Circular strategies and waste management in the humanitarian context

Material flows are the basis of humanitarian operations, providing life-saving aid and resources to people in disaster situations (Besiou et al., 2021). These can contribute to long-term environmental consequences through the resulting waste flows (Bag et al., 2020). A humanitarian supply chain (HSC) is managed at a strategic level by humanitarian organizations (HOs), who are responsible for ensuring that the waste flows are adequately considered in operational planning, waste management (WM) is integrated into response and relief supplies and materials have longer life cycles through circular actions (Karl and Scholz Karl, 2022). This is achieved by applying concepts of circularity and WM to the humanitarian context, and thereby informing humanitarian actors regarding established concepts from other streams of research and practice.

Circularity and WM have been recognized as part of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), as has the impact of climate change on the nature of humanitarian crises (Anjomshoae et al., 2023; Dubey et al., 2024). HOs currently face considerable criticism when it comes to the lack of circularity in their response operations and supply chains (Brügge et al., 2020; Anjomshoae et al., 2023). The sense of urgency instigated by the disaster overrides considerations of potential harmful consequences of disaster response to the aid recipients (Muñoz Beaulieu et al., 2025). Strict limitations on use and duration of funding received from donors also hinders efforts of circularity in the HSC (Brangeon and Crowley, 2020). These types of cognitive and sector-specific barriers are presented as justifications for the lack of circular action in organizations (Slawinski et al., 2017). Within HSC research and practice, topics such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of response (Joseph et al., 2024), procurement (Moshtari et al., 2021), reverse logistics and packaging waste (George et al., 2020), are gaining significant traction, indicating that environmental concerns, such as circularity and WM, are areas of interest.

Through a review of academic and grey literature, this paper examines the following research questions (RQs):

We use material and strategic flows to conceptualize the processes and stakeholders within the HSC, and how concepts of WM and circularity can be implemented into this context both strategically and in practice.

The material flows of humanitarian operations can significantly alter the environment, infrastructure and general context of the aid recipients, in addition to the shocks the disaster itself has already inflicted. The principal material and strategic flows are the resources needed for carrying out the operation. The humanitarian operation instigates material and strategic flows, through procurement and transport of goods and other resources resulting in flows of aid to the recipients, but also of waste, which is in large part left to the aid recipients/local context to manage. In Figure 1, the waste flow represents the positioning of this paper, whereby the upstream material and strategic flows influence the generated waste, and how it should be managed and reduced through circular strategies.

Generally, the material flows in a humanitarian operation are formed of aid items such as shelter, medical items and food (Dubey and Gunasekaran, 2016), as well as for example packaging that largely end up as waste. In the Global South, where a large proportion of humanitarian operations take place, WM systems often fall short of adequate in waste collection, handling, treatment and disposal (Abubakar et al., 2022). These shortcomings often stem from insufficient infrastructure (both physical and institutional) resulting from socioeconomic and governance challenges (Sasahara et al., 2024). In an effective WM process, it is important to understand where the waste occurs, which stakeholders need to be involved, and which materials are included in the waste (WREC, 2024).

The concept of the circular economy (CE) represents a paradigm shift from the traditional linear economic model, which follows a “take, make, dispose” pattern, towards a framework where waste is minimized and considered a resource (Korhonen et al., 2018). CE refers to creating systems that address both clearly visible and hidden forms of waste (Blomsma and Tennant, 2020). Instrumental in this is the application of a range of circular strategies, outlined in the concept of the 10Rs (Table 2). The 10Rs highlight smarter production through efficiency of resource use (refuse, rethink, reduce), extending the lifespan of the products and their parts (reuse, repair, refurbish, remanufacture), and finally the management of product materials at the end of their life cycle (repurpose, recycle, recover).

While definitions for CE vary in the literature, at its core it is a systems-led framework based on three guiding principles, suggested by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2023): (1) Eliminate waste and pollution, (2) Circulate products and materials at their highest value and (3) Regenerate nature. The aim of these principles is to invite societies, businesses, and for example HOs, to rethink their relationship with waste and resources. Following these guidelines, the main foci of this paper are:

• the integration of the 10Rs into the HSC and the activity of its stakeholders; and

• WM of the materials (from the humanitarian operation) at the end of their life cycle.

This is achieved by analysing HSC literature, and also using diaster management and Global South literature to inform the humanitarian context.

As WM and circular strategies within HSCM is a nascent stream of research, the inclusion of practitioner knowledge and literature is paramount (see Starr and Van Wassenhove, 2014). This review therefore extends the search to include grey literature to present a “state of the art” review (Grant and Booth, 2009). While we include some older literature to establish a framework of what has been done in this area in the past, the focus is on research from the past decade. To inform HSC literature, we have also included papers from disaster studies and WM papers from a Global South context.

Our review process for academic articles was adapted from the methodology outlined by Lim et al. (2022), with the specific steps detailed in Figure 2.

The data (academic literature) in this review was assembled through a keyword search the following databases (identification):

• Business Source Complete (EBSCO)

• Emerald Journals

• SAGE Journals Online

• ScienceDirect (Elsevier)

• Springer Link

• Wiley Online Library

This ensured a broad and unbiased collection of literature. The search was limited to academic articles published between 2012 and 2024, and grey literature published between 2020 and 2024. This criterion provided both seminal works from the academic side as well as the most up-to-date grey literature.

The keywords for the search (title and article keywords) were “humanitarian supply chain”; “sustainable”; “waste management”; “10R framework”; “circular”; “humanitarian operations” and combinations thereof. These keywords were iterated with a group of humanitarian organizations to assure their relevance to the context. We restricted the search to published scholarly articles in the English language from peer-reviewed journals. This search resulted in 2,369 articles, for which we screened titles, abstracts and keywords for initial topical relevance based on a priori themes of waste management and circular strategies of HOs. Based on the screening, we downloaded 176 articles (acquisition).

