1 Introduction

The textile industry is under heavy pressure from legislators, consumers, and academia to renew itself because of, for example, excess pollution and resource intensive operating models [1, 2]. Textile production and consumption cause 6–10% of global carbon dioxide emissions, make up 20% of industrial water pollution, and result in over 92 million tonnes of waste streams each year [2]. Social issues like low wages and unsafe working conditions also persist in global textile supply chains [3, 4].

The circular economy (CE) model could provide tools for advancing the sustainability of the sector [5,6,7,8,9,10] but the transition to circularity is still in the early stages of design and implementation [6, 11]. Many of the novel operating modes of CE, including business models, technologies, and policies, aim for a paradigm shift—from a fast, linear fashion to a more sustainable, slow, circular fashion system [2, 12, 13]. Ideally, the circular economy leads to increased overall sustainability, but evidence on this causality is still scarce and partly controversial, especially concerning the social dimension of sustainability [9, 14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21]. In this paper, we explore the justice aspects of the transition to a circular economy in the textile industry.

A paradigm change towards circularity, including for example increased recycling and second-hand sales, would have various social impacts in different locations and among multiple actors: from retail sales staff and designers to workers and farmers in global supply chains [20, 22,23,24,25]. Even though circularity is foreseen to contribute to positive social development, research on the social dimension of circularity suggests, that the transition to circularity can also impose or reproduce risks of negative social implications [20, 24, 26,27,28,29,30]. For example, precarious working conditions can persist or increase in circular supply chains [24, 31, 32] distribution of costs and benefits of the novel practices may be inequal [33, 34] and increase in circularity in the EU could mean that current production countries of the Global South could lose jobs, whereas countries in the Global North could gain new forms of employment [23, 35]. Advancement of CE can also induce even totally new inequalities between different regions, especially between those that already show signs of inequality or asymmetrical power structures, such as the relationship between the Global North and the Global South [3, 36, 37] and generate new tensions between the environmental, social, and economic dimensions of sustainability [38, 39].

Justice considerations are needed in CE research because social equity and justice are, in most cases, not integrated in the design or conceptualization of the CE paradigm [26, 40]. The social pillar is the least mentioned, as opposed to economic and environmental dimensions, in definitions and aims of CE [40]. Current research on circular transitions has been criticized for lacking the social sustainability dimension, such as justice, equity, working conditions, livelihoods or health, with most efforts focusing on environmental sustainability issues such as carbon emissions [36, 41,42,43,44,45]. The justness aspects and related tensions that can arise from the transition to a circular economy based textile industry are not well known and research is urgently needed on these issues especially from the viewpoint of the Global South [23, 39, 43, 46,47,48,49]. It is important to explore justness aspects not only from a moral viewpoint but also to ensure the transition advances smoothly [48, 50].

We use the just transition perspective to uncover the injustices and tensions that may arise due to the transition to circularity in the textile industry [51]. Kirchherr proposes the idea of circular justice that could be based on the three dimensions of the just transition: distributive, procedural, and recognitive [43]. Through these three justice dimensions, we uncover the justness aspects and tensions related to the circular transition. We explore the issue through a study on the industrial textile cluster of Tamil Nadu, India. Our empirical data is collected from suppliers of textiles and stakeholders presenting workers. Our research questions are as follows:

  1. 1.

    What are the main justness tensions brought about by the circular transition in the textile industry in Tamil Nadu?

  2. 2.

    What learnings can we derive from the findings for designing just circular transitions on a broader scale?

We propose the concept of just circular transition, demonstrating what it could mean in practice and theory. Our contribution is twofold. First, we identify justness tensions in the circular transition of the textile industry in Tamil Nadu and propose practical building blocks to ameliorate these tensions. Second, our theoretical contribution integrates the just transition and the triple bottom line approaches. We will argue, that a just circular transition happens in the interface of the three sustainability dimensions namely economic, social, and environmental [52] and three justness dimensions, namely distributive, procedural and recognitive. Both sets of dimensions should be considered in the design of circular activities.

The article is structured as follows. We begin by explaining the theoretical and operational context, namely the circular textile economy, just transition and tensions. Next, we present our results—the justness tensions uncovered from the perspectives of the stakeholders we interviewed. Then, we move onto our two-part discussion. In the first part of the discussion, we offer some building blocks for overcoming or ameliorating the tensions we found. In the second part we present our framework for a just circular transition and in doing so, answer our second research question. After this, we present our conclusion and end on a note on further research and limitations.

