Social and solidarity economy insights for the circular economy: Limited-profit and sufficiency

Journal of Cleaner Production 418 (2023) 138050 Available online 10 July 2023 0959-6526/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bync/4.0/). Social and solidarity economy insights for the circular economy: Limited-profit and sufficiency Unai Villalba-Eguiluz a , b , * , Marlyne Sahakian c , Catalina Gonz´ alez-Jamett c , Enekoitz Etxezarreta d , e a University of the Basque Country, UPV/EHU. Applied Economics Department, C/Comandante Izarduy 23, 01006, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Basque Country, Spain b HEGOA, Institute of Development Studies and International Cooperation, C/ Lehendakari Agirre 83, 48015, Bilbao, Basque Country, Spain c University of Geneva, Institute of Sociological Research, 40 Boulevard du Pont d’Arve, 1204, Geneva, Switzerland d University of the Basque Country, UPV/EHU. Applied Economics Department, Plaza O˜ nati 1, 20018, Donostia-San Sebastian, Basque Country, Spain e GEZKI, Institute of Cooperative Law and Social Economy, Plaza Elhuyar, 2. Despacho A-4, 20018, Donostia-San Sebastian, Basque Country, Spain ARTICLE INFO Handling Editor: Giovanni Baiocchi ABSTRACT Given the call for societal transformations to foster sustainability transitions, we consider in what way the Social and Solidarity Economy (SSE) contributes to a more circular society. We build on recent critiques of mainstream Circular Economy (CE) and engage with the notion of sufficiency, with respect to defining limits for and by society, in considering social and ecological imperatives over profit motives. The main aim of our article is to analyse the implications of the normative principles and values of the SSE for ensuring an integral circularity approach. For that purpose, we conducted qualitative research involving 26 in-depth interviews with 31 key informants from 20 initiatives in two case studies: SSE networks in the Basque Country and Western Switzerland. We reveal how one of the guiding principles of the SSE – limited-profit – is a clear basis for a distinctive circularity approach towards sufficiency. Our main contribution is to demonstrate how SSE principles foster specific characteristics of the Sufficiency-driven Business Model (SBM) and shape an integral social circularity approach. This perspective on circularity results in entities that embrace the following measures: seeking to transform the economic system as a whole; prioritizing the implementation of the more transformative Rs (Refuse, Rethink, Reduce); recognizing limited profit as a core distinctive principle; minimizing overall consumption; raising conscious consumer engagement (satisfying needs over wants); fostering stakeholders’ cooperation and collaboration; and maximizing social and ecological aims over economic profitability. Funding The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. 1. Introduction Following the promise of fulfilling sustainability objectives, interest in the Circular Economy (CE) has grown exponentially in the last decade, but so have academia’s criticisms of mainstream CE orientations (Ghisellini et al., 2016; Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). Gaps persist regarding the CE’s contribution to broader sustainability dimensions, sustainable development and sustainable development goals (SDGs) (Kirchherr et al., 2017; Millar et al., 2019; Schr¨ oder et al., 2019a). Many authors have pointed out a missing social dimension in the CE (Murray et al., 2017; Korhonen et al., 2018), and have recently explored elements to address this lacuna (Padilla-Rivera et al., 2020, Mies and Gold, 2021; Walker et al., 2021). Other authors have argued that links to human needs and social transformation concerns were present in earlier depictions of the CE but were neglected in later developments (Clube and Tennant, 2020, 2023). Furthermore, many of these ‘CE limits’ connect with longstanding debates in ecological economics, such as the feasibility of indefinite economic growth and the need to consider economic activities as subordinate to biophysical dynamics. Some CE discourses * Corresponding author. University of the Basque Country, UPV/EHU. Applied Economics Department, C/Comandante Izarduy 23, 01006, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Basque Country, Spain. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (U. Villalba-Eguiluz), [email protected] (M. Sahakian), [email protected] (C. Gonz´ alez-Jamett), enekoitz. [email protected] (E. Etxezarreta). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Cleaner Production journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138050 Received 15 March 2023; Received in revised form 1 July 2023; Accepted 8 July 2023 Journal of Cleaner Production 418 (2023) 138050 2 are well aligned with economic growth, while others are closer to steady state, post-growth or degrowth postulates (Bauwens, 2021; Kirchherr, 2022). In parallel, the Social and Solidarity Economy (SSE) has emerged as an economic model encompassing research and practices that recognize the ‘social embeddedness’ of economic activity: all activities are subordinate to institutional arrangements and social imperatives (Laville and García-Jan´ e, 2009; Coraggio, 2011). The SSE, as an amalgam term, can include both traditional social economy and newer solidarity economy initiatives. Social economy is primarily about expanding the economic space where people-centred organizations and enterprises can operate. A solidarity economy promotes social and systemic transformations and emphasizes issues of redistributive justice, ‘deep’ sustainability, alternatives to capitalism, as well as participatory democracy and emancipatory politics (Utting, 2015). The term SSE is increasingly used to speak of organizations and enterprises engaged in the production and exchange of goods and services, which are autonomous from the state and are guided by objectives and norms that prioritize social well-being, cooperation and solidarity. They include, for example, cooperatives and other social enterprises, mutual associations, unions of informal economy workers, fair trade networks, and solidarity finance schemes. The SSE seeks to transform the economic system to achieve greater equity and social cohesion, and to put the economy at the service of human needs, instead of putting people at the service of economic growth. The SSE is also gaining traction worldwide, both among practitioners involved in local initiatives and among international institutions (EU, 2021; OECD, 2022; UNRISD, 2021); and it has also been linked to the achievement of sustainable development (UN General Assembly, 2023). The literature linking both CE and SSE approaches is still nascent. According to Moreau et al. (2017), applying SSE principles to the CE may allow for the inclusion of social and institutional dynamics necessary for social and ecological transformations. Other authors mention the SSE as one of the main theories for developing the social dimension within the CE (Padilla-Rivera et al., 2020); and still others call for more value-based and normative approaches to the CE (Mies and Gold, 2021), which resonates with SSE experiences. Thus, bringing CE and SSE reflections together is highly pertinent. The SSE is already considered to be well-positioned to foster what Bauwens et al. (2020a) call the ‘bottom-up sufficiency scenario’ for the CE, or what Calisto-Friant et al. (2020) call a ‘transformational circular society’. Yet research that connects theoretical and empirical knowledge is still lacking. Many contributions come from a European context: Gobert et al. (2021) focuses on grassroots initiatives of the SSE that promote reuse, reemployment and repair as citizen-based contributions to sustainability transitions in France. Leipold et al. (2021) detail competing narratives within the food sector in France as well. Campagnaro and D’Urzo (2021) considers social cooperation initiatives in Italy in relation to the CE. The social economy’s contribution to the CE is also studied in an OECD report (2022) focused on the role of