All 176 articles that passed the initial screening were reviewed by the authors through full-text assessment (Purification). Each article was systematically evaluated against predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The complete set of criteria is detailed in Table 1. Following this evaluation, the final sample is composed of 31 articles.

Grey literature was obtained through the Waste Management Measuring, Reverse Logistics, Environmentally Sustainable Procurement and Transport, and Circular Economy (WREC) coalition website, where there is a comprehensive collection of documents relating to WM and circularity in specifically the humanitarian setting. This coalition brings together humanitarian organizations, private sector and research partners to prevent environmental damage from humanitarian activities (WREC, 2023). The WREC database was chosen following an iterative research process with the coalition, which informed the collection of documents and themes included in the database. As well, the coalition plays a significant role in bringing environmental issues, including WM and circularity, to the agenda in the humanitarian context and their collection of documents is comprehensive and diverse. As document type, we used “reports” and “research papers” as filters, which gave us 33 documents, out of which 13 were deemed relevant based on title and subject. The WREC database is exclusively focused on the humanitarian setting so this did not need to be separately indicated in the search.

Exclusion criteria, Table 1, included e.g. focus of the document (e.g. solely GHG emissions) and language. Through snowballing technique, we also added referenced literature, making the total 16 documents. Such documents included procurement indicators from the United Nations (2021) or the DG ECHO Humanitarian Logistics Policy (European Commission, 2022).

We then proceeded to the evaluation step. The coding was based on the a priori themes set out in Figure 1: material and strategic flows of HOs, waste management and circular strategies. The material was further organized into sub-codes, which were developed through thematic analysis and were used to categorize and analyse the literature. This method is used in identifying themes and patterns across data and literature, rather than systematically categorizing the data, e.g. geographically or by type of disaster, as is common in HSCM research.

The analysis was consistently guided by the RQs, whereby the thematic categories and codes referred to the challenges related to WM of humanitarian operations’ material flows, and circular strategies undertaken by stakeholders in the HSC (HOs, funders, NGOs, beneficiaries). This was part of the evaluation phase of the review. In addition to the a priori keywords and themes, the review inductively unearthed further keywords and themes during the analysis: “packaging”; “10R framework”;“procurement”; and “waste [flows]” (solid, hazardous, medical). These were also incorporated into the thematic analysis and coding, and elaborated upon in the findings section, which reports the literature. The 10R framework was used as the basis for coding, with additional categories added specifically for WM. The framework is presented in full in Table 2 and 3 lists the WM categories.

After the screening of the academic literature, the resultant sample composed of 31 articles published between the years 2012–2024 (see Figure 3). The streams of research of the journals (n = 28) represented in the sample vary from waste management to development to operations and production. Production and operations management journals Annals of Operations Research, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, International Journal of Production Economics and Production and Operations Management have more than one article per journal. A complete list of the literature sample is available in the  Appendix. This list highlights the variety of the circular and WM literature, and how application into the humanitarian context can be a complex endeavour. WM research in a Global South context informs the humanitarian sector as operations often take place in these types of environments. Disaster studies are also closely related and can inform the HSC.

In addition, 16 publications were identified from the grey literature. These were identified as an iterative process with the WREC Coalition through a series of interactions with their steering group during 2021 / 2022, and are also in their publicly available database. The database is regularly updated and thus reflects recent developments by HOs regarding circularity and WM. The  Appendix includes the full list of the grey literature analysed in this study.

The 10R framework is a central concept in making SCs more circular. In Table 2, the 10R framework is placed into the context of the HSC through indicating which disaster phase(s) each “R” is most associated with, as well as some examples found in the examined literature. Remanufacture (R6) is not well represented in the HSC, as the items are generally low-value and not designed for disassembly and restoration (Moshtari et al., 2021) and therefore is not presented in Table 2. The disaster management cycle is a commonly used tool, in HSC research, where events requiring humanitarian aid are divided into mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery (Van Wassenhove, 2006). The examples indicate how circular strategies can be integrated into the HSC at a grassroot, organizational and industry level at different stages of the disaster cycle. Projects such as repurposing life jackets into tarpaulins are an example of grassroots action (recovery, mitigation) (George et al., 2020), whereas the decision to reduce and refuse excess packaging in the relief items must be made at an organizational strategy level during the preparation and mitigation phases (Moshtari et al., 2021).

Implementing circularity in the supply chain is challenging for any organization, commercial or non-profit, without stakeholder collaboration (Pascucci, 2021; Karuppiah et al., 2021). HOs work with a myriad of suppliers to source their items and can collaborate with suppliers and manufacturers to ensure that products are certified with e.g. ISO 14001 to meet specified requirements throughout the manufacturing process (Zarei et al., 2019). HOs collaborate with manufacturers regarding items produced for humanitarian needs, such as metallized sachets of ready-to-use supplementary food (RUSF), to rethink and reduce the amount of harmful waste generated by these types of materials (Manceau and El-Zoubi, 2024). Refusing and rethinking packaging materials, packing design and distribution methods (e.g. single-use water bottles versus jerry cans for collecting water) of relief items, is a relevant strategy for achieving a degree of circularity (George et al., 2020; Anjomshoae et al., 2023).

There have been successful projects including volunteer refugees in repair and refurbish efforts in Darfur and Zaatari camps, enhancing social aspects of circularity in addition to waste reduction (Saidan et al., 2017; Karl and Scholz Karl, 2022). Other initiatives include repurposing packaging such as grain bags and jerry cans for long-term use after the disaster, as well as using material from life-jackets to make tarpaulins (George et al., 2020). However, George et al. (2020) highlighted that packaging and other items with organizational branding must be recycled rather than re-used, as improper use of the branded product could result in reputational risks for the organizations. Recovery efforts in using waste for energy production, or even composting in refugee camps or urban settlements have also been somewhat successful as a circularity enhancer (Seifert et al., 2023; UNHCR, 2023).