2 Theoretical and operational context

2.1 What is the circular textile economy?

The circular economy is a (novel) way to organize our production and consumption systems, yet it is a contested and fuzzy concept [15]. Circular practices aim to keep resources in use for as long as possible to retain materials’ value. The circular economy can be described through the framework of the 9 R’s: refusing, reducing, reusing, recycling, recovering, refurbishing, repairing, repurposing and remanufacturing, with the most popular R being recycling followed by reusing [53]. In practice, circularity is often focused on waste recovery, recycling, and efficiency improvements [54].

Kirchherr et al. [55] define the circular economy as: “a regenerative economic system which necessitates a paradigm shift to replace the ‘end of life’ concept with reducing, alternatively reusing, recycling, and recovering materials throughout the supply chain, with the aim to promote value maintenance and sustainable development, creating environmental quality, economic development, and social equity, to the benefit of current and future generations. It is enabled by an alliance of stakeholders (industry, consumers, policymakers, academia) and their technological innovations and capabilities.”

Kirchherr et al. [55] mention in their definition all the three pillars of sustainability (environmental quality, economic development, and social equity), yet the circular economy has often not been designed or conceptualized to answer social issues as such, but more so to economic and environmental challenges [14, 54, 56, 57]. Issues such as inclusion of marginalized stakeholders, power imbalances and social equity and justice have been left to the margins [49]. Only recently has interest in the social side of the circular economy been growing [55].

Circular economy and sustainability are not synonyms, yet they are interlinked. Circular processes, technologies and business models can contribute to the three dimensions of sustainability, namely economic, social and environmental although the extent to which they do this is debated [18]. In this paper, circular practices can be thought of as sustainability-related acts.

A circular transition, as we define it in our article, is a system-wide transition. A circular sustainable fashion system could be based on slowing and closing loops through, for example, recycling, reuse, reduction, and rental [58]. In practice, a transition to circularity is still in its infancy in the textile industry [6]. Also, circular modes of operations, such as using recycled materials or increased re-use will likely not substitute virgin production altogether [15]. Some use of virgin material will likely be necessary in future circular systems, and thus it would be important that any virgin material used would be sustainably sourced, and energy used renewable [59]. Sometimes in our interviews we talked more generally about these other sustainability-related acts, such as using renewable energy or sustainability certifications such as organic, and not specifically on circular issues. We have included these issues related generally to sustainability in our analysis, as a circular transition should integrate also acts for general sustainability, such as use of organic materials or renewable energy. Also, concerning the circular transition, which is still very much in the beginning, we can learn from present challenges of trying to implement other sustainability-related acts.

2.2 Just transition

Our research looks at the circular transition through the just transition perspective. One definition for the just transition is: “a fair and equitable process of moving towards a post-carbon society” [60]. Key justice dimensions of the just transition framework are distributive, procedural and recognitive [51, 61]. There are also various other types of justice identified in the literature, such as restorative, intergenerational, organizational, or epistemic justice [62]. We focus only on the distributive, procedural, and recognitive justice dimensions because those were identified as the most relevant for our case.

Recognitive justice focuses on recognizing marginalized views, knowledge, and values, as well as on competing developmental interests in making transitions. Recognitive injustice occurs when “powerful interests (for example, countries, corporations) dominate national to global-level decision-making on environmental issues and decide who is involved” [62]. It is also important to recognize that stakeholders vary in their ability to partake and adapt to transitions [63]. Recognizing relevant stakeholders is not always easy and the failure to do so can create or uphold inequalities [64].

Procedural justice is about the actual means of designing and advancing the transition, that is, “fairness with which decisions between individuals are made and implemented” [65]. Just procedures do not create or reproduce injustice in transitions and they can bring justice to harmed communities. Procedural justice is related to recognitive justice as fairness increases when individuals have more control and voice [65].

Distributive justice looks at the outcomes of interactions and the distribution of the benefits and harm of those outcomes. Jobs, pollution, monetary benefits, and resources can be distributed unevenly because of sustainability actions and processes in different spatial and temporal dimensions [60].

2.3 Justness tensions

The operational context of the textile industry is in flux. Landscape-level developments such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and unsustainable business models are key factors driving the change, leading to pressures from changing consumer and brand expectations, policy changes at different levels of governance, technological development and novel business models (Fig. 1). The time frame for the changes is narrow because of the urgency of the challenges facing the earth, but also because of rapid development of technologies and attitudes. Together, the factors put pressure on the system, which starts changing, and this can lead to tensions related to justice (Fig. 1). We call these justness tensions [48, 66,67,68].