social inclusion, local collaborations and strengthening stakeholders’ engagement. From a Global South perspective, Gutbelert and colleagues (2017, 2021) study how waste pickers from the informal economy create new grassroots cooperatives in Argentina and Brazil and contribute not only to better waste management, but also to implementing solidarity measures involving livelihood improvements, and thus propose an ‘amended circular economy’ bringing together principles from both ecological economics and SSE. Other authors also analyse the role of the waste picker organizations in bringing together circular economy and SSE aims in Brazil (Ribeiro et al., 2020; Sakamoto et al., 2021). However, a commonly accepted framework for merging SSE and CE analysis is still missing. The aim of our contribution is to consider the links between the SSE and the CE by asking: in what way does the SSE contribute to circularity? More specifically, our main research question is: what are the implications of the normative principles and values of the SSE networks – such as the limited-profit motive – for insuring a more integral circularity approach? We contribute to both the CE and SSE literature by considering how SSE principles might serve to address some of the ‘CE limits’. For that purpose, we conduct qualitative research based on 26 in-depth interviews with 31 key informants representing 20 SSE initiatives in two SSE networks – REAS-Euskadi in the Basque Country and APRES-GE in Western Switzerland. We analyse both the discourses related to how circularity strategies are understood by key actors within these networks, and the practices derived from their guiding principles. Linked to the limited profit motive, we reflect on sufficiency as a normative aim that draws attention to ‘enough’ as both a maxima and minima limit (Spengler, 2016), and how such limits might come to be defined through a political process (Sahakian et al., 2021). The article is structured into six sections. Section two introduces our conceptual focus on the CE and the SSE. Section three describes the research methodology and the characteristics of our two case studies. Section four presents the results of our fieldwork and offers insights on how an integral circularity approach is applied within the SSE, and which SBM characteristics are fostered. Section five discusses the implications of these results for broader debates linked to limits to growth and sufficiency. Section six summarizes the main conclusions. 2. Conceptual approach to CE and SSE 2.1. The circular economy Definitions of what constitutes a CE vary (Kirchherr et al., 2017). Some authors argue that the CE is a contested concept, which avoids any single, universal definition so as not to exclude any interests (Korhonen et al., 2018). While some definitions of the CE would lead to economic growth dynamics, with circularity promoting the production of goods in further cycles, others are closer to post-growth or degrowth proposals and the aim of lowering production and consumption in absolute terms. The CE seeks to reduce resource extraction and waste disposal through a series of strategies to maintain a social metabolism within ‘planetary boundaries’ or ‘earth system boundaries’ (Steffen et al., 2015; Rockstr¨ om et al., 2023). These CE strategies are interrelated and include: (1) the slowing, closing, narrowing, intensifying or dematerializing of economic material cycles (Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2019; Geissdoerfer et al., 2020); (2) the 3Rs approach, which covers reduce, reuse and recycle; or its extended 9Rs version, referring to refuse, rethink, reduce, reuse, repair, refurbish, remanufacture, recycle and recover (Kirchherr et al., 2017; Potting et al., 2017); and (3) Sustainable or Circular Business Models (CBMs), which propose fundamental shifts in the purpose of business and almost every aspect of how it is conducted (Bocken et al., 2014, Lewandowski, 2016). Regarding the CBMs, there is a variety of approaches in the literature but with differing interpretations related to their characteristics (Bocken et al., 2014; Rosa et al., 2019; Geissdoerfer et al., 2020; Salvador et al., 2020). Within this diversity the Sufficiency-driven Business Models (SBM) emerge as a specific category, which is particularly relevant for our study, although it represents a minority stream in current practice and is still under-researched. As Bocken and Short (2016:46) put it, they consist on: “curbing consumption as part of the business model by moderating demand through education and consumer engagement; making products that last and avoiding built-in obsolescence; extending product lives to slow disposal and replacement; focusing on satisfying ‘needs’ rather than promoting ‘wants’ and fast-fashion; and reducing overall resource consumption through conscious changes in sales and marketing …”. More recently, Niessen and Bocken (2021) put the focus of the Business for Sufficiency framework on the following items: rethink; reduce; refuse; less clutter; less speed; less distance, and less market. These characteristics are close to those identified in degrowth-oriented businesses, which seek an alternative understanding of businesses as oriented to solving environmental and social problems, rather than simply making profits, through collaborative value creation and democratic governance (Khmara and Kronenberg, 2018), and put U. Villalba-Eguiluz et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 418 (2023) 138050 3 forward environmental concerns regarding downscaling, promoting societal wellbeing embedded within communities, and a radical shift in values towards sufficiency (Nesterova, 2020). How companies can adopt and fulfil these many characteristics needs to be studied in greater depth, and no universal framework exists. As the CE continues to gain in popularity, so do its criticisms. Limits to existing strategies include a lack of consideration for rebound effects and path-dependencies (Korhonen et al., 2018; Figge and Stevenson, 2019), and also of the total scale and composition (carbon intensity) of certain flows (Haas et al., 2020). Other critiques include the practical challenges of designing 3Rs processes (Ghisellini et al., 2016), or the contradictory use of targets with regard to recovery and recycling (Morseletto, 2020). Calisto-Friant et al. (2020) have regrouped many of these gaps and critiques into five blocks, and we consider how the SSE may be useful for engaging with three of them: systemic thinking on entropy and limits to growth; governance, social justice and cultural change; and alternative visions of circularity, sufficiency and conviviality. We also take up the suggestion of Moreau et al. (2017), which points out that current mainstream CE applications tend to mainly consider cost-effective opportunities in the realm of economic competitiveness and thus fall short of grappling with the social and institutional predispositions necessary for societal transitions. These authors note that institutional conditions are key for setting the rules of what is profitable (or not), and so might foster greater circularity and solidarity opportunities in production and consumption. They also consider it essential to avoid cost shifting in time and place, and to implement collaborative and democratic governance systems that do without profit motives. To handle these institutional conditions, Hinton and Maclurcan (2017) point out that a not-for-profit world could represent an ‘economics of enough’ and a truly circular economy, since it would not require endless growth because the economic surplus could be reinvested to promote social and environmental goals. Schr¨ oder (2020) also warns that just transitions involving social equity are needed, as any transition that involves the CE will not only be technological, but also intensely political. Similarly, for Genovese and Pansera (2021), the main shortcoming of the CE is precisely its apolitical and technocratic framing; they call for a re-politicization of the concept. Calisto-Friant et al. (2021) have identified a major gap between words and actions in recent EU policies, which leads to a de-politicization of CE approaches. The absence of a social and political dimension in certain CE considerations is also linked to the alignment between mainstream CE discourses and practices, and economic growth dynamics, which may explain why the concept has gained traction so easily among policy makers and private businesses. 