Author AM Tris Hardyanto

The Circular Economy promises endless reuse, zero waste, and green growth—but what if it’s not delivering? Beneath the surface lies a world of material decay, policy loopholes, and hidden labor exploitation. This article exposes the structural flaws and blind spots often ignored in mainstream circularity narratives. If you care about sustainability with substance, this is the rethink you’ve been waiting for.

Executive Summary

The circular economy (CE) is hailed as a promising framework for addressing the environmental and economic challenges of the modern world. By promoting waste reduction, material reuse, and sustainability, it seeks to move away from the traditional linear "take-make-dispose" model. However, a closer examination reveals significant flaws in its implementation that undermine its transformative potential. The chapters of Hidden Flaws in the Circular Economy – The Unseen Constraints delve into these critical issues, highlighting the technical, socioeconomic, and policy challenges that must be addressed for circular economy principles to achieve their full potential.

Key Findings

Material Degradation (Chapter 7): A core tenet of the CE is the continuous use of materials in closed-loop systems. However, material degradation—whether through downcycling or quality loss—compromises the ability to reuse materials indefinitely, forcing industries to revert to virgin resources and undermining the promise of sustainability. The issue is compounded by inadequate recycling infrastructure and the lack of advanced recycling technologies.
Systemic Blindness (Chapter 8): The focus on technical solutions within CE often obscures critical socioeconomic realities, such as labour exploitation and global inequities. The informal recycling sector, which plays a crucial role in global waste management, remains underpaid, unprotected, and ignored in CE policy frameworks. Furthermore, the exportation of waste from affluent nations to developing countries, often under the guise of recycling, perpetuates neocolonial patterns and exploitation.
Policy Gaps (Chapter 6): While CE principles are gaining traction, the lack of robust, enforceable policies hinders the transition from theory to practice. The absence of standardized definitions, ineffective certifications, and reliance on voluntary sustainability claims has resulted in greenwashing, where companies claim to be sustainable while continuing harmful practices. Furthermore, policy initiatives often focus on incremental changes rather than systemic reform.
Circular Metrics and Narrow Focus (Chapter 8): CE assessment models predominantly focus on narrow indicators like recycling rates or carbon savings. It technical fixation neglects broader social impacts, such as labour conditions, job quality, and wealth inequality. Without incorporating social equity into CE metrics, circularity risks becoming a superficial framework that perpetuates systemic inequities rather than addressing them.
Economic Structures and Cultural Habits (Chapter 5): The shift to a circular economy is hindered by economic incentives that favour linear, extractive systems. From externalized environmental costs to planned obsolescence in product design, the current economic structure continues to prioritize speed, low costs, and convenience over long-term sustainability. Additionally, consumer culture rooted in disposability and novelty drives overconsumption, undermining efforts to extend material lifecycles.

Framing the Circular Discourse: Between Promise and Reality

Over the past decade, the circular economy (CE) has emerged as a dominant paradigm in sustainability discourse. Positioned as an alternative to the traditional linear “take-make-dispose” model, the CE framework promises to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation by promoting waste reduction, resource efficiency, and material reuse. Global policy agendas have embraced the concept with enthusiasm. The European Union’s Circular Economy Action Plan, part of the European Green Deal, outlines ambitious goals for sustainable production and consumption. Likewise, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)—particularly SDG 12 on responsible consumption and production—highlight circularity as a key pathway toward sustainability.

In parallel, multinational corporations have rapidly incorporated CE language into their sustainability strategies. From fashion to electronics to packaging, corporate reports are increasingly populated with commitments to reuse, recycling, take-back schemes, and carbon-neutral design. Private and public sectors alike promote circularity as a win-win: an environmentally sound model that also supports innovation, competitiveness, and economic resilience.

However, beneath this momentum lies a critical tension. As CE becomes mainstream, the discourse surrounding it often leans heavily on technical optimism and idealized models, overlooking the practical, social, and systemic constraints that challenge its implementation. Enthusiasm for circular models tends to obscure issues of material degradation, energy loss, greenwashing, labour exploitation, and unequal global flows of waste and resources. Moreover, CE strategies are frequently designed around industrialized contexts, neglecting the specific economic, infrastructural, and cultural realities of the Global South, where informal recycling systems already play a crucial role in material recovery.

