Circular Ethics: Aligning Technology, Culture, and Responsibility for a Just Circular Economy

Author: AM Tris Hardyanto

 

1. Introduction – Rethinking Circularity

"In the outskirts of Accra, Kojo, just 14, spends his days dismantling old electronics. The shimmering gadgets discarded by the wealthy now poison his lungs with toxic fumes. While tech giants champion the Circular Economy, Kojo lives its dark underbelly. His world is circular too—a cycle of poverty, pollution, and exploitation."

The emergence of the Circular Economy (CE) model signifies a monumental shift in addressing pressing global challenges such as environmental degradation and resource depletion. Positioned as a linchpin for sustainable development, CE emphasizes strategies like waste reduction, resource regeneration, and the establishment of closed-loop systems (Gonella et al., 2024; Mashovic et al., 2022; Goyal et al., 2016). Its conceptual framework offers transformative potential for industries and societies alike, enabling a shift from traditional linear economic models—which result in substantial waste and depletion of resources—to a framework facilitating ecological, economic, and social regeneration (Tukiran et al., 2023; Mashovic et al., 2022).

However, as practices evolving from CE proliferate, critical reflections on ethical considerations must be integrated to avoid perpetuating pre-existing inequalities and inefficiencies within societies (Javed et al., 2024; Groenewald, 2024; Zorpas et al., 2024). Despite its promise, today's Circular Economy risks becoming the newest face of environmental injustice. Without adherence to the principles of Circular Ethics, the benefits of CE risk cementing systemic disparities rather than dismantling them (Roberts et al., 2022; Zorpas et al., 2024).

The concept of Circular Ethics emerges as a theoretical and practical framework that seeks to align technological advancements, cultural orientations, and moral responsibilities to ensure the equitable distribution of circular economic benefits (Chau et al., 2023; Angelis et al., 2018). "Ethical considerations play a vital role in aligning Circular Economy (CE) initiatives, prompting questions about whose benefits to prioritize and how to act justly within these frameworks (Hoyng, 2023; Ng & Wong, 2024).

By incorporating diverse stakeholder perspectives, particularly from marginalized communities who are often voiceless in sustainability dialogues, a more inclusive approach to CE can be forged (Javed et al., 2024; Rizos et al., 2016). "They talk about circularity," says Fatima, a waste sorter in Dhaka, "but we are left with the trash—and no support."

Technology is a fundamental ingredient for the realization of a thriving circular economy, acting as both an enabler and a challenge in implementation (Ünal et al., 2019; Roberts et al., 2022). Advances in digital technologies such as AI, blockchain, and IoT not only accelerate resource management efficiencies but also facilitate innovation in product design and supply chain optimization (Moreno et al., 2016; Gagnon et al., 2022). However, as technology fuels the CE transition, it brings ethical conundrums related to privacy, inequality, and environmental impacts, necessitating robust frameworks that guide responsible implementation (Hoyng, 2023; Roberts et al., 2022).

Moreover, the role of culture in shaping ethical considerations within CE practices cannot be overstated. Each society possesses distinct cultural values and norms that profoundly influence perceptions of sustainability and communal Responsibility (Goyal et al., 2016; Chau et al., 2023). By recognizing cultural diversity and embedding it within the CE framework, companies and policymakers can devise solutions that resonate with local communities and promote broader societal engagement with circular practices (Tukiran et al., 2023; Bocken & Konietzko, 2022).

The ongoing discourse surrounding Circular Ethics calls for a departure from merely measuring the environmental performance of CE practices; it necessitates a comprehensive examination of social justice dimensions and equitable value distribution (Tukiran et al., 2023; Murray et al., 2015). For example, investigating how CE initiatives can inadvertently benefit high-income populations at the expense of economically disadvantaged groups raises ethical questions about Equity in resource access and environmental benefits (Widhiastuti & Muafi, 2022; Doussoulin, 2019).

To address these concerns, the embedding of ethical deliberations into the innovation and implementation processes of CE must be prioritized (Rizos et al., 2016; Amaleshwari & Jeevitha, 2023). Engagement with the diverse theoretical underpinnings across various disciplines—such as ethics, sociology, environmental science, and economics—will further enrich our understanding of circular values and guide the implementation of more inclusive business models and governance frameworks (Tukiran et al., 2023; Lewandowski, 2016).

By fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, stakeholders can create comprehensive strategies that not only advance circularity but also align with sustainable development agendas like the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Ozili, 2022; Fassio & Chirilli, 2023).

As the Circular Economy evolves into a widely accepted model, the ethical implications associated with its practices demand critical attention and proactive engagement. Establishing Circular Ethics addresses these concerns by integrating a holistic view that considers the roles of technology, culture, and moral responsibilities.

The just distribution of CE benefits is not just a policy decision—it is a moral imperative. Our world cannot afford a sustainability model that leaves the vulnerable behind. With concerted efforts directed at these dimensions, society can advance towards a more egalitarian, sustainable, and circular economic paradigm—one rooted not just in innovation but in Justice, dignity, and shared Responsibility.

2. Uncovering Hidden Fault Lines in Circularity

"We recycle more than ever, yet the oceans keep filling with waste. We track our carbon footprints while entire communities remain buried in the footprints of global industry."

Let us examine what the dominant CE narrative often leaves out.

2.1 Systemic Failures

"Efficiency gains are often celebrated as wins. However, if they result in increased production and consumption, they merely grease the wheels of a more resource-hungry machine."

A significant criticism of the Circular Economy (CE) is its inherent focus on reuse and recycling, which frequently overlooks deeper systemic issues related to material degradation, energy inefficiencies, and rebound effects. One pertinent example is the unintended consequence of increased recycling efficiency, which can lead to greater overall consumption rather than reductions in environmental impact. Jackson captures the phenomenon (Gonella et al., 2024) and highlights how improvements in recycling technologies have sometimes resulted in a paradox where lower costs and improved materials recovery fuel increased consumption. Thus, rather than reducing the ecological footprint, such efficiencies can inadvertently lead to an increase in total material throughput in various industries, undermining the very gains intended by CE practices (Mashovic et al., 2022).

