Effective Communication of Underlying Research Philosophies Can Improve Circular Economy Research in the Foundation Industries

Alastair T. M. Marsh; Hisham Hafez

doi:10.55845/CPEO1326

Authors

Alastair T. M. Marsh School of Civil Engineering, University of Leeds; Laboratory of Construction Materials, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne Author
Hisham Hafez School of Civil Engineering, University of Leeds Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55845/CPEO1326

Keywords:

Foundation Industries, Circular Economy, Glass, Metals, Cement, Ceramics, Chemicals, Paper

Abstract

The drive to address environmental challenges in the Foundation Industries is leading to an ever greater, and more diverse, volume of Circular Economy related research. Despite increased expectations for research to achieve positive impact, authors do not always have the tools to effectively communicate to readers what their study’s underlying research philosophy is, regarding how knowledge will lead to impact. We propose terminology for authors to concisely communicate their approaches to knowledge generation (fundamental or applied) and route to impact (reformative or transformative). Reformative research does not seek to fundamentally disrupt or change the prevailing (or conventional) production systems, whereas transformative research does. We provide recommendations for how authors can effectively communicate their study’s research philosophy in an appropriate level of detail.

References

Bocken, N. M. P., de Pauw, I., Bakker, C., & van der Grinten, B. (2016). Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 33(5). https://doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2016.1172124

Dosso, M., Martin, B. R., & Moncada-Paternò-Castello, P. (2018). Towards evidence-based industrial research and innovation policy†. Science and Public Policy, 45(2), 143–150. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scx073

FAO. (2024). Global forest products facts and figures 2023. https://doi.org/10.4060/cd3650en

Hammond, G. P. (2022). The UK industrial decarbonisation strategy revisited. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Energy, 175(1), 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1680/jener.21.00056

Levi, P. G., & Cullen, J. M. (2018). Mapping Global Flows of Chemicals: From Fossil Fuel Feedstocks to Chemical Products. Environmental Science & Technology, 52(4), 1725–1734. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b04573

OECD. (2015). Frascati Manual 2015: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development.

Olsson, J. A., Hafez, H., Miller, S. A., & Scrivener, K. L. (2025). Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Decarbonization Potential of Global Fired Clay Brick Production. Environmental Science & Technology, 59(4), 1909–1920. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c08994

Reike, D., Vermeulen, W. J. V., & Witjes, S. (2018). The circular economy: New or Refurbished as CE 3.0? — Exploring Controversies in the Conceptualization of the Circular Economy through a Focus on History and Resource Value Retention Options. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.027

Scrivener, K., Ben Haha, M., Juilland, P., & Levy, C. (2023). Research needs for cementitious building materials with focus on Europe. RILEM Technical Letters, 7, 220–252. https://doi.org/10.21809/rilemtechlett.2022.165

UKRI. (2021). Transforming Foundation Industries challenge. Summary report: Innovation Readiness in UK Foundation Industries. https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/UKRI-080321-TransformingFoundationIndustriesChallenge.pdf

USGS. (2024). Mineral Commodity Summaries 2024. https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2024

Westbroek, C. D., Bitting, J., Craglia, M., Azevedo, J. M. C., & Cullen, J. M. (2021). Global material flow analysis of glass: From raw materials to end of life. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 25(2), 333–343. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13112

World Steel Association. (2024). World Steel in Figures 2024. https://worldsteel.org/data/world-steel-in-figures-2024