The tendency to frame circularity primarily in terms of design innovation, material flows, and efficiency metrics, while minimizing its socioeconomic and political dimensions, risks undermining its transformative potential. Without addressing these blind spots, CE may merely reinforce existing inequalities, mask unsustainable practices under the guise of “green” progress, or defer the deeper structural reforms needed to create a just and sustainable economy.

This article, Hidden Flaws in the Circular Economy – The Unseen Constraints, critically engages with the CE discourse by dissecting its material, thermodynamic, behavioural, systemic, policy, and social justice limitations. It aims not to discredit the value of circularity but instead to reframe it as a complex, multi-dimensional challenge—one that must account for human labour, economic incentives, environmental physics, and policy coherence if it is to serve as a viable model for sustainability. The following chapters present an integrated critique and roadmap for a more grounded, equitable, and entropy-aware circular economy.

Methodology and Scope Note

This article is developed as a conceptual and narrative analysis, synthesizing interdisciplinary insights to critically examine the underlying assumptions, practical limitations, and systemic blind spots in mainstream circular economy (CE) discourse. Drawing on secondary sources, including academic literature, policy reports, and corporate case studies, the work employs a desk-based review method. It integrates perspectives from material science, environmental policy, labour studies, behavioural economics, and systems thinking to provide a multi-dimensional critique.

The scope of analysis spans both Global North and Global South contexts, with particular attention to power asymmetries in global waste flows, technological capacity, and labour conditions. Key industries featured include fashion, electronics, consumer goods, construction, and waste management, selected for their visibility in circularity narratives and their complex material and social footprints. Case studies such as IKEA, H&M, Adidas, TerraCycle, and Apple are examined to illustrate broader trends and challenges within the CE framework.

This article does not involve primary data collection or empirical fieldwork. As such, it does not include interviews, surveys, or statistical modelling. Instead, its analytical strength lies in the thematic synthesis and critical reflection on existing knowledge. While grounded in evidence, the article emphasizes interpretative critique over quantitative analysis.

This methodological approach is suited to the article’s objective: not to test a hypothesis but to expose unseen constraints within CE frameworks and to propose directions for more just, equitable, and thermodynamically grounded circular transitions.

Chapter 1: The Concept of Circular Economy (CE)

1.1 A Vision for Circularity: Principles and Promise

The circular economy (CE) has emerged as a visionary framework intended to mitigate the environmental and socioeconomic pressures of the conventional linear economic model. In contrast to the "take-make-dispose" pattern, CE seeks to design waste out of the system by promoting reduction, reuse, recycling, and the continual regeneration of resources (Bernardi et al., 2022). By encouraging closed-loop systems, CE aspires to decouple economic growth from resource depletion and environmental harm. It model emphasizes extending product lifespans, optimizing resource efficiency, and shifting away from extractive production processes.

Proponents of CE argue that by redesigning products and processes, businesses and societies can achieve both ecological sustainability and economic resilience. The conceptual appeal lies in its holistic ambition to reshape industrial systems and consumption behaviour. However, as CE principles move from theory to practice, critical flaws have begun to surface. These challenges reveal an emerging disconnect between CE's idealized vision and its grounded implementation.

1.2 Physical and Behavioral Constraints: Breaking the Loop

One of the most persistent barriers to CE implementation lies in material degradation. While CE assumes that materials can continuously circulate within the economy, many resources degrade in quality with each reuse or recycling cycle. Polymers such as plastics lose tensile strength after repeated processing, limiting their application in high-performance contexts (Mah, 2021). Textiles face similar limitations, as fabrics often undergo downcycling—transforming into lower-value products after each use (Calvo-Porral & Lévy-Mangín, 2020). These material limitations contradict the notion of infinite loops and expose the technical limitations inherent in current recycling technologies (Risteska & Gveroski, 2022).

Alongside physical degradation, consumer behaviour presents a subtler but equally potent challenge. Despite growing awareness of environmental issues, most consumers continue to prioritize convenience and novelty. The ingrained culture of disposability and the psychological appeal of newness fuel overconsumption and hinder reuse initiatives (Nowicki et al., 2023). Products like smartphones are frequently replaced due to aesthetic trends or perceived obsolescence, often before they reach the end of their functional lifespan (Bocken et al., 2016). These behavioural patterns undermine CE's reliance on durability, repairability, and responsible consumption.

