Beyond the Loop: Rethinking the Circular Economy for a Sustainable Future

 

Author : AM.Tris Hardyanto

Is the circular economy the solution we've been waiting for—or is it just another illusion in green disguise? In a world chasing infinite growth on a finite planet, this five-part series uncovers the uncomfortable truths hidden beneath circular rhetoric. From global inequality to greenwashing, discover why genuine Sustainability requires more than just reuse and recycling—it demands a radical rethink of ethics, equity, and power.

1 Introduction – The Rise and Risks of Circular Hype

1.1 The Promise of the Circular Economy

The Circular Economy (CE) represents a paradigm shift aimed at transforming economic practices by minimizing waste and extending the lifecycle of resources. Unlike the traditional "take-make-dispose" linear economy, CE emphasizes reuse, repair, remanufacturing, and recycling. This model is recognized for its potential to foster a regenerative system, significantly reducing environmental harm while decoupling economic growth from resource consumption (Romero‐Hernández & Romero, 2018; Rakesh et al., 2023). Amidst escalating environmental crises—such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and waste pollution—the circular economy promises a harmonious balance between economic prosperity and ecological Sustainability (Negrete-Cardoso et al., 2022; García‐Quevedo et al., 2020).

However, despite its substantial promise, critical examination reveals inherent tensions and challenges often overlooked amidst growing enthusiasm. These critical insights warrant careful exploration and will serve as the basis for the upcoming critique.

1.2 Increasing Popularity and Perceived Benefits

The Circular Economy's growing prominence is evident in its widespread adoption across governmental and corporate sectors. Policymakers increasingly integrate CE principles into national Sustainability and economic recovery strategies, recognizing the model's dual capacity to mitigate environmental degradation and stimulate economic innovation (Banda et al., 2023; Nowicki et al., 2023). Simultaneously, corporations adopt CE to boost operational efficiency, reduce waste, and improve sustainability credentials, resulting in considerable economic and ecological benefits (Mah, 2021; Kaur, 2023). For example, CE initiatives are projected to eliminate millions of tons of solid waste while generating significant economic savings, thus highlighting the model's potential as both an environmental solution and a financial opportunity (Romero‐Hernández & Romero, 2018).

However, these perceived benefits often mask underlying challenges, including sustainability risks and social equity concerns. Such challenges highlight the need for a more profound critique of CE practices, especially in distinguishing genuine commitment from superficial adoption.

1.3 Purpose of the Article

The purpose of this article is to critically analyze the often-overlooked limitations and risks associated with the Circular Economy model, specifically addressing greenwashing, social inequities, and systemic sustainability constraints. The article aims to unpack the complexities surrounding these critical issues and propose actionable reforms to enhance CE's genuine contribution to sustainable and equitable development (Shivarov, 2020; Selicati & Cardinale, 2023; Zotti & Bigano, 2019).

Greenwashing and Sustainability Concerns

A significant concern in CE implementation is greenwashing, where organizations falsely promote sustainability practices primarily for marketing purposes rather than genuine environmental commitments (Plebankiewicz, 2022). Distinguishing authentic CE initiatives from superficial claims is essential to prevent undermining the model's credibility and effectiveness.

Social Equity and Distributional Challenges

The Circular Economy must also grapple with social equity challenges. Benefits associated with CE initiatives are frequently unevenly distributed, potentially exacerbating existing social inequalities within communities and regions (Zulkifli et al., 2024). Addressing these disparities is critical to ensuring the CE serves as a genuinely inclusive economic model rather than a system reinforcing socioeconomic divides.

Structural and Regulatory Gaps

Effective transition towards a genuinely sustainable Circular Economy requires embedding Sustainability deeply within economic frameworks, beyond merely adopting circular practices. It involves developing robust regulatory environments that encourage fair competition, innovation, and equitable participation, particularly empowering small and medium enterprises (SMEs) (Tashtamirov, 2023; Bernardi et al., 2022). Without such structural changes, CE risks becoming a superficial solution rather than a transformational economic model.

This article proceeds as follows: Chapter 2 explores the critical pitfalls, such as greenwashing and systemic inequities; Chapter 3 evaluates structural and regulatory gaps hindering effective CE implementation; and Chapter 4 proposes targeted reforms for genuine Sustainability and equitable distribution. Through comprehensive analysis and evidence-driven recommendations, the article seeks to reimagine the Circular Economy beyond the hype, ensuring authentic environmental, economic, and social benefits.

 

2  Understanding the Circular Economy Principles

2.1 Core Principles of the Circular Economy

Six core principles underpin the Circular Economy (CE): reduce, reuse, recycle, repair, remanufacture, and redesign. These principles collectively aim to establish a regenerative system that maintains resources in continuous use, significantly reducing waste and environmental impacts associated with traditional linear economic practices (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Muradin & Foltynowicz, 2019).

Reduce: This principle emphasizes minimizing resource consumption and waste generation by designing products and processes that require fewer materials and less energy. Such strategic reductions significantly lower environmental footprints (Poponi et al., 2020; Shaharudin et al., 2022).

Reuse: CE promotes repurposing products and materials rather than discarding them after a single use. This practice prolongs product lifecycles and reduces the demand for new resources, conserving energy and materials (VERAL, 2019).

Recycle: Recycling converts waste materials into new products, recovering valuable resources and decreasing the dependence on virgin materials, thus conserving natural resources and energy (Didenko et al., 2018).

Repair: Encouraging the repair of damaged items instead of replacement enhances product longevity, significantly reducing waste and resource consumption (Rutkowski & Rutkowski, 2017).

Remanufacture: Remanufacturing extends product life by rebuilding items to their original specifications using a mix of reused and new components. It not only maintains quality standards but also boosts economic resilience by creating employment opportunities and reducing production costs (Aldieri et al., 2021).

Redesign: Incorporating circular principles into the design phase ensures products are inherently easier to repair, reuse, and recycle. This proactive innovation drives Sustainability from the product's inception (Renfors & Wendt, 2024).

