ArticlePDF Available

Critiques of the circular economy



This paper presents a reasoned account of the critiques addressed to the circular economy and circular business models. These critiques claim that the circular economy has diffused limits, unclear theoretical grounds, and that its implementation faces structural obstacles. Circular economy is based on an ideological agenda dominated by technical and economic accounts, which brings uncertain contributions to sustainability and depoliticizes sustainable growth. Bringing together these critiques demonstrates that the circular economy is far from being as promising as its advocates claim it to be. Circularity emerges instead as a theoretically, practically, and ideologically questionable notion. The paper concludes by proposing critical issues that need to be addressed if the circular economy and its business models are to open routes for more sustainable economic development.
DOI: 10.1111/jiec.13187
Critiques of the circular economy
Hervé Corvellec1Alison F. Stowell2Nils Johansson3
1Department of Service Management, Lund
University, Helsingborg, Sweden
2Department of Organisation, Work and
Technology,Lancaster University
Management School, Lancaster, UK
3Division of Strategic Sustainability, KTH
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm,
Hervé Corvellec, Department of Service Man-
agement, Lund University,Helsingborg, Box
882, 251 08, Sweden.
Alison F.Stowell, Department of Organisation,
Work and Technology, Lancaster University
Management School, Lancaster,LA1 4YX, UK.
Editor Managing Review: Junming Zhu
This paper presents a reasoned account of the critiques addressed to the circular econ-
omy and circular business models. These critiques claim that the circular economy has
diffused limits, unclear theoretical grounds, and that its implementation faces struc-
tural obstacles. Circular economy is based on an ideological agenda dominated by tech-
nical and economic accounts, which brings uncertain contributions to sustainability
and depoliticizes sustainable growth. Bringing together these critiques demonstrates
that the circular economy is far from being as promising as its advocates claim it to be.
Circularity emerges instead as a theoretically, practically, and ideologically question-
able notion. The paper concludes by proposing critical issues that need to be addressed
if the circular economy and its business models are to open routes for more sustainable
economic development.
circular economy, circular business models, critique, industrial ecology, review, sustainability
For the philosopher Michel Foucault, “[a] critique does not consist in saying that things are not good as they are. It consists in seeing what kinds
of self-evidences [French: évidences], liberties, acquired and non-reflective modes of thought, the practices we accept rest on” (Foucault, 1982,p.
33). Critique is for him a creative tool for transforming ways of thinking, seeing, and acting. Because critique debunks incoherence, incompleteness,
hidden assumptions, unthought-of consequences, and the like, it helps keep open for reassessment that which may otherwise slide into taken-for-
grantedness regardless of its truth value and operational efficiency.
Inspired by this view of critique, as a means to point out issues that are otherwise considered problem free, in this paper we bring together the
critiques addressed to the circular economy, with a focus on the academic critiques addressed to the European conception of the circular economy
(see McDowall et al., 2017). In just a few years, the circular economy has emerged as a key principle for the industrial and environmental policies
in China (Winans et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2019), Africa (World Economic Forum (WEF), 2020), the European Union (EU) (Völker et al., 2020), and
the United States (ReMade Institute, 2021), as well as for a growing list of corporations and local governments (see, for example, the strategic
partners of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). Its advocates tout it “as a regenerative system in which resource input and waste, emission,
and energy leakage are minimized by slowing, closing, and narrowing material and energy loops thanks to long-lasting design, maintenance, repair,
reuse, remanufacturing, refurbishing, and recycling” (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017, p. 759). The circular economy is to bring about perfect circles of
slow material flows, to prompt a shift from consumer to user, and to enable a decoupling of resource use and environmental impact from economic
growth (Lazarevic & Valve, 2017). Correspondingly, circular business models are to reduce costs, increase revenues, and manage risks, as well as
provide possibilities for the finance sector to contribute to a transition to sustainability (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2020).
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Industrial Ecology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Yale University
Journal of Industrial Ecology 2021;1–12. 1
Yet, the European concept of the circular economy and circular business models are also widely questioned on their premises, practicality, and
consequences. Critiques of the current infatuation with circularity are disparate and scattered over different academic fields, for example, ecolog-
ical economics, management, and human geography. To do justice to the relevance of these critiques, we present here a reasoned account of the
issues with circularity that are raised in the critiques. Based on a selection of nearly a hundred academic publications and a selection of reports,
we show that the possibilities to develop circular material flows are questioned in their theoretical, practical, and ideological grounds, as well asin
terms of social and environmental impacts.
In particular, these critiques suggest that policy advocacies of the circular economy appear to be “approbatory, uncritical, descriptive and deeply
normative” (Gregson et al., 2015, p. 219), to support a deliberately vague, butprincipally uncontroversial circular economy (Lazarevic & Valve, 2017),
and to feature a consensual win–win policy that is particularly difficult to criticize (Kovacic et al., 2020) despite the lack of any actual consensus on
the magnitude of eventual economic, social, and environmental "win–win–win" benefits (Aguilar-Hernandez et al., 2021). While this vagueness
might be perceived as a strength by policy-making actors, the win–win policies restrict the focus only to conflict-free solutions and strategies.
Thereby, initiativesoutside the win–win paradigm that address the conflicts, trade-offs, and problems of leaving the linear economy are overlooked
(Völker et al., 2020), and this might result in circularity becoming naturalized with little space for critical and hesitative reflection (Lazarevic& Valve,
As this paper shows, the circular economy and circular business models are open to a wide range of critiques that go beyond mere declarationsof
principles about the necessity and possibility of a transition to circularity, and they delve into what a transition to circularity would actually require
and offer and therefore provide a more realistic frame for such a transition. There are numerous circular economyreviews (recent examples include
Acerbi & Taisch, 2020; Centobelli et al., 2020; Sarja et al., 2021; Schöggl et al., 2020), but none, to our knowledge, that specifically focus on the
critiques of circularity. Our contribution in pragmatic terms is to bring together these critiques and let them point, often in terms that are near to
how the critiques are formulated, at issues that need to be addressed if the circular economy and circular business models are to actually open
routes for a more sustainable economic development.
Our paper begins by first reviewing and discussing the critique of circular economy practicalities related to its definition, implementation, and
effects. Next, the ideological underpinnings of the concept will be interrogated and discussed. Lastly, the paper concludes by proposing critical issues
that the emerging circular economy community needs to take much more seriously if it is to reach its radical promises.
2.1 Definitional quagmire
Although often presented as a revolutionary innovation, the circular economy is not a new idea.
It is another rehearsal of how to imagine a reconciliation and compatibility of economic and environmental concerns that already
was expressed by the terms ‘sustainable growth’, ‘green growth’ and ‘sustainable development’; the 1990s and 2000s imaginaries
of ephemeralization or dematerialization of the economy; and already with the Brundtland Commission’s concept of (simultaneous)
environmental, social and economic sustainability (...).(lkeretal., 2020 p. 116)
Circularityisviewedasarefurbishedratherthan[...]virginconcept”(Reikeetal.,2018, p. 247). The various strategies aimed at prolonging resource
use that are gathered together under the circular economy’s banner are not new individually,and if the concept offers some newness, it is by offering
a new framing of these strategies as well as an ability to connect them (Blomsma & Brennan, 2017).
The circular economy builds on a heterogeneous collection of scientific and semi-scientific concepts, for example, “ecological economics, indus-
trialecology,cradle-cradledesign,[...]performanceeconomy, biomimicry,eco-efficiency, resilience science, natural capitalism, and cleaner produc-
tion” (Korhonen et al., 2018b, p. 549). Over a hundred definitions of circularity have been inventoried, with the consequence that the term means
different things to different people (Kirchherr et al., 2017). This could be because the concept and its application have almost exclusively been
developed and driven by practitioners, that is, policy makers, businesses, business consultants, business associations, business foundations, and so
on (Korhonen et al., 2018a). As the then chairman of the International Solid WasteAssociation (ISWA) noted “[t]here is no single commonly accepted
definition of the term “circular economy”, but different definitions share the basic concept of decoupling of natural resource extraction and use from
economic output, having increased resource efficiency as a major outcome” (Mavropoulos & Nilsen, 2020, p.xxxiii).
Moreover, there are distinct differences, separations, and exclusions between research communities engaged in circular economic research, for
example, between scholars in engineering and in business (Korhonen et al., 2018b). Hence, different definitions of circular economy are typically
adopted for different theoretical uses (Kirchherr et al., 2017). As a result, the circular economy then becomes characterized by its conceptual frag-
mentation (Blomsma & Brennan, 2017; Korhonen et al., 2018b) and a perceived lack of paradigmatic strength (Inigo & Blok, 2019).
The upshot is the perception that the circular economy does not address ontological and epistemological questions, such as what is considered
of ethical value, that underlie the complex and interrelated environmental, social, and economic issues that we face today (Temesgen et al., 2021).
It is indeed easier to say what the circular economy is not than to say what it is (Kovacic et al., 2020). The circular economy “is not a theory but an
emerging approach to industrial production and consumption” (Korhonen et al., 2018b, p. 551). It is rather a multiplicity (Corvellec et al., 2020), an
umbrella concept that creates excitement and enthusiasm as it seemingly providesa new framing able to resolve many problems, but it comes under
increased scrutiny when attempts at operationalization bring to the surface unresolved issues regarding its definition (Blomsma & Brennan, 2017).
The diversity of meanings given to the circular economy may explain the appeal of the notion (Velis, 2018), but this also makes it hard to know what
it is actually about.
This is why the circular economy has been referred to as different things, for example, as a patch adaptable to changing circumstances (Fitch-Roy
et al., 2019), as a vague narrative (Niskanen et al., 2020), as a horizon (Lazarevic & Valve, 2017), and as a floating (Niskanen et al., 2020) or empty
signifier (Valenzuela & Böhm, 2017) lacking any substance of its own.