Fig. 1
figure 1

The operational context and analytical perspective of the article

Full size image

Tensions are not inherently negative but instead an inevitable part of change [68]. Accepting tensions and accommodating the different viewpoints, can lead to better sustainability outcomes [67, 68]. Some tensions can open completely new avenues of development, and some tensions might be unsolvable and can only be temporarily managed [68]. The textile industry is characterized by long global value chains in which the focal company, often from the Global North, enjoys high bargaining power [59]. Tensions exist, especially in cross-cultural exchange, in which real win–win situations might be difficult to achieve, at least in the short run [69]. Tensions in global value chains can result, for example, from institutional misalignment, where the focal company comes from a very different institutional context than their suppliers [70] or from the juxtaposition of costs versus sustainability [71]. As we could not find research on the tensions related to the circular transition from the viewpoint of justice in the textile industry, we thought it necessary to address the issue ourselves.

3 Methods

The research we conducted is qualitative, exploratory and predominantly inductive. This article dives in depth into the phenomenon of circular economy in the textile cluster of Tamil Nadu and identifies novel aspects not brought forward widely in this context before. The research is predominantly inductive—some of our interview questions were guided by the just transition framework but we had no initial hypothesis when conducting the interviews. The methods and chronology of the research can be found in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

The steps and methods of the research in chronological order

Full size image

The research started with an initial literature review, in which subjects concerning the circular economy, textile industry, just transition and social issues were reviewed. It was noted that there is a scarcity of empirical studies on the justice aspects of circular practices in the textile industry in Global South production countries. A qualitative interview method was chosen for two reasons. First, the research on justice in circularity transitions is a very new research field and there is a need to explore the possible issues through a deeper understanding of the phenomenon. Second, many social issues, including justice, are subjective, subtle, with fine nuances and, as such, can be hard to detect without face-to-face interaction.

After the initial review, the method for data collection, case and sample criteria were defined. India was chosen as the case example as it is the third largest textile exporter in the world [72], and the textile sector is an important contributor the country’s GDP (around 14%) [73]. Moreover, India is in many ways a typical example of a Global South producer country, as it exhibits certain structural properties, such as poor institutions, high inequality and poverty rate and power asymmetries between different stakeholders in the industry [3]. We decided to focus on Tamil Nadu because it is an important cluster of textile production in the country; has many exporting factories and there are many factories that have circular operations.

Altogether, around 300 factories in the textile industry of Tamil Nadu were contacted. In the first round of contact, the selection criteria were that they had to have at least some circular processes in the factories. Getting replies was extremely difficult, and we decided to widen our approach and contact any factory that was part of textile or clothing supply chains for international markets. Understanding the viewpoints of factories that do not yet have circular processes is also important. On the field trip snowball sampling was used as we asked the interviewees to share any contacts they might find relevant, and this helped us to gain more interviews. For reciprocity, we promised to mention the interviewees’ factory name to the main authors’ brand contacts which we did after the field trip. At the beginning of each interview it was communicated that the interviews were strictly confidential, and the answers given would not have any effect on whether or how their factory was referred to brands.

For the actual data collection, the main author spent 3 weeks in Tamil Nadu in the cities of Coimbatore and Karur. The researcher had a local research assistant who helped with contacting factories and translating. All but one interview was in English. The data consists of 14 semi-structured interviews and three free-flow interviews. We interviewed representatives of two trade unions, one NGO, and 14 textile factories. All the factories were producing fabric, clothing or textiles for international buyers, and most were first tier. More information on the interviewees can be found in Table 1 in Additional file 1. As the interviews progressed, saturation was reached, and the sample size was thus deemed appropriate to draw analysis from.

The semi-structured interviews consisted of around 20–30 questions addressing the transition to CE, circular activities, other sustainability-related activities, regulations, private governance, views on environmental and social sustainability as well as value distribution and power in supply chains. Depending on the answers, the interview sometimes moved outside of these themes, and sometimes not all the questions were asked. The list of questions can be found in Additional file 1. They were inspired by the just transition perspective and especially the three dimensions of distributive, procedural and recognitive. We also drew inspiration from the social impact assessment framework for circularity called SIAF-CE developed by Suarez-Visbal et al. [24].

The next phase of the research was content analysis which was mainly done by coding the transcripts of the interviews. The interviews were transcribed and then coded and analyzed with NVivo. The first round of coding consisted of staying very close to the data—the coding was data-driven. We highlighted interesting passages related to our research questions, such as certificates, cost of sustainability, use of recycled materials, slow fashion and decreased consumption. The second round consisted of aggregating the first-round codes under second order theory-driven codes reflecting distributive, procedural, and recognitive justness tensions. During the last phase iteration was done by both authors and going back and forth between the data and previous theories and literature. This act finally produced the framework presented in our discussion.