George et al. (2020) described a situation where a humanitarian organization attempted to collect non-recyclable packaging, but the communication of the scheme created confusion among the beneficiaries, and there was no real plan as to what to do with the waste once it was collected. This demonstrates how circular practices need to be tailored to each context, with local collaborators for both communication and management (George et al., 2020). Furthermore, collaboration with suppliers and donors is crucial to efficiently prepare for and execute a more circular humanitarian operation (Corbett et al., 2022).

The European Commission in its Humanitarian Logistics Policy (2022) identifies WM as a key strategy to increase the HSC’s circularity. DG ECHO specifies in its funding calls that waste flows from a humanitarian operation are to be properly managed, and appropriate actions are taken throughout the HSC (European Commission, 2022).

Table 3 presents a summary of the thematic findings from the literature, with the codes used for categorization and selected references. These findings are elaborated on in this section.

In a disaster situation, the number of stakeholders such as donors, HOs, NGOs and suppliers of materials and resources can be significant and difficult to manage efficiently (Holguín-Veras et al., 2014). The diversity of the stakeholders in the HSC also presents a challenge for adequately monitoring material flows and establishing contextually appropriate WM processes (Tuomala et al., 2022). However, collaboration between these stakeholders is a significant opportunity for improving the processes and standards of aid (Pascucci, 2021).

According to a survey by WREC (2024), WM activities prioritized among participating HOs range from equipping their respective organizations with adequate processes and infrastructure, to engaging with the communities they work in. Implementing WM processes, such as recycling and waste reduction, at strategic points along the supply chain specifically targets the organizations’ own actions. Strategic points include physical locations, such as warehouses, offices and distribution points, but also functions like procurement upstream in the supply chain.

Phases of disaster relief include mitigation, preparedness, immediate response and recovery/rehabilitation (Figure 4) (Van Wassenhove, 2006). Research on WM in HSCs has overwhelmingly concentrated on the response phase, with particularly little attention paid to the recovery phase (Zarei et al., 2019).

During mitigation and preparedness, procurement and monitoring of waste during on-going or past operations (WREC, 2024) as well as maintaining WM systems and awareness in local contexts is paramount (Salem et al., 2020; Debrah et al., 2021). These apply largely in the response and recovery phases as well (Brügge et al., 2020). Identifying circular solutions within the HSC can take many forms, for example conducting LCAs on materials and items to see whether they comply with standards set by stakeholders (Manceau and El-Zoubi, 2024) or leverage local knowledge, such as repair and repurposing of items, to increase their life cycle (Spear and Cross, 2021). The monitoring of waste during the WM process is crucial throughout the cycle, but establishing a single reliable system is challenging due to the diversity of the stakeholders and differences in governance and infrastructure along the HSC (Haque et al., 2023; Sasahara et al., 2024).

The phases vary significantly by the context and type of the disaster (Kunz and Gold, 2015). Phases can overlap and influence each other, so choices made earlier on in the process and/or supply chain significantly alter the consequences, environmental and otherwise (Kunz and Gold, 2015). Hindrances to rehabilitation and recovery or threats to human health can occur, if the waste from relief aid is not dealt with properly (Torkashvand et al., 2021; Cao et al., 2024). After response, the waste generally becomes the responsibility of the local context/aid receivers, who manage it according to the (often inadequate) resources available to them. Communities are usually aware of the adverse effects of improper WM on health and the environment, but due to limited resources and infrastructure, complicated WM processes may even hinder recovery after a disaster (Salem et al., 2020).

Within the phases of disaster relief, donations that arrive after the occurrence of a disaster are seen as part of post-disaster humanitarian logistics (PD-HL) (Suzuki, 2020). They can extend to any kinds of materials, including shelter, hygiene kits, food, water or even medicine. PD-HL is characterized by a lack of information, which makes supply chain activities challenging to plan. Material flows are uncertain and infrastructure potentially impaired, adding to the uncertainty of the PD-HL (Holguín-Veras et al., 2012). Because of the heterogeneous group of stakeholders involved, the influx of items (materials and supplies) being sent as response to a disaster can be overwhelming, and this is referred to as material convergence. A lot of the supplies sent are life sustaining and critical, but there are useless items as well, which can cripple the already overwhelmed SC at the disaster site (Holguín-Veras et al., 2014).

Procurement as a function makes significant decisions about material flows in a humanitarian operation. Supplies can be pre-positioned in warehouses in strategic locations globally (Abazari et al., 2021), or context-specific items procured immediately once the disaster has struck along the HSC (Moshtari et al., 2021). In terms of making the HSC more circular, procurement is a crucial function, where decisions to refuse certain materials, reduce packaging or acquire part for reparations are made. Procurement is further elaborated on in Section 5.3.

The solid waste management (SWM) crisis is an underlying factor in almost every HSC but remains one of the most underfunded challenges in global development (Kaza et al., 2018). Different types of waste such as plastic, textile, chemicals, e-waste and organic waste, if not properly disposed of, can leak toxins into and pollute the environment (UNEP, 2024). Excessive donations of clothing, packaging and healthcare waste are common contributors to waste flows from humanitarian operations (Trivedi et al., 2015).

Properly managing different waste flows includes monitoring waste generation, which can be extremely costly and therefore less wealthy areas can seldom afford it (Das et al., 2019). Under non-disaster circumstances, there are generally two options for SWM, regardless of whether they are segregated or not: landfilling and waste-to-energy technologies (Soltani et al., 2017). In low-income countries, 93% of waste is dumped in open landfills or burned (UNEP, 2024). These methods, while cost effective, have significant public health and environmental consequences from leaching of hazardous chemicals and harmful emissions (Kaza et al., 2018).