Although CE promotes sustainability through design and technology, it often underestimates the need to influence human psychology and cultural norms. Without addressing these embedded behaviours, even the most sophisticated CE systems risk failure due to a lack of user adoption and long-term behavioural change.

1.3 Structural Limitations and the Path Forward

In addition to material and behavioural challenges, systemic inefficiencies in infrastructure and policy further hinder the CE transition. Many recycling and waste management systems cannot process complex or composite materials effectively, leading to inefficient sorting, increased contamination, and greater landfill dependency (Agrawal et al., 2020). It infrastructural gap often results in a disconnect between product design and end-of-life processing.

Economic structures also discourage circular investments. Subsidies for virgin materials, limited regulatory incentives for sustainable design, and the absence of extended producer responsibility mechanisms reduce the competitiveness of circular models (Tashtamirov, 2023). Consequently, businesses often revert to linear practices despite their long-term environmental costs. It systemic misalignment reflects the urgent need for comprehensive policy frameworks that support circular innovation and level the economic playing field.

To move beyond these constraints, CE must evolve into a multifaceted framework that incorporates behavioural economics, design innovation, and regulatory reform. Integrating consumer psychology into product development—through leasing models, modular design, or reward-based reuse schemes—can enhance user engagement (Bag & Rahman, 2021). Policymakers must facilitate It transition by aligning financial incentives with circular goals and fostering cross-sector collaboration (Chamberlin & Boks, 2018; Melles, 2023).

Stakeholder engagement is equally critical. Governments, businesses, civil society, and consumers must co-create and coordinate circular strategies tailored to specific sectors such as textiles, construction, and agriculture (Supanut et al., 2024; Meng et al., 2023). The sector-specific analysis enables practitioners to develop targeted interventions that address unique implementation barriers. For example, digital product passports may improve traceability and recycling potential in manufacturing systems while supporting transparency in material flows (Walden et al., 2021).

Despite its limitations, CE still holds promise for reshaping production and consumption systems. When coupled with robust stakeholder cooperation, innovation, and systemic reform, the model can reduce lifecycle costs, preserve resources, and generate measurable environmental and social benefits (Ahmed et al., 2022). However, progress depends on recognizing and addressing the unseen constraints—technical, psychological, and institutional—that threaten to undermine its transformative potential.

Chapter 2: Thermodynamics of the Circular Economy (CE)

2.1 Entropy and the Limits of Circularity

At the core of the Circular Economy (CE) model lies the promise of creating a regenerative system where materials and products maintain their value indefinitely. However, It vision must confront the fundamental reality of thermodynamic laws—especially the Second Law, which dictates that all energy transformations increase entropy, or disorder, within a system (Ravikumar et al., 2015). In practice, It law means that every recycling, remanufacturing, or reuse effort entails energy loss and material inefficiencies. These losses gradually accumulate, leading to diminishing returns and undermining the prospect of a perfectly closed loop (Haupt et al., 2016).

For example, while recycling aluminium saves up to 90% of the energy used in primary production, it still requires substantial energy input and leads to waste streams that must be managed (Lv et al., 2018). These inefficiencies challenge CE's central goal of decoupling growth from resource extraction and suggest that the pursuit of "zero waste" systems is constrained not just by technology but by physical laws.

2.2 Material Degradation Across Recycling Cycles

Material science reinforces the thermodynamic challenge by demonstrating that materials tend to degrade in quality after each use or recycling cycle. Recycled steel, for instance, often loses performance characteristics due to contamination and oxidation, which limit its reuse in structural applications (Wick et al., 2024). Similarly, paper fibres become shorter and weaker with each recycling iteration, ultimately rendering the material unfit for further use (Lv et al., 2018).

Plastics further illustrate It degradation. With each cycle, their molecular integrity erodes, leading to losses in tensile strength, elasticity, and chemical resistance. As a result, recycled plastics often undergo downcycling—reused in applications of lower value and shorter lifespan (Wu & Xu, 2021; Ondachi et al., 2023). These processes challenge the CE assumption that materials can maintain high utility over infinite lifecycles.

