Filtering by
- Creators: Buch, Rajesh
- Creators: Dean, W.P. Carey School of Business
The built environment is responsible for a significant portion of global waste generation.
Construction and demolition (C&D) waste requires significant landfill areas and costs
billions of dollars. New business models that reduce this waste may prove to be financially
beneficial and generally more sustainable. One such model is referred to as the “Circular
Economy” (CE), which promotes the efficient use of materials to minimize waste
generation and raw material consumption. CE is achieved by maximizing the life of
materials and components and by reclaiming the typically wasted value at the end of their
life. This thesis identifies the potential opportunities for using CE in the built environment.
It first calculates the magnitude of C&D waste and its main streams, highlights the top
C&D materials based on weight and value using data from various regions, identifies the
top C&D materials’ current recycling and reuse rates, and finally estimates a potential
financial benefit of $3.7 billion from redirecting C&D waste using the CE concept in the
United States.
In the current age of global climate crisis, corporations must confront the rising pressure to mitigate their environmental impacts. The goal of this research paper is to provide corporations with a resource to manage waste through the implementation of a circular economy and by increasing Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Navigating this large and complex system required the use of various methodologies including: the investigation of the relationships between waste management systems and sustainable development across major companies; literature reviews of scholarly articles about CSR, circular economies, recycling, and releases of company reports on sustainable development and financials. Lastly, interviews and a survey were conducted to gain deeper insight into the problems that make circular economies so difficult to achieve at scale.
Plastic pollution is undoubtedly one of the most pressing challenges facing humanity today. Significant action is required in order to properly address this rapidly growing threat. The Circular Economy provides a promising model for solution design in terms of responsible consumption and production. Countdown: Circular Economy Solutions is an organization created by Jasmine Amoako-Agyei focused on addressing the threat of plastic pollution in the United States and Ghana, West Africa. The first part of this report will explain the severity of the global plastic pollution crisis and challenges with recycling. It will then present the Circular Economy as a viable model for a course of action. From there it will explain the efforts of Countdown: Circular Economy Solutions over the last two with a pathway forward. This venture leveraged the greater ASU ecosystem of resources such as Walton Sustainability Solutions, Precious Plastic ASU, the Luminosity Lab, Changemaker Central, Venture Devils, Engineering Projects in Community Service (ASU), Gary K. Herberger Young Scholars Academy, KNUST, and Ashesi D: Lab.
Historically, Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) guided companies to make better decisions to improve the environmental impacts of their products. However, as new Circular Economy (CE) tools emerge, the usefulness of LCA in assessing linear products grow more and more obsolete. Research Question: How do LCA-based tools account for reuse/multiple life cycles of products verses CE-based tools?
The Kaiteki Innovation Framework (KIF) was used to address the question of circularity of two packaging materials using an Environmental LCA to populate its 12 CE dimensions. Any gaps were evaluated with 2 LCA- based and 2 CE-based tools to see which could address the leftover CE dimensions.
Results showed that to complete the KIF template, LCA data required one of the LCA-based tools: Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) and both CE-based tools: Circular Transition Indicators (CTI) and Material Circularity Indicator (MCI) to supplement gaps in the KIF. The LCA addressed 5 of the KIF dimensions: Innovation Category Name, Description, GHG Impact, Other Environmental Impacts, and Value Chain Position. 3 analytical tools addressed 5 more:: Effect on Circularity, Social Impacts, Enabling Technologies, Tier 2 and 3 Requirements, and Value Chain Synergies. None of the tools could address the KIF Dimensions: State of Development or Scale Requirements. All in all, the KIF required both LCA-based and CE-based tools to cover social and socio-economic impacts from a cradle-to-cradle perspective with multiple circular loops in mind. These results can help in the research and development of innovative, circular products that can lead to a more environmentally preferred future.