It was a privilege to speak to in the Political Ecology Research Centre (PERC) Webinar series on Hope and Collective Futures in early October. It was great to have an opportunity to speak aloud a chapter from book-in-progress Postcapitalist Economies of Care. I got some really great feedback from the attendees, and some helpful suggestions for how to move the work forward. If you would like to listen to the talk, it’s available from the PERC website, and via Youtube (below). There are other great talks on the PERC website too!
TITLE OF TALK: Transformative care in the meantime: Shaping the future through collective action
ABSTRACT: Scholars of care labour caution that care labour can be caught up in maintaining business as usual in the form of exploitative capitalist relations. But care labour also contributes to survivance — cultural and economic survival in the face of oppression. What else might care labour do?
In this seminar, I introduce an approach to thinking about care labour based on mapping ‘care surplus flows’ — the generation, appropriation and distribution of care surplus. Through an analysis of four case studies, I propose that the more collective forms of ‘care surplus flow’ enable place-based transformations, and that these transformations increase future-shaping capacities for a wider range of marginalised groups. Care labour can thus contribute to maintenance, survivance and resurgent transformation, depending on how it is organised.
Waste is a visible symptom of deeper systemic issues. Across Aotearoa New Zealand, organisations, councils, iwi and communities are striving to move beyond the linear logic of take–make–dispose toward circular ways of organising production and consumption, mindful of care for both land and people. However, intentionality alone provides no guarantee of systems transformation. In reality, decision makers still face a host of practical barriers – e.g., energy limitations, infrastructure gaps, supermarket led packaging systems, and policy settings attuned to linearity – as well as conceptual roadblocks that favour status quo over the often complex, relational work required to make circularity real.
Our report is an attempt to shift that reality. We explore where and why circularity is hindered, what types of social and technical innovation are currently emerging, and how ‘better’ measurement can help us identify ‘better’ investments. We begin by situating circular economy as more than just a design toolkit or a new label for recycling. At its strongest, circularity calls for integrated, place-based systems in which resources are reduced, repaired, reused, and only then remanufactured or safely returned to nature.
In Aotearoa, such aspirations intersect with Māori economic thinking that is regenerative, relational and inherently circular – spirality: cycles that return and evolve rather than simply close. Recognising this heritage challenges narrow interpretations of circular economy and highlights reciprocity, kaitiakitanga and rangatiratanga as foundational for transition.
In this industry insights report, we summarise insights from our 2025 Measuring Circular Economies Symposium, featuring keynote speaker Dr Jay Whitehead (Matatihi), and keynote respondents Assoc Prof Stephen Healy (Western Sydney University) and Professor Abby Mellick Lopes (UTS). The report finds that many of the challenges of measuring circular economies come from uncertainty about what to measure and how to measure it. The report was funded by Massey University and was part of a one year project carried out by a team including Kelly Dombroski, Nitha Palakshappa, Derrylea Hardy, Sita Venkateswar, Georgia McLellan and Gradon Diprose.
We hope to use the insights from this report to inform future work in the area of circular economy return on investment tool design.
Our Marsden team (Reduce, Reuse, Repair) published a new report about how to move up the waste hierarchy. It was authored by Gradon Diprose (Bioeconomy Science Institute) and Dorte Wray (Zero Waste Aotearoa).
Guest post by Dr Gradon Diprose, Bioeconomy Science Institute.
Why we wrote this report
We know there are huge problems with waste. For example, New Zealand produces a lot of waste compared to other OECD countries, and our central and local government’s focus is on managing waste, not preventing it. While the waste hierarchy has been around for years it is still not reflected in many government’s operational policies or actual investment. This is partly because the waste hierarchy conflicts with many countries GDP growth-oriented economic goals, and the vested interests of powerful industries. The key question for us is how to encourage social and political shifts towards waste prevention given these challenges.
For this report, we researched what collective practices help communities and businesses to prevent waste and build the wider social and political support for waste prevention more broadly. We interviewed people from businesses, local government, and non-governmental organisations and civil society groups who work on waste prevention and supplemented this with a literature review. We asked participants what had practically helped them, their businesses, and wider communities shift from waste management to waste prevention. We also asked participants how they did this. For example, what kinds of language they use, and what they invest in and prioritise.
What is in the report (and isn’t)
The report identifies four interconnected collective practices that help build the social and political pressure to make waste prevention a priority.
The report is not about how to manage waste through individual behaviour change. For example, how to recycle better, how to address problem waste streams, or the best waste disposal options.
What we learned through our research
Our participants and the research literature highlight that governments need to set new rules like mandatory product stewardship, extended producer responsibility and right to repair to shift economic systems towards waste prevention. The four interconnected collective practices that help build the social and political pressure for this new legislation are:
Supporting collectives and networks
Investing in place-based initiatives
Using data to demonstrate impact
Using language strategically to frame change
Who is this report for?
We wrote this report for those people and organisations already taking action on waste prevention, and for those who are concerned and want to take action. We also wrote it for funders, public servants and elected officials who might want to support waste prevention and wider systems change but don’t know where to start. The report helps to show what is already in motion and what is working.