Moreover, when materials are repeatedly cycled, the accumulation of contaminants becomes a significant obstacle. Composite materials and mixed waste streams complicate separation and purification efforts, thereby increasing processing costs and reducing recyclate quality (Wang et al., 2024). The technical and economic barriers to high-quality recycling ultimately constrain the long-term sustainability of material loops.

2.3 Irrecoverable Losses and Resource Substitution

Another major flaw in the CE model lies in the reality of irrecoverable material losses during recycling and recovery processes. Even in well-managed systems, small but critical quantities of materials—such as trace metals or nutrients—are routinely lost. For instance, during metal recycling, elements like lead and zinc may escape the process, either due to volatilization or contamination, reducing the effectiveness and purity of the recovered product (Ibarra et al., 2025). Similarly, organic composting can lead to the loss of nitrogen and phosphorus through volatilization, weakening the material's value as a soil amendment (Echavarri-Bravo et al., 2022).

Electronic waste recovery illustrates It challenge at a higher level of complexity. Rare earth elements, critical for technologies like batteries and electronics, are present in small quantities and difficult to separate. Their recovery is not only energy-intensive but often incomplete, leaving behind waste that cannot be economically or technically reused (Fan et al., 2020). These losses further demonstrate that even with advanced technologies, circular systems cannot achieve perfect recovery or eliminate dependence on virgin resources.

Thermodynamic realities also affect CE's ambition to decouple economic growth from natural resource extraction. As materials degrade and energy is lost with each cycle, additional virgin inputs become necessary to maintain production levels (Eriksen et al., 2018). It recurring need highlights that CE must focus not on infinite reuse but on optimizing lifecycles within unavoidable constraints (Tomše et al., 2024). No system can entirely escape entropy; thus, waste minimization—not elimination—must become the pragmatic goal.

While the Circular Economy remains an important framework for sustainability, it must reconcile its aspirations with the physical limitations imposed by thermodynamics. Entropy, energy loss, material degradation, and irrecoverable waste make "infinite reuse" a scientifically unrealistic goal. Recognizing these constraints allows for the development of more grounded strategies—ones that aim to extend material life, reduce dependency on virgin resources, and improve efficiency within the boundaries of physics. The future of CE will not lie in perfection but in adaptability and realism.

Chapter 3: Case Study Limitations

3.1 The Illusion of Success: High-Profile CE Initiatives

High-profile case studies often present the Circular Economy (CE) as a resounding success, showcasing examples from companies like IKEA, Adidas, and H&M that have embraced sustainable models. These initiatives are widely celebrated for their efforts in reducing waste and promoting recycling, remanufacturing, and reuse. However, a closer examination reveals hidden complexities and significant challenges that hinder their broader applicability and effectiveness. While these case studies highlight partial successes, they often mask the logistical, behavioural, and systemic constraints that prevent such models from achieving their full potential in real-world applications (Rensburg et al., 2020; "The Bigger Picture - Adidas Futurecraft Loop," 2019).

3.2 Logistical and Behavioral Constraints: IKEA's Buy-Back Program

IKEA's Buy-Back Program is an attempt to resell or recycle used furniture, aiming to reduce landfill contributions. While commendable, the program faces logistical hurdles that hinder its scalability. The refurbishment of used furniture requires decentralized facilities, conflicting with IKEA's centralized operational model. Transporting bulky furniture further exacerbates the environmental impact, with increased carbon emissions often offsetting the intended benefits (Matsumoto et al., 2016).

In addition to logistical concerns, consumer participation in the program remains low, with only 5-10% of eligible customers returning furniture. Several factors contribute to It, including low resale value (around 30% of the original price) and a culture that prioritizes convenience over sustainability (Hakizimana et al., 2024). Furthermore, the affordability-driven design of IKEA products often compromises durability, making them less suitable for long-term reuse and further undermining the program's potential (Yamada et al., 2024).