SWM is generally a decentralized operation, involving both public and private sector actors, such as local government and private WM companies (UNEP, 2024). For many local authorities, WM can be one of the biggest budget items (Kaza et al., 2018). This is particularly relevant in the Global South, where most humanitarian operations take place, and disasters further exacerbate the challenges of WM (Tilley and Kalina, 2020). In an overarching study of humanitarian organizations, George et al. (2020) concluded that most organizations or their field partners do not have SWM plans in their operations, even though awareness is there. Events that require humanitarian aid further highlight the infrastructural shortcomings of certain areas. For example, the influx of nearly 2 million Syrian refugees into Jordan in 2013 caused enormous strain not only on the WM systems of refugee camps such as Zaatari, but ordinary urban centres as well, where many of the refugees settled (Saidan et al., 2017).

Humanitarian aid deals with vast amounts of supplies, which are usually imported into the area of the disaster. Accumulated waste from relief aid can cause further environmental damage, such as block storm drains, or lead to improper disposal measures with detrimental consequences to human and natural health (George et al., 2020). Aid is also set up in temporary locations, such as refugee camps and field hospitals, which have no permanent infrastructure for waste management. In Saidan et al. (2017), the composition and WM processes of solid waste generated at Zaatari was examined, providing valuable insight into WM in precarious circumstances. Furthermore, in Zaatari short-term camp, waste was collected by sub-contractors, and there was no guarantee of the disposal methods (Seifert et al., 2023). In the long term-camp of Zaatari and Azraq however, Seifert et al. (2023) found that a cash-for-work programme for waste collection and segregation by the refugees has been successful not just for the zero-waste objectives of the camps, but the educational and employment opportunities the programme presents. Programmes like this are however dependent on the WM infrastructure of the local context. Gibellini et al. (2022) examined the increase of waste in an urban settlement in Jordan post-refugee influx. Jordan is implementing a national SWM system that emphasizes reduction, reuse and recycling of solid waste over the next decade (Gibellini et al., 2022). These types of developments are relevant information for WM in the HSC, as the WM process is implemented by the local infrastructure and stakeholders.

In their review of the environmental impact of humanitarian assistance, Brangeon and Crowley (2020) dissect different sectors of assistance, and the level of impact. Food assistance, which is one of the largest sectors, impacts the environment from local to global level. Food’s environmental footprint stretched throughout its supply chain from production to transport to consumption, and produces a lot of packaging waste, particularly in a relief aid setting (Joint Initiative, 2023a). Food must be packed in a way that is hygienic, and prevents damage from vermin, moisture and transportation. Waste from the shelter sector includes low quality tarps becoming waste, as they deteriorate quickly. Non-recyclable packaging waste is an issue in this sector as well. Aid kits are often wrapped in plastic for hygiene and safekeeping reasons, particularly in the WASH sector (Brangeon and Crowley, 2020).

Medical waste also presents additional hazards associated with medication and infected protective equipment which need to be disposed of and stored appropriately (Patil et al., 2021). Not doing so can lead to injury in medical staff, patients and the general public. In the highly challenging contexts that humanitarian operations take place in, adequate infrastructure, such as incinerators or autoclaves can be difficult or impossible to maintain, which leads to improper disposal and increased risk in spreading infectious pathogens (Haque et al., 2023).

Especially in the grey literature, procurement was identified as a crucial factor and SC phase in terms of WM and circular strategies (e.g. Spear and Cross, 2021; UNEP, 2022; Joseph et al., 2024). Procurement is an internal function of HOs and has significant influence throughout the SC regarding the aid provided to beneficiaries (Moshtari et al., 2021). Supplies for humanitarian operations may be pre-positioned in warehouses in select locations or acquired in the response phase either locally or imported into the disaster setting (Abazari et al., 2021). While it is difficult to predict the amounts of resources and items that are needed in an emergency, deploying vast amounts of inventory “just in case” is extremely costly due to expiration or lack of contextual propriety of products, and can harm the organizations’ reputation if the unused items are left uncared for (Stauffer and Kumar, 2021).

The procurement function makes decisions regarding materials and deliveries, acting as a gatekeeper/gateway for organizations’ product decisions (Tuomala et al., 2022). In addition to adhering to strict ethical guidelines regarding transparency and accountability, material decisions made through procurement include aspects such as material choices for packaging and the assistance items themselves (Brangeon and Crowley, 2020). The gatekeeper/way role exemplifies how decisions upstream in the SC have significant consequences downstream in the use, re-use, repair or refurbishment of items, as well as the appropriate disposal through recycling or material recovery.

There are both intra- and interorganizational guidelines available to aid organizations’ procurement decisions. The ICRC (2021) for example has a comprehensive set on sustainable procurement in their product catalogue, where environmental and social factors are encouraged in addition to efficiency and financial perspectives. The UN Global Marketplace (UNGM) also has a set of sustainable procurement indicators, which focus on the three pillars of sustainability (United Nations, 2021). These indicators align with the Ellen McArthur Foundation CE principles: (1) Eliminate waste and pollution, (2) Circulate products and materials at their highest value and (3) Regenerate nature.

The first of the UNGM indicators is prevention of pollution, which highlights the different waste streams created through the operations of a supplier. If considering a contract with the UN, the bid must include comprehensive documentation of the environmental certifications (e.g. ISO14001), the organization possesses, as well as reports on SWM processes, environmental management plans and proof of appropriate storage and transport infrastructure.

The second indicator, sustainable resource use, is linked with the 10R framework, emphasizing recycled, reused, biodegradable and biobased materials in the design and production. Avoidance of excessive packaging is particularly highlighted here. HOs have become increasingly aware of the long-term effects of some of their activities, and reducing packaging is a relevant way to contain resource use (George et al., 2020).

Climate change mitigation and adaption as the first indicator refers to emissions that result from the production and/or end-of-life management of a procured item (United Nations, 2021). An effective way to measure these impacts is to use LCA to analyse the impacts on different phases of the HSC (Joseph et al., 2024). LCA is also used to measure impacts from different forms of WM (Das et al., 2019).

