Global_Environmental_Research_Vol.25No1&2
26/124

20 with individual households in social experimentation to try to identify options for 1.5 degree lifestyles. Transition Another emerging from the lifestyles, production Beyond GDP is one such example in this emerging policy discourse (European Commission, 2009). More than 15 national governments international organizations are conducting initiatives to design social progress, wellbeing and happiness indicators (Cabinet Office of Japan, 2011). The discourse on “beyond GDP” tends to include discussion on how to achieve ways of living that provide sufficiency. This cannot be measured by GDP as indicator. The recent global sustainability goals encourage a fundamental shift in socio-technical systems for realizing high levels of well-being within planetary boundaries. These goals should not only aim reduce consumption of non-renewable resources but also to change evaluation methods from those associated with monetary value to more comprehensive ways of measuring the well-being of society as a whole. Various types of "Beyond GDP" indicators have been proposed, including subjective well-being, quality of life, environmental indicators, indicators, overall progress sustainable development approaches or and environmental aspects, adjusted-GDP approaches and community indicators (Hák et al., 2012). the sole the One alternative approach for capturing various elements of progress in society is to calculate wealth as a stock, rather than capturing it as a flow. Different types of pillar important systems and to combination of social Y. HOTTA et al. intangible capital, such as infrastructure, human resources and the natural environment are to be taken into account, with a view intergenerational well-being. Managi and Kumar (2018) define this type of integrated indicator as inclusive wealth. This reframing of issues inevitably leads us to reconsider our vision and goals as well as potentially the value system associated with consumption and production practices of the society. Setting new goals or a new vision also requires creation of new indicators to monitor the progress of socio-technical changes. For example, if the circular economy concept is something distinct from conventional waste management and the 3Rs (reduce, reuse, and recycle), it requires a new set of indicators to check the progress of policies promoting the circular economy. These could be progress on the expansion of new business models in line with the circular economy concept, contributing to dematerialization or ensuring less dependence on virgin materials, and assessing any positive social and environmental benefits. involves long-term goal setting and planetary boundaries. This is related to measurement of progress towards long-term and middle-term goals, with more emphasis on social issues, well-being and lifestyles, as observed in the policy discourse on sustainability. The framework for planetary boundaries was introduced in research by Rockström (2009) to define the safe operating space for humanity with respect to the planet’s biophysical subsystems or processes (Rockström, 2009). This framework was updated in 2015, concluding that climate change, genetic biodiversity, land-system change and biogeochemical flows are already beyond the boundaries of the earth’s safe operating zone (Steffen et al., 2015). This concept, emerging research community, gradually surfaced into policy discourse in the 2010s. In this discourse, sustainability issues were framed as ways of living as well as systems which enabled and determined those ways of living. This emerging discourse calls for a transition of and infrastructure based on long-term goals that take planetary boundaries including climate change into consideration. At the same time, a certain level of well-being and inclusion of social considerations are also important concerns in this discourse. The OECD Meeting of the Environment Policy Committee at Ministerial Level held in Paris, from 28 to 29 September 2016 discussed the circular economy concept, with policy makers emphasizing “the importance of new business models and the barriers to increasing their take-up in the circular economy (…) Circular business models, where firms generate economic value by undertaking business activities which close material loops, will become increasingly attractive” (OECD, 2016). Bocken et al. (2014) also discusses the necessity of recognizing business model innovation as a key to delivering social and environmental sustainability. By reviewing innovative business model examples, Bocken et al. categorized sustainable new business models into the following eight archetypes, 1) maximizing material and energy efficiency, 2) creating value from ‘waste’, 3) substituting with renewables and natural processes, 4) delivering 5) adopting a stewardship (in terms of long-term health and well-being), sufficiency, 7) re-purposing business for society/environment, and 8) developing scale-up solutions (Bocken et al. 2014). Since then, more recent discussions on circular economy business models have emphasized increasing expectations towards roles played by ICT in new business for sustainability by decreasing the costs of transactions towards promoting functionality, rather encouraging 6) locked than ownership, 4.3 Monitoring Progress towards Sustainability 4.4 New Business Model and Service Model Development Social and technical infrastructure changes driven by long-term goal setting should be mainstreamed by market forces and by new business models and service provision models. As discussed above, if there are no supplies of services or products to satisfy trends towards such long-term goals, consumers will be into conventional practices.

元のページ  ../index.html#26

このブックを見る