3.3 Infrastructure and Design Challenges: Adidas Futurecraft Loop

Adidas' Futurecraft Loop shoes are a pioneering example of recyclable footwear made from a single thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) material. While It innovation aligns with CE principles, it faces substantial infrastructural and design challenges. The success of the initiative hinges on consumer participation in returning the shoes for recycling, yet up to 70% of shoes are not returned due to the lack of convenient return systems (Ahmad et al., 2018).

Moreover, the choice to construct the shoes using a single material, although beneficial for recycling, leads to trade-offs in performance, often compromising comfort for recyclability. The cost of recycled TPU is also 20-30% higher than virgin materials, making the shoes less affordable for mainstream adoption (Yamada et al., 2024; Koliou et al., 2018). These challenges highlight the gap between CE's environmental ambitions and the practical constraints of market adoption and consumer behaviour.

3.4 Greenwashing and Economic Disincentives: H&M's Garment Collection Initiative

H&M's garment collection program, which encourages customers to return used clothing for recycling, faces significant obstacles related to material constraints and market perception. While the initiative is designed to support recycling, much of the collected material, particularly blended fabrics, is downcycled into lower-value products such as insulation or rags, diminishing the promise of high-quality material retention (Ononge et al., 2023).

Moreover, the program's success is undercut by H&M's broader business model. The company's fast-fashion practices have led to a paradoxical increase in clothing purchases, undermining the sustainability narrative of the garment collection program. A 12% rise in purchases during the campaign contradicts the intended goal of waste reduction and illustrates the disconnect between sustainability initiatives and consumer behaviour (Gómez-Morales et al., 2017).

3.5 Systemic Barriers and Realistic Solutions

The analysis of these case studies reveals four key types of constraints that limit the effectiveness of circular economy initiatives:

Physical Constraints: Examples from Adidas, H&M, and IKEA highlight the physical limitations of materials, such as degradation and downcycling, which prevent circularity from reaching its full potential (Rensburg et al., 2020; Koliou et al., 2018).
Behavioural Constraints: Consumer participation remains a critical barrier, as seen in IKEA and TerraCycle initiatives, where low return rates and convenience factors undermine the success of circular programs (Hakizimana et al., 2024; Lv et al., 2024).
Economic Constraints: The higher costs associated with recycled or remanufactured goods, as evidenced by Adidas and Renault, hinder broader adoption, making circular alternatives less competitive in the marketplace (Ahmad et al., 2018; Takala & Heino, 2015).
Systemic Constraints: Infrastructure gaps, seen in programs like TerraCycle and IKEA's Buy-Back Program, reveal that closed-loop systems are challenging to implement on a large scale due to the complexity of logistics and processing requirements (Matsumoto et al., 2016; Gómez-Morales et al., 2017).

Conclusion

While the case studies of IKEA, Adidas, H&M, and others provide valuable insights into the potential of Circular Economy initiatives, they often fail to account for the significant challenges that hinder their scalability and effectiveness. Logistical, behavioural, economic, and systemic constraints limit the impact of these programs, revealing that CE's idealistic promises are not always achievable in practice. To overcome these limitations, the focus must shift toward developing hybrid solutions that integrate localized approaches, practical infrastructure, and consumer incentives, ultimately creating a more feasible and sustainable circular model (Koliou et al., 2018; AlJaber et al., 2023).

Chapter 4: The Efficiency Trap: How Gains in Circularity Can Fuel Overconsumption

4.1 When Efficiency Backfires: Understanding the Rebound Effect

The circular economy (CE) aspires to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation through strategies such as recycling, remanufacturing, and efficiency-focused product design. However, beneath these intentions lies a paradox. Increasing efficiency, rather than reducing resource consumption, may inadvertently lead to a more significant environmental impact through a phenomenon known as the rebound effect—closely tied to Jevons' Paradox. It occurs when improvements in efficiency reduce costs, making products or services more accessible and desirable, thereby encouraging overconsumption (Goyal et al., 2016; Siregar et al., 2023).

As circular innovations reduce production costs, businesses often scale up their operations. For instance, recycled aluminium can be 5–10% cheaper than virgin material (Solodovnik et al., 2022). It economic advantage enables broader market expansion and higher product availability, driving demand rather than curbing it. Although these practices appear environmentally sound on a per-unit basis, their cumulative effect risks accelerating resource throughput, not minimizing it ("The Circular Economy Transition in the European Union", 2023; Richa et al., 2017).

