Yes — the basic “Hobson 2021 thing” is about not treating circular consumption as just a matter of individual consumers choosing better, but asking: what extra work does circularity require, who does that work, where is it done, and how is it supported or ignored?

Important caveat: I do not see the actual Hobson et al. 2021 article in the corpus, only your source-list entry for it #DNUZ6F Practices of Divestment, Acquisition and Circulation of Things in a Swapshop in Riga, Latvia #FYG32U / LIST OF SOURCES #BA7Z5L #DNUZ6F Hobson, K., Holmes, H., Welch, D., Wheeler, K. and Wieser, H. (2021) ‘Consumption work in the circular economy: a research agenda’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 321, 128969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128969 and later authors citing/summarising it. So I can’t give you the exact Hobson quote from the paper itself from Sheaf. But the surrounding literature gives you very usable wording and context.

The closest useful quotes in the corpus

1. Circular consumption work is extra work, and it is unevenly distributed

Tölg summarises Hobson et al. like this:

“While consumption work is also part of linear economies, in a circular system, previous consumption work activities need to be scaled, and new practices need to be adopted (Hobson et al., 2021). For instance, even if a household already practised waste sorting and recycling according to circularity principles, they also need to enact further practices such as repairing broken belongings or sharing household tools. These increased levels of consumption work in the CE can further contribute to an unequal distribution of labour in terms of gender, class and employment forms.” #XRXFBJ The (im)possibilities of circular consumption: Producing and performing circular clothing consumption in retail and household settings #8EVNK8 / Circular consumption and the sociology of consumption #SBM22B #XRXFBJ involves “all work necessary for the purchase, use, re-use and disposal of consumption goods and services” (Wheeler and Glucksmann, 2015a: 37). This form of work undertaken by consumers is necessary for the completion as well as complementation of economic processes (Glucksmann, 2016). For instance, self-assembling furniture or installation of different software is necessary before some goods can be appropriated and appreciated. While consumption work is also part of linear economies, in a circular system, previous consumption work activities need to be scaled, and new practices need to be adopted (Hobson et al., 2021). For instance, even if a household already practised waste sorting and recycling according to circularity principles, they also need to enact further practices such as repairing broken belongings or sharing household tools. These increased levels of consumption work in the CE can further contribute to an unequal distribution of labour in terms of gender, class and employment forms (Hobson et al., 2021). Furthermore, it can be challenging to manage the time required for this increased work due to other personal or professional commitments, as the study of Sutcliffe (2022) demonstrates.

This is the core point: circular economy does not magically make things circulate. It asks people to sort, repair, store, transport, clean, evaluate, donate, share, maintain, and coordinate. Tiny little utopia, powered by unpaid admin goblins.

2. The field has focused too much on households

This is probably the bit you remembered:

“Sociological circular consumption research mostly focuses on how consumers do circular consumption as part of household practices … While there are some calls for discussing how different provisioning systems and institutional arrangements shape circular consumption … there is little empirical investigation and conceptualisation within this area … As Hobson et al. (2021) argue there has been little focus on how the additional work moved to the sphere of consumption implicates consumers; what is expected of them, and what is made possible for them.” #5YZB8A The (im)possibilities of circular consumption: Producing and performing circular clothing consumption in retail and household settings #8EVNK8 / The challenges of circular consumption #LZ9AW5 #5YZB8A Furthermore, there is another, less explored side to the challenges of circular consumption, which concerns the arrangement of the wider landscape within which circular consumption is to be brought about. Sociological circular consumption research mostly focuses on how consumers do circular consumption as part of household practices (e.g., Hebrok and Heidenstrom, 2019; Mylan et al., 2016). While there are some calls for discussing how different provisioning systems and institutional arrangements shape circular consumption (Greene et al., 2024), there is little empirical investigation and conceptualisation within this area (e.g., Holmes, 2018). As Hobson et al. (2021) argue there has been little focus on how the additional work moved to the sphere of consumption implicates consumers; what is expected of them, and what is made possible for them.

This does not quite say “go study community/public sites” in the fragment we have, but it opens exactly that door: move from “what households do” to “how wider arrangements organise and distribute circular work.”

3. Consumption work extends beyond the home

Evans, Jackson and Beswick-Parsons make this very clearly:

“Whilst these activities may be interpreted as domestic labour due to them being household-based, we argue that they play a key role in the wider circuits of the reuse economy, extending well beyond the home.” #G26N4U Reuse practices and household consumption work #V9QTJP / Conclusion #9KXLER #G26N4U Finally, conceptualizing these activities and tasks as 'consumption work' helps to understand the work that consumers are required to engage in as part of the transition to more circular forms of consumption. For example, the requirement on consumers to bring their own containers to reuse-refill stores results in several processual forms of labour, primarily that of decanting and recirculating . Whilst these activities may be interpreted as domestic labour due to them being household-based, we argue that they play a key role in the wider circuits of the reuse economy, extending well beyond the home. Allied to this, our sensitivity to how labour is distributed along the supply chain (Hobson et al., 2021) allows us to offer a rejoinder to the dominant framing of the role of 'consumers' in the circular economy. In contrast to the prevailing idea that the onus is on consumers to take up and 'accept' new business models and products, our work suggests that more emphasis should be placed on the retail sector to adapt to consumers' existing practices. Differentiating between reuse-refill and reuse-return methods of provisioning (EMF, 2019), raises questions about the nature and amount of consumption work and domestic labour involved in these different systems (Wheeler & Glucksmann, 2015b). Future studies could usefully turn their attention to this complexity and nuance. Our approach also raises questions about who (state, market, or household) is required to do what work to ensure the success of reuse systems. As things stand, most of the work falls to individuals who are required to source, prepare, and maintain objects ( recirculate ) in refill systems, integrating these practices into their existing domestic routines. With a growing interest in transitioning towards a shared packaging economy (reuse-return), it is imperative to think about how best to recognize and formalize the work carried out by households whilst also questioning how responsibility and care should be reconfigured and formalized across the wider supply-chain.