The data and results cannot be seen as fully representative of the Global South or even India. Rather, they give indication of the kinds of issues that can arise during the implementation of sectoral transitions. Our analysis guided the creation of a framework, which integrates the just transition and the triple bottom line approaches. We consider this framework applicable not only for this case but also in a wide variety of contexts when designing, analyzing or implementing the circular transition.

4 Results

In the following results section, we answer our first research question; What are the main justness tensions brought about by the circular transition in the textile industry in Tamil Nadu? First, we focus on the distributive justness tensions related to the circularity transition. Second, we look at what kind of recognitive justness tensions there are and third, ponder the procedural justness tensions of the transition. Table 1 summarizes the different tension categories we found. All the citations are direct unedited quotes from the interviewees.

Table 1 Justness tensions of the circular transition
Full size table

4.1 Distributive dimension and justness

4.1.1 Economic tension: distribution of jobs and livelihoods

Tensions regarding the distribution of jobs became evident from many of the interviews. Many suppliers were worried about what would happen to their employees in case of increased circularity-related activities, such as using recycled materials or decreased consumption due to secondhand sales or long-lasting products. Other opportunities for work in the area are scarce, with agriculture being the most frequently mentioned option. Migrant workers might have to return to their native places. There was also concern about the survival of farmers if demand for cotton declined due to recycled fabrics.

“If they lose their jobs here, then they are going to go back to their hometowns. The only option left for them is farming. So in farming, also, you cannot guarantee for steady income … but here they are all comfortable. It is a steady income.” Company 10.

“We cannot just decrease the organic or normal cotton because it provides huge agricultural employment for our country. So it is not like we should decrease the organic. Because we also need a job.” Company 11.

Many suppliers already used day laborers, meaning that the number of workers varied every day, depending on orders. Day labor was considered problematic especially by the organisations interviewed, as day laborers are already in a more vulnerable position than permanent workers and the situation could get worse if work opportunities decrease. Some factory owners acknowledged this and were apologetic about not being able to provide permanent work, blaming decreasing orders for this situation. It is possible that the use of daily laborers would increase if orders decreased or became more sporadic.

“It’s difficult to give continuous work for the workers … We also feel guilty because we cannot give regular work to them. We are not getting continuous orders.” Company 7.

The suppliers were also worried about losing business if production shifted spatially from India to Global North countries.

“As far as we are concerned, then, we would like to grow our business … so on taking (production) back there, maybe good for them. But we are going to lose business.” Company 10.

Some ideas for resolving these tensions were presented by the interviewees. Selling domestically, instead of exporting their goods, could provide more work in the case of declining orders. Also, jobs in the recycling industry could compensate for lost jobs. Already, many factory representatives noted that recycled materials come from local sources. The collection of cutting waste also brought livelihoods to the area. Almost all the factory interviewees mentioned that their fabric production waste was collected by local agents.

4.1.2 Economical tensions: value distribution tension

Tensions related to economic fairness in the supply chain were brought forward in the interviews. A common worry for the factory representatives was that the prices paid to suppliers and their profits were decreasing, while pressure to invest in sustainability-related activities was increasing. Demand–supply asymmetry, the war in Ukraine, and inflation were mentioned as a reason for prices paid to suppliers going down.

“Before, [the purchasing price] was, as I told you, four to five euros, which is okay for us. Now, it’s been reduced. Because of that, we have a lot of problems.” Company 4.

Sustainability-related activities were seen as a prerequisite to get orders, but the financial benefits from it were often seen as inadequate. Sustainability was seen as costly to implement, but without decent financial return for it. Some mentioned that only a few buyers were willing to pay more for sustainable or certified products.

“Some customers, they are changing all sustainable products, but keeping within the same price level. They don’t pay more for certified products. It is all the same … Even if everyone gets the certification, they demand for reducing the prices. But when we have certification, then we’ll be on the top of the list to secure orders.” Company 2.

In particular, the certificates were seen as costly and time-consuming to uphold. Also, investments in renewable energy were expensive. Monetary contributions from the brands were seen as one solution to this. Nevertheless, some suppliers also saw the financial benefit of sustainability-related activities.