4.2 The Psychology of "Green" Consumption: Moral Licensing and Perceived Sustainability

Beyond economics, behavioural responses further complicate CE outcomes. Moral licensing—the tendency for individuals to reward themselves with unsustainable behaviour after making a "green" choice—can significantly undermine CE goals. Consumers often feel justified in purchasing more when products are labelled as recyclable, biodegradable, or eco-friendly (Dräger & Letmathe, 2023). A classic example is the reusable shopping bag phenomenon: consumers using reusable bags tend to buy more snacks or impulse items, offsetting any environmental gains (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017).

It mindset extends to energy-efficient appliances. Lower utility costs lead consumers to use these products more frequently, increasing overall energy or water consumption (Akanbi et al., 2019). The illusion of sustainability can thereby mask growing environmental footprints. Similarly, biodegradable packaging may appear guilt-free, yet its disposability can encourage higher usage volumes, inflating total resource extraction (Rizos et al., 2016).

These behavioural patterns highlight that environmental impact is not merely a technical issue but also a cultural and psychological one. Without addressing these human factors, CE risks becoming a green façade for unchecked consumption.

4.3 Mitigating the Trap: From Efficiency to Sufficiency

To prevent efficiency from becoming a driver of overconsumption, CE strategies must evolve from promoting efficiency to embracing sufficiency. Rather than merely improving performance per unit, businesses and policymakers must prioritize minimizing overall consumption. Product designs should focus on durability, modularity, and repairability to extend life cycles and discourage premature disposal (Koval et al., 2023).

Policy and regulatory mechanisms also play a pivotal role. Internalizing environmental externalities through true-cost pricing can curb demand-driven production expansions. Cap-and-trade systems and resource use caps can enforce absolute limits, ensuring that efficiency gains do not translate into material growth (Organization, 2020). Additionally, right-to-repair legislation empowers consumers to maintain rather than replace devices, thereby reducing material turnover (Saeed et al., 2023).

Equally important are cultural and behavioural interventions. Awareness campaigns and incentive programs can shift consumer values from accumulation to moderation. Rewarding low-impact behaviours—such as using fewer products, extending product life, or engaging in community-sharing initiatives—can reinforce the sufficiency mindset (Beccarello & Foggia, 2022). Promoting well-being, simplicity, and ecological mindfulness over material consumption will be essential in transitioning from efficiency-obsessed systems to ones grounded in genuine sustainability (Muriithi & Ngare, 2023).

Conclusion

While the circular economy holds great promise, its overemphasis on efficiency can inadvertently undermine its sustainability goals. The rebound effect and Jevons' Paradox expose a critical weakness: without behavioural and structural safeguards, circular innovations risk fueling overproduction and overconsumption. Addressing It trap requires a shift in design philosophy, regulatory frameworks, and consumer culture. The future of CE must not only optimize material flows but also encourage sufficiency, restraint, and ecological balance. Only by integrating these more profound transformations can circularity fulfil its potential as a force for long-term environmental stewardship.

Chapter 5: Circular Dreams, Linear Realities

Why Economic Structures and Cultural Habits Resist the Shift to a Circular Economy

5.1 Market Myths and Hidden Costs

The circular economy (CE) proposes a transformative shift—from extraction to regeneration, from disposability to durability. However, despite increasing advocacy, circular models remain peripheral in practice. The global economy continues to favour the linear "take-make-waste" paradigm, driven not only by visible market forces but also by embedded cultural expectations and systemic lock-ins.

A key barrier is the externalization of environmental costs. Linear systems remain more profitable because they fail to account for ecological damage. For instance, virgin plastic often sells for around $1,000 per ton, while recycled plastic may cost $1,400 due to fossil fuel subsidies and the absence of taxes on pollution or ecosystem degradation (Goyal et al., 2016). It cost imbalance creates the illusion that linear models are more efficient when, in reality, they shift environmental burdens onto society and future generations.

True sustainability becomes elusive when markets reward extraction and speed while penalizing reuse and resilience. Unless these distortions are corrected, circular solutions will continue to struggle in the shadows of linear profitability.

