Trevor Zink, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Management and Sustainability, College of Business Administration

  • Los Angeles CA UNITED STATES

Director, University Honors Program

Contact

Biography

You can contact Trevor Zink at Trevor.Zink@lmu.edu.

Trevor Zink is an associate professor of management and sustainability and director of the University Honors Program at Loyola Marymount University. He earned his B.B.A. and MBA from Loyola Marymount University. He then attended the University of California, Santa Barbara as a UC Regents Special Fellow, where he earned his M.A. in economics and Ph.D. in environmental science and management. Trevor teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in business ethics and sustainability, environmental strategy, applied ethics and life cycle assessment.

Trevor Zink is an internationally recognized expert in life cycle assessment methodology, material end-of-life management and the circular economy. His research focus lies at the intersection of industrial ecology and economics. He is best known for his work questioning the environmental value of recycling and the circular economy.Trevor has published his work in top peer-reviewed journals and has been invited to speak at conferences worldwide. His findings have been featured in a variety of print and TV news outlets, and his expertise has been sought by state agencies, trade organizations, NGOs and private firms. Going forward, he looks to explore bigger questions about how to design economic systems that can survive the 21st century.

Education

University of California, Santa Barbara

Ph.D.

Environmental Science and Management

2015

University of California, Santa Barbara

M.A.

Economics

2012

Loyola Marymount University

MBA

2010

Show All +

Areas of Expertise

Corporate Social Responsibility
Life Cycle Assessment
Environmental Impacts of Recycling
Sustainability

Event Appearances

Director’s Convocation for the LMU University Honors Program

Director’s Convocation for the LMU University Honors Program  Virtual

2020-11-16

Articles

Markets and the Future of the Circular Economy

Journal of the Circular Economy and Sustainability

2022-08-24

The circular economy stands at a crossroads between true systemic change and rebranded business-as-usual. It will either evolve to become functional—optimizing technical capabilities to mimic resilient ecosystems—or dysfunctional—reinforcing current destructive, destabilizing structures and incentives despite appearing to make marginal progress. This paper offers a unique critique of the circular economy: we argue that the circular economy is set up for failure precisely because it is required to conform to our current socio-econo-political system—that is, a market system. We identify four core characteristics of market systems: private property, competition, a market for labor, and value determined by price. Together, these characteristics create incentives that are antithetical to a functional circular economy: a requirement for infinite growth, short product lifetimes and limited material circularity, technically suboptimal products and systems, ineffective reverse logistics networks, and misplaced priorities from distorted notions of value. We then show that the fundamental organizing principle of market systems is market efficiency, which is based on a false assumption of scarcity. In contrast, we suggest a competing worldview of sustainable abundance based on a principle of technical efficiency, which optimizes technical and environmental outcomes. Using this lens, we suggest alternatives to the core market characteristics, including an ecology of complementary currencies, a new understanding of private property, an adjusted balance of competition and cooperation, labor market alternatives, a reevaluation of true value, and lessons from Indigenous peoples. If—and only if—we embrace technical efficiency over market efficiency, we can unshackle the circular economy to create meaningful system change and a future of sustainable abundance.

View more

The Inevitable Labor and Environmental Crises and the Need for a New Economic System

Journal of Management Inquiry

2019-02-06

Capitalism is economically stable only if new investment creates jobs at least as fast as efficiency eliminates them, and physically sustainable only if sufficient material sources and pollution sinks exist to support new investment. We are passing limits on both conditions, leading to twin problems: A labor problem, where technology may begin to eliminate more jobs than it creates; and an environmental problem, where industrial activities are breaching planetary boundaries that will limit our ability to meet basic human needs. Both problems are products of a growth-based capitalist economy and are fundamentally unsolvable within that framework. We must endeavor to replace our capitalist growth economy with a system based on human flourishing. Drawing on degrowth literature, I propose several criteria for a replacement and suggest that they are met by tribal communities. Although challenges remain in design and implementation of such systems, the alternative of inaction is untenable.

View more

Material Recycling and the Myth of Landfill Diversion

Journal of Industrial Ecology

2018-08-17

Proponents of material recycling typically point to two environmental benefits: disposal (landfill/incinerator) reduction and primary production displacement. However, in this paper we mathematically demonstrate that, without displacement, recycling can delay but not prevent any existing end‐of‐life material from reaching final disposal. The only way to reduce the amount of material ultimately landfilled or incinerated is to produce less in the first place; material that is not made needs not be disposed. Recycling has the potential to reduce the amount of material reaching end of life solely by reducing primary production. Therefore, the “dual benefits” of recycling are in fact one, and the environmental benefit of material recycling rests in its potential to displace primary production. However, displacement of primary production from increased recycling is driven by market forces and is not guaranteed. Improperly assuming all recycled material avoids disposal underestimates the environmental impacts of the product system. We show that the potential magnitude of this error is substantial, though for inert recyclables it is lower than the error introduced by improperly assuming all recycled material displaces primary material production. We argue that life cycle assessment end‐of‐life models need to be updated so as not to overstate the benefits of recycling. Furthermore, scholars and policy makers should focus on finding and implementing ways to increase the displacement potential of recyclable materials rather than focusing on disposal diversion targets.

View more

Show All +
Powered by