But once you are into it, you are into it (sustainability); then, you are comfortable, and it is all cheaper.” Company 10

4.1.3 Social tensions: quality of jobs

The trade unions and the NGO expressed concerns about the low wages of the industry. Whether the transition to circular operations will affect wage levels in the factories is difficult to predict. If orders go down or become more sporadic and the number of jobs drops, this can have a negative effect on wage levels. Nevertheless, production of quality clothing could increase the production price and lead to higher wage levels, albeit to fewer workers.

“On the other hand, yes, maybe fewer workers (if quality increases). And, of course, whoever works will be paid more. The whole system will change.” Company 6.

Moving to the usage of recycled material will likely not affect wages or other working conditions significantly in cut-make-trim factories. After making the yarn the handling process of the fabric is much the same, with only minor differences, regardless of whether the material is virgin or recycled. Both kinds of fabric are handled by the same workers for the same wage.

“Wages is not much increasing. Not like that. The situation is not so good. They are saying that employers say the same. We are not getting much price from retailers.” Trade union 2.

One possible improvement that could affect working conditions is less dyeing if the original color of the recycled material is kept, which is a common practice.

4.2 Recognitive dimension and justness

4.2.1 Value tension: leaders and subordinates

The interviews revealed that CE and other sustainability-related activities were mainly focal company (Western) led but not completely. Responsibility for the transition was often laid on the buyer and on the final consumer. Buyers would be recognized as the “leaders” of the transition as the incentive for circularity or other sustainability acts come mainly from buyers.

“Based on customer requirements, actually so what they want. If they want 100% cotton, we give them that. If they want recycled materials, we give them that.” Company 1.

Many factory representatives expressed that buyers must stop purchasing unsustainable materials from them before any change could happen. It might be difficult for a supplier to decide to start using certain more sustainable materials, like recycled material, on their own, as the buyers often specifically dictate the (sustainability-related) qualities of the product.

“So, if only brands change, then everybody can change easily.” Company 7

“The customers will have to bring more sustainable orders to us. Now, we have around 15% of the orders is for sustainability, whereas the other 85% is for nonsustainability.” Company 4.

Factories’ own ideas on sustainability might be left “in the background” because there might be very little room to maneuver. Nevertheless, some factories stressed that procedures for sustainability were discussed and developed in a cooperative way.

One of the main ways the transition was now being acted was through various third-party certificates (see also procedural justice).

“We don’t know what the international standard is. So through all these certifications, we become aware of what is the international standard.” Company 3.

As the above quote reveals, the certificates are often international standards, mirroring the values and ideals of Western focal companies, not the Indian suppliers. Certificates often seemed to be tools for monitoring, instead of cooperation. The suppliers were being “watched.”

“Yes, [certificates] are good. There is someone to watch us.” Company 10

The suppliers’ motivations toward CE and sustainability-related activities also revealed central aspects about whose values drove the transition. Many stressed that they were motivated to do CE and sustainability-related activities because buyers wanted it.

“What motivates you to do sustainability? Buyer requirements are sustainable fabrics. We are based on the buyers.” Company 5

Another recurrent motivation was financial. Sustainability was acknowledged as a huge trend and future direction of the industry, with factories gaining a competitive edge from it.

“So what motivates you, to do transparency or environmental sustainability? Money.” Company 1

Nevertheless, several factory representatives expressed an interest in safeguarding life on the planet and taking care of the environment, and these were expressed as a motivation for why CE and sustainability acts were done.

“It’s today’s trend. And of course, it’s money. More than that, if you love your land, your country, I’m always very interested in the environment.” Company 11.

4.2.2 Value tensions: ideals of circularity

How did the interviewees see the “ideal future” of the industry? Many circularity-related operating models, such as secondhand sales and long-lasting clothing, which might lead to decreased demand for virgin goods, were clearly not seen as desirable outcomes by all. This was one of the key findings from the interviews.

“When the reduced consumption happens, then the workload for the people will be slightly less. Because of this, we may not be able to employ them for as long as we are doing now.” Company 3.

“It should be much faster fashion but sustainable.” Company 9

“It’s my message that not reuse, we can recycle. So that even we get some work in the future.” Company 2

“India already has a lot of people jobless. So even if [sales decline] is getting implemented, more workers will be suffering.” Company 4

“If there is decreased consumption, that would definitely affect the workers’ conditions. They would simply be told to leave the factory. The other jobs left are construction and agricultural work. Recycled textiles can also be encouraged, but normal cotton manufacturing shouldn’t be disturbed because there are farmers who are dependent only on cotton farming itself. Any textile manufacturing can be encouraged as long as it increases employment opportunities.” Trade union 1.