What’s next?
We will be running cooperative inquiry groups (a kind of action research approach using focus groups) with New Zealanders who are interested in waste prevention. These groups will explore people’s everyday practical actions and deeper meanings and emotions associated with waste prevention. Shifting towards waste prevention will require significant and deep social changes. These cooperative enquiry groups will explore some of these shifts. Such as how people come to desire consuming less (reduce), how the negotiate their relationships with others in the process.
By Dr Lila Laird, Postdoctoral Researcher, Massey University
What is the project about?
We are embarking on a project that traces how groups of people move up the ‘waste hierarchy’ and how such transformations shape people’s sense of self in relation to waste. This matters because issues like microplastic pollution, environmental contaminant leaching, and dwindling landfill space continue to negatively impact ecosystems and communities. In order for Aotearoa to avoid further waste crises, our use and disposal of material goods must change. Despite warnings and ample evidence, plastic, metal, organic material, food, excrement and building waste continue to grow.
Shifting towards ‘circular economies’ is often proposed to stop such crises and to avoid the linear take-make-dispose model. Instead, a circular economy keeps resources in use for as long as possible, and the waste hierarchy (pictured below) conveys the kinds of actions that are most beneficial in circulating materials for reuse. Near the top of the waste hierarchy includes reduce, reuse and repair, and these are the forms of circular economy we are most interested in investigating.
The Waste Hierarchy — we should be doing more the top and less of the bottom!
Circular economy research often points to high tech advancements, hoping to deal with our waste and also create business value from it. However, these ‘solutions’ do not often lead to less waste! Instead, they often end up adapting to the current flows of waste being produced. Social scientists researching circular economy practices have found that in order to reduce, reuse, and repair materials, large amounts of often invisible or undervalued labour is required.
In simple terms, it takes a fair amount of people-power to wash, sort, clean, store and transport resources for their reuse. Or to undertake research, connect with knowledgeable people, upskill oneself, and foster patience to repair an item to keep it in use. And it takes a significant amount of effort to avoid waste altogether. Therefore, because a circular economy is a matter of who is engaged and what kinds of action they are taking, our research is interested in meeting with people focused on being less wasteful and keeping their items in use.
Waste is a culturally situated concept. Different cultural groups have different norms and taboos with regards to waste, including what is considered necessary waste. Different cultural groups also have different kinds of relationships to land and the ways land is currently used to ‘deal with’ waste. For example, in te ao Māori, understandings of tapu and noa might guide waste disposal in different ways from western norms. All of this difference is an important part of the ways people approach waste, and what moving up the waste hierarchy may look like for them. And these differences provide important insights into the challenges and solutions to current waste crises.
What does the project involve?
We have partnered with three important organisations who help people in Aotearoa to become less wasteful.
Para Kore is a Māori zero-waste organisation. Para Kore educates and advocates from a Māori worldview for zero carbon and zero waste in Māori communities and beyond. They run sustainability programs across Aotearoa, working with marae, iwi, early childhood centres, churches, community organisations, businesses and more.
Repair Network Aotearoa is a charitable trust that works with repair cafes and similar projects like tool libraries and maker spaces across Aotearoa, advocating for the right to repair legislation in Aotearoa.
Zero Waste Aotearoa is an organisation that supports over 150 groups across Aotearoa that are working towards zero waste in their local community.
To explore our interests in waste and identity, we are undertaking field work with our research partners and collectives engaged in practices at the top of the waste hierarchy. We will also be undertaking cooperative inquiry groups that enable us to bring together like-minded people to explore their practices relating to waste and to items that could become waste, their concerns and feelings surrounding waste, and what they would like to change in relation to waste practices for themselves and their wider collectives.
Who is this research for?
By the end of the project, we will have co-created an action plan with our community partners that identifies how government and community can invest in social innovations needed for circular economies in Aotearoa. The action plan will support practices at the top of the waste hierarchy and will be directed at waste decision-makers in community and government. As many people grapple with the waste that enters their households, workplaces, marae, community centres and the nature surrounding them, we hope that our action plan can help to bring us one step closer to a waste-less Aotearoa.
What’s next?
We are currently connecting with collectives on the ground who are engaged in actions of reduce, reuse and repair. This includes repair cafes, textile recovery groups, resourceful-craft organizations, makerspaces, tool libraries, community composters, and more. We look forward to keeping you informed of what we find out in the process!
You can find out more about who is involved in the project here:
This is a plain language summary for the article Expanding Circular Economies Through Transformative Community Investment authored by Gradon Diprose, Kelly Dombroski, Dean Stronge and Alison Greenaway. There are 50 free copies available from here.
This article is all about how we can make our economies more circular and sustainable. It’s not just about fancy new tech or being super efficient with resources. It’s also about social innovation and making sure everyone benefits.
Key Points:
Three Cool Examples: The article looks at three different enterprises in New Zealand – one in transport, one in energy, and one in food. There’s a regular business, a social enterprise, and a charity. Each one is doing awesome stuff with their profits to help people and the planet.