2.2 A neglect of established knowledge
A recurrent critique that is addressed to the circular economy literature is that it ignores much established knowledge. In particular, it neglects
the thermodynamic teaching that one can neither create nor destroy matter; whatever resources are used up must end up in the environmental
system somewhere, they cannot be destroyed but only converted and dissipated (Giampietro& Funtowicz, 2020; Pearce & Turner,1990). A circular
economy future where waste no longer exists, where material loops are closed, and the place products are recycled indefinitely is therefore, in any
practical sense, impossible:
Every loop around the circle creates dissipation and entropy, attributed to losses in quantity (physical material losses, by-products)
and quality (mixing, downgrading). New materials and energy must be injected into any circular material loop, to overcome these
dissipative losses. (Cullen, 2017, p. 483)
In other words even cyclical systems consume resources and create wastes and emissions (Korhonen et al., 2018a), and the energy required to
operate a circular economy (Allwood, 2014) therefore calls for a shift to renewable energy (Haas et al., 2015) if a transition to circular material
flows is to be realized. Congruently, the term "circular" can be misleading if it evokes industrial systems modeled according to an understanding of
nature as a circular system that is stable, closed, and zero waste—a Spaceship Earth fantasy theorized by Boulding (1966) and reinforced in later
works—whereas modern ecological theory tends to construct the planet as an evolving open system of resilience in dynamic equilibrium or non-
equilibrium (Skene, 2018).
Limitations in material properties and the manufacturing and reprocessing technologies constitute another hindrance to closing material loops
that appears to be ignored (Velis & Vrancken, 2015, p. 774). Dissipation in the environment (Cullen, 2017), contamination (Baxter et al., 2017), and
wearing down of materials (Parrique et al., 2019) all set limits on how circular any economy can become. In particular, the circular economy falls
short of acknowledging and fully addressing the complexity of waste, for example, that discards are a changing reality with new waste streams
appearing all the time (Mavropoulos & Nilsen, 2020). Critiques bring forth that waste perception has a strong impact on waste management and
disposal (Korhonen et al., 2018a), that recycling markets are unpredictable and display high degrees of volatility (Traven, 2019), that toxic wastes
cannot be recirculated (Johansson et al., 2020), that a substantial share of waste is processed by the informal sector (Luthra, 2019; Zapata Campos
& Zapata, 2013), and that energetic waste dominates both economic and biological arenas but is not encompassed by recycling practices (Skene,
2018). The critiques consider that the circular economy also underestimates the practical difficulties of connecting waste streams to production
and of substituting secondary goods for primary goods (Zink & Geyer, 2017). Considering waste as a resource may even, paradoxically, increase the
demand for waste rather than reduce waste volumes (Greer et al., 2021). “To put it another way, the future waste is already here, so a real circular
economy approach should take into consideration how we deal with massive stocks and the involved secondary materials” (Mavropoulos & Nilsen,
2020, p. 90).
This neglect of established knowledge extends to how specific organizational advocates of the circular economy understand consumption. Advo-
cacies of the circular economy and circular business models have been found to adopt a simplified understanding of consumption reduced to pur-
chasing and recycling (Casson & Welch, 2021) and of citizens as consumers and of consumers as users (Hobson, 2019) where citizens are given the
role of “accept[ing] (or not) practices that have been formulated on their behalf by designers, engineers, economists and policy-makers” (Hobson,
2016, p. 99). Circular strategies also ignore the substantial amounts of consumed material and artefacts that are stocked in homes, companies, and
infrastructures (Fellner et al., 2017; Moreau et al., 2017). The research and practices of circular economy focus on manufactured flows rather than
stocks. And yet the potential rebound effect, also known as the Jevon’s paradox, is one unresolved issue for the circular economy, where efficiency
improvements at the level of individual products are offset by a growth in consumption and usage of materials (Schröder et al., 2019; Siderius &
Poldner, 2021). Such eventual substitution effects might be particularly prominent in developing economies (Zink & Geyer, 2017). In addition, cir-
culation practices may retain hazardous substances in the economy that should really be phased out and thus increase the dispersion of hazardous
elements (Johansson et al., 2020).
Finally, the critiques indicate that there is a lack of inclusion from indigenous discourses from the Global South even though these communities
share the same ambitions of creating regenerative systems that sustain, restore, and are respectful of the Earth. This exclusion has the attendant
danger of recreating “anthropocentric and ethnocentric ideas” that stem from “westernised environmental discourses” as opposed to the desire for
ecocentricity that a circular economy proclaims (Calisto Friant et al., 2020, p. 6).
2.3 Unclear implementability
Despite the broad endorsement that the circular economy enjoys, it has seen limited implementation so far (Kirchherr et al., 2018). The concept
circulates widely as an idea and ideal, with stakeholders, scales, and different sectors identified; however, the “practicalities” (Holmes et al., 2021,p.
63) and actual enactments are limited and fragile (Gregson et al., 2015). Critiques explain this by pointing out implementation difficulties that take
place at the three levels of policies, organizations, and individual consumers.
At the policy level, if one focuses on the EU, circular economic practices have been developed without any clear discussion or consideration
of system boundary limits (Inigo & Blok, 2019; Korhonen et al., 2018a). For example, the EU’s policy expresses clear material ambitions, while its
ambitions in matters of social justice and environmental protection remain more diffuse (Flynn & Hacking, 2019; Kovacic et al., 2020; Schröder et al.,
2020). Its technocentric perspective builds on a gap between a holistic discourse and end-of-pipe policies that focus on growth and competitiveness
rather than on the socio-ecological challenges of the 21st century (Calisto Friant et al., 2021). Policy instruments are only suggested to promote cir-
culation, rather than to obstruct the legacy of the linear economy. Likewise, implementation efforts in the waste sector follow a top-down approach
that promotes a single, centralized, waste treatment technology, that does not take into consideration the low predictability of the waste sector,
and that limits the possibilities to adapt to changing circumstances. For example, the Croatian Government’s ambition to open large-scale waste
administration centers equipped with mechanical biological treatment followed a decision-making process that did not allow for flexibility in deal-
ing with the downturn in the economy, changes in waste legislation, and reduced demand that left the country with redundant waste-management
centers (Traven, 2019). More generally, initial European efforts at circular economy implementation were characterized by an absence of stake-
holder engagement and a fragmented vision and governance that prevented systematic implementation (Inigo & Blok, 2019; Winans et al., 2017).
This combined incertitude on system boundary limits, unpredictability of the waste sector, and unclear governance all contribute to the difficulties
in measuring, assessing, and improving the circularity of the economy (Haas et al., 2015; Schröder et al., 2019) and only add to the risk of develop-
ing sub-optimal practices (Webster, 2013) and make it hard to know what kind of circular future is being created in relation to the promised ideals
(Völker et al., 2020).
Similar issues appear at the organizational level of circular business models. First, there are a great variety of circular business models with
different approaches to circularity (Geissdoerfer et al., 2018), with companies making claims to promote circularity but actually limiting their efforts
to only certain parts of their activities (Stål & Corvellec, 2018). Moreover, whereas linear business models are validated as soon as a certain number
of products or services have been sold, a circular business model is not validated until recirculated products have been sold (Linder & Williander,
2017), even if one ambition is to recirculate materials as little as a single time. Second, there are numerous barriers to circular business model
developments, including “technical barriers such as an inappropriate technology, or lack of technical support and training; economic barriers such
as capital requirements, high initial costs, or uncertain return and profit; institutional and regulatory barriers such as a lack of a conducive legal
system, or a deficient institutional framework; and social and cultural barriers such as a rigidity of consumer behaviour and businesses routines” (de
Jesus & Mendonça, 2018, p. 78). Companies also lack capabilities to implement circular economy business model innovation (Pieroni et al., 2021),
and as a result “to date, most firms are failing in translating the [Circular Economy] concept into their business operations” (Khan et al., 2021, p. 1).
Third, there is a lack of means to measure the actual circularity of a business model (Veleva et al., 2017).
Some circular business models can only work under very specific conditions, for example, the spatial proximity between entities (Winans et al.,
2017); in some models companies retain ownership of products, which increases “the magnitude of invested resources at risk” against the time it
takes to validate the business model (Linder & Williander, 2017, p. 193); and for all models unresolved questions remain about how to avoid linear
lock-ins and how to deal with trade-offs (Schröder et al., 2019). This is explained as follows:
Although there are few but often cited case examples of companies that successfully integrate offerings likeselling long-lasting prod-
ucts with repair-services (e.g., Miele, Rolex, or Patagonia); reselling used, repaired, refurbished, and remanufactured products (e.g.,
Arrow Value Recoveryor Interface); or providing access and/or performance- and results-based solutions (e.g., Xeroxor Philips), they
tend to be premium and luxury brands, niche players, or companies that implement [business models] to slow resource flows down
to improve their reputation and image while ensuring a long existence and competitiveness with linear [business models] targeted
for growth (e.g., H&M’s clothing return initiatives or automobile manufacturers’ car sharing initiatives). (Hofmann, 2019, p. 369)
Linear technologies retain their market position despite their inefficiency (Korhonen et al., 2018a), and circular innovations are hard to scale up
(Brandão et al., 2020). Circular business models thus end up being not as radical as one might imagine; in particular, they fail to address the roots
of the persistent resource problems that they are supposed to solve, in particular in globally fragmented and dispersed value creation networks
(Hofmann, 2019).
Considering the “supply limitations, and price volatility” (Babbitt et al., 2018, p. 1), inferior quality (Zink & Geyer, 2017), contamination (Baxter
et al., 2017), legacy substances (Goldberg, 2017), and other inherent uncertainties (Linder & Williander, 2017) in secondary resources, it is difficult
to see why anyone at the firm-level “would be interested in using waste as a resource in a circular economy instead of the well-functioning value
chains with primary resources” (Johansson & Krook, 2021, p. 1).