The orders from the factories interviewed had gone down lately, and many wondered whether this was because of increased use times of clothing. Nevertheless, not everyone felt that decreasing consumption would be undesirable; one of the factories welcomed decreasing consumption.

“And reduced consumption, I as a person think we should think beyond the company. We are just a very small, tiny entity on this planet. So, personally, I feel that reduced consumption is very important for sustainability. Even if it’s going to adversely impact our production, so be it.” Company 3.

One trade union representative stated that brands should go back to Europe because they are only taking advantage of the workers and leaving no profit behind. One NGO representative noted that decreased consumption was good, but the transition must be carefully planned and executed to avoid negative implications for workers.

4.2.3 Epistemic tensions

Reliable information on the state of circularity or sustainability was difficult to obtain. Reaching out to factories was difficult, with most factories not responding to emails or calls. The researcher was also warned by several stakeholders that they might not be able to receive honest information from factory representatives or other stakeholders.

“… when you are talking with people, they are not talking real things with you. That is the problem.” Trade union 2

The factories and trade unions had quite differing views on some issues. Certificates were seen as good and efficient by the factories. Trade unions had completely different views, and they expressed that there were various challenges regarding workers’ rights and certificates.

“The certification system has failed.” NGO 1

Also, the factories themselves might have difficulty getting real information on aspects related to sustainability.

“So calculating scope one (emissions calculation) and scope two is a very easy one, but scope three is a very challenging one. We are also working on that.” Company 8.

4.3 Procedural dimensions and justness

4.3.1 Governance tensions: private governance

The interviews revealed that the transition towards CE and sustainability relies heavily on certifications and private standards. These kinds of private governance schemes received both criticism and approval. Many felt that the certificates were costly and time-consuming, and the burden of upkeeping them lay heavily on the suppliers, without buyers’ willingness to share the costs.

The suppliers directed criticism at the lack of uniformity of the certificates. There were many different certificates, and many had similarities in terms of criteria. Unifying certificates could reduce the costs and effort of upkeeping them. The third-sector representatives criticized the certificates heavily. The certificates were claimed to be only good on paper, but not in practice.

“I know that what SA 8000 is saying, but what is the implementation. Implementation is very poor.” Trade union 2

4.3.2 Transnational and national governance

The EU has been planning legislation to advance circularity in the textile industry. Only one of the factories had knowledge about any upcoming EU legislation, and some had heard about the free-trade negotiations between the EU and India. None of the factories had been consulted regarding the upcoming legislation. Our sample size was small, though. Yet it raises the important question of who the new legislation serves and whose voice is heard.

“Has EU ever consulted the producers on this legislation because it will affect you? Not that I can remember.” Company 9

Another important stakeholder in advancing CE and sustainability is the Indian government. In the state of Tamil Nadu, there is legislation concerning, for example, zero liquid discharge. Views on the possibility and willingness of the Indian government to enact laws to enhance CE and other sustainability-related acts varied, with some being proud of advances in legislation to distrust and skepticism toward the government’s role in sustainability.

“I don't think so the Indian government per se is of great push on sustainability and everything; it's more from the buyer’s side.” Company 8.

Especially from the organization’s side, there seems to be mistrust toward the government and its willingness to implement laws to protect employees.

“..most of the spinning mills are owned by politicians, so it is not possible to raise issues against the mills. Buyers should make some conditions because most spinning factories are run by ministers, and the Indian government wouldn’t enact laws specific to workers.” Trade union 1.

4.3.3 Power tensions

The power relationships between the brands and suppliers varied. Many claimed that the relationship is balanced, and the power shared, but some felt that the brands hold the power because they can dictate the terms of trade and of sustainability-related activities, race the factories against each other, and shift easily from one factory to another. Only one of the bigger suppliers seemed to be able to choose who they wanted to work with.

“It's more like fluctuating. Sometimes we demand some … But most of the time, the customer demands.” Company 2

The trade union representatives expressed a sort of powerlessness. Union membership has gone down in the past, and financial feasibility is challenging.

“The significant decrease in the (member) count is because factory owners have taken away the jobs of many permanent workers (who were in the union), either by forcing them to leave through VRS (voluntary retirement) or by giving some money.” Trade union 1.

Moreover, it might be difficult to get the brands or factories to talk to the unions. Thus, there was a feeling of being left out of the transition and of deciding which way it goes.