While these foundational principles provide essential guidelines for a sustainable future, they alone are insufficient. Systemic and social dimensions must also be addressed to overcome inherent limitations and ensure the Circular Economy's full potential is realized. Subsequent chapters explore these dimensions in depth.

2.2 Successful Case Studies and Limitations

IKEA's Buy-Back Program

IKEA's Buy-Back Program exemplifies the effective implementation of CE principles by refurbishing and reselling used furniture. This initiative successfully extends product lifecycles, reduces waste generation, and promotes sustainable consumer behaviours (Ferronato & Torretta, 2019). However, the scalability and accessibility of such programs might pose challenges, particularly in regions with limited infrastructure for refurbishing and logistics, potentially restricting equitable participation and widespread benefits.

Adidas' Futurecraft Loop Shoes

Adidas' Futurecraft Loop Shoes illustrate an advanced approach to circularity through design for recyclability. Made from a single recyclable material, these shoes enable closed-loop recycling, eliminating significant waste streams (Polyportis et al., 2022). Nevertheless, limitations exist in consumer adoption rates and the efficiency of the recycling processes, potentially restricting the impact if consumers fail to engage fully in return schemes or if recycling technologies remain costly or inaccessible.

These case studies demonstrate the practical strengths of Circular Economy principles but also underscore critical gaps that require attention. Recognizing these limitations helps establish a realistic perspective for evaluating the broader effectiveness and systemic implications of CE, leading to a detailed critique presented in the next chapter.

 

3. Critical Failures and Misconceptions of the Circular Economy

3.1 Buzzword Syndrome

The Circular Economy (CE) has become a buzzword, leading to significant conceptual confusion with over 100 distinct definitions. Many organizations label minor adjustments as circular without implementing substantial systemic changes, enabling widespread greenwashing and diluting genuine sustainability efforts (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Bassi & Dias, 2019). This misuse diminishes clarity and effectiveness, emphasizing that circularity does not inherently guarantee Sustainability.

3.2 Circularity Does Not Equal Sustainability

Circularity is frequently mistaken for Sustainability, yet these concepts differ significantly. While CE prioritizes resource retention, it often neglects broader sustainability issues such as social equity, biodiversity preservation, and comprehensive energy reduction (Makov & Vivanco, 2018; Bressanelli et al., 2022). Without integrating these broader sustainability criteria, circular processes may inadvertently perpetuate existing environmental and social problems. This limitation underscores the need to address fundamental thermodynamic and material constraints.

3.3 Thermodynamic and Material Limitations

Idealized visions of CE frequently overlook physical limitations. Materials degrade with each recycling cycle (downcycling), and energy losses are inevitable according to the second law of thermodynamics, making complete circularity unattainable (Vivanco et al., 2022; Rizos et al., 2016). Recognizing these physical limits highlights the necessity of directly addressing consumption patterns, thus confronting the rebound effect.

3.4 The Rebound Effect

Efficiency improvements under CE initiatives can unintentionally drive increased consumption, a phenomenon known as the rebound effect or Jevons' Paradox. For instance, more affordable and efficient products may lead consumers to increase overall consumption, offsetting environmental benefits (Brockway et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2021). This underscores the broader systemic failure stemming from unaddressed consumer behaviours, leading directly to the issue of system blindness.

3.5 System Blindness

Many CE initiatives lack a comprehensive systems perspective, predominantly focusing on end-of-life recycling rather than the entire supply chain. Ignoring upstream resource extraction and production impacts perpetuates significant environmental damage despite the appearance of circularity (Muriithi & Ngare, 2023). A holistic systems approach is essential, particularly to identify and resolve social equity issues within these broader production systems.

3.6 Equity Blindspot

Social equity remains notably absent in mainstream CE discussions. Circular transitions often neglect socioeconomic justice, potentially exacerbating inequalities, especially between the Global North and South. Job losses in traditional sectors and inequitable distribution of CE benefits highlight the urgent need to integrate equity explicitly into CE frameworks (Fan et al., 2021; O'Born & Heimdal, 2022). Addressing global inequities sets the stage for deeper equity considerations presented in Chapter 4.

3.7 Market Realities

Economic realities significantly constrain circular models, as prevailing markets and consumer behaviours favour linear approaches. The lower cost of virgin materials, driven by externalized environmental costs, makes recycled alternatives economically uncompetitive (Mashovic et al., 2022). Clearly, policy gaps exacerbate these market failures, necessitating robust policy interventions.

3.8 Policy Gaps and Greenwashing

There exists a considerable disconnect between circular rhetoric and actual policy implementation. Aspirational policies and corporate greenwashing undermine genuine CE efforts, with superficial sustainability actions often overshadowing necessary systemic changes (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Bassi & Dias, 2019). Weak policy enforcement and excessive reliance on technological solutions deepen these shortcomings.

3.9 Techno-Fix Obsession

Reliance solely on technological innovations overlooks critical cultural, behavioural, infrastructural, and regulatory aspects necessary for effective CE transitions. Technology alone cannot resolve issues rooted in entrenched consumption-oriented norms or inadequate policy frameworks (Zamfir et al., 2017; Ahmed et al., 2022). Highlighting technology's insufficiency emphasizes the crucial role of robust metrics and accountability.

3.10 Lack of Robust Metrics and Accountability

CE initiatives suffer from a lack of standardized metrics, making consistent evaluation challenging. The absence of transparent, multidimensional assessment frameworks limits accountability and allows selective reporting of favourable outcomes (Bocken et al., 2022). Addressing these failures requires comprehensive integration of social equity, economic shifts, and cultural transformations, clearly outlined in the solutions discussed in Chapter 4.

 

4. Social Equity and Global Inequality

4.1 Global North vs. Global South: Resource Extraction and Costs

A fundamental blindspot in the implementation of the Circular Economy (CE) is the stark inequity between the Global North and Global South, particularly regarding resource extraction and its socio-environmental costs. Resource-rich developing nations frequently face exploitation as their raw materials are extracted primarily for consumption in industrialized countries. This leads to extensive environmental damage—such as deforestation, soil erosion, water pollution, and biodiversity loss—which disproportionately impacts local communities (Akizu‐Gardoki et al., 2021). Socially, these impacts manifest as community displacement, severe health risks, and disrupted livelihoods, with economic benefits mainly accruing to the Global North, perpetuating systemic global inequities (Christian & Joseph, 2024).