At the individual level of consumers, the circular economy meets similar structural challenges. Within the critiques, there is a view that not much
attention has been paid to what customers value in circular business models and how they respond (Hobson & Lynch, 2016), with the indication that
they are lacking awareness of and interest in circular offerings (Kirchherr et al., 2018).
The lack of consumer interest is a common problem for green offerings. However, in difference to, for example, switching fuels from fossil oil to
biofuels, the circular economy requires a radical reformulation of the consumer role — from consumer to user (Lazarevic & Valve, 2017). Hence,
replacing traditional ownership with dematerialized services may neither appeal to consumers nor always be feasible (Hobson, 2019), and with
so many information commodities consumers might not be willing to spend the time to read, scroll, and share (Vonk, 2018). The circular economy
premise that the current complex and overdetermined systems can be redesigned and reconstructed “en masse and in toto” (Hobson, 2016, p. 93)
may be flawed. This flaw can be all the truer when a transition to circularity is supposed to personify the economic pathway to sustainability:
When the feeling of an iPhone turning ‘old and slow’ is combined with the feeling of an iPhone being circular or ‘green by design’,
any critical, politicizing impulse in the environment-wary consumer gets repressed by the intense want for the newest iProduct.
(Valenzuela & Böhm, 2017, pp. 25–26)
Circular consumption puts consumers in front of hard to solve choices and trade-offs, whereas the basic technological fix orientation of the circular
economy approach, and its ecological modernist idea of gradually adapting the current production system to the limitations of the material resource,
tends to leave aside the temporality and spatiality in which consumption occurs (Holmes et al., 2021), the sociopolitical aspects of consumption, and
the possible need for adequacy-oriented lifestyles (Schulz et al., 2019). The circular economy assumes the emergence of a new consumption culture,
but again without a clear link to scientific research (Korhonen et al., 2018a). Repairing toasters and articles of clothing one at a time can change
everyday material relations from use and disposal to care and stewardship (Hobson, 2019), but issues of ownership (Ghisellini et al., 2016; Velis &
Vrancken, 2015)and power (for example, who gains the most from circularization) (Korhonen et al., 2018a) remain systematically underplayed.
2.4 Unclear contributions to environmental and social sustainability
The circular economy comes with a promise of green growth and thus a decoupling of economic growth from its environmental impact. However,
this potential decoupling effect is brought into question, and building circular material flows is seen by some as a means whereby decoupling takes
place, but should not be an end in itself (Blum et al., 2020).
The differences between circular economy and sustainability are often blurred despite the fact that the latter is more holistic. Underpinned by a
broader variety of institutional commitments, and as a synonym for a more extensive set of risks and opportunities (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017), the
questionable conceptual relationship between the two ideas has yet to be thoroughly characterized (Millar et al., 2019). For instance, it focuses on
the resource base and waste sink functions and omits the amenity base and life-support features of the surrounding environment (Inigo & Block,
2019). It addresses neither the “critical importance of land as the basic source of biomass, energy, and mineral reserves” (Winans et al., 2017,p.
829) nor the issue of the “physical flows of materials and energy cross organizational, administrative and geographical boundaries” (Korhonen et al.,
2018a, p. 42), whereas it should encompass “the complex network of primary flows required to sustain the functionality of the biosphere within
which the economy is operating” (Giampietro & Funtowicz, 2020, p. 66).
The circular economy is presented as the practical solution to the sustainability challenge, but it underestimates the challenge (Müller-Christ,
2011; Murray et al., 2017). For example, it revolves around a relatively small fraction of materials in the global throughput (Åkerman et al., 2020),
the short-term and long-term environmental impacts remain unknown when designing reuse, remanufacturing, and recycling projects (Korhonen
et al., 2018a), it is uncertain on what level circular products can actually substitute for conventional linear products (Hart & Pomponi, 2021;Zink&
Geyer, 2017), and whether circular business models can deliver sustainable value needs to be assessed on a case by case basis through a system-
atic approach taking into account all stakeholders (Manninen et al., 2018). This is problematic because the environmental benefit of the circular
economy rests largely on this premise. Moreover, in today’s global market, few products are manufactured, purchased, disposed of, and recycled
in the same geographic location, thus leading to vast transfers of resources across the globe (Skene, 2018). The reuse of waste in new activities
would therefore require a challenging global reorganization of consumption and production (Savini, 2019). Therefore, it is not clear how a circular
economy can deliver a globally sustainable satisfaction of human needs within the planetary boundaries (Schröder et al., 2019).
Consequently, some consider that the only difference between a linear and a circular economy is that the negative environmental impact will
take longer to occur in a circular economy (Millar et al., 2019). A circular economy might evenexacerbate rather than alleviate the effects of climate
change due to its inability to displace primary production (Zink & Geyer,2017). It is therefore important to dispel the myth that circular systems are
necessarily more environmentally sustainable than linear systems (Brandão et al., 2020).
It has been argued that because engineering and natural sciences lay the ground for most knowledge behind the circular economy (Korhonen
et al., 2018b), the circular economy shows a neglect of the social pillar (Blomsma & Brennan, 2017; Murray et al., 2017; Sauvé et al., 2016)from
business routines, consumption patterns, and alternative approaches to circularity (Schulz et al., 2019) to socio-ethical issues (Inigo & Blok, 2019):
It is unclear how the concept of the Circular Economy will lead to greater social equality, in terms of inter- and intra-generational
equity, gender, racial and religious equality and other diversity, financial equality, or in terms of equality of social opportunity. These
are important moral and ethical issues which are missing from the construct. (Murray et al., 2017)
The circular economy side steps its own socio-economic pre-requisites and implications, being all but silent on what a circular economic society
might look like: “What form then could and should circular socio-economic institutions, norms and shared practices take, and what processes, values
and actors will get us there?” (Hobson & Lynch, 2016, p. 16). A circular economy can bring with it prosperity and a socially positive footprint, but
also make life worse for many:“...even byhiding or graying that there willbe winners and losers... circular economy is not a neutral system, it
will be materialized through a broader social-political framework, and there is no guarantee that the final results will be positive for societies”
(Mavropoulos & Nilsen, 2020, p. 4).
This means caring for things, and people can work in concert or in opposition (Isenhour & Reno, 2019). There is therefore a need “to ensure
that the actual and perceived societal benefits of a new circular model are established in a more fundamental and sound manner than just tradi-
tional cost-benefit analysis, which is an insufficient tool to describe transformation at a systems level” (Velis, 2018, p. 3). Otherwise, there is an
overwhelming risk that priorities will ignore social concerns.
3.1 The circle as an enticing metaphor
Coming from industrial ecology, the metaphor of the circular economy is enticing but remains unclear. Mythologized as being circular, waste free,
and sustainable (Valenzuela & Böhm, 2017), the concept raises questions as to what it is that shall be circular? Or can an economy become a perfect
circle? There is an enticing promise of perfection, wholeness, and eternity, but the simplicity of its grounding metaphor is misleading as it evokes
a modernist variant of the myth of eternal return (Corvellec et al., 2020). When scrutinized, the reality of this idealized circular economy model
(Kama, 2015) reveals that “these visions of circular economy are just that,” with limited insights into how industries are to reorder their activities to
realize the ideal (Gregson et al., 2015, p. 224).
The circle metaphor should not be discounted because it is certainly popular and powerful (Fitch-Roy et al., 2019) and may trigger creative
thinking. However, visions of the circular economy may also give promises that cannot be reached, and “without careful explanation of limits and
the circumstances in which it can succeed, the [Circular Economy] repackages [Industrial Ecology] principles in a reductive manner, potentially
misleading industry stakeholders and consumers” (Cullen, 2017, p. 485).
3.2 A corporate-led model
As a reformist agenda, the circular economy has appeal to policy makers because it promises a win–win outcome, shifting attention away from
“trade-offs and constraints” to “synergies and opportunities” under the guise of a suitable policy framework (Völker et al., 2020, p. 116), in
which many policy buzz words becomes circularized (rather than greenified), for example, “circular business,” “circular innovation,” and “circular
entrepreneurship”. If the circular economy is intended to create radical system transformation, then despite the revolutionary language, it thus far
has failed to do so and has yet to “disrupt the status quo in terms of power, norms and politics” (Hobson & Lynch, 2016, p. 17). For example, EU insti-
tutions adopted the closed-loop economy in the 1970s, and this has been reformulated numerous times allowing the development of new policies,
such as the EU circular economy package, without critical reflection on the success and implementation of previous policies (Fitch-Roy et al., 2019).
Addressing the political ambitions associated with the circular economy, critiques emphasize the drawbacks of policies that rest on markets and
corporations as driving forces, with public authorities as scene builders (Hobson & Lynch, 2016; Völker et al., 2020). The circular economynarrative
is viewed to be wedded to the neo-classical and conventional economics’ trust in the efficiency of markets (Bimpizas-Pinis et al., 2021; Corvellec
et al., 2020;Skene,2018) and to ignore concerns raised by “industrial ecologists and environmentalists that a selective focus on recycling will not
be enough to solve” large-scale production and consumption challenges (Temesgen et al., 2021, p. 14). In seeking to maintaining a growth-based
economy, critics argue, the circular economy “tinkers with the current modus operandi” (Skene, 2018, p. 484) of “consumerism, extractivism and
(liberal) capitalism” (Niskanen et al., 2020, p. 8), while bearing the unrealistic expectation that the individual consumer will be able to mobilize large-
scale change (Hobson, 2019, p. 4). The circular economy is considered to encourage a reboot for capitalism (Hobson & Lynch, 2016; Kębłowski et al.,
2020) that requires no radical change to institutions, infrastructures, and markets (Lazarevic & Valve, 2017).