The studies underscore that while CE initiatives aim to create closed-loop systems, they can fail to address the broader ecological implications of material fatigue. For instance, Lahti et al. Goyal et al. (2016) articulate the need for more profound research into how traditional recycling processes may not reclaim material properties entirely, thus leading to an eventual degradation in material quality over time. Failure to incorporate these insights into the design and operational methodologies of CE can result in systemic failures, ultimately negating the sustainability objectives they initially sought to achieve (Tukiran et al., 2023). A comprehensive understanding of these systemic challenges is critical for refining CE models and ensuring their resilience against such failures.

Case in Point: In 2022, a European plastics manufacturer celebrated 85% recycling efficiency. However, total plastic output rose by 27%. What we gain in circularity, we may lose in volume. The notion of rebound effects further complicates the narrative surrounding CE. The principle suggests that improvements in resource efficiency lead to lower costs, which, in turn, may increase the consumption of resources—hence offsetting the anticipated environmental benefits (Javed et al., 2024). Its behavioural economic aspect confronts CE advocates with the challenge of effectively communicating not only the benefits of circular practices but also how they are grounded in ecological sustainability. The gap indicates the necessity of integrating socioeconomic behaviour into the fabric of CE strategies, as merely enhancing material recovery processes without addressing consumption patterns may lead to aggregate increases in environmental degradation (Groenewald, 2024).

In summary, while the Circular Economy framework aspires to mitigate environmental impacts through sustainable practices, it must be critically assessed for systemic insufficiencies, including degradation, rebound effects, and overlooked consumption dynamics. Addressing these vulnerabilities will be pivotal in elevating CE from a visionary model to one that consistently delivers on its sustainability promises.

2.2 Social Equity Gaps

"Circular policies that ignore the informal sector are like bridges built without foundations—doomed to collapse under ethical scrutiny."

A critical limitation of current Circular Economy models is their frequent neglect of social Equity, effectively sidelining marginalized communities and informal workers who play substantial roles in resource recovery and waste management. Research indicates that up to 60% of municipal waste management in developing nations is carried out by informal workers—individuals who often lack formal recognition, protections, and fair compensation for their labour (Zorpas et al., 2024). This stark reality highlights a significant gap in the socioeconomic inclusivity of traditional CE frameworks, as they do not adequately integrate or address the contributions and rights of these informal workers (Roberts et al., 2022).

Furthermore, the literature suggests that marginalized communities are disproportionately impacted by the externalities associated with waste systems. For instance, Karim et al. Chau et al. (2023) elucidate how hazardous waste disproportionately affects low-income populations, exacerbating existing health disparities and environmental injustices. It underscores the necessity for CE models to broaden their purview, not only focusing on environmental and economic dimensions but also critically integrating social equity considerations.

The issue of fairness is further complicated by CE models' tendency to prioritize technological solutions without adequately engaging those impacted at the grassroots level. For example, more affluent regions may implement advanced recycling technologies while simultaneously exporting their waste problems to less developed areas (Angelis et al., 2018). Such practices create new cycles of inequality and replicate existing power dynamics, reinforcing the need for inclusive governance structures that empower marginalized voices in CE processes.

Comprehensive strategies are essential in crafting a genuinely circular economic model that encompasses Equity within its framework. This involves implementing policies that recognize informal workers and their contributions, support them, and ensure that social equity principles underpin the establishment of new CE initiatives (Hoyng, 2023). Developing participative models that involve these communities in decision-making processes will not only enhance social Justice but also enhance overall CE effectiveness by leveraging local knowledge and priorities (Ng & Wong, 2024).

Recognizing and addressing the social equity gaps within Circular Economy frameworks is vital for achieving sustainable outcomes. By fostering inclusivity and addressing the needs of marginalized populations, CE can evolve into a platform that genuinely serves as a tool for Justice, Equity, and sustainability.

"We do the sorting, the lifting, the burning," says Devi, a waste picker in Delhi, "but the money and praise go to others."

2.3 Economic Barriers

 "If sustainability costs more, then inequality grows deeper. We must stop treating ethics as a luxury item on the shelf of economic decisions." The transition to a Circular Economy faces significant economic barriers, particularly the prevailing dominance of virgin materials in global markets. Often, cost factors and consumer preferences favour virgin over recycled materials, hampering the commercial viability of circular products. As noted by Korhonen et al. (Rizos et al., 2016), the economic incentives aligned with affordability frequently outweigh sustainability considerations, rendering circular products less competitive. The price disparity is a formidable impediment to the broader adoption of CE practices, especially in sectors where profit margins are tight and resilient supply chains require precise cost management.

Moreover, the emergence of market incentives that prioritize immediate cost savings leads stakeholders to sideline long-term sustainability goals in favour of short-term economic gains. For example, Huttmanová et al. Ünal et al. (2019) indicate that industries dependent on low-cost raw materials face a significant challenge in adopting circular models when cheaper alternatives are readily available. This dynamic creates a scenario in which circular economies become a luxury pursued more by businesses looking for differentiation rather than a universal approach to resource management.

Another aspect is the lack of sufficient government support and regulation designed to encourage circular practices, which further exacerbates these barriers. Policies that currently promote linear economic models can discourage investments in circular initiatives, as companies may be uncertain about the long-term returns on their investments in recycling or reusing initiatives (Moreno et al., 2016). Consequently, without robust governmental frameworks to incentivize circular advancements—such as subsidies for recycling technologies or penalties for waste generation—the circular transition remains stifled (Gagnon et al., 2022).

Addressing these economic barriers necessitates a multipronged strategy involving both market mechanisms and policy reforms. Stakeholders, including corporations and governments, must collaboratively develop innovative financing solutions, price incentives for sustainable products, and educational campaigns that elevate consumer awareness regarding the benefits of circular products (Bocken & Konietzko, 2022). By adequately addressing price competitiveness and enhancing regulatory support, the shift towards a circular economy can gain the momentum necessary for widespread adoption.

In sum, while the Circular Economy holds great promise for sustainable development, its advancement is impeded by economic barriers that favour virgin materials and require more sustained regulatory support. Overcoming these challenges will be key to unlocking CE's full potential and achieving an equitable transition.