4.2 Social Equity Blindspot in Circular Practices

The CE framework frequently overlooks the dimension of social equity, unintentionally favouring wealthier populations while marginalizing vulnerable communities. For instance, recycling programs and sustainable product designs are often more accessible to affluent urban groups, leaving marginalized communities, particularly in the Global South, to bear the brunt of environmental degradation and waste processing (Gao et al., 2024). Informal waste workers, crucial to recycling and material recovery efforts, commonly face exploitation, unsafe working conditions, and lack of social protections. This disparity underscores a significant equity blindspot within CE initiatives, emphasizing the urgent need for empowerment and integration of informal sectors and indigenous practices (Fanning & Hickel, 2023).

4.3 Empowering Informal Sectors and Indigenous Knowledge

Addressing the equity blindspot in CE necessitates recognizing and integrating informal waste workers and indigenous practices. Informal waste workers, predominantly women and children in developing countries, significantly contribute to recycling efficiency through the collection, sorting, and processing of waste materials. However, their efforts are typically undervalued and conducted under exploitative conditions (Fanning & Hickel, 2023). Formalizing their roles, offering training, safety measures, fair compensation, and integrating them into official waste management systems can significantly improve their livelihoods while enhancing the Sustainability of CE initiatives.

Additionally, indigenous communities provide invaluable insights into sustainable resource management through practices deeply rooted in cultural and ecological knowledge. These methods, including sustainable agriculture, resource conservation, and waste minimization, offer holistic, community-centred approaches essential for comprehensive CE strategies (Yang et al., 2024). By incorporating indigenous knowledge and empowering informal sectors, CE can concretely address equity blindspots, laying the groundwork for comprehensive solutions and reforms outlined in Chapter 5.

5. Economic and Market Constraints

5.1 Economic Barriers to Circularity

Economic barriers significantly reinforce existing inequities, creating additional hurdles for the Circular Economy (CE). One prominent challenge is the cost discrepancy between virgin and recycled materials. Virgin materials remain economically attractive due to externalized environmental costs, making circular practices such as recycling and remanufacturing financially less competitive (Ting et al., 2023). Additionally, mass production's economies of scale provide further advantages to linear models by reducing costs through efficiency, leaving labour-intensive circular practices like refurbishment and repair at a disadvantage (Chau et al., 2023). Moreover, consumer preferences favoring novelty and convenience limit market opportunities for circular alternatives (Zendehdel et al., 2021).

5.2 Necessary Market Shifts

Significant market shifts are necessary to empower equitable and circular transitions. Implementing financial incentives like targeted tax benefits for businesses that adopt circular practices can substantially improve their economic viability. For example, providing tax breaks to enterprises utilizing recycled materials or investing in sustainable processes encourages circularity. Conversely, imposing higher taxes on companies dependent on virgin materials discourages linear consumption patterns (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Linder et al., 2017). Additionally, subsidies directed towards circular technologies and infrastructure can further balance market dynamics, creating opportunities for equitable and sustainable economic participation.

5.3 Policy Frameworks for Circular Transition

Robust policy frameworks are crucial to effectively address both economic and equity barriers within the CE transition. Mandatory Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) regulations ensure manufacturers account for the entire lifecycle of their products, from design to disposal. EPR policies incentivize designing products for durability, repairability, and recyclability, thereby promoting Sustainability and reducing waste (Maria, 2022; Sulich & Sołoducho-Pelc, 2021). By shifting responsibility from consumers to producers, these frameworks help establish a fairer economic environment, directly addressing systemic inequities highlighted previously.

5.4 Job Creation, Dignity, and Safety

Economic solutions that support circularity also significantly contribute to broader social goals, including job creation, worker dignity, and safety. Circular practices, particularly within the repair economy, offer numerous opportunities for skilled employment. Countries such as Rwanda and Indonesia illustrate successful examples of this approach. Rwanda has established e-waste processing hubs, creating jobs and reducing environmental risks. Similarly, Indonesia's community recycling initiatives integrate informal workers into formal economic systems, providing essential training, safety measures, and fair compensation (Ting et al., 2023; Chau et al., 2023). These economic solutions complement and reinforce social equity and sustainability goals, creating a cohesive foundation for holistic and equitable circular transformations discussed further in subsequent chapters.

 

6. Beyond Technological Optimism – Realigning the Circular Economy

6.1 Technological Optimism and Its Limitations

Technological optimism frequently leads to an overreliance on technology as the primary solution for achieving transformative environmental change within the Circular Economy (CE). Although advancements in recycling technologies, material science, and digital innovations are critical, they alone cannot drive the systemic transformation necessary for genuine Sustainability (Amaleshwari & Jeevitha, 2023; Upadhyay et al., 2021). For instance, digital tools such as artificial intelligence (AI) and blockchain significantly improve supply chain transparency and efficiency. However, these innovations are insufficient to replace essential shifts in consumption patterns and regulatory frameworks required for systemic change (Liu et al., 2022; Ghoreishi & Happonen, 2020).

A significant limitation of techno-fixes is their tendency to oversimplify the intricate complexities inherent in transitioning to a circular system. They often neglect the essential cultural shifts needed to foster a widespread culture of repair, reuse, and responsible consumption, especially in affluent regions of the Global North, where consumer habits significantly contribute to environmental degradation (Dewick et al., 2020; Upadhyay et al., 2021).

Countries like Rwanda and Indonesia demonstrate how job creation through the repair economy can substantially benefit both economic and social systems. Rwanda's electronic waste processing hubs and Indonesia's community-based recycling models not only reduce environmental impacts but also create skilled employment, enhance worker dignity, and uplift marginalized communities (Mashovic et al., 2022).