And then:

“Our approach also raises questions about who (state, market, or household) is required to do what work to ensure the success of reuse systems.” #G26N4U Reuse practices and household consumption work #V9QTJP / Conclusion #9KXLER #G26N4U Finally, conceptualizing these activities and tasks as 'consumption work' helps to understand the work that consumers are required to engage in as part of the transition to more circular forms of consumption. For example, the requirement on consumers to bring their own containers to reuse-refill stores results in several processual forms of labour, primarily that of decanting and recirculating . Whilst these activities may be interpreted as domestic labour due to them being household-based, we argue that they play a key role in the wider circuits of the reuse economy, extending well beyond the home. Allied to this, our sensitivity to how labour is distributed along the supply chain (Hobson et al., 2021) allows us to offer a rejoinder to the dominant framing of the role of 'consumers' in the circular economy. In contrast to the prevailing idea that the onus is on consumers to take up and 'accept' new business models and products, our work suggests that more emphasis should be placed on the retail sector to adapt to consumers' existing practices. Differentiating between reuse-refill and reuse-return methods of provisioning (EMF, 2019), raises questions about the nature and amount of consumption work and domestic labour involved in these different systems (Wheeler & Glucksmann, 2015b). Future studies could usefully turn their attention to this complexity and nuance. Our approach also raises questions about who (state, market, or household) is required to do what work to ensure the success of reuse systems. As things stand, most of the work falls to individuals who are required to source, prepare, and maintain objects ( recirculate ) in refill systems, integrating these practices into their existing domestic routines. With a growing interest in transitioning towards a shared packaging economy (reuse-return), it is imperative to think about how best to recognize and formalize the work carried out by households whilst also questioning how responsibility and care should be reconfigured and formalized across the wider supply-chain.

This is very relevant for Brīvbode, because your site is exactly where household work becomes connected to a wider reuse infrastructure.

4. Community/public circular spaces precedent: Holmes 2018

Holmes gives the nice “public/community sites” bridge, via Hobson 2016:

“Hobson (2016) pushes at this further, referring to social enterprises and ‘generative spaces’ … of everyday activism, such as repair cafes, as spaces of the CE.” #56AZCA New spaces, ordinary practices: Circulating and sharing within diverse economies of provisioning #XATD2A / 2.2. Circular economy and sharing economy #38LM6C #56AZCA In a previous study with others (Mylan et al., 2016), I argue for recognition of the domestic as a site of CE; where practices that constitute domestic life, including food sharing, repurposing and recycling, already involve the circularity of materials. Similarly, Hobson (2016: 96) alludes to the importance of the household, and the materials which flow in and out, in expanding CE's realm. In addition, and as already noted, connections are being made between CE and SE. Lacy and Rutqvist (2015) describe the sharing platform, and the likes of Uber and Lyft Inc, as CE business models. Whilst not expressively stating the varying forms of economy at work, research by Niinimäki and Hassi (2011) likewise draws upon the links between PSS schemes involving fashion items, and more sustainable, circular modes of consumption. Thus, it is evident that the division between SE/CE is blurred and the two are often interwoven. Hobson (2016) also makes these connections to PSS and the interweaving of CE/SE, referencing models such as Zipcar. However, Hobson (2016) pushes at this further, referring to social enterprises and 'generative spaces' (p.98) of everyday activism, such as repair cafes, as spaces of the CE. Hobson's work bridges the lacunae between the sharing and circular economies, opening up the possibilities that diverse economic spaces offer to issues of circularity, sustainability and activism. As Hobson states (2016: 99), there is potential for 'rich engagement, through both further conceptual and empirical exploration'. This article empirically fleshes out what such spaces look like and how they engage in practices of circulating and sharing.

And:

“Hobson’s work bridges the lacunae between the sharing and circular economies, opening up the possibilities that diverse economic spaces offer to issues of circularity, sustainability and activism.” #56AZCA New spaces, ordinary practices: Circulating and sharing within diverse economies of provisioning #XATD2A / 2.2. Circular economy and sharing economy #38LM6C #56AZCA In a previous study with others (Mylan et al., 2016), I argue for recognition of the domestic as a site of CE; where practices that constitute domestic life, including food sharing, repurposing and recycling, already involve the circularity of materials. Similarly, Hobson (2016: 96) alludes to the importance of the household, and the materials which flow in and out, in expanding CE's realm. In addition, and as already noted, connections are being made between CE and SE. Lacy and Rutqvist (2015) describe the sharing platform, and the likes of Uber and Lyft Inc, as CE business models. Whilst not expressively stating the varying forms of economy at work, research by Niinimäki and Hassi (2011) likewise draws upon the links between PSS schemes involving fashion items, and more sustainable, circular modes of consumption. Thus, it is evident that the division between SE/CE is blurred and the two are often interwoven. Hobson (2016) also makes these connections to PSS and the interweaving of CE/SE, referencing models such as Zipcar. However, Hobson (2016) pushes at this further, referring to social enterprises and 'generative spaces' (p.98) of everyday activism, such as repair cafes, as spaces of the CE. Hobson's work bridges the lacunae between the sharing and circular economies, opening up the possibilities that diverse economic spaces offer to issues of circularity, sustainability and activism. As Hobson states (2016: 99), there is potential for 'rich engagement, through both further conceptual and empirical exploration'. This article empirically fleshes out what such spaces look like and how they engage in practices of circulating and sharing.