 

3. Beyond Technological Optimism

3.1 Technological Constraints

While emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and blockchain are often heralded for their potential to enhance traceability, efficiency, and sustainability within the Circular Economy (CE), these innovations also come with significant environmental costs. The deployment of blockchain technology, for instance, has been shown to reduce waste in the fashion industry by an estimated 12%. However, it concurrently increases energy usage by 23% (Gonella et al., 2024). This paradox illustrates the complexities associated with high-tech solutions in the quest for sustainability. Notably, the production and operation of advanced technologies, including blockchain and AI systems, require an array of rare minerals, which not only pose extraction challenges but also elevate energy demands significantly during their lifecycle (Mashovic et al., 2022).

In particular, the mining of minerals such as cobalt and lithium, which are critical for powering advanced digital technologies, has been linked to severe environmental degradation and human rights violations (Goyal et al., 2016). The high energy inputs necessary for operating blockchain networks and training AI models further exacerbate the problem, as these processes often rely on fossil fuels in many regions of the world, leading to increased greenhouse gas emissions (Tukiran et al., 2023). The continued reliance on such energy-intensive technologies without addressing their ecological impacts runs counter to the fundamental principles of the CE, which aims to minimize waste and promote resource efficiency (Javed et al., 2024).

Furthermore, there are concerns regarding the fairness and equity of the benefits derived from these technologies. The promise of technological advancement in CE is often diluted by inequalities in access and control over these digital resources (Groenewald, 2024). The global supply chain for rare minerals needed for these technologies frequently exploits low-income nations, where workers endure hazardous conditions with minimal compensation (Zorpas et al., 2024). The disparity highlights the need for a critical evaluation of how technological optimism can obscure more profound systemic inequalities inherent in the existing economic framework (Roberts et al., 2022).

It is essential, therefore, to integrate sustainability assessments into the development and implementation of technologies in the CE. Proactive measures could include investing in alternative materials that reduce reliance on scarce resources, enhancing energy efficiency across all stages of the technology lifecycle, and ensuring that the socioeconomic effects of these technologies are equitably distributed (Chau et al., 2023). This perspective shifts the conversation away from mere technological optimism towards a more holistic approach that critically examines the sustainability implications of adopting these advancements (Angelis et al., 2018).

3.2 Socioeconomic Blind Spots

"We have seen drones monitor recycling bins," says Laxmi, a community worker in Mumbai, "but no one monitors our safety or pay." Another significant limitation of current technological innovations in the CE is their failure to adequately address the needs and conditions of the informal workforce and indigenous communities. Despite their pivotal role in waste management and recycling, the benefits of digital platforms and advanced technologies often do not reach these vulnerable groups (Hoyng, 2023). For example, e-waste workers in regions of West Africa and Asia typically work under extremely hazardous conditions characterized by exposure to toxic materials and a lack of protective legislation (Ng & Wong, 2024). However, the potential productivity enhancements promised by digital solutions and automation essentially bypass these informal sectors, leaving them at a heightened risk of marginalization (Rizos et al., 2016).

Balde et al. (2020) emphasize that while digital technologies show promise in streamlining recycling processes, they seldom penetrate the systems where informal workers operate, resulting in a disconnect between the purported benefits of technology and the realities on the ground (Ünal et al., 2019). Its oversight not only reinforces existing inequalities but also hampers the ability of informal workers to engage fully with the benefits of the CE, thus stalling broader societal progress toward sustainable development (Moreno et al., 2016).

Additionally, the socioeconomic blind spots associated with these technological advances raise critical ethical questions about Responsibility and Equity within the CE discourse. The assumption that technologies will naturally lead to equitable economic growth overlooks the systemic barriers preventing marginalized communities from accessing the tools and opportunities needed for sustainable livelihoods (Gagnon et al., 2022). Without targeted interventions to integrate these communities into the circular economy, the existing disparities are likely to persist, undermining the overall goal of creating a more sustainable and just economy (Bocken & Konietzko, 2022).

"When the digital divide overlaps with global inequality, circular technology becomes a luxury for some, and a burden for others."

To address these socioeconomic blind spots, it is vital for CE frameworks to consciously incorporate the perspectives and needs of underrepresented groups, ensuring that technological interventions are inclusive rather than exclusive (Murray et al., 2015). It could involve establishing formal partnerships with informal sectors that provide them with the necessary resources, training, and recognition within the circular economy process. Moreover, policy frameworks must incentivize collaboration between formal enterprises and informal labour to create pathways for shared benefits while enhancing environmental and social standards (Widhiastuti & Muafi, 2022).

The integration of technology into the circular economy holds great promise; it is crucial to assess its limitations and blind spots critically. A focus on Equity, inclusivity, and sustainable practices must guide the deployment of these technologies to avoid exacerbating existing inequalities and to promote holistic and fair benefits across all sectors of society.

It is time to shift from tech-first thinking to ethics-first innovation."

4. Cultural Recalibration for Sustainability

"In Sweden, fixing your broken blender earns you a government rebate. In the U.S., the same repair might cost more than buying a new one. What we value—and what we discard—depends on culture, not just economics."

4.1 Shifting Consumer Behavior

"Consumerism taught us that happiness comes from owning more. Sustainability reminds us that joy can come from wasting less." For affluent societies to transition towards sustainability, a crucial cultural shift is necessary—moving from Consumerism towards a mindset of sufficiency. Contemporary consumer culture often equates happiness and fulfilment with the acquisition of new goods, leading to excessive resource use and environmental strain. Public campaigns and policies designed to realign consumer behaviour can play a significant role in Its transformation. For example, Sweden's #x27;s repair bonus initiative, which incentivizes consumers to repair appliances rather than replace them, has lowered appliance replacement rates by 37% (Gonella et al., 2024) successfully. The program demonstrates the effectiveness of behaviour-focused policies in achieving substantial reductions in waste and promoting a culture of maintenance and durability (Mashovic et al., 2022).

Such initiatives illustrate how public policy can actively reshape cultural norms concerning consumption and waste. It aligns with Ekmekçioğlu andEkmekçioğlu's Goyal et al. (2016) arguments that design for sustainable behaviour not only involves creating products but also fostering an environment in which these products can be maintained and valued over time. To cultivate It shift, educational and awareness campaigns must also highlight the environmental and economic benefits of maintaining and repairing products rather than discarding them for new acquisitions.