6.2 Weak Metrics and Accountability Challenges

The effectiveness of CE initiatives is hindered significantly by the lack of standardized metrics that accurately measure circularity, thus complicating accountability. The absence of clear and universally accepted metrics makes it difficult to reliably track progress across different sectors and regions, allowing space for selective reporting and greenwashing (Fernandes et al., 2023; Bocken et al., 2019). Companies may misleadingly claim adherence to circular principles without presenting substantial supporting evidence.

Robust, multidimensional metrics integrating environmental, social, and economic dimensions are essential for authentic progress in the Circular Economy. Such comprehensive evaluation criteria would include measures of energy efficiency, material recovery rates, and social equity impacts, thereby ensuring transparency and accountability (Solodovnik et al., 2022; Ghaithan et al., 2023).

6.3 Aligning Circular Economy with Global Sustainability Goals

To effectively align CE with global sustainability goals—particularly Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure), 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), and 13 (Climate Action)—technology must be integrated strategically with regulatory, behavioural, and cultural shifts.

Digital technologies like blockchain can effectively enhance transparency and accountability across global supply chains by tracking material flows and recycling processes. However, the effectiveness of such technologies depends on supportive policies and significant behavioural changes, especially addressing unsustainable consumption patterns prevalent in developed nations (Țurcan et al., 2023; Liu et al., 2022).

Therefore, a genuine circular transformation must combine digital innovations with regulatory frameworks that incentivize sustainable practices and discourage linear consumption models. Additionally, strategic investments in education and community initiatives can cultivate a long-term cultural shift toward responsible consumption and resource stewardship.

6.4 Recommendations for Realigning Circular Economy

Based on the critique of technological optimism and the current challenges in circular economy practices, the following recommendations are proposed:

1. Develop Standardized Metrics:
Establish robust, transparent, and multidimensional metrics to monitor circular economy initiatives. These metrics should comprehensively capture environmental, economic, and social dimensions, enabling stakeholders to assess and validate genuine progress clearly.

2. Foster Cultural Shifts:
Implement targeted educational programs and community-based initiatives to nurture a culture of repair, reuse, and responsible consumption. Such initiatives should mainly target affluent regions with high consumption rates, facilitating systemic change from a grassroots level.

3. Integrate Digital Innovations Strategically:
Leverage digital tools, including blockchain and AI, to enhance transparency, traceability, and operational efficiency within circular supply chains. However, ensure these technologies complement regulatory and behavioural transformations rather than substituting them.

4. Strengthen Policy Frameworks:
Advocate for and implement policies that encourage circular practices through incentives and discourage linear economic models through penalties. Robust policy support will ensure alignment with global sustainability objectives and drive systemic transformation.

Conclusion

Successfully transitioning to a sustainable circular economy requires balancing technological optimism with comprehensive systemic, cultural, and regulatory reforms. Technology alone is insufficient to achieve transformative Sustainability. By implementing standardized metrics, fostering responsible consumption cultures, strategically integrating technological advancements, and strengthening supportive regulatory frameworks, the circular economy can effectively align with global sustainability goals, driving meaningful progress in addressing environmental, economic, and social challenges.

 

 7. Moving Forward – Circular Ethics and Broader Sustainability Integration

7.1 Philosophical Shift from Circular Economy to Circular Ethics

Moving beyond the Circular Economy (CE) necessitates embracing "circular ethics," a philosophical shift emphasizing moral responsibility, equity, and systemic integration of sustainability principles. This shift directly addresses previously identified limitations, such as technological overreliance, systemic blindness, rebound effects, and equity gaps (Hidayah et al., 2024; Owusu et al., 2021). Circular ethics requires prioritizing the moral imperative of reducing resource consumption, promoting equitable economic practices, and fostering regeneration over mere recycling and reuse. The core principle is aligning economic activities with ethical standards that safeguard environmental integrity and social justice, creating a genuinely regenerative economic model.

7.2 Systemic Changes Required

Implementing circular ethics involves profound systemic changes, addressing earlier identified critical failures. Primarily, there is an urgent need to transition from prioritizing recycling to emphasizing product durability, repairability, and reduced consumption. By designing products for longevity and modularity, resource extraction and waste generation significantly decrease, directly mitigating the rebound effect and systemic blindness that typically undermine sustainability initiatives (Nockur et al., 2022). Design standards ensuring easy repair and upgrading of products directly align with Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12 on Responsible Consumption and Production, promoting long-term ecological Sustainability (Knysh & Ponomarenko, 2021).

Further, systemic changes must incorporate equity considerations explicitly. Policies should bridge the equity gaps between resource-rich developing nations and industrialized nations. Such policies include fair trade practices, ethical sourcing, and investments in local circular infrastructure, notably recycling and remanufacturing facilities. Implementing these strategies mitigates economic and ecological disparities, addressing systemic injustices historically perpetuated through linear economic models (Dietsche, 2018; Duncan et al., 2021).

7.3 Education and Cultural Shifts

Addressing consumer behaviours is vital for meaningful circular transformation and systemic change. Education and cultural shifts play central roles in reshaping consumer preferences, promoting sustainability literacy, and nurturing an informed and responsible citizenry. Integrating CE principles into education curricula at all levels—schools, universities, and community initiatives—is critical. This integration helps individuals grasp the broader impacts of their consumption patterns and motivates them to adopt more sustainable behaviours, emphasizing repair, reuse, and responsible consumption (Desing et al., 2020).

Public awareness campaigns also hold significant potential. Initiatives encouraging local repair activities, promoting sustainable product choices, and fostering community-driven sustainability practices effectively drive cultural change. This approach contributes directly to achieving SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) by promoting local employment opportunities and SDG 13 (Climate Action) through reduced consumption and waste generation (Lima et al., 2020).

7.4 Ensuring Global Equity and Justice

Global equity and justice must form the foundational pillars of circular ethics, tying explicitly to earlier discussions in Chapter 4 regarding equity's role in sustainable circular economies. The global distribution of the circular economy's benefits and burdens remains a critical concern. Historically, resource-rich countries, especially those in the Global South, have disproportionately experienced environmental degradation and social injustice, while the economic benefits accrued to industrialized nations (Dietsche, 2018).