At the corporate level, the circular economy gives entrepreneurs the opportunity to increase their control over resources (Lazarevic & Valve,
2017; Niskanen et al., 2020). For example, it opens for a strategic command of what was previously understood as waste but is now understood as
resources (Corvellec, 2019). Research on Apple Inc. highlights this:
The circular economy narrative is an important way in which Apple obscures the practises that have led to vast amounts of digitized
junk, opens the opportunity to regain control of value in the post-consumer phase, and simultaneously further drive consumption of
their products. (Vonk, 2018 p. 748)
Due to the rise of consumer concerns regarding the waste crisis and climate change, Apple Inc.’s preemptive action absolves them from some
responsibility for past extractive practices (Laser & Stowell, 2020a; Laser & Stowell, 2020b). Circularization makes it possible to move reuse or
repair activities — which have traditionally been undertaken in the civic sector, households, or peer to peer — inside the economy. Second-hand
products are retargeted to the middle classes raising important questions about “the shifting relationality of reuse to capitalist markets” (Isenhour
& Reno, 2019, p. 4). Finally, the recycling industry sees in the circular economy a business opportunity to rebrand itself from dirty waste to clean
resources (Burgman & Wallsten, 2021).
Companies use circular initiatives to preempt material and environmental policies and make them amenable to corporate interests (Corvellec
& Stål, 2019; Mah, 2021). Many examples include circular economy as a zero waste economy (Valenzuela & Böhm, 2017), adoption of green tech-
nology and digital infrastructures (Hobson & Lynch, 2016), take-back systems in the fashion sector (Corvellec & Stål, 2019), and “investments in
infrastructure... carried out by air-cargo providers, airports, waste and water companies, industrial consortia in chemistry, freight transporters,
storage facilities providers, and network providers” (Savini, 2019, p. 680). Each of these examples illustrates how circularity assists with obfuscat-
ing the challenges with waste accumulation and resource scarcity.
What is clear from the critiques is the need for further dialogue and how the circular economy agenda needs to include civic society and must
reclaim ownership from business and policy if it is to drive the new transition (Hobson, 2019; Holmes et al., 2021):
Due to the interlinkages of global production and consumption systems, as well as the comprehensive nature of the concept, there
is a need for civil society and consumers, the private sector, as well as the policy framework within which it operates, to align their
goals. Without this synchrony, there may be a danger that the circular economy will only be implemented partially or, worse, in ways
that do not mitigate environmental and social impacts due to burden shifting. (Brandão et al., 2020, p. 506)
Without this transition, the new economy will simply maintain the current status quo (Niskanen et al., 2020).
3.3 Techno-depoliticization of sustainable growth
A wide range of critiques accentuate how circular economy discourses act to depolitize policy and industry interventions (Niskanen et al., 2020)
and the roles ascribed to consumers (Hobson & Lynch, 2016), waste practices (Valenzuela & Böhm, 2017), and recycling (Vonk, 2018). Why this
depolitization occurs is attributed to the circular economy being “presented as [a] managerial and technocratic, matter-of-fact issue” (Niskanen
et al., 2020, p. 7). This technocratic or technoscientific representation reinforces the circular economy as an eco-modernist agenda (Fitch-Roy et al.,
2019, p. 2) that excludes potential solutions that could challenge the current capitalist order (Gregson et al., 2015; Hobson & Lynch, 2016). While it
appears to be a positive take over of the sustainability agenda (Corvellec & Stål, 2019; Hobson, 2020), this technocentric appeal (Calisto Friant et al.,
2020) to drive and solve the challenges of a circular economy results in problem displacement across time and space rather than actually solving
the problem (Hobson & Lynch, 2016).
With a management and technocentric bias driving the circular economy agenda, a growing body of research has criticized the noticeable
absence of socio-cultural and political issues (Zwiers et al., 2020), and this is illustrated in concerns with the social dimension of circular economy
business models (Hofmann, 2019). Consideration is required not only for assessing the types of jobs created, but for:
. .. the role people perform at both sides, production and consumption, as well as at households supporting the marketeconomy. That
is to say, although the assessment of enterprises focuses on the micro level there are crucial interconnections with the macro level.
(Pla-Julián & Guevara, 2019, p. 74)
The failure to recognize these connections results in labor practices (Laser & Stowell, 2020b), working conditions, power asymmetries,
interdependencies, political and economic constraints (Schulz et al., 2019), and issues of equity and inclusion being overlooked (Inigo & Blok, 2019;
Niskanen et al., 2020). Illustrations of this include occupations in salvaging, saving, repairing, and reuse undertaken by socially marginalized groups
(Isenhour & Reno, 2019), shifting organizational values to becoming inclusive of gender and care for people (Pla-Julián & Guevara, 2019), and fore-
thought for everyday norms, lifestyles, and cultures (Temesgen et al., 2021). Some see in circular economy policies a moral project built on the dual
motives of subscribing to the common but unfair misperception of global recycling networks as dirty and illegal, while featuring circular EU policy
frames as being able to keep waste and resources within Europe and away from these networks (Gregson et al., 2015). One commonality these
critiques share is the call for sociopolitical issues to be taken seriously and for circular economy frameworks to be strengthened in this regard.
To summarize, by retaining an agenda focused on circular resource and waste recapture, the circular economy retains its economic growth
project status that underplays the demand for continuous consumption (Schröder et al., 2019), but with limited empirical evidence for reduc-
ing environmental pressures (Kovacic et al., 2020; Parrique et al., 2019). Because materials will be recycled, consumption is treated as a sustain-
able activity and thus becomes unproblematic. The upshot is the triggering of a rebound effect as the marketing of secondary products increases
(Ghisellini et al., 2016;Zink&Geyer,2017) and circles widen as demand for recycled materials and waste expands between cities, states, and coun-
tries (Savini, 2019). All potential gains from recycling are then eaten up by increased consumption. Ironically, “circles can also never deliver growth.
You need ever-increasing spirals for that” (Skene, 2018, p. 489).
This paper brings together the critiques addressed to the circular economy, with a focus on the European conception of the circular economy and
corresponding circular business models by researchers in various academic fields, as well as some practitioners, in order to bring forth the unad-
dressed assumptions, blind spots, tensions, contradictions, unthought-of consequences, and taken-for-granted advantages of a circular transition.
The purpose is to make it less easy to make ungrounded claims about the circular economyto bring actual issues raised by a transition to the circular
economy and to be at the core of this transition.
Praised by policy makers and many companies who have been instrumental in its recognition as a model for material and sustainable policies,
the circular economy is also subject to many critiques in academic and professional circles. The present systematic presentation of these critiques
shows that despite their strong imaginary appeal, pleas for the circular economy tend to ignore basic principles of biophysics (Kovacic et al., 2020),
for example, the tensions between biophysical limits and progress and growth. Therefore, using the circular economy as a buzzword for sustainable
development is considered problematic (Kirchherr et al., 2017).
Vague and uncontroversial (Lazarevic & Valve, 2017), critiques see in the circular economy a reassuring discourse for policy makers (Hobson,
2016) about futures made of planned circularity, circular modernism, bottom-up sufficiency, and peer-to-peer circularity (Bauwens et al., 2020).
However, despite the revolutionary language, the circular future is not mapped out. In the shadow remain unanswered questions of how to disrupt
orthodox social institutions attached with modernity and the connections and dependencies these create (Lazarevic & Valve, 2017). Equally, wider
sustainability concerns such as care or gender equality are lacking (Pla-Julián & Guevara, 2019), and so too are the impacts of the circular economy
that can be beneficial for some but come at a cost to others (Vonk, 2018).
If the desire is for an equitable and truly sustainable economy that is circular, the critiques stress that a radical shift is essential to confront
conventional neoliberal governance regimes (Flynn & Hacking, 2019, p. 1566). There is a danger to the myths surrounding the circular economy
because if they become normalized the space for critical reflection will decrease (Lazarevic & Valve, 2017). Examples include the “risk of increased
polarization between city and country and that the countryside is left out with poorer access to welfare services as a result” (Hagbert et al., 2018,
p. 32) and the lack of a global approach encouraging neo-colonialism by either side stepping developing countries, not giving agency to people
to problems outside of the Global North, or engaging with the informal sectors (Genovese and Pansera, 2020; Velis, 2018).Toputitbriefly,the
circular economy stands as a discourse that focuses on the economy, excludes social dimensions, and simplifies its environmental consequences
(Geissdoerfer et al., 2017).
As suggested in Foucault’s quote used in the opening to this text, these critiques are more than simply denouncing flaws in a fashionable concept.
They also point at the need for questioning how the circular economy is currently conceived, consented, and implemented. The presentation of the
critiques above shows there is a need for a renewed, enlarged, and transdisciplinary research agenda on the circular economy in order to support
the policy process.
Each area of the critiques above points at an issue in need of research, policy, and managerial attention. And as academics, let us conclude with a
plea for coherence and transdisciplinarity.Before the circular economy becomes mainstream and moves beyond sustainability and circular economy
professionals, there is clearly a need for conceptual coherence about definitions, plans, implementations, and modes of evaluation, because without
coherence the expansion of new knowledge could be obstructed by deadlocked debates or can collapse entirely (Kirchherr et al., 2017). Given
the scope, speed, and transformation the circular economy agenda is attempting to address, research also needs to come out of disciplinary silos
(Brandão et al., 2020), otherwise solutions will engender weak circularity premised on notions of no limits, secondary resources complementing
primary supplies, and governments handing over responsibility to businesses and consumers.
We believe that it is time for producers and the state to reclaim the idea of circularity and to create “a closed, material loop limited in size and
space, based on the principle of fair distribution of resources” (Johansson & Henriksson, 2020, p. 148). Drawing on the critiques listed above, a
pathway toward circularity would be a circular economy that is modest, not a panacea but an actual solution to actual problems; concrete, in the
sense of being clear about which kind of circularity it sets up and the goal conflicts that it entails; inclusive, in that it takes energy,people, and wa ste
on a global scale into consideration; and transparent, in the sense of being accountable for its achievements and shortcomings, not the least when
it comes to economic, social, and environmental changes. Otherwise, the circular economy risks turning into a hypothetico-normative (but self-
serving) utopia that derails actual and well-intended efforts to reorganize production, consumption, and more generally material flows in ways that
are more respectful of planetary boundaries and that work in favor of sustainability.