“They (brands) don’t work with the trade union.” Trade union 2

5 Discussion

In our results section, we analyzed the circular transition through the lens of the three justness dimensions and answered our first research question of what some of the justness tensions in the circular transition can be. We do not here or elsewhere propose ourselves what is just, nor do we argue that the viewpoints of the interviewed stakeholders are to be considered the “one-and-only” justness. We merely argue that these considerations of justness, along with others, be acknowledged when designing transitions, and then, if possible, ameliorated to some extent.

In this section, we first look at some practical ways to ameliorate some of the tensions. After that, we answer our second research question: How can we create a just circular transition? We present a framework that integrates the just transition and the triple bottom line.

5.1 Ameliorating the tensions of the transition

The transition to a more just circular textile industry requires that we proactively and collaboratively work around tensions to mitigate their possible negative influences. Some of the tensions arise from deep-rooted structural inequalities (such as the power imbalance), which can be difficult to change. Removing tensions altogether might not be practically possible or even necessary, but we can acknowledge and ameliorate them and lower the risks for injustices [68, 74]. Table 2 presents the building blocks of possible solutions that could direct the circular transition toward justness and ameliorate tensions. The building blocks have mainly arisen from the empirical data, some straight from the interviewees and some from logically inferring from the challenges stated by the interviewees.

Table 2 Building blocks for more just circular transitions
Full size table

Distributional economic tensions can be ameliorated through sharing the costs of sustainability mechanisms, such as certificates, more equally. Previous research has also noted that suppliers often feel like they bear the costs of sustainability related activities disproportionately [75, 76]. A shared cost burden would help with this sustainability squeeze many suppliers were feeling [77], incentivize suppliers to implement circularity and sustainability-related acts through financial motivation and contribute to economic sustainability. Global value chains and outsourced production can be a very ad hoc system, where long-term planning together with suppliers and other stakeholders does not necessarily happen [78]. If a brand’s objective is e.g. to relocate production or decrease the buying of virgin materials, this should be communicated early on, working together to minimize the negative impacts done. Multistakeholder cooperation could relieve the risks from the transition and contribute toward procedural justness. A tripartite committee, for example, with factory, brands and unions could work together toward an orderly change process, and create early adaptation plans, for example, for finding new jobs or education for employees [79].

Recognitive and procedural tensions can be ameliorated by including various voices from production countries, including suppliers, trade unions and workers, in the design of standards, certificates, and national and transnational legislation [80, 81]. Global supply chains where the stakeholders are spatially separated, institutionally diverging, and where power asymmetries exist can make integrating different views more challenging. The operational context of the Indian stakeholders is one in which opportunities and social security are scarce, a context that might make economic considerations a priority [82]. Some stakeholders from the Global North might prefer environmental sustainability, as the social consequences can be felt less in the Global North countries, with better safety nets and the foreseen relocation of production there. Deliberation mechanisms to relieve tensions, find common ground, and plan for future changes are needed [41]. Legislation drafted in one area (like the EU) with impacts spurring to other areas (like India) should integrate recognitive and procedural justice considerations in the drafting process to avoid a situation in which the areas which are most impacted by the legislation are heard the least [23]. Epistemic tensions can be relieved with researchers, companies, and decision-makers gathering knowledge from a wide stakeholder base to avoid circularity and other sustainability-related acts being designed from a biased knowledge of the status quo.

5.2 Designing a just circular transition

The CE has been designed to address mainly economic or environmental challenges [42, 56] and provide economic benefits [16] and as such, without justice dimensions explicitly accounted for, the circular transition might not lead to adequate social justice and well-being. Without justness incorporated into the heart of circularity, there is a risk that the transition will not happen, will be shallow or will reproduce existing inequalities. Here, we present a framework for designing just circular transitions.

Justice is a highly contested idea, and integrating justness into CE makes the circular transition more complex, bringing forth multiple viewpoints that can be hard to accommodate with each other [48]. Analyzing circularity through the lens of justice can also overlook other sustainability dimensions. For example, a faster fashion industry could uphold jobs in production countries like India, but at the same time it would aggravate environmental challenges in India and globally. The environmental dimension needs to be more explicitly integrated into justness analyses to avoid watering down the dimension in the name of justness. Therefore, the design, application, and analysis of circular activities should consider justness aspects in parallel with environmental, social, and economic considerations. This is how a just circular transition integrates justice dimensions and overall sustainability (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

A just circular transition happens in the interface of justness dimensions (larger circles) and sustainability dimensions (smaller circles). The order and coupling of the dimensions are of no importance here and we do not, for now, propose a hierarchy between them. The more the dimensions overlap, the closer we are to a just circular transition