2.2. The SSE: centrality of the limited-profit motive and democratization of the economy The SSE, as an amalgam term including both traditional social economy and newer solidarity economy initiatives, refers to a heterogeneous set of theoretical approaches and practices that have been used to designate a different way of understanding the economy (P´ erez et al., 2015). The SSE builds on the social economy, which can be traced back to the 18th century in Europe and the emergence of the cooperative movement, as well as on more recent developments centering on the primacy of labour over capital (Monz´ on and Chaves, 2008). The solidarity economy is a more recent concept that emerged in the 1990s, and involves an attempt to rethink economic relations from parameters based on justice, cooperation, reciprocity and mutual aid (Laville and García-Jan´ e, 2009). The SSE is not defined merely as a set of business models with a social purpose, but is based on an alternative concept of the economy and the political sphere. The SSE seeks an economy that places an emphasis on: service to its members or to the community ahead of profit; autonomous management; a democratic decision-making process; and the primacy of people and work over capital in the distribution of revenues (Defourny and Nyssens, 2012). The SSE includes entrepreneurial initiatives that tend to share two common features: first, they are characterized by not being based – or at least not exclusively – on an economic rationale oriented at monetary accumulation in the market sphere; secondly, a moral and normative dimension is usually present in their logic of action (Sanz, 2019). Considering that SSE experiences are deeply embedded in social and institutional arrangements and involve much more than mercantile logics (for instance redistribution, reciprocity and self-sufficiency), the SSE in practice diverges from the experiences of capitalist enterprises in at least two fundamental ways: SSE initiatives take a different approach with respect to both profit-seeking motivation and in relation to competitive market practices. This discussion of the limited-profit and cooperative motives of SSE entities is a central theme in this article, and builds on previous work that considers how SSE entities interact with the market on the basis of these distinctive logics (Sahakian, 2016; Villalba-Eguiluz and P´ erez de Mendiguren, 2019). The limited-profit motive in the SSE differs from that of Non-profit Organizations. Non-profits are characterized by their legal inability to share profits among their stakeholders, while SSE entities adopt a policy of regulating or limiting (not forbidding) this eventual profit distribution, by means of equitable profit-sharing formulas (Defourny and Nyssens, 2012, Monz´ on and Chaves, 2008). In some contexts, such as Switzerland, for-profit companies can also be a part of the SSE, so long as they adhere to SSE principles. The profit motive is not a black or white issue, but is better understood as a continuum within which many different situations coexist, while sharing the limited profit motive. SSE also seeks to reassert social control or ‘social power’ over the economy (Wright, 2010), by giving primacy to social and often environmental objectives over profits, emphasizing the place of ethics in economic activity and rethinking economic practice in terms of democratic self-management and active citizenship (Utting, 2015). One key principle for this democratic self-management is the collective ownership or control formulas over the means of production instead of shareholder control. The SSE initiatives, in their most transformative versions, seek to transform the whole global capitalist system, organized as a counter-hegemonic project motivated by a belief that an alternative to capitalism is both ethically and existentially required (Newey, 2017). Its potential relates to the fact that the forms of production, exchange and consumption involved tend to integrate some combination of economic, social, environmental and cultural objectives, as well as the political dimensions of participatory governance and empowerment (Hillenkamp and Laville, 2013). Thus, the SSE can also be seen as a social movement that promotes the democratization of the economy, starting with its own governance systems (Coraggio, 2011; Askunze, 2013). 2.3. The limited-profit principle and sufficiency The idea of the limited-profit motive, central to the SSE in both theory and practice, can be tied more generally to debates on limits in sustainability studies. The limits to untrammeled economic growth are contested, in that growth is seen as incompatible with the Earth’s finite resources (Meadows et al., 1972). The compelling ‘planetary boundaries’ concept is one representation of limits, delineating an orbit with several thresholds tied to biogeochemical cycles: to avoid passing these thresholds is to maintain the Earth system within a ‘safe operating space’ (Rockstr¨ om et al., 2009; Steffen et al., 2015). These ‘boundaries’ open up questions of procedural justice: for whom and by whom are these boundaries established? The notion of planetary boundaries can be challenged by introducing that of ‘societal boundaries’, suggesting that limits must be collectively defined (Brand et al., 2021). The notion of ‘societal boundaries’ builds on Gorz’s (1989) work on self-limitation and autonomy. In this reading, limits are not just ‘out there’ in Earth system U. Villalba-Eguiluz et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 418 (2023) 138050 4 dynamics, nor are they imposed upon societies by scientific elites who know best; rather, limits are part of a process of autonomy that must take place within societies and its institutions. It would follow that limited profitability is a recognition that some level of profits may be necessary, but that sufficiency principles require a consideration of ‘how much is enough’. Hudon et al. (2020) propose to establish a ‘fair profit framework’ through a collective exercise that determines what should be a sufficient profit based on measurable and comparable criteria. In this same vein, Kallis (2019) further reinforces this importance of limits created by and for society, which could lead towards a ‘sufficiency economy’ that guarantees ‘enough, for everyone, forever’ (Alexander, 2012). This relates to how needs are agreed upon, which opens up political questions around who defines limits for whom, as discussed in the emerging literature on limits and wellbeing (Sahakian et al., 2021). The question of limits is central to analysing both SSE and CE, and becomes a point of differentiation. In the CE, the economy should be seen as subordinate to the biophysical limits of the Earth system (Georgescu-Roegen, 1971). Yet in mainstream CE practices, the limits that hinder the development of the CE are often associated with the level of profitability of any specific CE solution (Moreau et al., 2017). The efficiency rationale is key to the CE, as circular systems can be seen as rendering resource usage more efficient – thus maintaining profitability and competitiveness. Actors in the SSE may be closer to an ethic of supporting the common good, or engaging in processes that seek to meet the needs of individuals and collectivities (Salustri, 2021). Both the CE and the SSE acknowledge ecological limits, but unlimited profit is not put into question in the CE, while in the SSE the limited-profit motive is a central theme – as we will explore in our case study below. Furthermore, cooperation and reciprocity are central themes in how SSE entities are governed (ibid), particularly for cooperatives where collaboration is the basis of any form of activity, which is not necessarily the case with