This is probably the best source for saying: circular economy is not only households or markets; it also happens in repair cafés, sharing spaces, social enterprises, free shops, swapshops.

How it relates to your thesis draft

You already have two draft paragraphs doing this work:

• #6G862E Practices of Divestment, Acquisition and Circulation of Things in a Swapshop in Riga, Latvia #FYG32U / Introduction #SVS6HK #6G862E This thesis extends the consumption work framework in two directions. First, it examines consumption work at a semi-public site rather than within the domestic sphere. In discussion of research agenda for circular economies Hobson et al. (2021) call explicitly for research that moves beyond the household to examine how consumption work is organised and distributed in community and public initiatives. Brīvbode is such a space: a site where the ordinarily private labour of divestment and acquisition becomes briefly visible and socially acknowledged, and a site where also public volunteer labor – sorting, curating, maintaining quality standards, managing social dynamics – sustains a service, itself a form of consumption work that is continuous with the domestic labour it serves. says your thesis extends consumption work to a semi-public site, Brīvbode, where private labour of divestment/acquisition becomes visible and where volunteer labour sustains circulation.

• #FYJU8R Practices of Divestment, Acquisition and Circulation of Things in a Swapshop in Riga, Latvia #FYG32U / Introduction #SVS6HK #FYJU8R As Hobson et al. (2021) argue, research should examine non-domestic spaces where individuals come together around circular practices – regardless of whether these activities are explicitly labeled as “circular economy”. Other authors have reinforced this call for studies of community based dimensions of circular consumption (Luukkonen et al., 2024, Mesiranta et al., 2025). Brīvbode is such a space: a site where the ordinarily private labour of divestment and acquisition can become visible and socially acknowledged, and where volunteer labour sustains infrastructure continuous with the domestic labour it serves. says Brīvbode is a non-domestic space where people gather around circular practices even if they do not call them “circular economy.”

The argument is strong, but I would slightly soften the claim that Hobson et al. “call explicitly” for community/public initiatives unless you check the original PDF. Based on what is in the corpus, a safer version would be:

Building on Hobson et al.’s (2021) research agenda on consumption work in the circular economy, this thesis shifts attention from household-based circular practices to the semi-public site where such work is organised, redistributed, and made visible. Existing work notes that circular consumption requires additional labour from consumers and that research has focused largely on household practices, with less attention to the wider institutional and community arrangements that make circularity possible ( #XRXFBJ The (im)possibilities of circular consumption: Producing and performing circular clothing consumption in retail and household settings #8EVNK8 / Circular consumption and the sociology of consumption #SBM22B #XRXFBJ involves “all work necessary for the purchase, use, re-use and disposal of consumption goods and services” (Wheeler and Glucksmann, 2015a: 37). This form of work undertaken by consumers is necessary for the completion as well as complementation of economic processes (Glucksmann, 2016). For instance, self-assembling furniture or installation of different software is necessary before some goods can be appropriated and appreciated. While consumption work is also part of linear economies, in a circular system, previous consumption work activities need to be scaled, and new practices need to be adopted (Hobson et al., 2021). For instance, even if a household already practised waste sorting and recycling according to circularity principles, they also need to enact further practices such as repairing broken belongings or sharing household tools. These increased levels of consumption work in the CE can further contribute to an unequal distribution of labour in terms of gender, class and employment forms (Hobson et al., 2021). Furthermore, it can be challenging to manage the time required for this increased work due to other personal or professional commitments, as the study of Sutcliffe (2022) demonstrates. ; #5YZB8A The (im)possibilities of circular consumption: Producing and performing circular clothing consumption in retail and household settings #8EVNK8 / The challenges of circular consumption #LZ9AW5 #5YZB8A Furthermore, there is another, less explored side to the challenges of circular consumption, which concerns the arrangement of the wider landscape within which circular consumption is to be brought about. Sociological circular consumption research mostly focuses on how consumers do circular consumption as part of household practices (e.g., Hebrok and Heidenstrom, 2019; Mylan et al., 2016). While there are some calls for discussing how different provisioning systems and institutional arrangements shape circular consumption (Greene et al., 2024), there is little empirical investigation and conceptualisation within this area (e.g., Holmes, 2018). As Hobson et al. (2021) argue there has been little focus on how the additional work moved to the sphere of consumption implicates consumers; what is expected of them, and what is made possible for them. ). Brīvbode offers such a case: it is a site where the ordinarily private labour of divestment and acquisition becomes socially visible, and where volunteer work — sorting, curating, maintaining quality standards, managing social dynamics — sustains the infrastructure through which things continue to circulate.

In plain thesis-argument terms

Hobson et al. help you say:

1. Circular economy depends on work, not only values or attitudes.

2. That work is often shifted onto “consumers” without being recognised.

3. Much research has looked at this inside households.

4. Brīvbode lets you examine what happens when that work moves into a semi-public/community infrastructure.

5. Your empirical contribution is showing how this work is redistributed between households, volunteers, visitors, neighbours, and the swapshop itself.