The authors would like to thank Junming Zhu and the anonymous reviewers for their supportive comments and helpful suggestions.
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Hervé Corvellec
Alison F.Stowell
Nils Johansson
Acerbi, F., & Taisch, M. (2020). A literature review on circular economy adoption in the manufacturing sector. Journal of Cleaner Production,273, 123086.
Aguilar-Hernandez, G. A., Dias Rodrigues, J. F., & Tukker, A. (2021). Macroeconomic, social and environmental impacts of a circular economy up to 2050: A
meta-analysis of prospective studies. Journal of Cleaner Production,278, 123421.
Åkerman, M., Humalisto, N., & Pitzen, S. (2020). Material politics in the circular economy:The complicated journey from manure surplus to resource. Geoforum,
116, 73–80.
Allwood, J. M. (2014). Squaring the circular economy: The role of recycling within a hierarchy of material management strategies. In E. Worrell & M. A. Reuter
(Eds.), Handbook of recycling (pp. 445–477). Elsevier.
Babbitt, C. W., Gaustad, G., Fisher, A., Chen, W.-.Q., & Liu, G. (2018). Closing the loop on circular economyresearch: From theory to practice and back again.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling,135, 1–2.
Bauwens, T., Hekkert, M., & Kirchherr, J. (2020). Circular futures: What will they look like? Ecological Economics,175, 106703.
Baxter, W., Aurisicchio, M., & Childs, P. (2017). Contaminated interaction: Another barrier to circular material flows. Journal of Industrial Ecology,21(3), 507–
Bimpizas-Pinis, M., Bozhinovska, E., Genovese, A., Lowe,B., Pansera, M., Alberich, J. P., & Ramezankhani, M. J. (2021). Is efficiency enough for circular economy?
Resources, Conservation and Recycling,167, 105399.
Blomsma, F., & Brennan, G. (2017). The Emergence of circular economy: A new framing around prolonging resource productivity. Journal of Industrial Ecology,
21(3), 603–614.
Blum, N. U., Haupt, M., & Bening, C. R. (2020). Why “Circular” doesn’t always mean “Sustainable.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling,162, 105042.
Boulding, K. E. (1966). The economics of the coming spaceship earth. In H. Jarrett (Ed.), Environmental quality in a growing economy: Resources for theFuture.
Essays from the sixth RFF forum (pp. 3–14). Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 9781617260278
Brandão, M., Lazarevic, D., & Finnveden, G. (2020). Prospects for the circular economy and conclusions. In M. Brandão, D. Lazarevic, & G. Finnveden (Eds.),
Handbook of the circular economy. Edward Elgar. eISBN: 978 1 78897 272 7
Calisto Friant, M., Vermeulen, W. J. V., & Salomone, R. (2020). A typology of circular economy discourses: Navigating the diverse visions of a contested
paradigm. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,161, 104917.
Calisto Friant, M., Vermeulen, W. J. V., & Salomone, R. (2021). Analysing European Union circular economy policies: Words versus actions. Sustainable Produc-
tion and Consumption,27, 337–353.
Casson, C., & Welch, D. (2021). Histories and futures of circular economy. In R. B. Swain & S. Sweet (Eds.), Sustainable consumption and production, volume II:
Circular economy and beyond (pp.35–54). Springer International Publishing.
Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R., Chiaroni, D., Del Vecchio, P., & Urbinati, A. (2020). Designing business models in circular economy: A systematic literature review
and research agenda. Business Strategy and the Environment,29(4), 1734–1749.
Corvellec, H. (2019). Waste as scats: For an organizational engagement with waste. Organization,26(2), 217–235.
Corvellec, H., Böhm, S., Stowell, A., & Valenzuela, F. (2020). Introduction to the special issue on the contested realities of the circular economy. Culture and
Organization,26(2), 97–102.
Corvellec, H., & Stål, H. I. (2019). Qualification as corporate activism: How Swedish apparel retailers attach circular fashion qualities to take-back systems.
Scandinavian Journal of Management,35(3), 101046.
Cullen, J. M. (2017). Circular economy: Theoretical benchmark or perpetual motion machine? Journal of Industrial Ecology,21(3), 483–486.
De Jesus, A., & Mendonça, S. (2018). Lost in transition? Drivers and barriers in the eco-innovation road to the circular economy. Ecological Economics,145,
Ekman Burgman, L., & Wallsten, B. (2021). Should the sludge hit the farm? – How chemo-social relations affect policy efforts to circulate phosphorus in
Sweden. Sustainable Production and Consumption,27, 1488–1497.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2017). Strategic partners.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2020). Financing the circular economy: Capturing the opportunity.
Fellner, J., Lederer, J., Scharff, C., & Laner, D. (2017). Present potentials and limitations of a circular economy with respect to primary raw material demand.
Journal of Industrial Ecology,21(3), 494–496.
Fitch-Roy, O., Benson, D., & Monciardini, D. (2019). Going around in circles? Conceptual recycling, patching and policy layering in the EU circular economy
package. Environmental Politics,29, 983–1003.
Flynn, A., & Hacking, N. (2019). Setting standards for a circular economy: A challenge too far for neoliberal environmental governance? Journal of Cleaner
Production,212, 1256–1267.
Foucault, M. (1982). Is it really important to think? An interview by Didier Éribon translated by Thomas Keenan. Philosophy & Social Criticism,9(1), 30–40.
Geissdoerfer, M., Morioka, S. N., De Carvalho, M. M., & Evans, S. (2018). Business models and supply chains for the circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Pro-
duction,190, 712–721.
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M. P., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The circular economy: A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production,143,
Genovese A., & Pansera M. (2020). The circular economyat a crossroads: Technocratic eco-modernism or convivial technology for social revolution?.Capital-
ism Nature Socialism, 1–19.
Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., & Ulgiati, S. (2016). A review on circular economy: The expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic
systems. Journal of Cleaner Production,114, 11–32.
Giampietro, M., & Funtowicz, S. O. (2020). From elite folk science to the policy legend of the circular economy. Environmental Science & Policy,109, 64–72.
Goldberg, T. (2017). What about the circularity of hazardous materials? Journal of Industrial Ecology,21(3), 491–493.
Greer, R., Von Wirth, T., & Loorbach, D. (2021). The waste-resource paradox: Practical dilemmas and societal implications in the transition to a circular econ-
omy. Journal of Cleaner Production,303, 126831.
Gregson, N., Crang, M., Fuller, S., & Holmes, H. (2015). Interrogating the circular economy: The moral economy of resource recovery in the EU. Economy and
Society,44(2), 218–243.
Haas, W., Krausmann, F., Wiedenhofer, D., & Heinz, M. (2015). How circular is the global economy?: An assessment of material flows, waste production, and
recycling in the European Union and the world in 2005. Journal of Industrial Ecology,19(5), 765–777.
Hagbert, P., Finnveden, G., Fuehrer, P., Svenfelt, A., Alfredsson, E., Aretun, A., Bradley, K., Callmer, A., Fauré, E., Gunnarsson-Östling, U.,Hedberg, M., Hornborg,
A., Isaksson, K., Malmaeus, M., Malmqvist, T.,Nyblom, A., och Erika Öhlund, K. S. (2018). Framtider bortom BNP-tillväxt: Slutrapport från forskningsprogrammet
’Bortom BNP-tillväxt: Scenarier för hållbart samhällsbyggande. TH Skolan för Arkitektur och Samhällsbyggnad. urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-289477
Hart, J., & Pomponi, F. (2021). A circular economy: Where will it take us? Circular Economy and Sustainability,1, 127–141.
Hobson, K. (2016). Closing the loop or squaring the circle? Locating generative spaces for the circular economy. Progress in Human Geography,40(1), 88–104.
Hobson, K. (2019). Small stories of closing loops’: social circularity and the everyday circular economy.Climatic Change,169, 99–116.
Hobson, K. (2020). The limits of the loops: Critical environmental politics and the circular economy. Environmental Politics,30, 161–179.
Hobson, K., & Lynch, N. (2016). Diversifying and de-growing the circular economy: Radical social transformation in a resource-scarce world. Futu res,82, 15–
Hofmann, F.(2019). Circular business models: Business approach as driver or obstructer of sustainability transitions? Journal of Cleaner Production,224, 361–
Holmes, H., Wieser, H., & Kasmire, J. (2021). Critical approaches to circular economy research: Time, space and evolution. In R. B. Swain & S. Sweet (Eds.),
Sustainable consumption and production, volume II: Circular economy and beyond (pp. 55–74). Springer International Publishing.
Inigo, E. A., & Blok, V.(2019). Strengthening the socio-ethical foundations of the circular economy: Lessons from responsible research and innovation. Journal
of Cleaner Production,233, 280–291.
Isenhour, C., & Reno, J. (2019). On materiality and meaning: Ethnographic engagements with reuse, repair & care. WorldwideWaste: Journal of Interdisciplinary
Studies,2(1), 8.
Johansson, N., & Henriksson, M. (2020). Circular economy running in circles? A discourse analysis of shifts in ideas of circularity in Swedish environmental
policy. Sustainable Production and Consumption,23, 148–156.
Johansson, N., & Krook, J. (2021). How to handle the policy conflict between resource circulation and hazardous substances in the use of waste? Journal of
Industrial Ecology,.
Johansson, N., Velis, C., & Corvellec, H. (2020). Towards clean material cycles: Is there a policy conflict between circular economy and non-toxic environment?
Waste Management & Research,38(7), 705–707.