the CE. 3. Methodology and case study overview 3.1. Research methodology We used a qualitative case study approach that allows for an in-depth study within specific settings (Yin, 2018) and offers a detailed comprehension of context-dependent dynamics and practical knowledge (Flyvbjerg, 2006), while shedding light on a question with a broader scope (Gerring, 2004). Table 1 summarizes the six methodological steps of our study. First, we reviewed literature explicitly involving both the SSE and the CE, using the following key terms in SCOPUS and WoS: “social and solidarity economy”, “solidarity economy”, “social economy”, combined with “and” “circular economy”. Secondly, since these results were scarce, and not every article’s content was relevant to our investigation, we then searched for other CE literature strands that included relevant concepts for the SSE. Here we identified a set of concepts and topics that relate both to SSE and CE, which could serve as a useful and initial guide for our analysis. These ‘common SSE-CE topics’ come from alternative circularity debates and Sufficiency Driven Business Model (SBM) literature, which will appear again in our results and discussion. The third and fourth steps involved fieldwork. Qualitative research was carried out in two regional territorial networks that play a major role in the promotion of the SSE: REAS-Euskadi (Basque Country) and APRES-GE (Switzerland). We selected these two cases and sectors for a number of reasons: (i) because of convenience and our prior extensive and valuable knowledge in working with them. (ii) Because both networks are representative of a new turn in the SSE movement, since affiliation is not dependent on any specific legal form, but on signing a charter of shared principles and values. (iii) Because both cases present slight differences regarding these principles, as we explain in the next subsection, and precisely within one principle, key to our study: that of limited profitability. (iv) Because in both cases the food and environment sectors on which we focused were relevant; these in turn are also relevant for circularity, since they use comparatively more resources than some other sectors in SSE networks. We followed an ‘informationoriented selection’ of cases (Flyvbjerg, 2006), insofar as these two cases can be seen as ‘paradigmatic’ regarding solidarity principles and the chosen sectors as ‘general characteristics’, but at the same time represent ‘variation cases’ regarding the specific limited-profit motive and other context dependent factors. The aim was not to generate a strict comparison, but rather to use the case studies as a way of shedding light on generalizable and common issues in both contexts. We conducted 26 interviews in total, involving 31 people from 20 SSE entities belonging to two sectors in the SSE networks: food and agriculture, and environmental services (see Table 2). The research teams in Western Switzerland and the Basque region worked collaboratively on research design and analysis. Building on the literature review and our previous knowledge of the SSE networks, a set of common SSE-CE topics both informed the interview design, and served as tools in the analysis of preliminary results. The selection of respondents was based mainly on three criteria: variety and coverage within sectors; relevant position within the organization and knowledge over time; and preferences of the networks themselves. Interviews were conducted and transcribed in their own languages (Basque, Spanish, French), and then translated into English for the relevant analysis and use of quotations (denoted as I.BC for the Basque Country, and I.WS for Western Switzerland). The main interview questions were aimed at uncovering both the discourses and practices of SSE actors related to the CE, and Table 1 Overview of methodological steps. DESK WORK: FIELDWORK: DATA ANALYSIS: 1st step Literature review linking SSE & CE. - Very few items (up to 2021) depending on search terms, respectively: “social and solidarity economy”, “solidarity economy”, “social economy” combined with “and” “circular economy”. 3rd step - Interview design based on: research questions; our previous knowledge of SSE networks; literature review; discussion with SSE network leaders. - Preliminary testing of common SSE-CE topics (alternative circularities, SBM, etc.). 5th step - Transcripts and translation - Initial thematic analysisTriangulation of emerging concepts among research teams No. in WoS: 7/12/13 No. in SCOPUS: 8/13/14 2nd step Identification of CE literature strands for the SSE, and common SSE-CE topics:- ‘Missing social dimension of the CE’; ‘Human centred CE’’- ‘Alternative/Social Circularities’- ‘Circular/Sufficiency Business Models (SBM)’ 4th step - First-round of in-depth interviews: 20 interviews/entities Involving 26 people Duration 40–80min each - Second-round in-depth interviews: 6 extra interviews with selected previous entities Involving 7 people Duration 40–65min each 6th step - Coding data by the Gioia method, identification of emerging 1st order concepts, 2nd order themes, and 3rd order dimensions - Discussion and writing Source: Elaborated by the authors. U. Villalba-Eguiluz et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 418 (2023) 138050 5 involve the following key discussion questions: How do they define and apply the CE; What specific CE strategies and tools do they put in place in their operations; How do they apply the main circular Rs; Which Circular-Sufficiency Business Model characteristics do they put into practice; How do they understand the relation between SSE and CE, and specifically what are the implications of SSE principles for the circularity implementations; How is sufficiency taken into account, and how do they differ from other enterprises within the same sector; What are the limits and tensions facing all these challenges; How do they relate to broader sustainability aims and policies. For these main topics, other sub-questions were developed which were more context specific. After the first round of interviews, which for some initiatives had a more open and exploratory focus, a second round of interviews were conducted with a subset of the initial sample to validate some of the initial findings and to further discuss key ideas that had emerged. In this second round, we also sought to better understand how each actor can be differentiated from non-SSE actors in the same sector. Our fifth research step involved data analysis combining both inductive and deductive approaches, using techniques from the Gioia method to capture emergent concepts, themes and dimensions (Gioia et al., 2013). Finally, our sixth research step refers to coding, discussion and validation among research teams, and collaborative writing. One limit of the study is that we did not observe in more detail how the SSE is playing out, as this would have necessitated rigorous participant observation over the long term. But we did aim to move beyond discourses to capture practices within these organizations when it comes to the SSE and how it relates to SSE, which required descriptive exchanges on how and in what way things are done. We also reviewed the grey literature related to both networks to substantiate our findings, based on internal and external reports that document activities. 