Consensus and contestation: reflections on the development of an indicator framework for a just transition to a circular economy

We explore an attempt to derive a set of indicators reflecting a just transition to a circular economy (CE) at a supply chain level. Here we build upon the theoretical work presented in Purvis and Genovese (2023) with an account of an empirical exercise following the standard methodological steps outlined for the creation of a measurement dashboard. A literature review of existing CE indicators for supply chains was therefore followed by a Delphi approach which sought to understand and incorporate the expertise of CE scholars and practitioners. The 3 round Delphi incorporated a survey, and an individual, and group Analytical Hierarchy Process, as a standard technique to derive consensus from experts in terms of suitable indicator categories. Yet contestations observed during the consensus building exercises cast doubt on the suitability of our nominally consensus-driven approach, as well as the use of indicators themselves for our critical purposes. We describe the dilemmas precipitated by this failure of consensus, with reference to the inherent challenges to indicator frameworks and a series of questions for better research design. The paper also reflects on the fundamental contradictions related to the use of indicators for inducing transformational dynamics, and problematises the desire for consensus, thereby paving the way for further research avenues.