The last indicator is Protection of the environment, biodiversity and restoration of natural habitats. Organizations must ensure, via supplier vetting and due diligence, that the stakeholders in their supply chain are following sustainability protocols and operating in a transparent manner (Laguna-Salvadó et al., 2019).

A crucial tool for sustainable procurement is life cycle assessment (LCA), where the footprint of the product or service is measured from raw material to end-of-life (Joseph et al., 2024). LCAs can be used to assess quality of products and materials, thereby making the procurement process more transparent (Van Kempen et al., 2017). Both research and practice are calling for this type of data-driven approach to environmental issues in humanitarian operations (Besiou et al., 2021). LCA also highlights procurement as a gatekeeper whereby (humanitarian) organizations can make conscious choices about the materials that enter the humanitarian supply chain, and also, how these materials need to be handled at the end of their use or life cycle.

Material convergence studies approach the problem through an elimination of flows that are not high priority, but these items still contribute to the levels of waste in the HSC (Suzuki, 2020). In comparison, in reverse logistics, eliminating reverse flows that cannot be used or where the flow creates more inefficiencies than the actual use of the items would warrant, is called gatekeeping. Humanitarian organizations engage in gatekeeping activities when, e.g. actively soliciting material donations, thereby encouraging what actually meets needs vs keeping away what does not. Alternatively, unsolicited donations can be collected and monetized where they occur, rather than delivered to locations where they are anyway inappropriate, where they may undermine local economies and/or where the logistical costs of such deliveries outweigh any of their benefits.

Figure 5 conceptualizes the findings into a framework focusing on implementing circular strategies into the HSC and operation to eliminate waste and pollution and circulate products at their highest value (Ellen McArthur Foundation, 2023). The findings indicate that the material flows and subsequent waste streams and WM are significantly influenced by strategic procurement decisions made upstream in the HSC in preparation for humanitarian operations. Procurement, in its role as gatekeeper/gateway, influences material and product choices. Refusing unsustainable products and rethinking materials (e.g. bio-degradable versus plastic) are 10R strategies procurement can use to reduce waste and enhance WM processes. Decisions to reduce e.g. packaging materials and/or items sent to aid recipients also impact procurement as a function through supplier vetting and purchasing. This shows how the WM process of a humanitarian operation begins with strategic and material flows early in the supply chain.

During the operation itself maximizing the use of products and materials to their highest value and reducing waste flows is enabled through reuse, repair, refurbish and repurpose. The temporary and urgent nature of the humanitarian operation favours quick and easy solutions such as single-use items, but with adequate infrastructure and strategic decisions, the 10R framework is possible to apply. Waste can however not be entirely avoided, but ensuring the materials are properly recycled and any usable materials are recovered for remanufacturing ensures a level of circularity in the HSC. The framework in Figure 5 indicates the phases of the HSC where the 10Rs are applied to the material and strategic flows of the HSC. This framework acts as a baseline for future research on a particular phase, or even a focus on a specific “R” in the HSC.

HOs face stakeholders who exert pressure on them to improve their WM and increase circular strategies in their operations. The stakeholders can be numerous, and have very conflicting demands of the HSC, as they may not be aware of the others’ needs (Tuomala et al., 2022). Infrastructural and resource-related barriers prohibit communication and awareness of these pressures among different stakeholders (Bag et al., 2020). HOs competing for increasingly limited funding at unpredictable schedules and the diversity of stakeholders involved makes collaboration complicated. Stakeholders include suppliers, who provide material to humanitarian operations through the function of procurement. Strategic decisions regarding circularity in procurement have further consequences down the SC when it comes to WM.

Literature on collaboration to achieve circularity among HOs is scarce (Bag et al., 2020). Commercial SC literature indicates that horizontal and vertical collaboration is key for implementation on the 10R framework (Cricelli et al., 2021). Collaboration between HOs relies on external funding for their operations, which makes them accountable to the donors. Strategic decisions on collaboration may therefore be difficult to achieve with the tight time frames of the operations and the resources available, but this is something to be prioritized in the future.

Humanitarian operations often take place in the Global South where sustainable SCM research has historically been scarce in the commercial stream due to complexity and uncertainty of the economies (Silvestre, 2015). However, there is increased awareness and research being done in this field, and Global South stakeholders are fast adopting sustainable and circular strategies in their supply chain (e.g. Le Van et al., 2019; Bag and Rahman, 2024). While significant advancements are made, the processes and infrastructure for WM and circularity along the HSC can be inadequate. The material flows from humanitarian operations likely stay in the Global South as waste or surplus items (Brangeon and Crowley, 2020; WREC, 2024). Circular strategies should therefore begin at high-level decision-making and extend to all stakeholders within the HSC, and not be entirely left to the local context (Salem et al., 2020). Processes such as procurement and reverse logistics are coordinated at an organizational level, which gives the opportunity to include those in the relevant strategic decisions. However, this also causes some bias as strategies are often formed in very different contexts compared to where the operations take place (Zarei et al., 2019). Involving local NGOs, WM operators and other stakeholders in strategic decisions, is one way of ensuring transparency and efficiency of WM and circular strategies throughout the HSC.

Humanitarian procurement is a crucial strategy in reducing the environmental impacts of humanitarian operations. Through efficient procurement processes and trustworthy, certified suppliers, it is possible to ensure that products adhere to environmental requirements throughout their entire supply chain, including end-of-life and reverse logistics (United Nations, 2021). Here, large players with significant purchasing power, such as large UN agencies, have the capacity to drive change throughout the whole supply chain with protocols driving circular strategies (Spear and Cross, 2021).