3.2. Case study overview: REAS-Euskadi (Basque Country) and APRESGE (Western Switzerland) In Table 3, we present general features of the two networks to understand their size and relevance, their types of members, and the sectors in which they are involved. A common characteristic is that these SSE networks are guided by a set of values and normative principles of action implemented via several indicators that are usually summarized in a mandatory charter that interested organizations must sign, adhere to, and progressively implement. Despite using different terms, they share much common ground regarding principles and values (see Table 4). We were able to note that there are different kinds of models or approaches that also try to somehow promote both ecological and social principles, such as B-Corps Table 2 List of interviewed SSE entities. Ref. Entities Sector: Activity Interviewees’ position Location I.BC1 EHNE Bizkaia Food, agriculture: Agricultural union Board of Directors Biscay I.BC2 Labore Food, agriculture: Cooperative Supermarket Co-founding partner Biscay I.BC3 Goilurra Food, agriculture: Work Integration Social Enterprise (WISE), agroecological production Head of social integration Biscay I.BC4 Ortutik Ahora Food, agriculture: Agroecological training. Board Biscay I.BC5 Emaús FS Environment: WISE, Reuse. Educational Services Coordinator Gipuzkoa I.BC6 Garbinguru Environment: WISE, Management of environmental and forestry projects. Manager Araba I.BC7 Goiener Environment: Renewable energy Head of communication Gipuzkoa Education board I.BC8 Koopera Environment: WISE, social-environmental Innovation. Responsible for new activities. Cofounder. Biscay I.BC9 Sustraiak Habitat Design Environment: Agroecosystem regeneration. Co-Founding Partner Araba I.BC10 REAS-Euskadi REAS network Coordination Team Directors Biscay I.WS1 Ecoservices Environment: safety engineering General management Geneva I.WS2 Sofies Environment: sustainability consulting Co-founder; chairman Geneva I.WS3 R´ ealise Environment: WISE, IT repair, logistics Manager; advisor Geneva I.WS4 FabLab Environmental design: design, repair Co-founder, manager Geneva I.WS5 Materiuum Environment: construction recycling, circular design, training Co-founder, manager Geneva I.WS6 SPP Vergers Food, Agriculture: Cooperative supermarket. Co-founder, employee Geneva I.WS7 Le Nid Food, Agriculture. Cooperative supermarket. Co-founder, Communication Director Geneva I.WS8 TerrEspoir Food: fair trade Coordinator, Manager Vaud I.WS9 La Brouette Food, Agriculture: Cooperative supermarket. Co-founder and employee Vaud I.WS10 APRES APRES network coordination team Coordinators Geneva Source: Elaborated by the authors. Table 3 Description of the networks. Network’s Name REAS-Euskadi (Basque Country) APRES-GE (Western Switzerland) Date of Creation 1997 2004 Territorial Scope Basque Country French-speaking Switzerland, and neighbouring regions in France. No. of members 80 entities 327 entities, 331 individuals Types of members No individuals. Individuals. All other forms: All other forms: 23 Limited Companies 25 Limited Companies 26 Associations 190 Associations 26 Cooperatives 23 Cooperatives 5 Foundations 33 Foundations 17 Public limited companies 38 Individual companies No. of participants 3255 workers 5000 workers 3783 volunteers 12000 volunteers 15383 members 85000 members Income Total revenue: 144 mill. € Total revenue: 430 mill. CHF Activity Sectors Health & Care: 16 Education: 53 Education & Research: 12 Civic activities: 53 Environment: 10 Environment-Waste Management: 50 Food, catering: 10 Services: 43 Culture & Leisure: 6 Art &leisure: 39 Counselling Services: 5 Social action & health: 36 Spaces & Networks:4 Food: 33 Manufactures sales: 4 Commerce: 15 Others: 13 Source: Elaborated by the authors, based on REAS (2020) and respective websites (www.apres-ge.ch; www.reasred.org/reas-euskadi). U. Villalba-Eguiluz et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 418 (2023) 138050 6 certification. While good governance and transparency in operations are also criteria for such forms of certification, they stop very short of challenging the profit motive (which was a central question for this study), they do not clearly address the quest for limits and sufficiency, and they do not deal with the need of transformation of the whole economic system. Besides, they have a growing presence in Western Switzerland and could be competing with the SSE’s social image, but they are very marginal in the Basque Country, which constitutes a difference between the two contexts. Among these values and principles, two are worth highlighting for the purpose of our article. First, the ‘ecological limits’ principle, within which, for conceptual simplification, we have included what REASEuskadi calls the ‘Nature’ value and the ‘Sustainability’ principle and what APRES-GE calls the ‘Ecology’ value and the ‘Respect for the environment’ principle. Thus, APRES-GE and REAS-Euskadi are committed to building an economic system that respects the interdependence of ecological limits and socio-economic processes. Both put forward environmentally friendly practices in a consistent effort to apply an ethic of sufficiency, and sustainable production and consumption towards circularity. Second, the ‘limited-profit’ principle: SSE actors call for a shift towards an economy that affirms the predominance of people over capital. To achieve this goal, REAS-Euskadi upholds the non-profit principle, which means that all the profits must be reinvested and not distributed, while APRES-GE advocates the principle of limited-profit instead, so that some profits could be distributed. This is an interesting difference. As noted above, the profit motive is not a black or white issue but is better understood as a continuum along which many different situations can coexist. The main question is not to dramatically forbid profits, but to set a limit to profitability, and consider how much is enough. Both approaches are indicative of a strong value of the SSE in terms of confronting dominant economic thinking: the pursuit of profit and capital accumulation should not be the ultimate goal of economic activity. Other values and principles of the SSE (such as solidarity, equity, cooperation/collaboration, autonomy, work etc.), are also echoed in CE literature as integral parts of the CE’s social dimension (Padilla-Rivera et al., 2020, Walker et al., 2021). These principles correlate directly with different themes that have emerged in the literature, but which are beyond the scope of this study, such as: the question of the ‘local’ (local communities, local economy); employee engagement; ethical business practices, ethical consumer behaviour; fair income distribution; social inclusion and equity; participation and local democracy, among others. 4. Results: approaching CE strategies from SSE principles and practices Table 5 below summarizes our findings and illustrates some of the concepts, themes and dimensions that are relevant to both the Swiss and Basque cases. The following subsections are structured according to these dimensions and explain some of the main contents. 4.1. The CE within the SSE: an integral social circularity approach Across the two cases of Western Switzerland and the Basque region, our interviewees do not agree on a single definition of the CE, but they do share a common understanding on strong sustainability around closing, slowing and narrowing material cycles locally. They claim that they were already engaged in core activities of the CE (reduce-reuserecycle) before the mainstreaming of the CE during the last decade. Regarding how circularity is understood and put into practice, we underscore three interrelated findings: First, actors in the SSE see the Rs as a way of transforming the Table 5 Data analysis structure: from 1st order concepts to themes and aggregate dimensions. 