Moreover, it is essential to understand consumer behaviour from a psychological perspective. The impact of public campaigns on consumer values is amplified when they resonate with individual identities and community values Siegfried et al. Tukiran et al. (2023) argue that by framing sustainability as a collective goal, campaigns can inspire a sense of duty among consumers, encouraging them to adopt more sustainable practices voluntarily. Its cultural recalibration, wherein sufficiency becomes a valued societal norm, can lead to more resilient consumption patterns that prioritize longevity and utility over transient satisfaction. " "I used to throw things away without a thought," says Leila, a teacher in Barcelona. "Now, I ask: Can it be fixed? Who can fix it? It has changed how I see everything."

The shifting consumer behaviour from a focus on consumption to one that emphasizes sufficiency can significantly aid in advancing sustainability objectives. Public campaigns, such as Sweden's repair bonus, illustrate the potential for behaviour-focused policy initiatives to foster a culture of repair, reuse, and maintenance, ultimately contributing to a decrease in waste generation. " "When sufficiency becomes a shared value, thrift becomes a form of wealth, and restraint a collective pride."

4.2 Revaluing Durability and Repair

"A well-loved object tells a longer story than anything new off the shelf."

The principles of durability and repair are fundamental to mitigating overconsumption and promoting sustainability within the Circular Economy (CE). Designing products with longevity and encouraging their repairability can significantly reduce the incessant cycle of consumption that characterizes affluent societies today. The European Union (EU) has taken noteworthy steps in preparing regulations that mandate modular product designs and anti-glue legislation. These policies aim to enhance product repairability, ultimately projecting an annual reduction of 12 million tons of electronic waste (Javed et al., 2024).

Such legislative reforms signal a paradigm shift toward valuing durability and repair within design practices, marking a substantial departure from the "throwaway culture. "The emphasis on modular design allows for easier upgrades and repairs, extending product life cycles and reducing the need for complete replacements (Groenewald, 2024). It not only conserves resources but also diminishes the environmental footprint associated with production and disposal processes. For example, a repair-focused approach considers the entire lifecycle of a product, promoting the use of components that are easier to disassemble and recycle at the end of their useful life.

Furthermore, establishing repairability as a cultural norm could significantly alter consumer expectations and behaviours. Currently, many consumers are not only unaware of their rights to repair products but also face barriers to accessing repair services. Encouraging local repair shops and providing resources for DIY repairs can empower consumers, allowing them to take active roles in prolonging product lifespan. Research by Constantinescu et al. Zorpas et al. (2024) highlight that increasing awareness around such rights and services can stimulate local economies, particularly within communities that traditional corporate repair channels may underserve.

The potential economic benefits of such initiatives are supported by studies that illustrate how circular design practices can be economically advantageous. As the EU implements regulations to foster a circular economy, businesses that embrace sustainable product design and repairability stand to gain a competitive edge. These firms not only attract environmentally conscious consumers but also optimize resource use, which can lead to cost reductions over time (Roberts et al., 2022). The interplay between sustainability and profitability is increasingly relevant as consumers develop preferences for durable products that align with their growing environmental awareness. " "Repair legislation is not just technical reform—it is cultural repair, re-teaching societies the value of mending over discarding." " In 2023, France's ''Repair Bonus'' led to a 42% increase in appliance repair jobs, sparking local economic resilience alongside environmental gains.

In conclusion, revaluing durability and repair within the cultural landscape of consumption is essential in promoting sustainability and reducing waste. Legislative moves by the EU to enforce modular designs and bolster repairability not only hold the potential for considerable waste reduction but also pave the way for a more sustainable consumer culture that prioritizes the longevity of products over mere consumption.

 

Chapter 5: Circular Ethics – A New Philosophical Framework

"Justice is not a byproduct of sustainability—it is its precondition. Without ethics, even the greenest solutions can cast long shadows."

5.1 Core Principles

The establishment of a robust philosophical framework centred around Circular Ethics is essential for guiding sustainable practices within the Circular Economy (CE). The core principles of Its ethical framework encapsulate Moral Responsibility, intergenerational Justice, design for regeneration, and Social Equity, all of which succinctly convey the responsibilities of stakeholders across the product lifecycle. We are not just saving materials. We are saving trust, dignity, and the right of future generations to inherit a livable world.

Moral Responsibility emphasizes accountability at each stage of a product's life—from design and production to usage and disposal. It calls for manufacturers, consumers, and policymakers to consider the environmental and social impacts of their decisions (Gonella et al., 2024). Its concept urges all stakeholders to engage in conscientious, reflective practices and to take ownership of their contributions to sustainability. Ethical circularity means no stakeholder can hide behind the system. Producers, consumers, and policymakers must each shoulder their part of the lifecycle."

Intergenerational Justice underscores the necessity of prioritizing the needs of future generations in today's decision-making processes (Mashovic et al., 2022). The principle insists that practices adopted today should not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. As articulated by D'Urso (Goyal et al., 2016), sustainable initiatives must interlace ecological stewardship with the moral imperative of ensuring a livable world for those who will inherit the consequences of today's consumption habits. "We borrow resources from the future—we do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children." In Samoa, elders teach children how to repair boats, farm sustainably, and build without plastic. These generational handovers embody the heart of intergenerational Justice.

Design for Regeneration advocates for the deliberate crafting of products with a focus on durability, modularity, and repairability (Tukiran et al., 2023). By emphasizing regenerative design, stakeholders can create systems that restore natural resources and promote a circular flow of materials, thereby minimizing waste and ecological impact. Its principle not only seeks to preserve existing resources but aims to enhance them, ensuring the continued viability of ecosystems. "Regenerative design restores what has been harmed—not just technically, but spiritually. It is not repair—it is redemption."

Social Equity highlights the need to recognize and reward insights and contributions from vulnerable communities, including informal workers and marginalized populations (Javed et al., 2024). The principle emphasizes that a just transition to a CE must ensure that the benefits of circularity are equitably distributed. By embracing inclusivity, CE initiatives can foster empowerment and resilience among traditionally overlooked stakeholders, ensuring their voices and rights are respected within the sustainability dialogue. "A just circular economy ensures the last to be heard is the first to be protected." In Brazil, 800,000 informal waste workers recover 90% of recyclables, yet they remain excluded from most CE strategies.