Kama, K. (2015). Circling the economy: Resource-making and marketization in EU electronic waste policy. Area,47(1), 16–23.
Kębłowski, W., Lambert, D.,& Bassens, D. (2020). Circular economy and the city: An urban political economy agenda. Culture and Organization,26(2), 142–158.
Khan, O., Daddi, T., & Iraldo, F. (2021). Sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring: Key capabilities and organizational routines for circular economy implementation.
Journal of Cleaner Production,287, 125565.
Kirchherr, J., Piscicelli, L., Bour, R., Kostense-Smit, E., Muller, J., Huibrechtse-Truijens, A., & Hekkert, M. (2018). Barriers to the circular economy: Evidence
from the European Union (EU). Ecological Economics,150, 264–272.
Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., & Hekkert, M. (2017). Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,127,
Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A., & Seppälä, J. (2018a). Circular economy: The concept and its limitations. Ecological Economics,143, 37–46.
Korhonen, J., Nuur, C., Feldmann,A., & Birkie, S. E. (2018b). Circular economy as an essentially contested concept. Journal of Cleaner Production,175, 544–552.
Kovacic, Z., Strand, R., & Völker, T. (2020). The circular economy in Europe: Critical perspectives on policies and imaginaries. Routledge.
Laser, S., & Stowell, A. (2020a). Apple’s recycling robot ‘Liam’ and the global recycling economy of E-Waste: What “The Guardian” does, and what he misses out
on. In R. Ek & N. Johansson (Eds.), Perspective on waste from the social sciences and humanities: Opening the bin (pp. 261–275). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
ISBN13: 978-1-5275-4674-5
Laser, S., & Stowell, A. (2020b). Thinking like Apple’s recycling robots: Toward the activation of responsibility in a postenvironmentalist world. Ephemera,
Theory & Politics in Organization,20(2). robots-toward- activation-
Lazarevic, D., & Valve, H. (2017). Narrating expectations for the circular economy: Towards a common and contested European transition. Energy Research &
Social Science,31, 60–69.
Linder, M., & Williander, M. (2017). Circular business model innovation: Inherent uncertainties. Business Strategy and the Environment,26, 182–196. https:
Luthra, A. (2019). Municipalization for privatization’s sake. Society and Business Review,14(2), 135–154.
Mah, A. (2021). Future-proofing capitalism: The paradoxof the circular economy for plastics. Global Environmental Politics,21(2), 121–142.
Manninen, K., Koskela, S., Antikainen, R., Bocken, N., Dahlbo, H., & Aminoff, A. (2018). Do circular economy business models capture intended environmental
value propositions? Journal of Cleaner Production,171, 413–422.
Mavropoulos, A., & Nilsen, A. W. (2020). Industry 4.0 and circular economy: Towards a wasteless future or a wasteful planet?. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. ISBN: 978-1-
Mcdowall, W., Geng, Y., Huang, B., Barteková, E., Bleischwitz, R., Türkeli, S., Kemp, R., & Doménech, T. (2017). Circular Economy policies in China and Europe.
Journal of Industrial Ecology,21(3), 651–661.
Millar, N., Mclaughlin, E., & Börger, T. (2019). The circular economy: Swings and roundabouts? Ecological Economics,158, 11–19.
Moreau, V., Sahakian, M., Van Griethuysen, P., & Vuille, F. (2017). Coming full circle: Why social and institutional dimensions matter for the circular economy.
Journal of Industrial Ecology,21(3), 497–506.
Murray, A., Skene, K., & Haynes, K. (2017). Thecircular economy: An interdisciplinary exploration of the concept and application in a global context.Journal of
Business Ethics,140, 369–380.
Müller-Christ, G. (2011). Sustainable management: Coping with the dilemmas of resource-oriented management. Springer. ISBN 978-3-642-19165-7
Niskanen, J., Anshelm, J., & Mclaren, D. (2020). Local conflicts and national consensus: The strange case of circular economy in Sweden. Journal of Cleaner
Production,261, 121117.
Parrique, T., Barth, J., Briens, F., Spangenberg, J.H., Kraus-Polk, A. W. (2019). Decoupling debunked: Evidence and arguments against green growthas a sole strategy
for sustainability. European Environmental Bureau.
Pearce, D. W., & Turner, R. K. (1990). Economics of natural resources and the environment. Harvester Wheatsheaf. ISBN 0 7450 0225 0
Pieroni, M. P. P., Mcaloone, T. C., & Pigosso, D. C. A. (2021). Circular economy business model innovation: Sectorial patterns within manufacturing companies.
Journal of Cleaner Production,286, 124921.
Pla-Julián, I., & Guevara, S. (2019). Is circular economy the key to transitioning towards sustainable development? Challenges from the perspectiveofcare
ethics. Future s,105, 67–77.
Reike, D., Vermeulen, W. J. V., & Witjes, S. (2018). The circular economy: New or refurbished as CE 3.0? — Exploring controversies in the conceptualization
of the circular economy through a focus on history and resource value retention options. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,135, 246–264. https://doi.
ReMade Institute. (2021). Sustainability, recycling and the concept of a circular economy are all topics vitally important in today’s changing world.https://
Sarja, M., Onkila, T., & Mäkelä, M. (2021). A systematic literature review of the transition to the circular economy in business organizations: Obstacles, cata-
lysts and ambivalences. Journal of Cleaner Production,286, 125492.
Sauvé, S., Bernard, S., & Sloan, P., (2016). Environmental sciences, sustainable development and circular economy: Alternative concepts for trans-disciplinary
research. Environmental Development,17, 48–56.
Savini, F. (2019). The economy that runs on waste: Accumulation in the circular city. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning,21(6), 675–691.
Schröder, P., Bengtsson, M., Cohen, M., Dewick, P., Hofstetter, J., & Sarkis, J. (2019). Degrowth within: Aligning circular economy and strong sustainability
narratives. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,146, 190–191.
Schröder, P., Lemille, A., & Desmond, P. (2020). Making the circular economy work for human development. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,156, 104686.
Schulz, C., Hjaltadóttir, R. E., & Hild, P. (2019). Practising circles: Studying institutional change and circular economy practices. Journal of Cleaner Production,
237, 117749.
Schöggl, J.-.P., Stumpf, L., & Baumgartner, R. J. (2020). The narrative of sustainability and circular economy: A longitudinal review of two decades of research.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling,163, 105073.
Siderius, T., & Poldner, K. (2021). Reconsidering the circular economy rebound effect: Propositions from a case study of the Dutch circular textile valley.
Journal of Cleaner Production,293, 125996.
Skene, K. R. (2018). Circles, spirals, pyramids and cubes: Why the circular economy cannot work. Sustainability Science,13(2), 479–492.
Stål, H. I., & Corvellec, H. (2018). A decoupling perspective on circular business model implementation: Illustrations from Swedish apparel. Journal of Cleaner
Production,171, 630–643.
Temesgen, A., Storsletten, V., & Jakobsen, O. (2021). Circular economy – Reducing symptoms or radical change? Philosophy of Management,20(1), 37–56.
Traven, L. (2019). Circular economy and the waste management hierarchy: Friends or foes of sustainable economic growth? A critical appraisal illustrated by
the case of the Republic of Croatia. Waste Management & Research,37(1), 1–2.
Valenzuela, F., & Böhm, S. (2017). Against wasted politics: A critique of the circular economy. Ephemera,17(1), 23–60.
Webster, K. (2013). What might we say about a circular economy? Some temptations to avoid if possible. World Futures,69(7-8), 542–554.
Veleva, V., Bodkin, G., & Todorova, S. (2017). The need for better measurement and employee engagement to advance a circular economy: Lessons from
Biogen’s “zero waste” journey. Journal of Cleaner Production,154, 517–529.
Velis, C. (2018). No circular economy if current systemic failures are not addressed. Waste Management & Research,36(9), 757–759.
Velis, C. A., & Vrancken, K. C. (2015). Which material ownership and responsibility in a circular economy? Waste Management & Research,33(9), 773–774.
Winans, K., Kendall, A., & Deng, H. (2017). The history and current applications of the circular economy concept. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews,68,
Vonk, L. (2018). Paying attention to waste: Apple’s circular economy.Continuum,32(6), 745–757.
World Economic Forum (WEF). (2020). Transforming African economies to sustainable and circular models.
Völker, T., Kovacic, Z., & Strand, R. (2020). Indicator development as a site of collective imagination? The case of European Commission policies on the circular
economy. Culture and Organization,26(2), 103–120.
Zapata Campos, M. J., & Zapata, P. (2013). Urban waste: Closing the system. In R. Peter, P. Newton & L. Pearson (Eds.), Resilient sustainable cities: A future
(pp.139–145). Taylor and Francis/Routledge.
Zink, T., & Geyer, R. (2017). Circular economy rebound. Journal of Industrial Ecology,21(3), 593–602.
Zhu, J., Fan, C., Shi, H., Shi, L. (2019). Efforts for a circular economy in China: A comprehensive review of policies. Journal of Industrial Ecology,23(1), 110–118.
Zwiers, J., Jaeger-Erben, M., & Hofmann, F. (2020). Circular literacy. A knowledge-based approach to the circular economy. Culture and Organization,26(2),
How to cite this article: Corvellec H, Stowell A, Johansson N. Critiques of the circular economy. J Ind Ecol. 2021; 1–12.
... Today, the most widely accepted term is circular economy [27], which in a sense goes beyond the need for sustainability. In essence, it is a return to the order of nature, as in nature almost all materials are involved in cycles and there is no waste: the end product of each process is the starting material for another process. ...
... In essence, it is a return to the order of nature, as in nature almost all materials are involved in cycles and there is no waste: the end product of each process is the starting material for another process. While the idea is a kind of illusion, responsible organisations and their management can do much to make this illusion a reality [27]. This idea brings with it the need for organisations that practice sustainable or circular management to have management and decision-makers who understand and manage their organisations in the spirit of these expectations. ...