Addressing this disparity requires robust policy interventions promoting equitable participation and benefits distribution. Initiatives like fair-trade agreements, ethical material sourcing, and strategic investments in circular infrastructure significantly enhance local economic resilience and environmental regeneration. Such strategies directly support SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) by building sustainable industrial capacity and infrastructure, particularly benefiting communities historically marginalized or disadvantaged (Duncan et al., 2021).

7.5 Recommendations for Moving Forward with Circular Ethics

1. Embrace Circular Ethics as Core Philosophy:
Advocate for circular ethics to underpin all economic and environmental policymaking, prioritizing regeneration, responsibility, and equity over narrow circular economic practices.

2. Systemic Integration and Design Innovation:
Implement design standards prioritizing durability, repairability, and modularity to address the rebound effect and reduce systemic blindness, supporting sustainable consumption.

3. Enhance Education and Public Awareness:
Integrate circular economy principles comprehensively into education curricula and community programs, cultivating informed and responsible consumer behaviours and reinforcing sustainable lifestyle practices.

4. Promote Equitable Global Policies:
Implement policies emphasizing fair trade, ethical sourcing, and investment in local circular infrastructures, ensuring equitable economic participation and regeneration benefits globally.

Transitioning towards a genuinely sustainable circular economy requires adopting circular ethics as a guiding philosophy. Systemic changes addressing product durability, responsible consumption, educational enhancements, and global equity measures are critical. By firmly embedding equity and justice into the circular economic model, we can effectively address existing critical failures and achieve authentic Sustainability, ultimately fostering a regenerative and equitable global society.

 

8: Conclusion – Summary and Pathway to Action

8.1 Summary of Key Findings

This analysis has explored the significant limitations and critical failures currently undermining the Circular Economy (CE). Among the most notable issues identified are the overreliance on technological solutions (techno-optimism), weak accountability due to the lack of standardized metrics, systemic blindness causing unintended rebound effects, and significant gaps in social equity. These challenges collectively highlight the necessity for a profound philosophical shift toward "circular ethics," emphasizing moral responsibility, holistic Sustainability, and equity.

Circular ethics fundamentally shifts the focus from recycling towards more profound actions such as reducing consumption, designing durable and repairable products, and integrating systemic, cultural, and equitable considerations into economic practices (Hailemariam & Erdiaw‐Kwasie, 2022). By addressing these multidimensional concerns, circular ethics aligns with broader sustainability objectives, including Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), and SDG 13 (Climate Action).

Emphasizing social equity emerged as particularly crucial. Historically disadvantaged communities in resource-rich regions bear disproportionate environmental and social burdens from resource extraction and linear economic activities. Therefore, equitable policies and fair-trade practices must be integral to CE practices, promoting just and sustainable resource distribution (Ragas et al., 2023; Fassio & Tecco, 2019).

8.2 Actionable Recommendations

To implement circular ethics effectively, stakeholders must consider concrete policy actions, cultural shifts, and equitable reforms:

Policy Actions:

• Develop and enforce robust, standardized metrics to ensure transparency and accountability in circular economy initiatives.
• Mandate product design standards prioritizing durability, repairability, and modularity, significantly reducing waste generation and resource extraction.
• Introduce financial incentives and penalties to promote circular practices and discourage linear economic activities, clearly aligning with global sustainability targets.

Cultural Shifts:

• Integrate circular economy education into academic curricula at all levels to cultivate sustainability literacy and responsible consumer behaviour.
• Launch public awareness campaigns encouraging community participation in local repair initiatives and sustainable consumption practices, fostering systemic cultural transformation.

Equitable Reforms:

• Advocate for policies supporting ethical sourcing, fair trade practices, and investment in local circular economy infrastructure to ensure equitable economic benefits globally.
• Establish international frameworks that equitably distribute both benefits and responsibilities related to resource extraction, particularly between the Global North and Global South, promoting justice and regeneration in historically disadvantaged communities.

8.3 Call to Action for Stakeholders

To realize the full potential of circular ethics, a collective commitment from policymakers, businesses, and consumers is vital:

Policymakers: Adopt and enforce comprehensive regulations that integrate circular ethics, ensuring sustainable resource use, equitable economic participation, and global accountability. Policymakers must actively foster international cooperation to align CE practices with broader ethical sustainability goals.

Businesses: Prioritize innovation in product design, emphasizing longevity, repairability, and modularity. Businesses must transparently adopt standardized metrics, actively preventing greenwashing and genuinely aligning corporate practices with circular ethics.

Consumers: Individuals can significantly contribute by adopting sustainable consumption habits, supporting products designed for durability and repairability, and actively participating in local sustainability initiatives. Raising awareness and demanding ethical corporate accountability further reinforces systemic transformation.

By collectively embracing circular ethics, stakeholders can overcome existing CE limitations, creating a genuinely regenerative, equitable, and sustainable future benefiting both the environment and humanity.

References

A. Ahmed, Z., Mahmud, S., Acet, H. (2022). Circular economy model for developing countries: evidence from Bangladesh. Heliyon, 8(5), e09530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09530

B. Akizu-Gardoki, O., Wakiyama, T., Wiedmann, T., Bueno, G., Arto, I., Lenzen, M., López-Guede, J. M. (2021). The hidden Energy Flow indicator reflects the countries' outsourced energy requirements. Journal of Cleaner Production, 278, 123827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123827

C. Aldieri, L., Brahmi, M., Bruno, B., Vinci, C. P. (2021). Circular Economy Business Models: The Complementarities with Sharing Economy and Eco-Innovations Investments. Sustainability, 13(22), 12438. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212438

D. Amaleshwari, U., Jeevitha, R. (2023). Adopting Digital Technology to Overcome Challenges of Circular Economy: A Case Study of Platform-based Start-up in India. nan, 15(2), 30-43. https://doi.org/10.47914/jmpp.2023.v15i2.003

E. Atanasova, N., Castellar, J. A. C., Pineda-Martos, R., Nika, C. E., Katsou, E., Istenič, D., Pucher, B., Andreucci, M. B., Langergraber, G. (2021). Nature-Based Solutions and Circularity in Cities. Circular Economy and Sustainability, 1(1), 319-332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00024-1