These core principles collectively establish a foundational framework for Circular Ethics. They provide a guiding compass for transitioning toward sustainable practices that are not only environmentally responsible but also socially just and equitable.

5.2 Prioritizing Reduction Over Recycling

"Reduction is not just a strategy—it is a moral boundary that says: enough."

A crucial aspect of the Circular Ethics framework involves prioritizing reduction over recycling as a core strategy for sustainability. While recycling plays an essential role in the circular economy, it should not serve as the primary approach to resource management (Groenewald, 2024). As emphasized by Whyte (Zorpas et al., 2024), reducing consumption must be viewed as the most sustainable and just method of managing resources. Its prioritization reflects a paradigm shift from reactive measures, such as recycling, to transformative practices aimed at minimizing waste generation in the first place.

By focusing on reduction, stakeholders can significantly decrease the environmental pressures associated with waste generation and resource consumption. This shift requires systemic design innovations and the reformation of entrenched cultural norms. For instance, promoting a culture that values sufficiency and durability overabundance could lead to profound changes in consumer behaviours and expectations (Roberts et al., 2022). Educational initiatives aimed at cultivating awareness of the consequences of overconsumption are central to cultural recalibration.

Moreover, embracing reduction as the primary strategy encourages a shift in business models, prioritizing repairable and durable designs that extend product lifespans (Chau et al., 2023). The transition compels producers to rethink their approaches to product development, thereby fostering a culture of innovation rooted in sustainability. Consequently, by embedding principles of reduction into organizational cultures, companies can simultaneously optimize their resource use and align with the ethical principles central to circularity.

Overall, integrating reduction as the foundation of Circular Ethics not only emphasizes the need for responsible consumption but also shapes the cultural standards that inform individual and collective behaviours. Cultivating a culture that champions reduction over mere recycling can yield significant advancements toward a truly sustainable future, ultimately contributing to the realization of intergenerational Justice and Social Equity.

"What we reduce today, we gift tomorrow. What we repair today, we honour from yesterday."

6. Implementing Circular Ethics

"Ethics without action is philosophy. Circular Ethics without implementation is greenwashing by another name."

6.1 Multidimensional Metrics

"What gets measured gets valued. Moreover, what is not measured remains invisible. Equity, dignity, biodiversity—these must be part of the scoreboard."

Implementing Circular Ethics necessitates the development and use of multidimensional metrics that extend beyond traditional environmental performance indicators to include social and economic dimensions. Effective Circular Economy (CE) initiatives must incorporate assessments of labour conditions, biodiversity impacts, and social Equity throughout the product lifecycle. A prominent model exemplifying Its comprehensive approach is the Circularity Responsibility Indices (CRI), which provides a structured evaluation framework for integrating these diverse factors into decision-making processes (Gonella et al., 2024). The Circularity Responsibility Index (CRI), which was piloted in Finland, includes labour fairness, biodiversity impact, and inclusivity, not just carbon footprint. It revealed that only 12% of surveyed CE firms addressed social Equity.

By encompassing broader ethical and environmental considerations, such multidimensional metrics facilitate a more holistic understanding of a product #x27;s or service #x27;s impact on society and the environment. They allow stakeholders—including policymakers, businesses, and consumers—to evaluate and prioritize sustainable practices that align with Circular Ethics (Mashovic et al., 2022). For instance, when assessing labour conditions, it is crucial to ensure that workers involved in every stage of the product lifecycle, from extraction to recycling, are treated fairly and compensated justly (Goyal et al., 2016).

Incorporating biodiversity assessments within the CE framework is equally vital, as sustainable practices should aim to protect and restore ecosystems rather than merely minimizing harm. Research indicates that initiatives focusing on biodiversity conservation can significantly enhance the ecological outcomes of circular practices, leading to healthier ecosystems that support diverse life forms while contributing to climate mitigation efforts (Tukiran et al., 2023).

Moreover, the CRI framework aligns well with the need to address social Equity by recognizing and rewarding the contributions of vulnerable communities. By integrating social equity metrics, stakeholders can identify and enhance practices that support and uplift marginalized groups within the CE system. Its inclusive approach not only promotes ethical considerations but also fosters community resilience and participation in sustainable practices (Javed et al., 2024). "If we only track emissions and tonnage, we miss the very people CE was meant to protect."

In summary, utilizing multidimensional metrics, such as the CRI, facilitates a more comprehensive and ethically sound implementation of Circular Ethics. By ensuring that labour conditions, biodiversity impacts, and Social Equity are evaluated alongside traditional environmental indicators, stakeholders can work towards a more equitable and sustainable future.

6.2 Educational and Cultural Transformation

 "To repair the planet, we must first repair how we teach."

A key element in implementing Circular Ethics is fostering educational and cultural transformations that enable communities to engage meaningfully with sustainable practices. Initiatives such as Ghana #x27 E-Waste Academy and MIT #x27;s Open Source Repair Curriculum serve as exemplary models that equip individuals with the necessary skills and knowledge to participate in ethical circular practices (Groenewald, 2024). These educational programs not only raise awareness about the principles of the Circular Economy but also emphasize the importance of hands-on skills related to repair and sustainability.

At Ghana's E-Waste Academy, young technicians are trained to disassemble and rebuild electronics safely, transforming risk into opportunity.

MIT's Open Source Repair Curriculum empowers communities worldwide with DIY repair skills, creating a grassroots revolution in circular thinking. Ghana  E-Waste Academy addresses the pressing issue of electronic waste management by providing training designed to empower local communities to recycle and repair electronic products responsibly. Such initiatives are essential in regions where informal e-waste workers often lack access to proper training and support, resulting in hazardous working conditions (Zorpas et al., 2024). By offering educational opportunities, the Academy helps transform attitudes toward waste management and fosters a sense of agency among participants as they learn to navigate the complexities of e-waste (Roberts et al., 2022).