Full-text available
For years, sustainability has been on the minds of professionals, organisational leaders and everyone involved in everyday life. There has been a lot of research on different areas and processes of corporate operations, and more and more initiatives are emerging to address nature conservation, environmental protection and climate change issues. However, little research addresses the potential for sustainability of organisational knowledge, a factor that fundamentally influences the functioning of organisations. Beyond the steps of the knowledge management process, organisational culture, working conditions, the organisational environment and the organisational leadership that manages them are also at the forefront. The aim of this study is to highlight the supporting role of sustainable management for the sustainability of knowledge and to show the context of further supporting conditions. Previous research has identified sustainable management as an alternative management style that can significantly change organisations and society by deepening understanding of natural and economic systems and their interdependencies. Accordingly, it ensures market performance in a holistic approach based on the concept of sustainable knowledge and with a view to the efficient use of the company’s internal resources. The cornerstones of these interrelationships and the conditions of the relationships are presented here in a theoretical approach.
... This can be achieved through long-lasting design, maintenance, repair, reuse, remanufacturing, refurbishing, and recycling". However, a lack of theoretical analysis of the CE was identified (Corvellec et al., 2022), arguing that it has been mainly developed by practitioners and because a single generally accepted definition is still lacking. Thus, it has been claimed that CE is not a theory but an emerging approach to industrial production and consumption (Korhonen et al., 2018b). ...
Full-text available
Tropical tuna purse seiners are one of the most important contributors to end-of-life (EoL) fishing gears in the world, and these fishing nets can become a promising secondary raw material. Thus, tuna companies are looking for possibilities to valorize them by applying circular economy (CE). This contribution aims at assessing the viability of creating a circular business model out of recycled tropical tuna purse seine EoL nets. The yearly contribution of the Spanish tuna freezer purse seine companies to EoL fishing nets was estimated at 900 tons. Three pilot projects were implemented (involving 80 tons of EoL tuna nets) to learn about the monetary and material flows, supply chain, stakeholders' perception, and the environmental impacts of upcycling polyamide nets into four marketable products (i.e., conditioned fishing nets, backpacks, fishers' dungarees, and sunglasses). The results indicate that recycled regrinds/flakes and pellets were 37 and 50%, respectively, more expensive than virgin counterparts, but the yarn may achieve competitive production costs in the textile industry, with an additional environmental benefit close to 69% per kg of virgin–origin yarn. The challenges faced when recycling EoL polyamide fishing nets were discussed. Innovation and logistics appear to play a fundamental role in making the business sustainable. Besides, the circular business model methodology to assess the value proposition was also discussed in its empirical application.
... This can be achieved through long-lasting design, maintenance, repair, reuse, remanufacturing, refurbishing, and recycling". However, a lack of theoretical analysis of the CE was identified (Corvellec et al., 2022), arguing that it has been mainly developed by practitioners and because a single generally accepted definition is still lacking. Thus, it has been claimed that CE is not a theory but an emerging approach to industrial production and consumption (Korhonen et al., 2018b). ...
... Consumers have primarily been treated as relatively passive agents, expected to adapt once producers modify their products/offerings (Ghisellini et al., 2016;Corvellec et al., 2021), and can be incentivised to choose more environmentally friendly goods and services through tools such as pricing, information, and "nudging" (Welch and Southerton, 2019;Dalhammar et al., 2021). However, such approaches to consumer behavior fail to consider how consumption is deeply embedded in rhythms and routines in daily life (Wilhite, 2012), in turn co-shaped by infrastructural arrangements (Shove and Trentmann, 2018) and systems of provision (Bayliss and Fine, 2020). ...
Full-text available
The transition to a resource-efficient and effective circular economy (CE) requires the active engagement of all societal and economic actors, including business, civic society, and political actors. Research, so far, has mainly focused on business solutions and policy approaches that enable these solutions. However, very little knowledge has been developed regarding the role of citizens in the CE (e.g., sharer, repairer, or buyer of quality products or second-hand products) and the transformations to everyday life that circularity may require. Therefore, there is an imperative to fill this knowledge gap and provide the insights needed to drive the adoption and upscale of circular practices in the everyday life of citizens. To go beyond existing approaches of consumer research, this contribution proposes the expansion of the methodological arena by integrating theories of socio-cultural (e.g., practice theory, consumption work) and psycho-social (e.g., peer-influence, social proof) nature to complement existing approaches of “behavioral” scope, which have been widely used in economics and policy studies. By identifying the way people relate to CE in their everyday life and the conscious and unconscious actions they are likely to take toward a CE transformation, it is possible to complement the existing knowledge on CE business model innovation and policy interventions so that the “consumer” aspect is better incorporated and not taken simply for granted, as a CE adopter.
... While the concept of CE is widely accepted as an essential component to ensure sustainable development, the link between material circularity and environmental performance is not precisely clear within different industries. As a result, all circular strategies might not be inherently sustainable (Corvellec et al., 2022;Harris et al., 2021;Pauer et al., 2020), which leads to conflicts in decision-making. Given the variety of available circular strategies (Bruel et al., 2019;Moraga et al., 2019) and their potential environmental impacts, it is necessary to prioritize indicators that promote circularity while minimising environmental impacts. ...
Full-text available
There is a serious need to assess the evolution of transitions from a linear to a Circular Economy (CE) using tools, metrics, and measurement indicators that not only are able to take into account the circularity, but also the other sustainability performances of products. Currently, most measurement tools do not lead to valuable decisions, as they do not capture the performance of the CE in its entirety, resulting in poorer performance on certain aspects, such as the environment. In addition, the lack of industry-specific indicators may hinder the adaptation of CE due to the different structures and functions of products. Consequently, this paper proposes a circularity indicator adapted from the Material Circularity Indicator (MCI) for the plastic industry, specifically Multi-layer Plastic Packaging (MPP). The adapted indicator is expanded based on the quality of recycled polymers by defining a new utility factor (X) as the polymers' intensity of re-use. It also highlights that it is necessary to combine a circularity indicator with Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) for viable end-of-life (EOL) management. To illustrate the use of the proposed indicator and the trade-offs between circularity and environmental impacts, a case study on three-layer plastic packaging is applied to two end-of-life scenarios (Incineration, and closed-loop mechanical recycling). The results show that an increase in material circularity generally decreases the environmental impacts. However, recycling was found to have a higher impact than incineration on some impact categories such as land use and freshwater eutrophication.
... According to the Circularity Gap Report (2021), transitioning to a circular economy could reduce greenhouse gases by 39% and ease pressure on virgin materials by 28%. Some scholars have observed that cyclical systems consume resources and cause waste and emissions because of the energy required to operate (Corvellec et al., 2021;Haas et al., 2015;Korhonen et al., 2018;Skene, 2018). A circular economy, thus, seems to have an ambiguous effect on carbon emissions: positive, negative, and no significant impact. ...
Full-text available
Governments and policymakers worldwide have been setting targets to achieve an ambitious net-zero emission target by 2050 to tackle the pressing issue of climate change. However, achieving the net-zero emission target by 2050 depends on the factors determining the transition from traditional fossil fuel energy sources to renewables. In connection with this, policymakers have emphasised the need to transition from a linear to a circular economy. In this paper, we investigate the effectiveness of the progress towards a circular economy in reducing CO2 emissions and promoting environmental sustainability. To do so, we use annual historical data for a panel of 29 European countries from 2000 to 2020. Using an innovative identification strategy that adopts heteroscedastic-based instrumental variables and addresses endogeneity issues, we find that progress towards a circular economy significantly improves environmental quality via reducing CO2 emissions. Our findings suggest that business strategies promoting recycling and circular economy practices play an important role in environmental sustainability by reducing emissions.
The first step for transforming the current linear and degenerative socio-economic systems into ones that are circular and regenerative is to understand how they grow and develop. Here, we explore whether there are limits to robustness of a socio-economic system as the result of a linear metabolic structure, and how those limits could theoretically be affected by its transition to a circular economy. First, we study how the circular use of materials and the economic openness of the EU27 would affect the value of its circularity rate (as defined by Eurostat), theoretically. Then, given that the circularity rate does not capture regenerative aspects, we develop a conceptual framework based on regenerative economics and on indicators from ascendency analysis and ecological network analysis. We use this framework to assess a theoretical future case where the EU27 manages to successfully transition to a CE within its given linear material flow metabolism. The results show that there are limits to robustness, and which do not necessarily correspond to a maximum circularity rate. None of the 45 scenarios assessed can theoretically lead to the maximum robustness observed in natural ecosystems, including those which maximized the circularity rate. Interestingly, the highest possible robustness value is obtained at a circularity rate of about 33% as a combination of a material recovery rate of 30% and of a material export rate of 10%. Scenarios of higher circularity rate (as the result of higher export rates and/or higher material recovery rates) seem to lead to brittle networks. Other indicators from regenerative economics are also discussed. Furthermore, the results show that even if substantial steps are taken by the EU27 towards a circular economy, 100% circularity rate seems to be unlikely. This analysis highlights that the use of tools from regenerative economics can assist policy makers and researchers to account for and to monitor network properties such as those of resilience and robustness, during strategic planning activities for a transition to a regenerative circular economy.
Full-text available
By using resources more efficiently, resource users help to overcome the inherent resource scarcity on "spaceship earth." One strategy in this context is to close resource loops and to use resources circularly. With fewer resources wasted, a more circular use of resources should also increase the efficiency of resource use and create more value. However, when resource users aim for a greater degree of efficiency, inadvertently they might contribute to resources being used less rather than more circularly and, consequently, less instead of more efficiently. We show how to assess the value that is created by the efficient use of resources for the case of linear and circular resource use. This allows us to identify three distinct types of positive externalities related to the circular use of resources: (1) systemic static externalities; (2) idiosyncratic dynamic externalities; and (3) systemic dynamic externalities. We describe how the value created by these externalities can be assessed and argue that they need to be considered when evaluating environmental resource use.