F. Banda, K., Mwanaumo, E., Mwanza, B. G. (2023). Circular Economy: An Antidote to Municipal Solid Waste Challenges in Zambia. Nan. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109689

G. Bassi, F., Dias, J. G. (2019). The use of circular economy practices in SMEs across the EU. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 146, 523-533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.03.019

H. Bernardi, P. D., Bertello, A., Forliano, C. (2022). Circularity of food systems: a review and research agenda. British Food Journal, 125(3), 1094-1129. https://doi.org/10.1108/bfj-05-2021-0576

I. Bhattarai, S., Bhattarai, S., KC, C., GC, A. (2021). Circular Economy and its Prospects in Nepalese Agriculture. Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology, 9(1), 42-49. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v9i1.42-49.3652

J. Bocken, N., Nießen, L., Short, S. W. (2022). The Sufficiency-Based Circular Economyâ€" An Analysis of 150 Companies. Frontiers in Sustainability, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2022.899289

K. Bocken, N., Strupeit, L., Whalen, K., Nußholz, J. L. (2019). A Review and Evaluation of Circular Business Model Innovation Tools. Sustainability, 11(8), 2210. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082210

L. Bressanelli, G., Adrodegari, F., Pigosso, D. C., Parida, V. (2022). Towards the Smart Circular Economy Paradigm: A Definition, Conceptualization, and Research Agenda. Sustainability, 14(9), 4960. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14094960

M. Brockway, P. E., Saunders, H. D., Heun, M. K., Foxon, T. J., Steinberger, J., Barrett, J., Sorrell, S. (2017). Energy Rebound as a Potential Threat to a Low-Carbon Future: Findings from a New Exergy-Based National-Level Rebound Approach. Energies, 10(1), 51. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10010051

N. Bux, C., Amicarelli, V. (2022). Circular economy and sustainable strategies in the hospitality industry: Current trends and empirical implications. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 23(4), 624-636. https://doi.org/10.1177/14673584221119581

O. BuÅŸu, M. (2019). Adopting Circular Economy at the European Union Level and Its Impact on Economic Growth. Social Sciences, 8(5), 159. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8050159

P. Camacho-Otero, J., Tunn, V., Chamberlin, L., Boks, C. (2020). Consumers in the circular economy. Nan. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788972727.00014

Q. Chau, K. Y., Hong, M. P., Lin, C., Ngo, T. Q., Phan, T. T. H., Huy, P. Q. (2023). THE IMPACT OF ECONOMIC AND NON-ECONOMIC DETERMINANTS ON CIRCULAR ECONOMY IN VIETNAM: A PERSPECTIVE OF SUSTAINABLE SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 29(6), 1587-1610. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2023.19452

R. Christian, N. A., Joseph, C. (2024). Global Inequality Challenge: An Analysis of the Disparities in Wealth and Power. African Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Research, 7(2), 382-393. https://doi.org/10.52589/ajsshr-xcwus32j

S. Desing, H., Braun, G., Hischier, R. (2020). Ecological resource availability: a method to estimate resource budgets for a sustainable economy. Global Sustainability, 3. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.26

T. Dewick, P. M., Bengtsson, M., Cohen, M. J., Sarkis, J., Schröder, P. (2020). Circular economy finance: Clear winner or risky proposition? Journal of Industrial Ecology, 24(6), 1192-1200. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13025

U. Didenko, N., Klochkov, Y., Skripnuk, D. (2018). Ecological Criteria for Comparing Linear and Circular Economies. Resources, 7(3), 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources7030048

V. Dietsche, E. (2018). Political Economy and Governance. Nan, 114-136. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198817369.003.0006

W. Duncan, N. A., Loughlin, N. J., Walker, J. H., Hocking, E. P., Whitney, B. S. (2021). Pre-Columbian fire management and control of climate-driven floodwaters over 3,500 years in southwestern Amazonia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(40). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2022206118

X. Fan, Y. V., Klemeš, J. J., Lee, C. T., Tan, R. R. (2021). Demographic and socioeconomic factors, including Sustainability-related indexes in waste generation and recovery. Energy Sources Part a Recovery Utilization and Environmental Effects, 2014-01-01 00:00:00. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2021.1974610

Y. Fanning, A. L., Hickel, J. (2023). Compensation for atmospheric appropriation. Nature Sustainability, 6(9), 1077-1086. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01130-8

Z. Fassio, F., Tecco, N. (2019). Circular Economy for Food: A Systemic Interpretation of 40 Case Histories in the Food System in Their Relationships with SDGs. Systems, 7(3), 43. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems7030043

A. Fernandes, C., Veiga, P. M., Ramadani, V. (2023). Entrepreneurship as a transition to the circular economy. Environment Development and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03513-5

B. Ferronato, N., Torretta, V. (2019). Waste Mismanagement in Developing Countries: A Review of Global Issues. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(6), 1060. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16061060

C. Gao, S., Chen, Y., Chen, D., He, B., Gong, A., Hou, P., Li, K., Cui, Y. (2024). Urbanization-induced warming amplifies population exposure to compound heatwaves but narrows exposure inequality between global North and South cities. NPJ Climate and Atmospheric Science, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-024-00708-z

D. García-Quevedo, J., Jové-Llopis, E., Ros, E. M. (2020). Barriers to the circular economy in European small and medium‐sized firms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(6), 2450-2464. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2513

E. Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N., Hultink, E. J. (2017). The Circular Economy †"A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 757-768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048

F. Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N., Hultink, E. J. (2017). The Circular Economy †"A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 757-768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048

G. Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N., Hultink, E. J. (2017). The Circular Economy †"A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 757-768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048

H. Ghaithan, A. M., Alshammakhi, Y., Mohammed, A., Mazher, K. M. (2023). Integrated Impact of Circular Economy, Industry 4.0, and Lean Manufacturing on Sustainability Performance of Manufacturing Firms. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(6), 5119. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20065119

I. Ghoreishi, M., Happonen, A. (2020). New promises AI brings into circular economy accelerated product design: a review on supporting literature. E3s Web of Conferences, 158, 6002. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202015806002

