Search

There are widespread assumptions to the effect that the real-time data generated through the 5G-enabled Internet of Things (IoT) will improve material traceability and accelerate the global transition to a circular economy (CE), thereby helping to achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals and carbon neutrality. Many industries, governments, and NGOs are supporting this vision by investing in related digital infrastructure (5G networks, servers, computer hardware, etc.). Conversely, recent literature has highlighted a paradoxical phenomenon known as the CE rebound, whereby sound CE activities end up offsetting environmental gain(s). This challenges the assumption that the new 5G-enabled IoT will be conducive to greater circularity while carrying its own environmental weight. Resorting to applied epistemology—a perspective seldom used in sustainability research—and the global e-waste crisis as an intense case in point, we question the confidence with which actors predict positive outcomes from the CE–IoT nexus. We argue that avoiding circularity rebounds cannot be construed as a matter of methodological development or, by extension, modeling sophistication through real-time data exploitation. Instead, circularity rebounds need to be recognized and theorized as a paradox of knowledge that also narrows sustainability research's horizons, despite AND because of the 5G-enabled IoT. As per this paradox, advanced digital technologies may well be compounding environmental issues at the same time as they illuminate them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The development and implementation of extended producer responsibility (EPR) policies to manage e‐waste provide multilevel governance frameworks for achieving greater material circularity. However, the roles and responsibilities that are allocated to various stakeholders under these policies, which are crucial for program effectiveness, often vary across jurisdictions, and consensus is lacking about the best types of relationships and collaboration that should govern municipalities' contributions to EPR programs. Against this backdrop, and since this issue is poorly researched, we conducted an empirical investigation to identify the main drivers and barriers influencing municipalities' collaboration with an e‐waste EPR program in a Canadian province where municipalities are free to decide whether or not to engage with the program. Based on our study, we explore policy implications for similar programs in other jurisdictions, and propose questions for further research. Our findings identify key motivations for collaboration, including perceived program legitimacy, program funding, and logistical efficiencies. Conversely, a lack of program transparency, failure to support local employment, a focus on recycling instead of reuse, and limited program scope are identified as disincentives to program participation. Policymaking for e‐waste management and circularity need to consider municipalities' interests and contributions to ensure successful implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]