1st order concepts 2nd order themes Aggregate Dimensions Alternative economic understanding; challenge production & consumption systems; democratization of the economy; food & energy sovereignty proposals. Transforming the economic system as a whole Integral social circularity approach Rethink economic activity; Refuse non-ethical activities; Reduce consumption and use of materials. Prioritize more transformative Rs: Refuse, Rethink, Reduce Profit is not a priority; seek viability but not maximum profitability. Limited profit as core distinctive driver Avoid consumerism; recognize limits and planetary boundaries Minimize overall consumption Sufficiency-driven Business Model: People & Planet over profit Meet human needs not endless wants; consumer engagement; active citizenship; consciousness-raising and awareness. Needs over wants: conscious consumer engagement Collaborate among equals; Networking; Cooperate towards similar values and aims. Fostering cooperation & collaboration Create jobs and local sustainability over profit; fair economic distribution; intrinsic social mission; commitment with and service to local communities Maximize social and ecological aims Ecological improvements costs are too high; ecological aims do not pay for economic viability Limits to prioritize ecological over economic aims Implementation tensions & limits Environmental concerns are not readily available to everyone; circular restructuring may affect jobs Tensions in balancing social and ecological aims We foster cooperation and collaboration but …; cooperation is not easy; cooperation and competitive behaviours coexist. Limits to collaborative dynamics within competitive contexts Source: Elaborated by the authors. Table 4 SSE Network’s values and principles. Network REAS-Euskadi APRES-GE Principles Sustainability Respect for the environment Not for profit Respect for social wellbeing Cooperation Respect for democracy and responsibility Work Respect for labour Equity Respect for coherence Commitment to local communities/environment Mandatory criteria: Transparency Collective interest Autonomy Limited profitability Values Solidarityo Solidarity; 1 +1 >2 Autonomy Autonomy; autonomous but not individualistic Nature Ecology People Social wellbeing; to be, not to have Self-management Participatory citizenship and democracy Liberating culture Diversity Coherence; say what we do and do what we say Source: Elaborated by the authors, based on REAS’ Solidarity Economy Charter and APRES-GE’s Charter for a Social and Solidarity-Oriented Economy of the Geneva Region. U. Villalba-Eguiluz et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 418 (2023) 138050 7 economic system as a whole, rather than working on single products or services. SSE actors Refuse to do business in any sector that is not oriented towards societal needs, such as military-related or luxury goods. Moreover, in the sectors of activity they enter into, such as food and energy, they Rethink the whole supply chain system by delivering solutions that seek to reorient economic relations towards food and energy sovereignty strategies. For example, in the Swiss case, different actors in food provisioning will come together to ensure that systems of production and consumption are being transformed towards supporting local employment, fostering ecological production, and reducing packaging waste across supply chains. A local currency, the Leman, is also a way to bring together diverse actors in the region who share similar values. Similarly, in the Basque case, this attempt to transform the economic system towards energy and food sovereignty proposals with an integral local character is reflected in Rethink and Reduce strategies applied by SSE enterprises, whereby they collaborate with other institutional and social actors embedded in the territory at small scales. Accordingly, the main challenge will be the implementation of a ‘full SSE system’ described as follows: ‘We must promote exchanges between our organizations to strengthen them, but the real challenge is to transform other mainstream companies that have very insufficient ecological and social commitments, through the good practice examples of the SSE’ (I.WS3). This suggests a link to the political dimension of the SSE, as actors and initiatives seek to broaden their scope of action towards the democratization of the whole economy, and in this way try to establish the institutional conditions that would avoid cost-shifting from the economic dimension to social and ecological dimensions (Moreau et al., 2017). These initiatives aspire to counterbalance the hegemonic market economy: ‘The most important thing is to get out of the market economy, to propose another economy, everything else will follow’ (I. WS6). Second, there is a strong focus on the more transformative aspects of Table 6 Circular Rs practices in SSE entities. ENTITY Activity Location What they do: Applications of circular Rs How they differ: Distinctive points of comparison to other, same-sector enterprises not in the SSE SUSTRAIAK HABITAT DESIGN, Agriculture/ Food design services, Basque Country, VitoriaGasteiz. Regenerate soil quality and rural ecosystems. Regenerate rural communities as well (socio-territorial embeddedness). Refuse hazardous components (fertilizers, pesticides, etc.) Rethink agrifood systems: seek food sovereignty. Reduce transport; local supply and commercial chains. Recognize limits of each territory (relocate within bioregion, km0, resize and adequate practices to these limits, interconnected self-sufficiency among local territories). Reduce dependence on foreign inputs (energy, machinery, grass, feed, etc.) Redistribution: reintroduce barter and reciprocity; collective purchases; cooperatives. Recycle: zero waste practices within the plot (fertilizers, seeds, etc.) Diversify and combine ecologically and socially synergistic activities. GOIENER, Renewable Energy Basque Country. Reduce extraction of virgin materials (fossil fuels, components of renewable energy). Rethink energy systems: energy sovereignty. Relocate and decentralize systems, linking production and consumption in short circuits, reducing energy losses and reducing foreign extraction. Redistribution and demarketization: local communities produce and consume their own local energy. Reduce impacts of (renewable) energy production and distribution. Refuse: do not use new rural lands for energy generation; prioritize small facilities over macro-projects (non-sustainable or non-equitable renewable energy projects). Reduce energy dependence: selfproduction and consumption. Reduce energy consumption: strong advisory services and campaigns to reduce overall consumption, not only costs. Analyse needs and resize (reduce) projects. Refuse some kinds of energy recovery or incinerators. Recover and rehabilitate small hydraulic power plants. Reduce CO2 footprint and compensate with local projects. LABORE, Cooperative supermarket, Basque Country, Bilbao. Reduce plastic packaging Reduce consumerism and marketing. Reduce hazardous elements (fertilizers, pesticides, etc.) Refuse price competition among local producers. Pay fair prices to suppliers. Establish coordination mechanisms along the whole chain to solve these problems (caps to billings, assemblies, coordinated plans regarding quotas and turns, etc.). Reduce transport (local producers and consumers) Revitalize local communities. Reduce food waste Relocate consumption-production relationships. Foster consciousness in consumers regarding their local suppliers. Rethink agrifood systems: seek food sovereignty. Collaboration with other similar stores. REALISE, IT repair sector, Switzerland, Geneva. Reuse and Repair of computers and their components. Focus is on job creation and training (work integration programs); labour intensive activities. Collecting, selecting and preparing for Recycling of computers. Redistribution, through job creation for people in a situation of vulnerability. Reduce the need to extract new raw materials. Ability to reuse, repair and recycle materials and products even when this is not profitable in the market for other companies, thanks to external public support for job creation and internal non-profit logics. MATERIUUM, Construction, Switzerland, Geneva. Reuse construction site materials, giving them new value. Focus is on job creation; the cost of Reuse and Recycling must cover labour, there is no or limited profit on the material itself. Reduce the need to extract new raw materials. Ultimate aim is to reduce final waste. Reduce material intensity of construction. Collecting and storing materials for Reuse. Sorting certain materials for Recycling by other enterprises. Source: Elaborated by the authors. U. Villalba-Eguiluz et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 418 (2023) 138050 8 circularity, such as Refuse, Rethink and Reduce, rather than the less ecologically efficient act of Recycling. Here again, the focus is not solely on single products, but systems of production and consumption. ‘As SSE actors, we Refuse some sectors of activity; we also Rethink the whole model and the economy from our own principles; and we