| dc.description.abstract | Introduction: The economic and environmental potential benefits of the circular economy and its corresponding business models are frequently proclaimed, however limited empirical evidence exists on the actual benefits it has for the environment and a critical note in the valuation of these models is still lacking. When negative effects, like rebound effects, are not considered, it would be hard to say how these models differ from traditional linear business, since the environmental benefits are considered the main goal of the circular economy. To open up a debate surrounding this topic, a literature review is conducted to get a more realistic understanding of the potential of the circular economy. This literature review is the first attempt ever to map and combine the existing knowledge and findings on rebound effects in the circular economy. Theory: In order to identify which literature is relevant to include in the review, a firm understanding of both topics is needed. Pre-existing theories on the rebound effect originate from the energy efficiency literature, in which there is a strong parallel. Whereas the circular economy is explained on the basis of the circular business models introduced by Bocken et al. (2016). Methods: Related search terms to both concepts, including the 3R strategies, are used to search for academic literature in Scopus. After discarding all non-relevant articles, 36 studies remained. These studies are examined on several indicators such as; rebound type, CBM studied, used methodologies, sectors and identified research gaps, which were organized into an Excel spreadsheet. After, a frequency analysis was conducted to categorize findings. Results: Rebound effects are studied most in relation to the ‘access and performance’ and ‘encourage sufficiency’ business models because of their relatively large use-phase. 10 different rebound types were identified from which the direct rebound effect is the simplest to quantify with precision. Overall, quantitative studies find rebound effects related to the re-spending of saved income or gained revenue, while qualitative studies find effects related to inadequate consumer behavior. A typology framework places all identified effects according to which actors are involved and what are the driving mechanisms. Discussion/Conclusion: A precise understanding of the magnitude of different types of rebound effects is missing due to a lack of empirical evidence and comparability. The scope, region, time period of analysis, product studied and assumptions all differ widely from study to study which makes drawing conclusions impossible. Further research is needed to provide a common methodology on how to measure and interpret these effects. Only then, policymakers can use real comparable data to minimize the rebound effect. | |