Reinvesting Surplus: Instead of just pocketing the profits, these enterprises are putting their extra money back into circular economy innovation. They’re supporting social equity and helping to build a circular economy where waste is designed out. This is NOT about designing new products for consumption, but about innovation in services: car-sharing, energy hardship programmes, and vegetable distribution.
Social Innovation: These businesses are coming up with creative ways to use their surplus. They’re challenging the old-school, take-make-waste model and showing that we can do things differently. The innovation is in the organisation and logistics, rather than new materials or tech.
Equitable Practices: They’re all about refusing, reducing, re-using, sharing, and repairing. It’s not just about recycling – it’s about changing how we think and act to create a fairer, less wasteful world. The organisations have an eye to equity and justice, making sure that a wider range of people can be empower to use more ‘circular’ and low-waste services.
By documenting what’s happening in these examples, the article shows how enterprises can use surplus in smarter, fairer ways to support the transition to circular economies. This article contributes to the goals of moving towards a caring, postcapitalist economy — but uses contemporary business language like ‘innovation’ and ‘investment’ in order to reframe these ideas for people and planet!🌱
In February 2006, 6 months pregnant, I left Palmerston North NZ for Canberra, Australia to pursue a PhD with Katherine Gibson (of JK Gibson-Graham). Thus began a journey of research and learning in Australia, China, Aotearoa NZ, through the birth of four children and homes in five different cities. And in February 2024, some 18 years later, I celebrate the monograph that emerged from all that work!
When I went into the project 18 years ago, I was really interested in how the processes of Westernisation and globalisation were playing out unevenly around the world. I was particularly interested in pockets of resistance to corporate globalisation. In my fieldwork in the far west of China in the province of Qinghai, I studied the relationship between the local nappy-free infant hygiene practice, space, place and cultures of health and wellbeing. During that time, I discovered a whole online community of westerners also trying to learn the nappy-free infant hygiene practice but without the support of their local environments or cultures. In both groups, there was a resistance to the use of disposable nappies, and the deliberate cultivation of embodied practices of hygiene that required less material (and plastic) stuff.
Fieldwork was conducted in the city of Xining, in Qinghai province in the far west of China
Hygiene is social, material and spatial
As a book project, Caring for Life: A postdevelopment politics of hygiene speaks more to our post-pandemic hygienes, as well as the broader question of how does social change happen. In the revisions made for the monograph, I significantly rewrote and retheorised most of the material to build an argument about hygiene assemblages.
Hygiene assemblages is a term referring to the social, material, cultural and spatial practices that come together to keep hygiene. In the Qinghai examples, these assemblages gathered around strong social and spatial practices — caregivers learned the specific signals for baby’s wee and poop, and held them out over appropriate places — wee against a tree, on the concrete, on the tiles, or over a drain. Poop over a newspaper, a basin, a toilet or a pile of ash from the fire (in rural areas). But they worked to keep hygiene nevertheless. In the Australian examples, caregivers were trying to learn these signals too, but with less historical and cultural knowledge to draw on. Their assemblages gathered around the material aspects of the practice: potties, bags, nappies, wipes, toilets, containers and more.
Of course, all hygiene assemblages have both social and material practices, and all have a spatiality and cultural component. What I was interested in was the possibilities of learning and assembling new hygiene practices and assemblages through cross-cultural learning. Could these practices from the far west of China influence hygiene assemblages in Aotearoa, Australia and other places in the West? In asking this, I developing thinking around hybrid research collectives to argue that the early adopters of ‘elimination communication’ (as the nappy-free hygiene practice was called) were researchers, experimenting and documenting their hygiene assemblages in ways that made it more possible for others to pick up the practice.
It has been interesting to work on the book over such a long period: things that were not normal 18 years ago have become normalised. During this time, elimination communication has become more mainsteam, as have other alternative hygiene practices such as using menstrual cups, reusable pads or period panties, and a whole range of modern cloth nappies. We have also had a global pandemic where the first response was not really medical, but social — in the form of social distancing and changing behaviours and habits before vaccines were produced.
Photo by Eric Lafforgue, from Flickr
What does Caring for life have to say about transition?
So what does the book tell us about transitioning to caring economies? Here’s three thoughts on that:
Transition and social change is material, social and spatial. It’s not about individuals, although individuals and their behaviours matter. It’s about the broader assemblage of these materialities, socialities and spatialities.
Passionate collectives of individuals experimenting with different material, social and spatial arrangements can spark and seed change. In the area of economic change, this means paying attention to what collectives of community groups are doing — degrowthers, community economy organisations, artist collectives, Indigenous economies, regional and local economies and more. It’s not that these experiments have to be scaled up ‘as is’, but that they produce important knowledge that can inform change.
We can and should learn from places that are considered ‘less-developed’, ‘out of the way’ or ‘undeveloped’. For it is in these places where different diverse forms of cultural, social, material and spatial arrangements can be found that might be better adapted for transition.
If you are interested in taking a look at the book, see here.
I’m also available to give talks on the book this year, just get in touch!