J. Hailemariam, A., Erdiaw-Kwasie, M. O. (2022). Towards a circular economy: Implications for emission reduction and environmental Sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(4), 1951-1965. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3229

K. Hidayah, R. A., Handayani, I. G. A. K. R., Muhdar, M. (2024). Policy Conflicts Regarding Natural Resource Extraction and Climate Change. Nan, 124-129. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-218-7_19

L. Kaur, R. (2023). Impact of Circular Economy on Sustainable Fashion: Opportunities and Challenges. International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology, 11(9), 59-63. https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2023.55602

M. Knysh, V., Ponomarenko, T. V. (2021). The institutional environment of extractive industries as a driver of sustainable development in resource-driven economies. E3s Web of Conferences, 296, 6010. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202129606010

N. Li, Y., Hu, Y., Li, L., Zheng, J., Yin, Y., Fu, S. (2022). Drivers and outcomes of circular economy implementation: evidence from China. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 123(4), 1178-1197. https://doi.org/10.1108/imds-05-2022-0267

O. Lima, M., Gayó, E. M., Latorre, C., Santoro, C. M., Estay, S. A., Cañellas-BoltÃ, N., Margalef, O., Giralt, S., Sáez, A., Pla-Rabès, S., Stenseth, N. C. (2020). Ecology of the collapse of Rapa Nui society. Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences, 287(1929), 20200662. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.0662

P. Linder, M., Sarasini, S., Loon, P. v. (2017). A Metric for Quantifying Product‐Level Circularity. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(3), 545-558. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12552

Q. Liu, J. (2018). The Asian Criminological Paradigm and How It Links Global North and South: Combining an Extended Conceptual Toolbox from the North with Innovative Asian Contexts. Nan, 61-82. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65021-0_4

R. Liu, Q., Trevisan, A. H., Yang, M., Mascarenhas, J. (2022). A framework of digital technologies for the circular economy: Digital functions and mechanisms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(5), 2171-2192. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3015

S. Mah, A. (2021). Future-Proofing Capitalism: The Paradox of the Circular Economy for Plastics. Global Environmental Politics, 21(2), 121-142. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00594

T. Makov, T., Vivanco, D. F. (2018). Does the Circular Economy Grow the Pie? The Case of Rebound Effects From Smartphone Reuse. Frontiers in Energy Research, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2018.00039

U. Maria, M. (2022). Proposing a Strategic Framework to Accelerate Circular Economic Practices: Strengthening the Willingness to Participate of the Young Generations as Agents of Change. Journal of International Conference Proceedings, 206-223. https://doi.org/10.32535/jicp.v5i4.1950

V. Mashovic, A., Ignjatović, J., Kisin, J. (2022). Circular Economy as an Imperative of Sustainable Development in North Macedonia and Serbia. Ecologica, 29(106), 169-177. https://doi.org/10.18485/ecologica.2022.29.106.5

W. Mashovic, A., Ignjatović, J., Kisin, J. (2022). Circular Economy as an Imperative of Sustainable Development in North Macedonia and Serbia. Ecologica, 29(106), 169-177. https://doi.org/10.18485/ecologica.2022.29.106.5

X. Muradin, M., Foltynowicz, Z. (2019). The Circular Economy in the Standardized Management System. WWW Amfiteatrueconomic Ro, 21(Special 13), 871. https://doi.org/10.24818/ea/2019/s13/871

Y. Muriithi, J. K., Ngare, I. (2023). Transitioning circular economy from policy to practice in Kenya. Frontiers in Sustainability, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2023.1190470

Z. Muriithi, J. K., Ngare, I. (2023). Transitioning circular economy from policy to practice in Kenya. Frontiers in Sustainability, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2023.1190470

A. Negrete-Cardoso, M., Rosano-Ortega, G., Álvarez-Aros, Ã. L., Cortés, M. E. T., Lebrún, C. A. V., Sánchez-Ruiz, F. (2022). Circular economy strategy and waste management: a bibliometric analysis in its contribution to sustainable development, toward a post-COVID-19 era. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(41), 61729-61746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-18703-3

B. Nockur, L., Pfattheicher, S., Keller, J. (2022). From asymmetric to symmetric consumption opportunities: Extractions from common resources by privileged and underprivileged group members. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 26(8), 1819-1840. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302221132722

C. Nowicki, P., Ćwiklicki, M., Kafel, P., Niezgoda, J., Wojnarowska, M. (2023). The circular economy and its benefits for pro‐environmental companies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(7), 4584-4599. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3382

D. Owusu, K. A., Kulesz, M. M., Merico, A. (2021). Communication Among Harvesters Leads to Sustainable Fishing Behaviour in a Continuous Time Common Pool Resource Experiment. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.644056

E. O’Born, R., Heimdal, A. (2022). EXPERIENCES FROM TEACHING CIRCULAR ECONOMY CONCEPTS TO ENGINEERING STUDENTS. Nan. https://doi.org/10.35199/epde.2022.76

F. Panwar, R., Niesten, E. (2020). Advancing Circular Economy. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(6), 2890-2892. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2602

G. Plebankiewicz, E. (2022). The role of public procurement in implementing the circular economy in construction. Inżynieria Bezpieczeństwa Obiektów Antropogenicznych(4), 69-78. https://doi.org/10.37105/iboa.160

H. Polyportis, A., Magnier, L., Mugge, R. (2022). Guidelines to Foster Consumer Acceptance of Products Made from Recycled Plastics. Circular Economy and Sustainability, 3(2), 939-952. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-022-00202-9

I. Poponi, S., Arcese, G., Mosconi, E. M., Trifiletti, M. A. d. (2020). Entrepreneurial Drivers for the Development of the Circular Business Model: The Role of Academic Spin-Off. Sustainability, 12(1), 423. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010423

J. Ragas, A., Chupin, A., Bolsunovskaya, M., Leksashov, A., Shirokova, S., Сенотрусова, Ð. (2023). Accelerating Sustainable and Economic Development via Scientific Project Risk Management Model of Industrial Facilities. Sustainability, 15(17), 12942. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151712942