Similarly, MIT Open Source Repair Curriculum promotes a culture of repair by providing resources and training that individuals, community members, and educators can utilize to implement sustainable practices within their communities. These educational initiatives empower individuals to become proficient in repairing products, thereby prolonging product lifespans and reducing waste generation (Chau et al., 2023). Moreover, they cultivate an ethos of sustainability, where individuals recognize the environmental and social implications of their consumption patterns and engage in circular practices that actively mitigate these effects. "When sustainability becomes part of schoolbooks, street signs, and stories, it stops being an agenda—and becomes a way of life."

Embedding repair and sustainability principles within educational systems fosters long-term cultural change by instilling values that resonate with future generations (Angelis et al., 2018). When sustainability becomes a core component of education, it transforms not only individual behaviour but also societal norms around consumption and waste (Hoyng, 2023). As awareness spreads and communities embrace circular practices, the public narrative surrounding sustainability shifts, reinforcing Circular Ethics as a guiding principle in various contexts.

Thus, educational and cultural transformation initiatives are pivotal for implementing Circular Ethics. By aligning educational programs with principles of repair and sustainability, communities can cultivate the necessary skills and knowledge to participate actively in the Circular Economy, fostering a collective commitment to ethical and sustainable practices.

"Education builds the ethical scaffolding on which a just circular economy can stand."

7. Global Justice and Equity

"The Circular Economy cannot be truly circular if benefits loop endlessly among the powerful while burdens spiral outward to the poor."

7.1 Fair Trade and Ethical Sourcing

A pivotal aspect of promoting global Equity and Justice involves ensuring transparent supply chains, fair compensation, and responsible resource extraction, particularly in addressing the historically entrenched North-South divide in trade relationships. Ethical sourcing practices, notably fair trade models, seek to rectify power imbalances and support marginalized communities by providing them with sustainable livelihoods. A salient example of ethical trade in action is the recent agreement between Ghana and Apple, which facilitates local ownership and management of e-waste. This initiative not only exemplifies fair trade principles but also promotes local economic development and environmental stewardship (Gonella et al., 2024). As highlighted by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (Mashovic et al., 2022), such agreements can significantly raise awareness and create more equitable economic conditions between developed and developing nations, ultimately contributing to the overarching goals of sustainable development.

In 2024, Ghana negotiated a rare agreement with a major tech company to retain e-waste processing jobs locally, cut down on exploitation, and build community-owned repair infrastructure. "Fair trade is not charity—it is correction," says Maria, a cooperative organizer in Peru. It is a way to heal centuries of unjust extraction. "When we talk about circularity, we must ask: Whose materials? Whose land? Whose labor? Moreover, who decides?"

The implementation of fair trade practices offers a strategic pathway for addressing global disparities. Research indicates that fair trade initiatives provide invaluable socioeconomic benefits to participating producers, thereby enhancing their resilience against market fluctuations and socio-political challenges (Goyal et al., 2016). According to Ballet and Carimentrand (Tukiran et al., 2023), an essential component of the fair trade model is its emphasis on fostering direct relationships between consumers and producers, which further enhances accountability and transparency within the supply chain. This model not only improves the financial well-being of producers but also promotes ethical Consumerism among buyers who are increasingly concerned about the impacts of their purchasing decisions (Javed et al., 2024). "Reparations are not a radical idea. They are the long-delayed invoice for centuries of imbalance." Despite these advances, there remain challenges within the fair trade movement, with concerns about its capacity to deliver genuine equity and sustainability benefits universally. The complexities surrounding fair trade certification and the diverse cultural contexts within which it operates necessitate ongoing reflection and refinement of practices (Groenewald, 2024). For instance, studies have illustrated that while some fair trade products offer significant benefits, they can also inadvertently reinforce existing inequalities if not critically engaged with. It highlights the importance of a continuous dialogue around fairness and Justice in global trade practices (Zorpas et al., 2024).

To ensure that ethical sourcing initiatives foster genuine change, they should prioritize transparent communication and active engagement with local communities to understand their needs and aspirations deeply. Adequate training and support can enhance the effectiveness of fair trade programs, enabling local producers to navigate global markets more successfully (Roberts et al., 2022). By embedding principles of Equity and fairness into trade agreements, stakeholders can facilitate inclusive economic growth that addresses systemic injustices, promoting a just and sustainable global economy. Fairtrade initiatives that include community ownership—not just certification—are 3x more likely to reduce long-term poverty (UNDP, 2023). "True circularity cannot be negotiated in silos. It must be co-written across borders, with dignity as the baseline and Justice as the measure."

7.2 International Cooperation

International cooperation plays a critical role in achieving equitable benefit distribution, especially in the context of global challenges such as climate change and economic disparity. Effective global governance structures are essential for ensuring that all nations, particularly those in the Global South, can access the resources and opportunities necessary to participate in a sustainable Circular Economy. One innovative proposal for enhancing Its cooperation is the establishment of a Circular Reparations Fund, which could involve levying a modest 2% tax on the profits generated by fast fashion companies (Chau et al., 2023). The fund could be strategically utilized to support textile workers in developing nations who are disproportionately affected by the negative impacts of the fast fashion industry.

Such a reparations fund would serve dual purposes: firstly, it would address the immediate needs of communities adversely impacted by unsustainable production practices, and secondly, it would facilitate investments in sustainable infrastructure and capacity-building initiatives within these regions (Angelis et al., 2018). By redistributing resources towards communities that have been historically marginalized, this approach fosters a more just and equitable global economy aligned with the principles of Circular Ethics.

"We receive their waste, they receive our silence," says Nabila, a youth activist from Indonesia. "It is not circular—it is colonial." The proposed Circular Reparations Fund—financed by a 2% tax on fast fashion profits—could support textile workers in the Global South, improve waste infrastructure, and fund training centres.

The dire consequences of unequal resource distribution and environmental degradation underscore the need for such collaborative efforts. As globalization continues to intensify competition in various sectors, it has become vital that wealth generated through industries such as fashion does not exacerbate existing inequalities but instead contributes to the well-being of all stakeholders involved (Hoyng, 2023). Bridging the gap between North and South requires a commitment to collective action that involves governments, civil society, and the private sector working together towards common goals.