Full-text available
The transition to sustainable food systems is one of the main challenges facing national and international action plans. It is estimated that food services and lodging accommodation activities are under pressure in terms of resource consumption and waste generation, and several tools are required to monitor their ecological transition. The present research adopts a semi-systematic and critical review of the current trends in the food service and lodging accommodation industries on a global scale and investigates the real current environmental indicators adopted internationally that can help to assess ecological transition. This research tries to answer the subsequent questions: (i) how has the ecological transition in the food service industry been monitored? and (ii) how has the ecological transition in the lodging accommodation industry been monitored? Our study reviews 66 peer-reviewed articles and conference proceedings included in Web of Science between 2015 and 2021. The results were analyzed according to content analysis and co-word analysis. Additionally, we provide a multidimensional measurement dashboard of empirical and theoretical indicators and distinguish between air, water, energy, waste, health, and economic scopes. In light of the co-word analysis, five research clusters were identified in the literature: “food cluster”, “water cluster”, “consumers cluster”, “corporate cluster”, and “energy cluster”. Overall, it emerges that food, water, and energy are the most impacted natural resources in tourism, and users and managers are the stakeholders who must be involved in active monitoring.
Full-text available
The European Union has vowed to transition from a linear to a circular economy (CE). Many innovations, new business models, and policies have begun to emerge to support the push for further institutionalizing CE practices. A large portion of these attempts are based on transforming a flow currently labeled as a waste stream into a value proposition, i.e. a resource. However, this ironically increases the risk of creating a demand for these waste streams, which thereby may become commodified. In this article, we unpack the inherent dilemmas and implications created by this phenomenon, which we define as the Waste-Resource Paradox (WRP). Understanding the WRP is highly relevant, as its manifestation may lead to situations in which the further establishment of “circular” practices may reinforce linear economy by sustaining a waste (over)production in the system or causing undesired social or environmental repercussions. This can tighten a lock-in of the existing linear structures counteractive to CE that have not been explicitly identified or explored to date. We observed that the WRP may evolve and morph throughout time, across boundaries or respective to different societal sectors. Based on our findings, we highlight the profound implications of the WRP for the future of circularity and the potential consequences for a transition to CE.
Full-text available
This article discerns why the substantial political efforts to increase circulation of nutrients in sewage sludge, and phosphorus in particular, have shown such meagre results over the last twenty years in Sweden. We have analyzed stakeholders’ statements of opinions to four government-initiated inquiries, to decipher the chemo-social relations between stakeholders and phosphorus, and how these relations have transformed over time and made a difference in the policy process. In our analysis, we found five different relations: 1) a metabolic, 2) a purity, 3) a nutritional, 4) a marketable, and 5) a geopolitical. These relations connect actors, phosphorus and politics in different ways, and obstruct policymaking by creating tensions between political objectives, values and stakeholder positions. We observe how the extraction of phosphorus as a singular, marketable element to be sold for profit reasons on a global market, is increasingly favored in comparison to local eco-cycling of nutrients between farmers and consumers. We see this as a consequence of that the circular economy as a concept has replaced eco-cycle efforts in the Swedish policy debate. We conclude that if circular economy-initiatives are to be successfully implemented, they need to be informed by the current configuration of material flows that they wish to transform as well as the political implications of their efforts. So far, this has not been the case regarding sewage sludge in Sweden.
Full-text available
The avalanche of environmental challenges, from local to global and back, has prompted responses at all levels from personal to inter-governmental. The results of these responses have fallen in the range between useful and counterproductive, with many examples on each side, but the scale of the overall challenge continues to escalate. Moving towards a zero-carbon global economy through absolute reductions in fossil fuel usage is a sure way of mitigating climate change, and a range of environmental, social and economic benefits would follow. The case for a Circular Economy (CE), however, is less clear. Whilst some CE initiatives may lead to the decoupling of economic growth from resource extraction, this does not necessarily equate to reducing the rate of extraction. Thus, the contribution of CE to the achievement of environmental objectives globally cannot be taken for granted. In terms of social impact, the best that can be said is that CE might be neutral. Technologies that promote the ‘sharing economy’ for instance, often suggested as a crucial CE strategy, create opportunities for individual wealth accumulation, but are also a route to the gig economy and the casualisation of labour. CE is arguably a business imperative, but definitive evidence to support the idea of a circular economy that meets social and environmental goals needs development.
Full-text available
The marine plastics crisis sparked a wave of corporate interest in the circular economy, a sustainable business model that aims to eliminate waste in industrial systems through recycling, reduction, reuse, and recovery. Drawing on debates about the role of corporations in global environmental governance, this article examines the rise of the circular economy as a dominant corporate sustainability concept, focusing on the flagship example of the circular economy for plastics. It argues that corporations across the plastics value chain have coordinated their efforts to contain the circular economy policy agenda, while extending their markets through developing risky circular economy technologies. These corporate strategies of containment and proliferation represent attempts to “future-proof” capitalism against existential threats to public legitimacy, masking the implications for environmental justice. The paradox of the circular economy is that it seems to offer radical challenges to linear “take-make-waste” models of industrial capitalism, backed by international legislation, but it does not actually give up on unsustainable growth. We need to tackle the plastics crisis at its root, dramatically reducing the global production of toxic and wasteful plastics.
Full-text available
How the marriage of Industry 4.0 and the Circular Economy can radically transform waste management—and our world Do we really have to make a choice between a wasteless and nonproductive world or a wasteful and ultimately self-destructive one? Futurist and world-renowned waste management scientist Antonis Mavropoulos and sustainable business developer and digital strategist Anders Nilsen respond with a ringing and optimistic “No!” They explore the Earth-changing potential of a happy (and wasteless) marriage between Industry 4.0 and a Circular Economy that could—with properly reshaped waste management practices—deliver transformative environmental, health, and societal benefits. This book is about the possibility of a brand-new world and the challenges to achieve it. The fourth industrial revolution has given us innovations including robotics, artificial intelligence, 3D-printing, and biotech. By using these technologies to advance the Circular Economy—where industry produces more durable materials and runs on its own byproducts—the waste management industry will become a central element of a more sustainable world and can ensure its own, but well beyond business as usual, future. Mavropoulos and Nilsen look at how this can be achieved—a wasteless world will require more waste management—and examine obstacles and opportunities such as demographics, urbanization, global warming, and the environmental strain caused by the rise of the global middle class. · Explore the new prevention, reduction, and elimination methods transforming waste management · Comprehend and capitalize on the business implications for the sector · Understand the theory via practical examples and case studies · Appreciate the social benefits of the new approach Waste-management has always been vital for the protection of health and the environment. Now it can become a crucial role model in showing how Industry 4.0 and the Circular Economy can converge to ensure flourishing, sustainable—and much brighter—future.
Full-text available
A circular economy creates a policy conflict between increased resource circulation and decreased dispersal of hazardous substances. On the basis of three case studies in the EU, we have therefore identified various regulatory questions that can be posed to address the occurrence of hazardous substances in the use of waste. For each of these questions, we have proposed two possible responses influencing the design of the regulation and analyzed their consequences both from a circularity and from a toxicity perspective. Currently, the regulations focus on reducing the dispersal of hazardous substances rather than stimulating resource circulation. The allowable contamination levels in the waste are typically regulated in relation to its mass rather than its content of valuable resources. The regulation of hazards in waste can be further developed in two general ways, by emphasizing either the risk of exposure to hazards or the total content of hazards. A risk approach is beneficial for short‐term circularity and waste producers. A hazard approach is beneficial for long‐term circularity and waste users. In order to improve the balancing of the policy conflict in question, values, underlying assumptions, and the effects of hazardous substances and resource circulation need to be better understood.
Full-text available
This article investigates the phenomenon of rebound effects in relation to a transition to a Circular Economy (CE) through qualitative inquiry. The aim is to gain insights in manifestations of rebound effects by studying the Dutch textile industry as it transitions to a circular system, and to develop appropriate mitigation strategies that can be applied to ensure an effective transition. The rebound effect, known originally from the energy efficiency literature, occurs when improvements in efficiency or other technological innovations fail to deliver on their environmental promise due to (behavioral) economic mechanisms. The presence of rebound in CE contexts can therefore lead to the structural overstatement of environmental benefits of certain innovations, which can influence reaching emission targets and the preference order of recycling. In this research, the CE rebound effect is investigated in the Dutch textile industry, which is identified as being vulnerable to rebound, yet with a positive potential to avoid it. The main findings include the very low awareness of this effect amongst key stakeholders, and the identification of specific and general instances of rebound effects in the investigated industry. In addition, the relation of these effects to Circular Business Models and CE strategies are investigated, and placed in a larger context in order to gain a more comprehensive understanding about the place and role of this effect in the transition. This concerns the necessity for a new approach to how design has been practiced traditionally, and the need to place transitional developments in a systems perspective. Propositions that serve as theory-building blocks are put forward and include suggestions for further research and recommendations about dealing with rebound effects and shaping an eco-effective transition.
There is a need for a transition from unsustainable linear business models to a more sustainable circular approach, called the circular economy. To promote this need, a deeper understanding of which issues hinder organizations’ transition to the circular economy and which ones catalyse it is needed. A systematic literature review was performed on the business implementation of the circular economy and 69 articles covering the topic were found. The review identifies different types of catalyst, obstacles and ambivalent factors influencing circular economy implementation in business. This study contributes to research on circular economy implementation at business organizations by providing understanding on the role of these factors in supporting or hindering the change. This study also opens discussion on ambivalent factors that in certain contexts can act as a catalyst to and in others as a hindrance to circular economy. This understanding further enables identification of the origins of these different types of factors, especially concerning their intraorganizational or interorganizational role. The study further identifies gaps to be studied in future research.