The awareness of HSC actors regarding WM is clearly growing, but there are various practical and administrative limitations to what is possible to be done (Bag et al., 2020). For sudden onset emergencies, the sense of urgency of getting lifesaving assistance to those in the midst of the disaster overrides many other considerations (Sarkis et al., 2012). This sense of urgency critically impacts on emergency procurement, whereby choices need to be made quickly with limited resources, as well as WM, which may not seem relevant at the time of urgent decisions (WREC, 2024).

The academic literature on WM in disaster response often refers to debris resulting from a disaster itself, such as collapsed buildings or natural material. Waste caused by the relief operation warrants a similarly active research stream as a large amount of waste is generated from HSCs (Joseph et al., 2024). A practical starting point has been packaging (George et al., 2020). For practical reasons, a lot of humanitarian aid needs to be packaged in a durable manner, leading to large amounts of packaging waste. Packaging is a manageable starting point to greening efforts, but there are many other relevant waste management factors (Joint Initiative, 2023b). Inter-sectoral collaboration is particularly relevant, as WM is generally managed by either public, private or a public−private sector partnership (UNEP, 2024). A majority of waste generated in a humanitarian operation ends up in local general WM processes, and collaboration projects have been established on small scale. For example, in central Africa, a humanitarian cooperative has had success in partnering with an e-waste recycling company to facilitate dismantling and processing of operations’ e-waste, as well as working with recycling companies for household waste (WREC, 2024). These types of efforts and collaborations are crucial in Global South contexts, where the WM infrastructure is uneven. Establishing partnerships with innovative young companies in the field of WM and circular strategies may prove to be more efficient than relying in the “traditional” companies dealing with waste (UNEP, 2024).

Overall, as Kunz and Gold (2015) also highlighted, it is not the emergency or immediate response phase but the recovery phase of the HSC and that literature mostly associates with waste management and circularity. This phase of relief aid overlaps significantly with development aid, as there are efforts to return to some form of normalcy after a disaster (Anjomshoae et al., 2023). For sudden onset disasters, the recovery phase can occur fairly quickly, therefore leaving little time to prepare. Mitigation and preparedness are at least as relevant a role as recovery, as implementing circular strategies into operations begins at the strategic level before a disaster even occurs. The ICRC (2021) and UN Global Market Place (United Nations, 2021) for example have sustainable procurement guidelines, where sustainable alternatives for common materials, e.g. tarps are suggested. This way at the response phase, the materials and items used in necessary relief are not as detrimental to the environment, further highlighting the crucial role of preparedness and mitigation in establishing adequate WM and circular strategies.

While the generation of some waste is unavoidable, managing it appropriately throughout the disaster cycle, and adapting the processes according to the phase, can have significant positive consequences on the waste left behind. Commercial supply chains emphasize leanness when it comes to reducing waste, but humanitarian organizations need to have contingency stocks in preparation for imminent disasters (Stauffer and Kumar, 2021). Sustainable procurement strategies are therefore a mitigating strategy for balancing the needs of operations’ resources and their ethical, environmental guidelines with financial consideration. This requires collaboration with suppliers and other stakeholders to ensure that they adhere to any procurement guidelines or required audits originating from HOs’ strategies or even donors’ such as DG ECHO (2022).

This section emphasized the challenges in WM and circular strategies in the HSC that arose from the analysed literature. These challenges are synthesized in Table 4, along with suggested future research novelties to address them.

The challenges presented here are not unique to the WM and circularity discussion within the HSC. Issues such as the diversity and number of stakeholders along the HSC and adequacy of infrastructure make aid delivery a challenge notwithstanding which type of aid is being delivered and where. However, from a WM and circularity perspective, the challenges require specific solutions, and emerging research presented in this review offer promising paths forward. Comparing with Sarkis et al. (2012), these challenges have not changed significantly since 2012, when they mapped barriers to greening such as poor partnership management, urgency and lack of infrastructure. However, this paper highlights that while challenges may remain similar, there is considerable work being done in both research and practice with regard to general greening but WM and circular strategies as well. Novel approaches offer opportunities to explore strategic tools like LCA, as well as to embed training and education on WM, and align strategic functions like procurement with circular principles are crucial parts of meeting these challenges.

This review examined how current literature addresses WM and circular strategies within humanitarian operations. The analysis shows that although awareness of circular approaches is increasing, their practical application remains limited and context-dependent. Most studies focus on downstream waste handling, while opportunities to reduce and valorize materials earlier in the supply chain are less explored. Based on the findings, key leverage points emerge upstream in the supply chain. Procurement can act as a gatekeeper for environmentally preferable materials and as a gateway for circular strategies. This could also prevent occurrences of material convergence, as streamlining the processes of procurement on an organizational level will prevent the need for haphazard donations. As the literature review also highlighted, the various strings attached to donor funding restrict the possibilities humanitarian organizations have to engage with environmental sustainability. This is an important point to address in future research as well as practice.

The contexts of humanitarian operations are diverse and rely on many local and global infrastructures. This presents numerous challenges for efficient WM and implementing circular strategies into the HSC. Even if local WM may seem inadequate, the knowledge and stakeholders are crucial to engage in the operation. Integration of local processes into humanitarian operations is a significant future research agenda, requiring inter-organizational and inter-sectoral collaboration. A universal process such as WM could be a good place to start to breach this gap, even if the scope of inter-sectoral collaboration extends well beyond that. By harnessing tools such as LCA across organizations’ procurement decisions as well as implementing these throughout the supply chain, knowledge and data can be comprehensively distributed for informed decisions. Further research is thus needed to unearth the contingency factors of waste management and circular strategies across different contexts.

At the same time, while there are numerous tools in circularity for commercial supply chains, how to adapt them to the humanitarian context yet remains to be addressed. This is not trivial, since disaster contexts are often in the Global South, and even regular WM infrastructure may differ significantly from the contextual environment of WM and circular strategies research from a commercial perspective. What is more, waste streams will collide over time, and humanitarian waste is not going to be treated separately.