K. Rakesh, C., Harika, A., Chahuan, N., Sharma, N., Zabibah, R. S., Nagpal, A. (2023). Towards a Circular Economy: Challenges and Opportunities for Recycling and Remanufacturing of Materials and Components. E3s Web of Conferences, 430, 1129. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202343001129

L. Renfors, S., Wendt, T. (2024). Restaurants without Bins: How Does a Circular Restaurant Operate? Sustainability, 16(6), 2312. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16062312

M. Rizos, V., Behrens, A., Gaast, W. v. d., Hofman, E., Ιωάννου, Î., Kafyeke, T., Flamos, A., Rinaldi, R., Papadelis, S., Hirschnitz-Garbers, M., Topi, C. (2016). Implementation of Circular Economy Business Models by Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs): Barriers and Enablers. Sustainability, 8(11), 1212. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8111212

N. Romero-Hernández, O., Romero, S. (2018). Maximizing the value of waste: From waste management to the circular economy. Thunderbird International Business Review, 60(5), 757-764. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.21968

O. Rutkowski, J., Rutkowski, E. W. (2017). Recycling in Brasil: Paper and Plastic Supply Chain. Resources, 6(3), 43. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources6030043

P. Selicati, V., Cardinale, N. (2023). Sustainability Assessment Techniques and Potential Sustainability Accreditation Tools for Energy-Product Systems Modelling. Journal of Sustainability for Energy, 2(1), 2018-01-01 00:00:00. https://doi.org/10.56578/jse020101

Q. Shaharudin, M. R., Mokhtar, A. R. M., Wararatchai, P., Legino, R. (2022). Circular Supply Chain Management and Circular Economy: A conceptual model. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 7(SI7), 31-37. https://doi.org/10.21834/ebpj.v7isi7.3762

R. Shivarov, A. (2020). Circular Economy: Limitations of the Concept and Application Challenges. Izvestia Journal of the Union of Scientists - Varna Economic Sciences Series, 9(3), 144-152. https://doi.org/10.36997/ijusv-ess/2020.9.3.144

S. Solodovnik, A., Savkin, V., Сидоренко, Ð., Buraeva, E., Bogachev, A. I. (2022). Improving the environmental management system to ensure sustainable development of the agricultural sector in a circular economy. Top Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science, 981(2), 22038. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/981/2/022038

T. StoÅ¡ić, I., melcerović, M. Å. (2023). THE PATH TOWARDS THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY AND SUSTAINABILITY IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY: A CASE STUDY OF SERBIA. Science International Journal, 2(3), 15-21. https://doi.org/10.35120/sciencej0203015s

U. Sulich, A., Sołoducho-Pelc, L. (2021). The circular economy and the creation of Green Jobs. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(10), 14231-14247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16562-y

V. SöylemezoÄŸlu, F., Öz, B., EÄŸilmez, R., Pekmezci, M., Bozkurt, S., Danyeli, A. E., Öngürü, Ã., Kulaç, Ä., Tihan, T. (2022). Towards the development of a standard terminology of the World Health Organization classification of tumours of the central nervous system in the Turkish language and a perspective on the practical implications of the WHO classification for low and middle-income countries. Turkish Journal of Pathology. https://doi.org/10.5146/tjpath.2022.01584

W. Tashtamirov, M. (2023). The circular economy and regional economic development. E3s Web of Conferences, 431, 7003. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202343107003

X. Ting, L. S., Zailani, S., Sidek, N. Z. M., Shaharudin, M. R. (2023). Motivators and barriers of circular economy business model adoption and its impact on sustainable production in Malaysia. Environment Development and Sustainability, 26(7), 17551-17578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03350-6

Y. Upadhyay, A., Mukhuty, S., Kumar, V., Kazançoğlu, Y. (2021). Blockchain technology and the circular economy: Implications for Sustainability and social responsibility. Journal of Cleaner Production, 293, 126130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126130

Z. VERAL, E. S. (2019). Atık Yönetiminde Döngüsel Ekonomi Modeli ve Döngülerin Tasarımına İlişkin Bir Değerlendirme. European Journal of Science and Technology, 18-27. https://doi.org/10.31590/ejosat.479333

A. Vivanco, D. F., Freire-González, J., Galvin, R., Santarius, T., Walnum, H. J., Makov, T., Sala, S. (2022). Rebound effect and sustainability science: A review. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 26(4), 1543-1563. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13295

B. Yang, Y., Zhou, Y., Shan, Y., Hubacek, K. (2024). The shift of embodied energy flows among the Global South and Global North in the post-globalization era. Energy Economics, 131, 107408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2024.107408

C. Zamfir, A., Mocanu, C., Grigorescu, A. (2017). Circular Economy and Decision Models among European SMEs. Sustainability, 9(9), 1507. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091507

D. Zendehdel, K., Sloboda, B. W., Horner, E. C. (2021). Economic Impact Analysis of Farmers’ Markets in the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area: Evidence of a Circular Economy. Sustainability, 13(13), 7333. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137333

E. Zhou, Y., Li, J., Wei, W., Cui, Q., He, L. L. (2021). Analysis of the Economy-Wide Rebound Effect of Water Efficiency Improvement in China Based on a Multi-Sectoral Computable General Equilibrium Analysis. Water, 13(21), 2963. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13212963

F. Zotti, J., Bigano, A. (2019). Write circular economy, read economy’s circularity. How to avoid going in circles. Economia Politica, 36(2), 629-652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40888-019-00145-9

G. Zulkifli, Z., Napu, F., Hakim, A., Murini, M. (2024). Bibliometric Analysis on the Role of Sustainable Entrepreneurship in Addressing Circular Economy Challenges. West Science Interdisciplinary Studies, 2(2), 458-466. https://doi.org/10.58812/wsis.v2i02.679

H. Özçatalbaş, O. (2023). An Evaluation of the Transition from Linear Economy to Circular Economy. Nan. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107980

I. Èšurcan, I., Èšurcan, R., Stratila, A. (2023). Digitalization and its role in the development of circular economy business models. Nan, 103-109. https://doi.org/10.52326/csd2023.16