Towards circularity in European countries and Indonesia

Abstract

Background,
issues, and main research questions: Circularity (circular economy) is being
developed in many countries around the world where it has been set as a
development goal (Schröder et al, 2019). However, the progress in implementing
circularity varies from country to country. Most of the countries that are
leading in circularity are European countries (Construcia, 2020). The Global
South is less advanced than the former, but the development of circularity is
necessary and urgent for the Global South. For example, in Indonesia, where
lagging industrial development and high levels of waste generation are
currently causing problems such as industrial depression, environmental
pollution and threats to human health, the implementation of circularity can help
sustain and promote industrial development and address the problems caused by
growing waste (Preston & Lehne, 2017). At the same time, in the face of the
current global problem of increasing resource consumption, the implementation
of circularity has been identified as an important goal not only for regional
development, but also as a common priority for global development (Circular
Economy Action Plan, 2020). In this context, this study therefore aims to
investigate how to accelerate the implementation of circularity in the Global
South and European countries. Specifically, the study decided to conduct a
comparative case study between several European countries and Indonesia.
Furthermore, innovation related to circularity is included in the theme of this
study. The main research questions are therefore how circularity/innovation has
been or is being implemented in European countries and Indonesia, what are the
distinctive characteristics behind the implementation, and what recommendations
can be made for the development of circularity/innovation in Indonesia and
European countries.

Methodology:
It is a literature-based study. A multidimensional perspective, entailing the
levels of the state, civil society and individual enterprises, is the main
research approach of this study. Furthermore, the functioning and rules of
Systems I and II (Kroesen et al, 2020) provide theoretical and conceptual
support for the entire study. Three cases (biogas technology, circularity of
plastics, and innovations in the pulp and paper industry) were selected for
this study, corresponding to three selected European countries (Finland,
Germany, and Sweden) compared to Indonesia. Three main steps were established
to conduct this study. Firstly under each case, the selected European countries
and Indonesia were subjected to their respective case descriptions and
analyses. A comparative analysis and discussion of the selected European
countries and Indonesia was then carried out under each case. Finally,
corresponding conclusions and recommendations were drawn for the implementation
of circularity/innovation in Indonesia and the selected European countries.

Results,
conclusions and recommendations: Towards circularity/innovation, a transition
is taking place between System I and System II, with both the European
countries and Indonesia in this study navigating through it. This study shows
that the European countries' distinctive characteristics in terms of
circularity/innovation are close to those of System II, independent of those of
System I, while a large number of Indonesia's distinctive characteristics in terms
of circularity/innovation lack to some extent those of System II, and in
addition, some of Indonesia's distinctive characteristics are close to those of
System I. The distinctive characteristics of System II are of key importance
for the implementation of circularity/innovation, as progress in implementing
circularity/innovation is positively correlated with the extent to which
countries make the transition to System II.The efficiency and effectiveness of
the state, civil society and individual enterprises in implementing
circularity/innovation has been positively demonstrated in the European
countries studied. There is a beneficial interaction between state policies
with a high level of scientific and technological research and civil society
and individual enterprises with a high level of initiative and planning, thus
facilitating the implementation of circularity/innovation. However, in
Indonesia, although the state, civil society and individual enterprises were
all involved in the implementation of circularity/innovation, the interaction
between them was less efficient and effective than the former, as unclear
vision-setting and over-intervention by the government, poor citizen behaviour
and a lack of local initiatives and planning may have hindered the interaction
between the various levels when it comes to circularity/innovation, as was
observed to some extent.The following are three particular examples of
conclusions and recommendations. In the European countries studied and in
Indonesia, open cooperation and complementary relationships between multiple
stakeholders in the product supply chain, as well as the openness of customers
to accept circular innovative products, are reflected in a more effective
implementation of circularity (1). Based on the experience of the European
countries studied, the state leaves the space for initiation and implementation
to civil society and individual enterprises, while policy development is
strictly focused on R&D, which could serve as a reference for more effective
implementation of circularity/innovation in Indonesia (2). Indonesia, which is
to a large extent close to System I, is at risk of excessive state intervention
and over-dependence of stakeholders on relationships, while for the European
countries studied, which are close to System II, there may be a risk of too
much corporate individualism and liberal behaviour at the expense of the role
of the state. Thus, the role of Systems I and II in the implementation of
circularity/innovation is not black and white, but more or less so (3).