WM and circular strategies explored in this review are part of an emerging trend within HSCM research: it is imperative to have a comprehensive understanding of the trends and patterns emerging within both academic and practitioner literature. The strategic and material flow framework used here allows the examination of the waste that results from humanitarian operations. Analysis of both academic and grey literature allows for a comprehensive, timely and practice-oriented perspective on the circular and WM strategies. More empirical studies on waste management and circular strategies are needed, and these factors need to become more embedded in humanitarian operations on both a grassroots level, as well as a strategic, interorganizational level.

The authors would like to extend their gratitude to the WREC coalition and its members in guiding the project and providing a platform for environmental research in the humanitarian sector.

Abazari, S.R., Aghsami, A. and Rabbani, M. (2021), “Prepositioning and distributing relief items in humanitarian logistics with uncertain parameters”, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Vol. 74 No. 2019, p. 100933, doi: 10.1016/j.seps.2020.100933.

Anjomshoae, A., Banomyong, R., Hossein Azadnia, A., Kunz, N. and Blome, C. (2023), “Sustainable humanitarian supply chains: a systematic literature review and research propositions”, Production Planning & Control, doi: 10.1080/09537287.2023.2273451.

Bag, S., Luthra, S., Venkatesh, V.G. and Yadav, G. (2020), “Towards understanding key enablers to green humanitarian supply chain management practices”, Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 1111-1145, doi: 10.1108/MEQ-06-2019-0124.

Besiou, M., Pedraza-Martinez, A.J. and van Wassenhove, L.N. (2021), “Humanitarian operations and the UN Sustainable Development Goals”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 30 No. 12, pp. 4343-4355, doi: 10.1111/poms.13579.

Brangeon, S. and Crowley, F. (2020), Environmental Footprint of Humanitarian Assistance.

Brügge, C., Pinochet, J., Hansen. and S., Vichitlekarn. (2020), Environmental Mainstreaming in Humanitarian Interventions.

Cao, C., Li, J., Liu, J., Liu, J., Qiu, H. and Zhen, J. (2024), “Sustainable development-oriented location-transportation integrated optimization problem regarding multi-period multi-type disaster medical waste during COVID-19 pandemic”, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 335 No. 3, pp. 1401-1447, doi: 10.1007/s10479-022-04820-2.

Corbett, C.J., Pedraza-Martinez, A.J. and van Wassenhove, L.N. (2022), “Sustainable humanitarian operations: an integrated perspective”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 31 No. 12, pp. 4393-4406, doi: 10.1111/poms.13848.

Das, S., Lee, S.-H., Kumar, P., Kim, K.-H., Lee, S.S. and Bhattacharya, S.S. (2019), “Solid waste management: scope and the challenge of sustainability”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 228, pp. 658-678, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.323.

Debrah, J.K., Vidal, D.G. and Dinis, M.A.P. (2021), “Raising awareness on solid waste management through formal education for sustainability: a developing countries evidence review”, Recycling, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-21, doi: 10.3390/recycling6010006.

European Commission (2022), Humanitarian Logistics Policy, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, doi: 10.2795/009117.

George, A., Wagner, M., Minkoff, M., Jette, G. and Tigner, S. (2020), Sustainability in Humanitarian Supply Chains: A Preliminary Scoping of Improvements in Packaging (Issue, 7200), ICF and The Cadmus Group LLC, Waltham, MA, available at: Link to Sustainability in Humanitarian Supply Chains: A Preliminary Scoping of Improvements in PackagingLink to a pdf of the cited article.

Gibellini, S., A., Qdais, H. and Vaccari, M., (2022), “Municipal solid waste management in refugee hosting communities: analysis of a case study in Northern Jordan”, Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 165-173, doi: 10.1177/0734242X21994656.

Haque, M.R., Chowdhury, F.N., Hossain, A., Akter, R. and Rahman, M.M. (2023), “An emerging concern of medical waste management in Rohingya refugee camps at Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh: existing practice and alternatives”, Frontiers in Environmental Science, Vol. 11, doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2023.1149314.

Hogluín-Veras, J., Jaller, M., van Wassenhove, L.N., Pérez, N. and Wachtendorf, T. (2012), “On the unique features of post-disaster humanitarian logistics”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 30 Nos 7-8, pp. 494-506, doi: 10.1016/j.jom.2012.08.003.

Holguín-Veras, J., Jaller, M., van Wassenhove, L.N., Pérez, N. and Wachtendorf, T. (2014), “Material convergence: important and understudied disaster phenomenon”, Natural Hazards Review, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-12, doi: 10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000113.

Haavisto, I. and Kovács, G. (2014), “Perspectives on sustainability in humanitarian supply chains”. Disaster prevention and management: An International Journal, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 610-631, doi: 10.1108/DPM-10-2013-0192.

ICRC (2021), “Information sheet: sustainable procurement”, available at: Link to Information sheet: sustainable procurementLink to the cited article.

Joint Initiative (2023a), Options for Humanitarian Packaging Reuse, Repurposing, and Recycling.

Joint Initiative (2023b), Packaging Baseline Assessment Based on Humanitarian Emergency Responses in 2021.

Joseph, S., Komeili, M., Besiou, M. and Stumpf, J. (2024), “Measuring the greenhouse gas emissions & waste of humanitarian supply chains”, available at: Link to Measuring the greenhouse gas emissions & waste of humanitarian supply chainsLink to the cited article.

Karl, A.A. and Scholz Karl, J. (2022), “Human rights for refugees: enhancing sustainable humanitarian supply chain to guarantee a health environment in refugee settlements”, Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, doi: 10.1108/JHLSCM-11-2020-0104.

Karuppiah, K., Sankaranarayanan, B., Ali, S.M. and Paul, S.K. (2021), “Key challenges to sustainable humanitarian supply chains: lessons from the Covid-19 pandemic”, Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 13 No. 11, pp. 1-20, doi: 10.3390/su13115850.

