future. If no suppliers existed for a given contract, they explored opportunities for new suppliers to fill the gap in the market. Over the following years it supported the establishment of worker co-operatives, including a laundry and an indoor farm. This allowed the workers to share in the profits of the newly-formed companies, and provided employment opportunities for city-residents, including those who had previously spent time in prison and struggled to find work as a result. The Democracy Collaborative have described this process as “community wealth building”, and they hope that it will be able to transform similarly struggling communities across the United States.
Like Cleveland, Preston has experienced the negative consequences of global capitalism’s shifting sands. A lot of industry has disappeared from the north of England, and the austerity that followed from the 2008 banking crisis has left local councils across the country short of cash. Preston has also struggled to attract outside investment to the area. In 2008, the council signed off on a £700 million regeneration project, but when major retailers like John Lewis pulled out in 2011, the project collapsed. The area was in major need of fresh ideas. Fortunately, that same year the Centre for Local Economic Strategies (CLES), inspired by the Cleveland model, were looking for opportunities to test their ideas about procurement and its progressive potential.
The Preston council commissioned CLES to carry out a spending-analysis in the city. The first step was identifying the anchor institutions: these included the city and county councils, the local university (University of Central Lancashire), the police, and the local housing association. CLES found that collectively, these institutions had an annual spending power of around £750 million. But in 2012/13, only £1 from every £20 spent by these institutions remained in the local area. CLES worked with the public bodies to rewrite their procurement policies, so that in 2013 they spent £38 million in the city of Preston, and £292 million in all of Lancashire. By 2017, these figures increased to £111 million and £486 million respectively (CitiesVersusMultinationals, p.78). This was despite an overall reduction in the council’s budget.
The institutions were also helped to implement the living wage. Amazingly, the procurement transformation occurred within EU Law, which stipulates that contracts worth over a certain amount of money (£181,302 for standard contracts, £4,551,413 for works contracts) must be put to the market in the interests of transparency and competitiveness. One of the ways the anchor institutions were able to get around EU procurement law was by breaking down large contracts into smaller lots. They also utilised the Social Value Act; an act that requires public institutions to think about how they can secure social, economic, and environmental benefits in their decision making.
In 2018, Preston was named the most improved city in the UK by the Good Growth for Cities Index. In September last year, the council was closing in on the funding necessary to apply for a banking licence. If only 2% of the local population switched their banking accounts to the new municipal bank, it would allow the institution to lend half a billion pounds to local people. If that number increased to 10%, then four billion pounds could be recirculated in the local economy. Matthew Brown, the council leader since 2018, believes that the community bank could be used to democratise the economy through supporting the establishment of worker co-operatives, and co-operative education centres. This could help Preston follow in the footsteps of Cleveland, and other progressive projects such as Cooperation Jackson in Mississippi.
Despite the exciting potential that progressive procurement policies offer, there are obstacles to be overcome. Firstly, EU procurement law can create difficulties in changing strategies. It’s not clear what the situation will be when the UK leaves the EU at the end of the year, but it’s likely that the EU directives will still influence the UK beyond Brexit. Matthew Jackson, formerly of CLES and now working with Preston Council, believes that leaving the EU will embolden councils to use the Social Value Act: “There will be an opportunity to embed social values far more effectively than authorities have to date...I still think UK local authorities are a bit scared to embed this in policy because of EU law.” (CitiesVersusMultinationals, p.82). Jackson also believes that many European cities are unwilling to change their strategies because of the lack of good case studies. The thinness of current evidence supporting a more progressive approach means that price remains the most important consideration for local authorities. The lack of willingness to experiment is, therefore, another obstacle facing advocates of progressive procurement policies; perhaps the biggest obstacle of all.
The leader of Glasgow City Council, Susan Aitken, has informed us that the council plans to restructure its procurement practices to lend greater support to local businesses and social enterprises. This is a promising start. However, our ambitions should match those of Preston and Cleveland. The council’s procurement policy shouldn’t merely shift in a slightly more progressive direction; it should become a powerful tool used to transform Glasgow’s economic practices. This means that we should not be afraid to experiment with new ideas. It also means that Glasgow’s public institutions should re-affirm their commitment to serve the people of the city, and to place their needs above the greed of multinational businesses.