The cleanest relation to your Chapter 5 is already in #DKNKM6 Practices of Divestment, Acquisition and Circulation of Things in a Swapshop in Riga, Latvia #FYG32U / The Work of Circular Consumption #F2943E #DKNKM6 In this chapter I examine what this work consists of and how it is performed. The analytical framework for this is Wheeler and Glucksmann’s (2015) concept of consumption work – the activities, skills and labour that consumers engage in to acquire, use, manage and dispose of goods. Wheeler and Glucksmann’s framework distinguishes three dimensions: technical labour – the division of tasks and skills across different people; modal labour – the interdependencies of work across different socio-economic arrangements (paid and unpaid, formal and informal); and processual labour – the connections across the full span of production and consumption process (Wheeler & Gluckmann, 2015: 35-36). In circular economy contexts, becoming a circular consumer requires varied and unevenly distributed forms of consumption work whose nature and scope have been underplayed in circular economy debates, but which has significant implications for whether such initiatives can succeed (Hobson et al., 2021). As Mesiranta et al. (2025: 25) observe, even frontrunner consumers who have integrated circular practices into their lives perceive them as laborious and at times troublesome. and #8JXBYH Practices of Divestment, Acquisition and Circulation of Things in a Swapshop in Riga, Latvia #FYG32U / Conclusion #GGGPNV #8JXBYH This chapter has examined the labour that sustains freecycling in Brīvbode, finding it distributed across structural, ethical, and gendered dimensions that existing circular economy frameworks tend to overlook. Wheeler and Glucksmann's consumption work concept names the structure: tasks that paid institutions would perform in formal retail or waste management contexts are here absorbed by unpaid volunteers and participants, distributed across modal and processual dimensions that stretch well beyond the freeshop itself. Bankovska and Graeber name the motivation: much of this labour is not transferred from institutions onto reluctant consumers but self-imposed through ethical commitment and care – activities people perform because they cannot bring themselves not to. Miller names who bears it: consistently and disproportionately women, from household sorting and routing to managing others' generosity to transmitting these competencies to the next generation. : Brīvbode reveals the technical, modal, and processual labour that circular economy frameworks tend to hide.

Great — now we have the exact quote. And yes, your memory was basically right.

The key passage is this one:

“Finally, research into CE CW needs to move beyond the domestic sphere and space of the household, to consider engagement with consumption-based practices in other spaces. This could be individuals coming together once a month to participate in a local Repair Café, or household engagements with community-based CE business models, whether they are explicitly labelled as such. This is because some consumer-based CE practices are not bound to the home, but are rather implicated in establishing new patterns of, for example, mobility practices: practices, which in turn, influence CE CW household dynamics.” #6SZJVB Consumption Work in the circular economy: A research agenda. #NUEUVY / 4. The circular economy and Consumption Work: a research agenda #9LCL7B #6SZJVB Finally, research into CE CW needs to move beyond the domestic sphere and space of the household, to consider engagement with consumption-based practices in other spaces. This could be individuals coming together once a month to participate in a local Repair Café, or household engagements with community-based CE business models, whether they are explicitly labelled as such. This is because some consumer-based CE practices are not bound to the home, but are rather implicated in establishing new patterns of, for example, mobility practices: practices, which in turn, influence CE CW household dynamics.

So you can keep the “explicit call” wording in your intro. It is actually explicit. Academic memory: occasionally not lying to us.

The abstract also gives you the general framing:

“Consumption Work refers to the labour integral to the purchase, use, re-use and disposal of goods and services.” #629UVN Consumption Work in the circular economy: A research agenda. #NUEUVY / ABSTRACT #VCKC56 #629UVN Circular Economy frameworks have become central to debates and interventions that aim to reduce global resource use and environmental despoliation. As pathways to both systemic and micro-scale transformations, there remain many challenges to making Circular Economy actionable. One such challenge is facilitating the emergence of the 'circular consumer'. Here, we are all encouraged to shift everyday practices to consume new products and services and/or participate in the 'Sharing Economy': all of which are claimed, in some prominent debates, to automatically offer more 'convenience' for the consumer. In response, this paper argues that viewing such debates through the lens of Consumption Work offers a different picture of what it takes to be, and what we need to know about, the circular consumer. Consumption Work refers to the labour integral to the purchase, use, re-use and disposal of goods and services. This paper argues that the nature and scope of such work has been underplayed in Circular Economy debates to date, and that becoming a circular consumer requires varied and unevenly distributed forms of Consumption Work, which in turn, has significant implications for the success of Circular Economy. This paper thus proposes a research agenda into this topic, outlining five, inter-related, critical issues that a Circular Economy research agenda must address, including questions of who undertakes Consumption Work; to what ends; and how its multiple forms are coordinated within and beyond the household.

They argue that circular consumerhood requires “varied and unevenly distributed forms of Consumption Work” and that the research agenda should ask “who undertakes Consumption Work; to what ends; and how its multiple forms are coordinated within and beyond the household.” #629UVN Consumption Work in the circular economy: A research agenda. #NUEUVY / ABSTRACT #VCKC56 #629UVN Circular Economy frameworks have become central to debates and interventions that aim to reduce global resource use and environmental despoliation. As pathways to both systemic and micro-scale transformations, there remain many challenges to making Circular Economy actionable. One such challenge is facilitating the emergence of the 'circular consumer'. Here, we are all encouraged to shift everyday practices to consume new products and services and/or participate in the 'Sharing Economy': all of which are claimed, in some prominent debates, to automatically offer more 'convenience' for the consumer. In response, this paper argues that viewing such debates through the lens of Consumption Work offers a different picture of what it takes to be, and what we need to know about, the circular consumer. Consumption Work refers to the labour integral to the purchase, use, re-use and disposal of goods and services. This paper argues that the nature and scope of such work has been underplayed in Circular Economy debates to date, and that becoming a circular consumer requires varied and unevenly distributed forms of Consumption Work, which in turn, has significant implications for the success of Circular Economy. This paper thus proposes a research agenda into this topic, outlining five, inter-related, critical issues that a Circular Economy research agenda must address, including questions of who undertakes Consumption Work; to what ends; and how its multiple forms are coordinated within and beyond the household.