also try to Reduce consumption in general and our own use of resources’ (I.BC10). In the Swiss case, the example of re-useable containers for different food and beverages is a way to Reduce the dependence on single-use products, despite the up-front costs of investing (time and money) in containers, as well as the ongoing costs of storing, cleaning and tracking containers. ‘The investment in time is not profitable for these small entities, but they do invest because they share the same values. Once the re-useable container system is in place, no doubt other larger actors will also join this effort’ (I.WS.10). In the Basque case, following food and energy sovereignty proposals, SSE actors Rethink how to connect the local production and consumption of energy, without affecting local availability of land for agriculture, and they thus Refuse to occupy agricultural land for the installation of photovoltaic facilities, as is occurring elsewhere with for-profit renewable energy companies. Besides, SSE networks connect local, traditional and small-scale agroecological producers with other local stores, and collaborate with local institutions beyond the SSE such as hospitals and school canteens, so as to Reduce the negative impacts of transport. The aim is to Revitalize local communities through socially embedded collaboration, where other principles beyond for-profit food sales are valued. SSE actors do not try to grow at any cost, but seek to Reduce overall production and consumption in society. They actively engage in consciousness-raising campaigns with this aim, and also apply this ambition to their own activities, even if that means a Reduction in sales. Third, both previous findings relate to the limited profit principle as a core distinctive driver, which is at the heart of the SSE. In the Swiss case, re-using materials found on construction sites might be unprofitable for clients, who might even pay more for these services; it is the investment in local employment and the reduction of final waste that is emphasized, above the profit motive. Moreover, entities might profit from exporting construction materials to China for refurbishing and resale, but will not do so – as their aim is to support a local economy. In this case, Recycling that is profitable is not privileged. Thus, Re-use, Reduce and local employment are given more importance than profitability. As a Swiss actor explained ‘Limiting the use of resources also means limiting profitability’ (I.WS5). Actors in both networks criticize the primacy of the profit motive in the current mainstream spread of the CE, which is seen as a main point of differentiation with the SSE, which puts forward social and ecological values: ‘We [WISEs] have already been practicing these activities, and the reuse of waste, but what is now the objective? [We] do it to empower people and now others do it for the business’ (I.BC8). This concern echoes what other researchers have signaled as competing narratives between the SSE and the CE in France due to recent legislative changes (Leipold et al., 2021). For instance, a tension might be recognized between the SSE network’s view of the CE and the official institutional approach of the Basque government, with the latter’s focus on economic performance and competitiveness (Bassi et al., 2021). There is also a critique about a depoliticized view of the CE transitions, and about the distance between discourses and actions already identified in the case of the EU policies (Calisto-Friant et al., 2021), which finds an echo amongst some SSE actors in Geneva as well. Finally, in Table 6 we summarize some of these findings based on both the first and the second rounds of in-depth interviews, in the second of which we aimed to further explore key findings: first, we check how each SSE entity simultaneously implements many Rs in their activities, including some of the more challenging Rs in relation to mainstream economic dynamics, that is, Refuse, Rethink and Reduce. Second, we look at how these Rs are applied and could illustrate possible differences between SSE initiatives and other actors in their same sectors, as noted in the third column. 4.2. Sufficiency-driven business model characteristics SSE practices meet many of the characteristics of CBMs and the more specific approach of the SBMs. Here we will address just four of these characteristics: (I) SSE initiatives are committed to minimizing overall resource consumption, which is in line with their ‘ecological limits’ principle: ‘to Reduce is the most important thing, Reduce the consumption of energy even if there is conflict with our own growth possibilities’ (I.BC7); ‘Less is more, do not grow unnecessarily’ (I. BC1). By aligning themselves with the priority of Reduction, they foster a strong sustainability view of the CE, in which limits on the use of materials and energy are acknowledged. Thus, some kind of sufficiency levels are implicit, seeking to meet human needs within planetary boundaries by curbing excessive consumption levels. (II) SSE networks seek conscious consumer’s engagement, which is guided by the aim of satisfying human needs through conscious sales and responsible consumption at the level of grassroots initiatives and self-reliant communities (Clube and Tennant, 2023), rather than promoting endless wants through aggressive marketing. This in turn helps to moderate/minimize overall resource consumption, and it is definitively facilitated by the limited-profit principle: ‘We are trying to raise awareness to be able to rethink the way we consume’ (I.WS5); ‘It is a cooperative store, all members […] are sensitized directly, they know the farmer, the bakers, the level of awareness is very important’ (I.WS7); ‘Our clients are consomm’acteurs [consumer-actors], they commit to, reinforce and manage the distribution network’ (I.WS8). (III) SSE initiatives seek to maximize social and ecological dimensions over the economic one, or at least, work for a balance between economic, ecological and social dimensions. This orientation is derived from their original social mission, and it is definitively facilitated by their limited-profit principle: ‘We [WISEs] always prioritize creating another insertion job, over other issues, even if we do not need all the hours of that position’ (I.BC6); ‘The social objective is paramount, also by law we are non-profit’; (I.BC3); ‘Although we are less profitable, we reduce margins and pay [more to] our farmers and thus we value their practices’ (I.WS6). In this sense, APRES-GE broadens the vision of corporate responsibility by considering business activity as a form of mutualization where objectives of common good and equity are shared: ‘When we start to make profits, we increase salaries by 15%, and we try to provide better pension funds’ (I.WS2). Following this vision, the fair distribution of profits must account for the social and environmental sustainability of human activities in a context of commitment and accountability: ‘Reasonable profitability is the cornerstone of the ability to have a deep ecological and social commitment. A true commitment means investing a significant portion of profits in improving societal impact and reducing ecological impact’ (I.WS3). This deviation from the profit maximization imperative helps foster sufficiency and non-growth models, since instead of striving for growth, firms can strive to uphold their social or ecological aims (Nesterova, 2020). (IV) SSE initiatives tend to engage with all the stakeholders through collaboration and cooperation. We analysed SSE networks that involve a variety of sectoral activities and tend to collaborate in a common social and environmental purpose that goes beyond profit seeking, which are characteristics of its social embeddedness. ‘We always prioritize collaboration within REAS or between related social enterprises, for example, if we do not manage to agree on a contract in our company, we make a proposal to another related organization’ (I.BC6). ‘When there may be competition between local traditional farmers in selling their U. Villalba-Eguiluz et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 418 (2023) 138050 9 agro-ecological products, we seek mediation mechanisms based on cooperation’ (I.BC2). ‘We are part of the SSE because we are not in competition; cooperation and exchanges are an integral part of who we are’ (I.WS3). Actors in the SSE tend to cooperate with other actors who share similar values, thus advancing efforts to achieve circularity through networking. 