Furthermore, fostering an environment of international cooperation is essential for addressing the structural barriers that inhibit sustainable development in the Global South (Ng & Wong, 2024). It can be achieved through establishing partnerships that encourage knowledge-sharing, technology transfer, and capacity-building efforts aimed at enhancing local production capabilities and promoting sustainable practices. By investing in human capital and fostering innovation among disadvantaged communities, stakeholders can create a more equitable framework for global trade and development (Rizos et al., 2016).

Ultimately, the combination of fair trade practices and international cooperation presents a holistic approach toward achieving global Justice and Equity. Emphasizing ethical sourcing, equitable resource distribution, and the empowerment of marginalized communities are essential components of a sustainable Circular Economy that respects the interconnectedness of global communities (Ünal et al., 2019).

 

8. Practical Recommendations

The future of circularity will be shaped not by intentions but by implementation. The time for plans is over—the time for action is now."

8.1 For Policymakers

Policymakers play a crucial role in shaping the framework within which the Circular Economy (CE) operates. To align with the principles of Circular Ethics, several key recommendations should be considered:

1. Enact Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Laws: Implementing EPR laws can hold producers accountable for the entire lifecycle of their products, thereby incentivizing sustainable design and minimizing waste. By mandating that producers take Responsibility for the collection, recycling, and safe disposal of their products, policymakers can encourage practices that reduce resource consumption and promote a circular economy (Gonella et al., 2024).
2. Integrate CE into International Climate and Trade Agreements: It is essential to embed Circular Economy principles within global trade and climate agreements. By promoting a regulatory framework that prioritizes sustainability and equitable resource distribution, nations can work collectively to tackle global challenges such as climate change and resource depletion (Mashovic et al., 2022). It could involve creating targets and incentives for countries to adopt circular practices that reduce landfill waste and enhance recycling efforts.
3. Support Localized, Ethical CE Economies: Policymakers should prioritize funding and resources for localized circular economies that promote ethical practices and engage communities directly. It could include investing in local recycling programs, supporting small businesses focused on sustainable practices, and fostering partnerships between local governments and organizations to develop community-driven solutions (Goyal et al., 2016). By empowering local economies, policymakers can ensure that the benefits of the Circular Economy are distributed equitably and sustainably.

"Write laws not just for cleaner materials but for fairer lives." "Sustainability goals must go hand in hand with social justice clauses in every regulation." Portugal's EPR law now mandates social reinvestment, requiring a portion of producer fees to fund local repair jobs and informal waste worker protections.

8.2 For Businesses

Businesses play an integral role in implementing Circular Ethics and transitioning towards a more sustainable economy. Here are several actionable recommendations for businesses:

1. Report Environmental and Social Impacts: Companies should transparently report on their environmental and social impacts. Developing standardized reporting frameworks that disclose their resource uses, emissions, and social practices can enhance accountability and build trust with consumers and stakeholders (Tukiran et al., 2023). It practices encourage companies to adopt better practices and improve overall industry standards.
2. Design for Reuse, Repair, and Regeneration: Businesses should shift their design philosophies to prioritize durability, modularity, and repairability of products. By incorporating these principles into product development, companies can extend product lifespans and reduce waste. Its design approach not only conserves resources but also responds to increasing consumer demand for sustainable products (Javed et al., 2024).
3. Ensure Supply Chain Transparency and Fair Labor: Companies need to foster transparency within their supply chains and actively promote fair labour practices. By developing collaborative relationships with suppliers, conducting audits, and ensuring ethical treatment of workers, businesses can mitigate risks associated with exploitation and environmental harm (Groenewald, 2024). Its commitment to transparency not only fulfils ethical obligations but also appeals to an increasingly socially conscious consumer base.

"You can lead the future or wait until consumers demand it." A circular business must design not just for reuse but also for fairness throughout its supply chain. 87% of Gen Z consumers prefer brands with demonstrable ethical practices (EcoPulse, 2023).

8.3 For Consumers

Consumers hold significant power in driving the transition to a Circular Economy through their choices and behaviours. Here are practical recommendations for individuals:

1. Embrace Minimalism and Ethical Consumption: Consumers should embrace minimalism and prioritize ethical consumption practices. It involves purchasing fewer but higher-quality products that are sustainably made and likely to last longer. By consciously selecting items that promote ethical practices, individuals can reduce their environmental footprint and support businesses that align with Circular Ethics (Zorpas et al., 2024).

"Every purchase is a policy. Every repair is a protest. Every shared tool is a step toward Equity."

2. Join Repair and Reuse Communities: Participation in local repair and reuse initiatives can help shift consumer culture towards valuing sustainability. By joining community groups focused on repair skills, sharing resources, and exchanging goods, consumers can foster a culture of sustainability and minimize waste (Roberts et al., 2022). These communities empower individuals to take collective action towards sustainable practices.
3. Demand Accountability from Brands and Policymakers: Consumers must hold businesses and policymakers accountable for their commitments to sustainability. By voicing their concerns and expectations, individuals can influence company practices, advocate for better policies, and support initiatives that prioritize ethical and sustainable production (Chau et al., 2023). Engaging in active discourse and utilizing platforms to raise awareness about unethical practices can drive meaningful change. "I stopped shopping like the planet was disposable—and I started feeling more whole," says Santi, a youth climate activist from Manila. "We are not just consumers. We are custodians of tomorrow's resources and today's fairness."