What it means

Hobson/Welch/Holmes/Wheeler/Wieser are saying:

• circular economy debates often imagine the “circular consumer” as if people will just accept new models — repair, sharing, reuse, product-service systems — because they are more convenient;

• but actually these practices require labour: sorting, repairing, learning, storing, moving, coordinating, caring for things, taking responsibility;

• this labour is unevenly distributed by gender, class, time, skill, household structure, etc.;

• research has focused too much on domestic/household settings;

• therefore, consumption work research needs to follow circular practices into other spaces: Repair Cafés, community-based CE business models, shared infrastructures, and initiatives not necessarily labelled “circular economy” #6SZJVB Consumption Work in the circular economy: A research agenda. #NUEUVY / 4. The circular economy and Consumption Work: a research agenda #9LCL7B #6SZJVB Finally, research into CE CW needs to move beyond the domestic sphere and space of the household, to consider engagement with consumption-based practices in other spaces. This could be individuals coming together once a month to participate in a local Repair Café, or household engagements with community-based CE business models, whether they are explicitly labelled as such. This is because some consumer-based CE practices are not bound to the home, but are rather implicated in establishing new patterns of, for example, mobility practices: practices, which in turn, influence CE CW household dynamics. .

How this plugs into your draft

Your paragraph #6G862E Practices of Divestment, Acquisition and Circulation of Things in a Swapshop in Riga, Latvia #FYG32U / Introduction #SVS6HK #6G862E This thesis extends the consumption work framework in two directions. First, it examines consumption work at a semi-public site rather than within the domestic sphere. In discussion of research agenda for circular economies Hobson et al. (2021) call explicitly for research that moves beyond the household to examine how consumption work is organised and distributed in community and public initiatives. Brīvbode is such a space: a site where the ordinarily private labour of divestment and acquisition becomes briefly visible and socially acknowledged, and a site where also public volunteer labor – sorting, curating, maintaining quality standards, managing social dynamics – sustains a service, itself a form of consumption work that is continuous with the domestic labour it serves. is now very well supported. You write:

“Hobson et al. (2021) call explicitly for research that moves beyond the household to examine how consumption work is organised and distributed in community and public initiatives.” #6G862E Practices of Divestment, Acquisition and Circulation of Things in a Swapshop in Riga, Latvia #FYG32U / Introduction #SVS6HK #6G862E This thesis extends the consumption work framework in two directions. First, it examines consumption work at a semi-public site rather than within the domestic sphere. In discussion of research agenda for circular economies Hobson et al. (2021) call explicitly for research that moves beyond the household to examine how consumption work is organised and distributed in community and public initiatives. Brīvbode is such a space: a site where the ordinarily private labour of divestment and acquisition becomes briefly visible and socially acknowledged, and a site where also public volunteer labor – sorting, curating, maintaining quality standards, managing social dynamics – sustains a service, itself a form of consumption work that is continuous with the domestic labour it serves.

That is basically correct. I would only tweak “public initiatives” to “other spaces and community-based initiatives” because the Hobson quote says “other spaces” and “community-based CE business models,” not exactly “public initiatives.”

A slightly tightened version:

Hobson et al. (2021) argue that research into circular economy consumption work must “move beyond the domestic sphere and space of the household” to examine consumption-based practices in other spaces, including Repair Cafés and community-based circular economy models, whether or not these are explicitly labelled as such ( #6SZJVB Consumption Work in the circular economy: A research agenda. #NUEUVY / 4. The circular economy and Consumption Work: a research agenda #9LCL7B #6SZJVB Finally, research into CE CW needs to move beyond the domestic sphere and space of the household, to consider engagement with consumption-based practices in other spaces. This could be individuals coming together once a month to participate in a local Repair Café, or household engagements with community-based CE business models, whether they are explicitly labelled as such. This is because some consumer-based CE practices are not bound to the home, but are rather implicated in establishing new patterns of, for example, mobility practices: practices, which in turn, influence CE CW household dynamics. ). Brīvbode is such a space: a semi-public site where the ordinarily private labour of divestment and acquisition becomes visible and socially acknowledged, and where volunteer labour — sorting, curating, maintaining quality standards, and managing social dynamics — sustains the infrastructure through which things continue to circulate.

That would fit beautifully in the intro or theoretical framework. It also connects directly to Chapter 5, especially your claim that Brīvbode redistributes consumption work across households, volunteers, neighbours, and informal exchange networks #8JXBYH Practices of Divestment, Acquisition and Circulation of Things in a Swapshop in Riga, Latvia #FYG32U / Conclusion #GGGPNV #8JXBYH This chapter has examined the labour that sustains freecycling in Brīvbode, finding it distributed across structural, ethical, and gendered dimensions that existing circular economy frameworks tend to overlook. Wheeler and Glucksmann's consumption work concept names the structure: tasks that paid institutions would perform in formal retail or waste management contexts are here absorbed by unpaid volunteers and participants, distributed across modal and processual dimensions that stretch well beyond the freeshop itself. Bankovska and Graeber name the motivation: much of this labour is not transferred from institutions onto reluctant consumers but self-imposed through ethical commitment and care – activities people perform because they cannot bring themselves not to. Miller names who bears it: consistently and disproportionately women, from household sorting and routing to managing others' generosity to transmitting these competencies to the next generation. .