Full size image

The space for achieving just circular transitions is narrow, and the process is complex if all dimensions of justness and sustainability are considered (Fig. 3). Adding or removing dimensions increases or decreases the layers of complexity of the transition. For example, if we remove the recognitive dimension and only listen to, for example, industry incumbents, the transition may seem easier and faster to do, but it becomes less ambitious regarding the overall sustainability. Incumbent industries may favor incremental modifications of practices over more radical changes [36, 69, 83]. In our study, some suppliers favored a CE focusing on recycling over reuse or decreased consumption. Recycling, instead of reusing or reducing, fits vested interests, current business models and organizational structures well, but according to previous research it is much less efficient in terms of environmental impact [8, 10, 19, 84]. On the other hand, if we ask, for example, climate activists or NGOs, they might stress planetary survival, favor reducing consumption and press down concerns about incumbent jobs [48]. An important question remains: how can we morally justify one sustainability concern over another [67]?

The more we include different dimensions into circular transitions, the higher level of ambition we can pursue in terms of justness and overall sustainability. But as dimensions increase, so can the time taken to implement changes [64] (Fig. 4). Adding dimensions can uncover more tensions but might also make it easier to understand the different tensions and help to find new ways to mitigate them. Procedural and recognitive aspects can bring forth multiple viewpoints that can be hard to accommodate with each other, but at the same time, they can help uncover novel solutions and cobenefits. For example, including suppliers and trade unions in the design of private governance initiatives can improve the social sustainability outcomes of those initiatives [65, 85].

Fig. 4
figure 4

Adding dimensions to the design of CE can increase the depth of the transition, but it can also increase the time required for the change. Dealing with deep-rooted sustainability challenges takes time and requires coping with the complexity of the development of solutions

Full size image

It might be justified to take swift action focusing only on a single dimension of sustainability or justice. When advancing circularity, it is not always possible to maintain a system-wide perspective, and single acts can also work toward system change. Nevertheless, designers of circular activities should be conscious about the system perspective because, with it, they are in a better position to estimate where, why and how to focus.

6 Conclusion

Looking at the transition to circular textile systems in Tamil Nadu through the just transition lens reveals multiple justness tensions that need to be acknowledged by those involved in designing transitions, such as companies, decision-makers, and organizations. There are economic, social, epistemic, power, value, and governance tensions and these can be ameliorated through, for example, deliberation mechanisms, codesign of governance initiatives and sharing the costs of sustainability-related acts. For truly just and sustainable circular transitions, there is a need to integrate distributive, procedural, and recognitive dimensions of justness with social, environmental, and economic sustainability dimensions. This can make circular transitions more complex but also deeper. A just circular transition can only be achieved if we consider justness and overall sustainability together.

7 Limitations and further research

Our study has limitations. First, we interviewed only a limited number of stakeholders in a limited spatial setting. It would have been valuable to have the chance to also interview workers directly and for example upstream suppliers, such as those making recycled yarn. Global value chains have several actors, whose role, power position and viewpoints may differ from first tier suppliers. For example, especially upstream suppliers can be in marginalized positions in value chains and suffer from worse labour conditions than first tier factories [86, 87]. The viewpoints of such actors would be important to capture in future research. We presume that most of the factories that agreed to be interviewed had relatively good sustainability processes. Nevertheless, it is necessary to understand the viewpoints of such stakeholders also, as they provide valuable tools for understanding how transitions can unfold.

Second, the Global south warrants further inspection regarding justice and the circular economy, as it is not a homogenous group, and the consequences of circularity may vary according to contextual factors. Nevertheless, even though some of the tensions we found are rather context specific, overall, we can assume that similar issues could arise in other countries of the Global South as they share similar characteristics to India. Such characteristics can be for example reliance on relatively few industries; weak institutions (e.g. inability to protect workers rights, re-educate or provide social security); marginalized position of producers and farmers; widespread poverty; lack of resilience and limited livelihood options. It should be further studied how the context in various Global South regions affects justice considerations.

Our framework is a first attempt to integrate the just transition and sustainability dimensions, and as such, we welcome all further research and efforts to develop it. The framework can be used in multiple different contexts and settings to explore, analyse and design just transitions, but would benefit from further refinement. One pondering for future research is developing a possible hierarchy between the different dimensions (i.e. should the environmental dimension always have first priority) and examining the interrelations between the dimensions. Further, it is especially important in future research to pay attention to power disparities in transitions and to the diverse future ideals of circularity. Our research has pinpointed that these ideals can be very different between different stakeholders, and we cannot risk excluding large amounts of actors from the design of our future societies.