Conclusion: From Circularity to Circular Justice

From Circularity to Circular Justice or Circular Ethics ​

1. Recognizing Social Equity:
• The circular economy must prioritize social equity, ensuring that marginalized communities, informal workers, and indigenous knowledge systems are included and benefit from circular practices. ​
• Fair compensation, legal protections, and recognition of diverse knowledge systems are essential to creating a just circular economy. ​
2. Economic and Policy Reforms:
• Implement true-cost accounting to internalize environmental and social costs. ​
• Provide financial incentives for businesses adopting circular practices and impose economic penalties on linear practices. ​
• Invest in local circular infrastructure and support community-based initiatives. ​
3. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR):
• EPR frameworks should hold producers accountable for the entire lifecycle of their products, incentivizing sustainable design and waste management. ​
• Align policies with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to promote holistic development, global cooperation, and long-term sustainability. ​
4. Inclusive Participation:
• Ensure inclusive participation in CE strategy development, valuing the expertise of informal waste workers and indigenous communities. ​
• Integrate diverse knowledge systems into national CE strategies and protect indigenous land rights. ​
5. Technological Integration:
• Reorient technology towards holistic sustainability, ensuring that technological advancements are accessible to all communities. ​
• Use tools like blockchain and AI to enhance transparency and accountability in supply chains. ​

Building the Future of CE on Justice and Inclusion ​

• The circular economy must evolve from a technical blueprint into a justice-based movement that lifts the voices and livelihoods of those sustaining it every day. ​
• By embedding justice into every stage of the circular transition, the global community can move toward an economy that is not only sustainable but also fair, pluralistic, and grounded in collective dignity. ​

Final Thoughts

• The journey toward a truly circular economy is also a journey toward social transformation. ​ Equity must no longer be an afterthought; it must define how CE strategies are created, implemented, and measured. ​
• By integrating social justice and economic reform, CE becomes more than a model of efficiency—it becomes a movement for regeneration, dignity, and collective well-being. ​

Call to Action ​

• Researchers, policymakers, and industry leaders must move beyond efficiency narratives and embrace a broader systems perspective. ​
• Circularity must be redesigned through the lens of equity, ecological limits, and social inclusion. ​
• Cross-sectoral collaboration, systemic realignment, and inclusive governance are essential for the circular economy to evolve into actionable, just, and sustainable transformation. ​

The conclusion calls for a comprehensive approach that values human dignity, fairness, and the long-term health of both people and the planet, ensuring that the circular economy is not only economically viable and environmentally sound but also socially transformative. ​

"The promise of the Circular Economy cannot be fulfilled without embedding ethics at its core. A just Circular Economy requires not only smarter technologies but also wiser societies—where consumption is restrained, Responsibility is shared, and prosperity is inclusive. Circular Ethics offers a roadmap to a future grounded in regeneration, dignity, and Justice for all."

"Only by integrating these ethical considerations into the practices of policymakers, businesses, and consumers can we hope to build a truly sustainable and equitable world."

 

References

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

B. Angelis, R.D., Howard, M., Miemczyk, J. (2018). Supply chain management and the circular economy: towards the circular supply chain. Production Planning & Control, 29(6), 425-437. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2018.1449244

C. Bocken, N., Konietzko, J. (2022). Experimentation capability for a circular economy: a practical guide. Journal of Business Strategy, 44(6), 406-414. https://doi.org/10.1108/jbs-02-2022-0039

D. 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

E. Doussoulin, J.P. (2019). A paradigm of the circular economy: the end of cheap nature?. Energy Ecology and Environment, 5(5), 359-368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40974-019-00145-2

F. Fassio, F., Chirilli, C. (2023). The Circular Economy and the Food System: A Review of Principal Measuring Tools. Sustainability, 15(13), 10179. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310179

G. Gagnon, B., Tanguay, X., Amor, B., Imbrogno, A.F. (2022). Forest Products and Circular Economy Strategies: A Canadian Perspective. Energies, 15(3), 673. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15030673

H. Gonella, J.d.S.L., Filho, M.G., Campos, L.M.d.S., Ganga, G.M.D. (2024). People’s awareness and behaviours of circular economy around the world: literature review and research agenda. Sustainability Accounting Management and Policy Journal, 15(5), 1118-1154. https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-08-2022-0413

I. Goyal, S., Esposito, M., Kapoor, A. (2016). Circular economy business models in developing economies: Lessons from India on reduce, recycle, and reuse paradigms. Thunderbird International Business Review, 60(5), 729-740. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.21883

J. Groenewald, E.S. (2024). Circular Economy Strategies in Supply Chain Management: Towards Zero Waste.. It, 48(1), 464-480. https://doi.org/10.52783/pst.291

K. Hoyng, R. (2023). Ecological ethics and the smart circular economy. Big Data & Society, 10(1), nan. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517231158996

L. Javed, T., Said, F., Zainal, D., Jalil, A.A. (2024). Circular Economy Implementation Status of Selected ASEAN Countries. Sage Open, 14(1), nan. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231216261

M. Lewandowski, M. (2016). Designing the Business Models for Circular Economyâ€" Towards the Conceptual Framework. Sustainability, 8(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8010043

N. 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

O. Moreno, M., Rios, C.D.l., Rowe, Z., Charnley, F. (2016). A Conceptual Framework for Circular Design. Sustainability, 8(9), 937. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8090937

P. Murray, A., Skene, K.R., Haynes, K. (2015). The Circular Economy: An Interdisciplinary Exploration of the Concept and Application in a Global Context. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(3), 369-380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2693-2

Q. Ng, S.L., Wong, F. (2024). Recent Developments in Research on Food Waste and the Circular Economy. Biomass, 4(2), 472-489. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomass4020024

R. Ozili, P.K. (2022). Circular Economy and Central Bank Digital Currency. Circular Economy and Sustainability, 2(4), 1501-1516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-022-00170-0

S. 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

T. Roberts, H., Zhang, J., Bariach, B., Cowls, J., Gilburt, B., Juneja, P., Tsamados, A., Ziosi, M., Taddeo, M., Floridi, L. (2022). Artificial intelligence in support of the circular economy: ethical considerations and a path forward. Ai & Society, 39(3), 1451-1464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01596-8

U. Tukiran, M., Candra, T., Kornelius, H. (2023). The Ethics of Utilitarianism in a Circular Economy. Jurnal Filsafat, 33(2), 270. https://doi.org/10.22146/jf.74664

V. Widhiastuti, A., Muafi, M. (2022). The effect of environmental commitment on circular economy implementation. International Journal of Business Ecosystem and Strategy (2687-2293), 4(2), 13-19. https://doi.org/10.36096/ijbes.v4i2.317

W. Zorpas, A.A., Naddeo, V., Voukkali, I., Vraka, E., Bockreis, A. (2024). Environmental ethics considerations in circular economy and waste management. Waste Management & Research the Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy, 43(2), 133-136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242x241299891

X. Ãœnal, E., Urbinati, A., Chiaroni, D. (2019). Managerial practices for designing circular economy business models. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 30(3), 561-589. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmtm-02-2018-0061