Yes — I found it. It’s the one Sheaf lists as Hobson 2016, but the DOI suggests it may have been online-first in 2015: “Closing the loop or squaring the circle? Locating generative spaces for the circular economy” #8ZKAT7 .

What this Hobson paper is about

This is an earlier, more conceptual Hobson paper than the 2021 consumption work agenda. The main argument is:

Circular economy debates focus too much on industrial systems, business models, design, efficiency, and “closing loops,” and not enough on the socio-political, everyday, citizen-based practices through which circularity might actually be lived.

Hobson says that CE is usually framed as a technical/economic transition — better materials, better product design, better recycling systems, new business models. But she asks: what about citizens, households, users, repairers, activists, communities, and mundane practices of using, maintaining, repairing, sharing, reusing, and moving things on?

The abstract puts it clearly:

CE is often discussed as “restorative and regenerative industrial systems,” while “parallel socio-cultural transformations have arguably received less consideration to date.” Hobson therefore focuses on “‘generative spaces’ of diverse CE practices” and connects CE to “practices, materialities, emergent political spaces and ‘everyday activism’.” #AKL7LC Closing the loop or squaring the circle? Locating generative spaces for the circular economy #8ZKAT7 / Abstract #BWE4XA #AKL7LC Heightened concerns about long-term sustainability have of late enlivened debates around the circular economy (CE). Defined as a series of restorative and regenerative industrial systems, parallel socio-cultural transformations have arguably received less consideration to date. In response, this paper examines the contributions human geographical scholarship can make to CE debates, focusing on ‘generative spaces’ of diverse CE practices. Concepts infrequently discussed within human geography such as product service systems and ‘prosumption’ are explored, to argue that productive potential exists in bringing these ideas into conversation with ongoing human geographical research into practices, materialities, emergent political spaces and ‘everyday activism’.

The most useful quotes for your thesis

1. CE needs attention to everyday socio-material life

This is very relevant for positioning Brīvbode:

“Within prevailing CE debates, little has been said about the socio-political implications and possibilities for shifting current production-consumption-use-waste practices. In addition, scant consideration has been given to other ‘transformative’ pathways and practices, currently elided by a focus on industrial systems and sustained economic growth.” #EQ56XU Closing the loop or squaring the circle? Locating generative spaces for the circular economy #8ZKAT7 / Corresponding author: #DJ6AEM #EQ56XU Given all of the above, the impetus for this paper is that it is arguably apposite and timely to interrogate the implications of the CE. Extant academic, policy and business-led analyses frame transformations towards the CE as predominantly issues of innovation, technical systems, fiscal and business incentives, and reformulated business models. While these interventions are not dismissed here, this paper is prompted by the observation that, within prevailing CE debates, little has been said about the socio-political implications and possibilities for shifting current production-consumption-use-waste practices. In addition, scant consideration has been given to other 'transformative' pathways and practices, currently elided by a focus on industrial systems and sustained economic growth. As such, crucial questions require greater consideration, such as the forms and processes of governance that would facilitate an effective and equitable CE. In addition, what are the implications of a CE for quotidian spaces and practices, as the patterns and rhythms of everyday socio-materiality are potentially reconfigured? Is the CE yet another iteration of capitalist crisis, reproduction and survival (Harvey, 2010, 2006), or does it productively merge disparate discourses and actors to garner much-needed action around the manifold issues of global sustainability? And what forms of research/intervention might critical social scientists such as human geographers contribute to explore the above questions, informed by which streams of conceptual and empirical debate?

This gives you a theoretical justification for why an ethnography of Brīvbode matters: it studies one of those “other transformative pathways” that policy/business CE framings tend to miss.

2. Consumer → user is not enough; ask what happens to everyday practices

Hobson critiques the idea that CE simply turns consumers into “users” of leased/shared goods:

“Within CE debates little consideration has been given to what exactly is at stake vis-à-vis the acceptance or rejection of these modes of consuming by citizens. For example, how and to what ends do such business models shift or clash with perceptions of consumption, consumerism and private property? How might becoming a ‘user’ alter the spatial-temporal patterns of how households and other collectives locate, exchange and return goods?” #PABS54 Closing the loop or squaring the circle? Locating generative spaces for the circular economy #8ZKAT7 / V Being a circular economy citizen: Pathways to radical product service systems? #MWMXE8 #PABS54 This movement from ‘consumer’ to ‘user’ pertains to the business models forwarded by CE advocates. For example, goods that are now purchased and owned, such as carpets, washing machines or garden tools, are instead leased. This allows (in theory) consumers to access goods when needed, and businesses to recycle, repair and reuse goods through maintaining control of ownership. Within current CE debates, such business models are uncontroversial, and successful examples exist, such as carpet leasing company Interface. However, within CE debates little consideration has been given to what exactly is at stake vis-à-vis the acceptance or rejection of these modes of consuming by citizens. For example, how and to what ends do such business models shift or clash with perceptions of consumption, consumerism and private property? How might becoming a ‘user’ alter the spatial-temporal patterns of how households and other collectives locate, exchange and return goods? If goods now not only have ‘after lives’ (Crang et al., 2013) but also ‘on going’ and multiple lives, how do the current ways that households deal with unwanted goods – that include gifting, swapping, selling on, recycling, and storage (Bulkeley and Gregson, 2009; Crang et al., 2013; Gregson and Crang, 2010; Lane, 2011; Moore, 2012) – become enlivened, enrolled and/or reconfigured in the CE?