4.3. Implementation limits and tensions between and within the SSE and CE SSE practices are themselves not without tensions and contradictions (Utting, 2018; Villalba-Eguiluz et al., 2020a, 2020b). SSE actors are committed to developing viable alternatives to the current hegemonic economic model: ‘The economy must be rethought to be at the service of the community and not an economy that is a goal in itself in order to make money’ (I.WS6); ‘We do not think about prices but about the impact of the products’ (I.WS9). But, at the same time, there are tensions and limits in the implementation of normative SSE principles to achieve a ‘different economy’. These tensions might emerge between any of the three dimensions: social, economic or ecological. The social imperative and normative values do not automatically bring greater environmental sustainability, and contradictions between the different aims can be found. The following are some of the tensions that emerge among SSE actors when it comes to: prioritizing the ecological dimension over the economic one; balancing the social and ecological dimensions; and maintaining cooperation and collaborative governance dynamics. First, regarding prioritizing the ecological dimension, improvement in environmental performance can be hindered by high costs of implementation: ‘We have a policy of reducing CO2, at least up to the elements that we cannot change at the moment because this is beyond our financial means’ (I.WS3). Second, regarding the social dimension, the reconciliation of SSE and CE criteria includes not only the functioning of companies, but also the challenge of job creation and issues concerning affordable and more sustainable living standards: ‘The introduction of CE principles like reduction, and the elimination of unnecessary activities [ …] will lead to the loss of numerous jobs. We must think about the field of job creation, otherwise we will cause a civil war’ (I.WS3). Studies on the apparel value chain show that job reduction is likely to happen in production activities outside Europe, while job growth could happen in reuse and recycling activities within Europe (Repp et al., 2021). Similarly, the question of high prices in ecological food production can have different effects: paying higher prices benefits producers in social and economic terms, and could foster environmental sustainability by promoting biodiversity and organic production, for example. However, higher food prices might also affect social equity negatively, by making such food less affordable to all consumers. Third, tensions also emerge regarding the collaborative dynamics within a competitive context. For instance, there can be competition among SSE organizations when trying to access scarce resources, such as public funding: ‘I have seen practices far removed from SSE principles when participating in public procurement processes’ (I.BC5). This implies that in a context in which some SSE initiatives build upon scarce public funding to expand their strategies, they could become dependent on this resource, and sometimes compete with other SSE initiatives for these public tenders, instead of cooperating to present a shared proposal. Even if cooperation tends to prevail, it coexists with competition to some extent – as SSE actors often operate within broader market dynamics and economic pressures. Changing public procurement policies is seen as fundamental for further supporting the SSE in the Basque and Swiss contexts, and for an effective circularity policy design (Witjes and Lozano, 2016). 5. Discussion: policy implications of the SSE for a more circular society We now turn to two areas where relevant policy implications or business insights can be derived from our findings regarding limits and sufficiency: a) sufficiency policies and eco-social welfare measures, and b) the question of scalability and broader market interactions. 5.1. Towards sufficiency policies or eco-social welfare measures Current mainstream CE practices tend to enhance environmental efficiency but do not necessarily introduce caps or limits to overall resource use and consumption, and may therefore be insufficient for orienting human activities within a ‘safe operating space’ of planetary boundaries. Continuous economic growth may not be a feasible option (Capell´ an-P´ erez et al., 2015; Hickel and Kallis, 2019), and eco-efficiency may not be sufficient for achieving a sustainability transition (Bimpizas-Pinis et al., 2021). Sufficiency measures are needed, at both a micro and macro level, understood in the IPCC 6th assessment report as ‘avoiding demand while meeting needs’ (Saheb, 2021). These could be defined as eco-social welfare measures for the 21st century (Koch, 2022). The notion of ‘meeting needs’ or achieving wellbeing within safe operating spaces is essential, as sufficiency policies entail substantial changes in production and consumption patterns (Toulouse et al., 2019; Sandberg, 2021), which would certainly meet resistance if associated with loss of quality of life. The notion of ‘consumption corridors’, or upper and lower limits to consumption, is a promising paradigm for policy-making, as it suggests that human needs can be met within limits (Fuchs et al., 2021). Similarly, the notion of a ‘safe and just operating space’ that includes meeting social foundations without bypassing planetary limits, or the doughnut model (Raworth, 2017), is also a paradigm shift that is being explored at the local level, by cities from Amsterdam to Geneva. SSE principles, with their normative focus on wellbeing at the individual and collective level – through, for example, prioritizing local consumption-production loops, along with cooperation and collaboration measures – are well suited for bringing about a more salutogenic and positive approach to sufficiency measures. A limited-profit motive which acknowledges sufficiency can be a major lever for maintaining economic activity within planetary boundaries and achieving wellbeing, something that is supported by our respondents in both Western Switzerland and the Basque Country: ‘You have to limit profit and dedicate all efforts to positive environmental and social impacts’ (I. WS1). In our case studies we have seen many of the sufficiency strategies indicated by Niessen and Bocken (2021) for achieving Reduce-Rethink-Refuse options within ‘less distance’ between production and consumption, such as: awareness-raising; demand reduction services; moderating sales; questioning consumption; short-distance promotion; and support for self-sufficiency. This approach is in stark contrast to the profit maximizing strategies of individual for-profit companies, and it would necessitate institutional conditions to allow its spread, such as collaborative governance or social requirements in public tenders, as we discuss below. Here again, the repoliticization of both CE and SSE practices is necessary, in the direction of recognizing the ‘social embeddedness’ of the economy. A growing body of recent literature on the CE has proposed this shift away from profit-seeking and towards a more normative approach to the CE (Mies and Gold, 2021; Jaeger-Erben et al., 2021) through a new culture of consumption and benefit redistribution and sufficiency (D’Amato and Korhonen, 2021). In short, the SSE networks studied align with the main ideas of the bottom-up sufficiency circular scenario depicted by Bauwens et al. (2020a): prioritization of high transformative Rs, and fostering local communities and short supply chains. The SSE may help to put CE efforts at the service of human needs, reduce inequalities and enhance social cohesion (Clube and Tennant, 2023; Schr¨ oder et al., 2019b, 2020). U. Villalba-Eguiluz et al.