Those familiar with that greenwashing is and the consequences of greenwashing should be able to see whether the answer to the question is short yes and why or a short no and why no without contradicting themselves while answering.
What do you think the answer is? Yes and why or No and why no.
Yes, Lucio Muñoz ,because the linear economic thought model is still dominant as per applied accounts of society (and environment).
Stephen, you are right from that angle as one aspect has changed and the others aspects that need to change too for consistency have not changed, but to point out that, either knowledge gap or willful academic blindness is behind circular economic thinking and promotion you need to look at the question from the point of view of the meaning of PARADIGMWASHING.
If someone knows what greenwashing is, they can see what sustainabilitywashing then is and from there they can take situations seriously such as for example, if a company, a traditional company or a dwarf green company involves in greenwashing without full knowledge, they can get out of trouble probably on the grounds of knowledge gaps or reduce liability that way, but if they get involved in greenwashing FULLY knowingly there can be SERIOUS business and legal consequences......they get in business and legal trouble.
If circular economic thinking is formal sustainabilitywashing, but the promoters of circular economic thinking are doing this because of sustainability market paradigm shift knowledge gaps, then they may have a way out if the environmental and social systems crashes due to way more aggressive economic activity as they can say they did not know better and doing something is better than doing nothing.
But is circular economic thinking is put out there as formal sustainabilitywashing fully knowing it is sustainabilitywashing as you can not solve long term sustainability problems or DEFINE your way out of those problems without correcting the current causes that are driving that problem.
My next article is on understanding paradigmwashing: the case of circular economic thinking and sustainability washing.
Thank you Stephen for taking the time to comment
No. As more and more optimized circularity frameworks are in place in SOPs and mandatory standards are also adopting these CE thinking strategies, it is no longer sustainability Washing. I have come across many SMEs who adopted strategies coming from CE thinktank, and they are motivated to align their entire supply chain to comply with these new sets of measures.
Ritesh, good day, thank you for taking the time to comment.
Are you aware that the problem with traditional market thinking in socio-environmental sustainability terms WAS NOT LINEARITY, BUT POLLUTION PRODUCTION driven by distorted market prices in social and environmental terms?, that is why the WCED 1987 told us to go beyond traditional business usual to be able to address pollution production head on by internalizing pollution production responsibilities.... IF traditional economic CIRCULARITY was the solution to pollution production markets the WCED would had reccomended that in 1987 instead of sustainable development thinking,,,,, Are you saying that going from linear pollution production markets to circular pollution production markets is consistent with what needs to be done to transition to sustainability and sustainability markets or green markets or clean markets? Take some time to think and please take a closer look at the context on which this question is based, at the concept of greenwashing, and at the concept of sustainabilitywashing, perhaps you are missing something.
Just because there is government policy or standards or CE definitions by think tanks is not enough as it may not be science based, but politically based,,,,, I follow science as I am not a politician.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Biochemistry
- Enzymology
- Enzymes