This is very Brīvbode: people are not simply “accepting” a circular model; they are learning new meanings of ownership, obligation, restraint, generosity, quality, and letting go.

3. Household practices of moving unwanted goods already matter

This quote is gold for your divestment/acquisition topic:

“If goods now not only have ‘after lives’ … but also ‘on going’ and multiple lives, how do the current ways that households deal with unwanted goods – that include gifting, swapping, selling on, recycling, and storage … – become enlivened, enrolled and/or reconfigured in the CE?” #PABS54 Closing the loop or squaring the circle? Locating generative spaces for the circular economy #8ZKAT7 / V Being a circular economy citizen: Pathways to radical product service systems? #MWMXE8 #PABS54 This movement from ‘consumer’ to ‘user’ pertains to the business models forwarded by CE advocates. For example, goods that are now purchased and owned, such as carpets, washing machines or garden tools, are instead leased. This allows (in theory) consumers to access goods when needed, and businesses to recycle, repair and reuse goods through maintaining control of ownership. Within current CE debates, such business models are uncontroversial, and successful examples exist, such as carpet leasing company Interface. However, within CE debates little consideration has been given to what exactly is at stake vis-à-vis the acceptance or rejection of these modes of consuming by citizens. For example, how and to what ends do such business models shift or clash with perceptions of consumption, consumerism and private property? How might becoming a ‘user’ alter the spatial-temporal patterns of how households and other collectives locate, exchange and return goods? If goods now not only have ‘after lives’ (Crang et al., 2013) but also ‘on going’ and multiple lives, how do the current ways that households deal with unwanted goods – that include gifting, swapping, selling on, recycling, and storage (Bulkeley and Gregson, 2009; Crang et al., 2013; Gregson and Crang, 2010; Lane, 2011; Moore, 2012) – become enlivened, enrolled and/or reconfigured in the CE?

This maps almost perfectly onto your thesis: Brīvbode is where gifting, swapping, storage, recycling avoidance, and “moving things on” become organised into a semi-public practice.

4. “Generative spaces” = the concept you probably want

Hobson gives examples like Fairphone and Repair Cafés, asking what new social/material/political possibilities emerge from them:

“How do these emergent properties speak to other generative spaces, such as Repair Cafés … that form in-person, temporary collectives around repairing everyday goods? And finally, what forms of ‘everyday activism’ emerge, wherein individuals and groups ‘self-manage and develop workable and replicable models for a better life’?” #CKFDRW Closing the loop or squaring the circle? Locating generative spaces for the circular economy #8ZKAT7 / V Being a circular economy citizen: Pathways to radical product service systems? #MWMXE8 #CKFDRW This is not to hero-worship Fairphone or to assume that all that appears on their website mirrors what happens in practice. But then that is partially the point. That is, the above example raises questions about what emerges from assemblages such as Fairphone, as they seek to co-create a PSS that takes on board CE thinking whilst bringing in agendas of fairness, participation and socio-material engagement of citizens. Indeed, how do investors/users/participants – and, indeed, people who are all three at once – become enrolled into and/or create new 'possibility spaces' through engagement with the contingent functionality of the Fairphone, which requires being more than a standard phone user? And how do these emergent properties speak to other generative spaces, such as Repair Cafés (see http://repaircafe.org ), that form in-person, temporary collectives around repairing everyday goods? And finally, what forms of 'everyday activism' emerge, wherein individuals and groups 'self-manage and develop workable and replicable models for a better life' (Chatterton and Pickerill, 2010: 476; see also Chatterton, 2010; Pickerill and Chatterton, 2006)? While research into forms of everyday activism has not foregrounded the

For Brīvbode, you can say it is a generative space in Hobson’s sense: not just a place where goods pass through, but a place where alternative competencies, social relations, responsibilities, and moral meanings of circulation are produced.

5. The conclusion: CE should include everyday activism and material practice

This is probably the strongest quote for your theoretical framework:

“Any consideration of the CE must encompass forms of ‘everyday activism’ that foreground the ‘vital materialism’ … necessary to rethink, re-envision, recreate, reuse and ‘move on’ the goods and services that currently meet everyday needs.” #NB8CR8 Closing the loop or squaring the circle? Locating generative spaces for the circular economy #8ZKAT7 / VI Concluding comments #ACNZ3L #NB8CR8 This paper has aimed to bring recent and growing debates around ideas of the CE into conversation with some facets of human geographical research. The aim is to outline how research into a CE requires much broader analytical lenses than are currently deployed, given the profound 'transformative change' advocates speak of. The purpose here was to provisionally locate generative spaces and practices that embody a CE which goes beyond re-jigged industrial systems and business models. Rather, the case is made that any consideration of the CE must encompass forms of 'everyday activism' that foreground the 'vital materialism' (Gregson et al., 2010: 853) necessary to rethink, re-envision, recreate, reuse and 'move on' the goods and services that currently meet everyday needs. In other disciplines, researchers and practitioners talk of addressing unsustainable production and consumption through frameworks such as product service systems. This (perhaps rather dry) phrase is not found a great deal in human geographical work, but it does intersect with – and arguably has much to contribute to – research that explores practices embedded within, and enacted through, multi-scale socio-technical systems (Davies et al., 2014; Watson, 2012).