Kaza, S., Yao, L., Bhada-Tata, P. and van Woerden, F. (2018), “What a waste 2.0 -“Snapshot of solid waste management to 2050”, In Urban Development Series, available at: Link to Publication: What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050Link to the cited article.

Kunz, N. and Gold, S. (2015), “Sustainable humanitarian supply chain management – exploring new theory nathan kunz”, International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, doi: 10.1080/13675567.2015.1103845.

Laguna-Salvadó, L., Lauras, M., Okongwu, U. and Comes, T. (2019), “A multicriteria master planning DSS for a sustainable humanitarian supply chain”, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 283 Nos 1-2, pp. 1303-1343, doi: 10.1007/s10479-018-2882-3.

List of grey literature included in literature review

Manceau, C. and El-Zoubi, A. (2024), Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment of the World Food Programme Food Packaging.

Moshtari, M., Altay, N., Heikkilä, J. and Gonçalves, P. (2021), “Procurement in humanitarian organizations: body of knowledge and practitioner’s challenges”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 233, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.108017.

Pascucci, E. (2021), “More logistics, less aid: humanitarian-business partnerships and sustainability in the refugee camp”, World Development, Vol. 142, p. 105424, doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105424.

Patil, A., Shardeo, V., Dwivedi, A., Madaan, J. and Varma, NIKHIL (2021), “Barriers to sustainability in humanitarian medical supply chains”, Sustainable Production and Consumption, Vol. 27, pp. 1794-1807, doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2021.04.022.

Saidan, M.N., Drais, A.A. and Al-Manaseer, E. (2017), “Solid waste composition analysis and recycling evaluation: Zaatari Syrian Refugees Camp, Jordan”, Waste Management, Vol. 61, pp. 58-66, doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2016.12.026.

Salem, M., Raab, K. and Wagner, R. (2020), “Solid waste management: the disposal behavior of poor people living in Gaza Strip refugee camps”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 153, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104550.

Seifert, L., Kunz, N. and Gold, S. (2023), “Sustainable innovations for humanitarian operations in refugee camps”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 43 No. 10, pp. 1554-1586, doi: 10.1108/IJOPM-05-2022-0302.

Shankar, B. (2012), “Community initiatives for solid waste management at ward level: the case of Kumbarakoppal, Mysore, India”, ACEE International Journal on Transportation and Urban Development, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 5-10.

Slawinski, N., Pinkse, J., Busch, T. and Banerjee, S.B.B. (2017), “The role of short-termism and uncertainty avoidance in organizational inaction on climate change: a multi-level framework”, Business & Society, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 253-282, doi: 10.1177/0007650315576136.

Soltani, A., Sadiq, R. and Hewage, K. (2017), “The impacts of decision uncertainty on municipal solid waste management”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 197, pp. 305-315, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.03.079.

Spear, R. and Cross, J. (2021), “Towards a circular economy in UNHCR: a focus on core relief items (solar lamps)”, available at: Link to Towards a circular economy in UNHCR: a focus on core relief itemsLink to the cited article.

Starr, M.K. and Van Wassenhove, L.N. (2014), “Introduction to the special issue on humanitarian operations and crisis management”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 925-937, doi: 10.1111/poms.12227.

Stauffer, J.M. and Kumar, S. (2021), “Impact of incorporating returns into pre-disaster deployments for rapid-onset predictable disasters”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 451-474, doi: 10.1111/poms.13204.

Suzuki, Y. (2020), “Impact of material convergence on last-mile distribution in humanitarian logistics”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 223 No. 2019, p. 107515, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.107515.

Tilley, E. and Kalina, M. (2020), “‘We are already sick’: infectious waste management and inequality in the time of Covid-19, a reflection from Blantyre, Malawi”, Worldwide Waste: Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-10, doi: 10.5334/wwwj.54.

Torkashvand, J., Jonidi Jafari, A., Godini, K., Kazemi, Z., Kazemi, Z. and Farzadkia, M. (2021), “Municipal solid waste management during COVID-19 pandemic: a comparison between the current activities and guidelines”, Journal of Environmental Health Science and Engineering, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 173-179, doi: 10.1007/s40201-020-00591-9.

Trivedi, A., Singh, A. and Chauhan, A. (2015), “Analysis of key factors for waste management in humanitarian response: an interpretive structural modelling approach”, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol. 14, pp. 527-535, doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.10.006.

UNEP. (2022). Sustainable Public Procurement: 2022 Global Review (Parts I and II), available at: Link to Sustainable Public Procurement: 2022 Global ReviewLink to the cited article.

UNEP (2024), “Beyond an Age of Waste: Turning Rubbish into a Resource”, available at: Link to Global Waste Management Outlook 2024Link to the cited article.

UNHCR (2023), “Waste Management: from Design, Procurement, Warehousing and Distribution to Post-Consumer Disposal”, available at: Link to UNHCR Waste ManagementLink to the cited article.

United Nations (2021), “Sustainable Procurement Indicators Guidance”, available at: Link to Sustainable Procurement Indicators GuidanceLink to the cited article.

Van Kempen, E.A., Spiliotopoulou, E., Stojanovski, G. and de Leeuw, S. (2017), “Using life cycle sustainability assessment to trade off sourcing strategies for humanitarian relief items”, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 22 No. 11, pp. 1718-1730, doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1245-z.

WREC (2024a), Waste Management Landscape: Who is Setting the Pace in Humanitarian Waste Management?

WREC (2024b), WREC Coalition Phase Ll: Survey Results.

Zarei, M.H., Carrasco-Gallego, R. and Ronchi, S. (2019), “To greener pastures: an action research study on the environmental sustainability of humanitarian supply chains”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 39 No. 11, pp. 1193-1225, doi: 10.1108/IJOPM-12-2018-0703.