And the next passage links directly to roles and responsibilities:

“Broader notions of a contract can be evoked here, where roles, competencies and responsibilities are redistributed and reconfigured throughout the lifetime of products and services, recalibrating the social relations and arrangements that currently favour the purchasing-ownership-disposal model of citizen-consumer practices.” #4G9UV6 Closing the loop or squaring the circle? Locating generative spaces for the circular economy #8ZKAT7 / VI Concluding comments #ACNZ3L #4G9UV6 Advocates of the CE appear to consider the role of citizens as being the acceptance (or not) of practices that have been formulated on their behalf by designers, engineers, economists and policy-makers. One key aim of this paper has been to highlight how this presents an impoverished view of the properties and capacities that new assemblages of the CE are bringing forth, or could potentially create. That is, a seemingly narrow set of practices and spaces for citizen action (e.g. the High Street) are supplemented and/or challenged by the multifarious practices of the designer-consumer-user-repairer citizen. Indeed, as mentioned above, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation suggests that a new contract is emerging between business and the consumer. In their understanding, this relates to a direct and legally binding agreement between two or more parties. Yet this paper is essentially arguing that broader notions of a contract can be evoked here, where roles, competencies and responsibilities are redistributed and reconfigured throughout the lifetime of products and services, recalibrating the social relations and arrangements that currently favour the purchasing-ownership-disposal model of citizen-consumer practices. Such socially transformative enactments of the CE are thus implicit but under-explored within current debates, and this paper has aimed to highlight the potential for rich engagement, through both further conceptual and empirical exploration.

This is a very good bridge into your consumption work chapter: Brīvbode redistributes roles, competencies, and responsibilities across donors, takers, volunteers, households, neighbours, and objects.

How it relates to the thesis draft

This paper supports the big frame of your thesis more than the technical “consumption work” frame.

• Hobson 2016 gives you the argument that CE must be studied in generative, everyday, socio-material spaces, not only industrial loops and business models.

• Hobson et al. 2021 gives you the more specific argument that these circular practices require consumption work, distributed within and beyond households.

• Your Brīvbode thesis combines them: Brīvbode is both a generative space of everyday circularity and a site where circular consumption work becomes visible.

A possible sentence for the theoretical framework:

Hobson argues that circular economy research must look beyond industrial systems and business models to the “generative spaces” where citizens, users and repairers reconfigure everyday relations with goods ( #AKL7LC Closing the loop or squaring the circle? Locating generative spaces for the circular economy #8ZKAT7 / Abstract #BWE4XA #AKL7LC Heightened concerns about long-term sustainability have of late enlivened debates around the circular economy (CE). Defined as a series of restorative and regenerative industrial systems, parallel socio-cultural transformations have arguably received less consideration to date. In response, this paper examines the contributions human geographical scholarship can make to CE debates, focusing on ‘generative spaces’ of diverse CE practices. Concepts infrequently discussed within human geography such as product service systems and ‘prosumption’ are explored, to argue that productive potential exists in bringing these ideas into conversation with ongoing human geographical research into practices, materialities, emergent political spaces and ‘everyday activism’. ; #CKFDRW Closing the loop or squaring the circle? Locating generative spaces for the circular economy #8ZKAT7 / V Being a circular economy citizen: Pathways to radical product service systems? #MWMXE8 #CKFDRW This is not to hero-worship Fairphone or to assume that all that appears on their website mirrors what happens in practice. But then that is partially the point. That is, the above example raises questions about what emerges from assemblages such as Fairphone, as they seek to co-create a PSS that takes on board CE thinking whilst bringing in agendas of fairness, participation and socio-material engagement of citizens. Indeed, how do investors/users/participants – and, indeed, people who are all three at once – become enrolled into and/or create new 'possibility spaces' through engagement with the contingent functionality of the Fairphone, which requires being more than a standard phone user? And how do these emergent properties speak to other generative spaces, such as Repair Cafés (see http://repaircafe.org ), that form in-person, temporary collectives around repairing everyday goods? And finally, what forms of 'everyday activism' emerge, wherein individuals and groups 'self-manage and develop workable and replicable models for a better life' (Chatterton and Pickerill, 2010: 476; see also Chatterton, 2010; Pickerill and Chatterton, 2006)? While research into forms of everyday activism has not foregrounded the ). Brīvbode can be understood as such a space: it is not simply an outlet for unwanted things, but a site where roles, competencies and responsibilities are redistributed across the lifetimes of objects, challenging the purchasing–ownership–disposal model of consumption ( #4G9UV6 Closing the loop or squaring the circle? Locating generative spaces for the circular economy #8ZKAT7 / VI Concluding comments #ACNZ3L #4G9UV6 Advocates of the CE appear to consider the role of citizens as being the acceptance (or not) of practices that have been formulated on their behalf by designers, engineers, economists and policy-makers. One key aim of this paper has been to highlight how this presents an impoverished view of the properties and capacities that new assemblages of the CE are bringing forth, or could potentially create. That is, a seemingly narrow set of practices and spaces for citizen action (e.g. the High Street) are supplemented and/or challenged by the multifarious practices of the designer-consumer-user-repairer citizen. Indeed, as mentioned above, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation suggests that a new contract is emerging between business and the consumer. In their understanding, this relates to a direct and legally binding agreement between two or more parties. Yet this paper is essentially arguing that broader notions of a contract can be evoked here, where roles, competencies and responsibilities are redistributed and reconfigured throughout the lifetime of products and services, recalibrating the social relations and arrangements that currently favour the purchasing-ownership-disposal model of citizen-consumer practices. Such socially transformative enactments of the CE are thus implicit but under-explored within current debates, and this paper has aimed to highlight the potential for rich engagement, through both further conceptual and empirical exploration. ).

This also reinforces your Chapter 5 argument: what looks like “free exchange” is actually a complex reorganisation of labour, responsibility, care, and social relations.