5.2 Cultural Obsolescence and Consumption Patterns

Beyond economics, consumer culture reinforces linearity. Fast fashion, electronics, and lifestyle industries thrive on novelty, speed, and disposability. Products are marketed with planned obsolescence in mind—whether through design limitations like non-replaceable batteries or software incompatibility (Saeed et al., 2023). As new models emerge annually, consumers equate newer with better, marginalizing circular practices like repair, reuse, or refurbishment.

Even well-intentioned efforts at reuse face cultural resistance. Items marketed as "repaired" or "second-hand" often carry social stigma and are perceived as inferior or outdated. It mindset undercuts circularity's value proposition and perpetuates the emotional and aesthetic appeal of newness.

Case in point: the smartphone industry. Despite functional longevity, smartphones are frequently replaced due to marketing pressure and cosmetic wear, not performance degradation. Such consumption behaviour underscores the need for more profound cultural shifts—not just technical interventions.

5.3 Infrastructure Lock-In and Structural Inertia

Structural limitations further entrench linear practices. Global infrastructure—from extraction to manufacturing and logistics—is optimized for high-throughput, single-use production. Billions of dollars are invested in oil refineries, mining operations, and containerized shipping, creating a sunk-cost bias against circular alternatives (Richa et al., 2017). Transitioning to circular flows requires redesigning reverse logistics, local processing hubs, and modular supply chains—investments that remain unattractive under current market conditions.

It infrastructure lock-in explains why even progressive companies struggle to scale circular programs. Without system-wide reconfiguration, circular initiatives often remain isolated pilot projects rather than transformational movements.

5.4 Realigning the System: Pathways to Transition

Achieving systemic circularity requires more than product redesign—it demands deep policy, cultural, and structural reforms.

1. Internalize True Costs
Governments must adopt actual cost accounting by integrating environmental impacts into market prices. Tools such as carbon pricing, landfill taxes, and extraction levies can expose the hidden costs of linear production. The European Union's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism exemplifies how emissions-based pricing can nudge markets toward greater accountability (European Commission, 2023).

2. Enforce Circular Design Standards
Legislative tools must support durability and repairability. France's "Repairability Index," which rates how easily products can be fixed, sets a precedent for incentivizing sustainable design (Koval et al., 2023). Mandating modularity and extended warranties would help align product development with circular goals.

3. Shift Cultural Norms
Changing consumer behaviour requires a reframing value. Brands like Patagonia, through its "Worn Wear" campaign, illustrate how storytelling can elevate reuse and longevity into aspirational choices (Beccarello & Foggia, 2022). Educational campaigns should focus not only on reducing waste but also on redefining success and satisfaction beyond ownership.

4. Incentivize Circular Business Models
Support must go to companies pursuing reuse, repair, and rental models. Financial incentives, such as tax breaks or subsidies, can reduce entry barriers. Funding for reverse logistics and take-back infrastructure can ensure the practical implementation of circular systems at scale (Muriithi & Ngare, 2023).

Conclusion

Despite its compelling vision, the circular economy remains constrained by a world still operating on linear logic. Economic distortions, cultural inertia, and infrastructure lock-ins reinforce the status quo. For circularity to evolve beyond rhetoric, stakeholders must engage in structural realignment—where policies reflect actual environmental costs, cultural narratives support sufficiency, and markets reward regeneration over-extraction. Without such transformation, circular dreams will remain just that—dreams chasing linear realities.

Chapter 6: Policy Gap

Why Policy Failures Hinder the Circular Economy's Potential

6.1 Policy Weakness: The Barrier to Genuine Circularity

The promise of a circular economy (CE) is centred on minimizing waste, preserving resources, and maintaining materials within the system for as long as possible. However, despite growing innovation and awareness, the shift from a linear to a circular model has been stunted. It stagnation is not only due to technological and economic hurdles but is primarily driven by significant policy gaps. Weak regulations, vague definitions, and insufficient enforcement mechanisms have allowed businesses to present superficial sustainability claims without enacting meaningful change. It failure is a key factor in the rise of greenwashing—misleading claims that obscure the environmental harm still being perpetuated. Without a firm policy foundation, the potential for CE to deliver transformative change is significantly undermined (Gonella et al., 2024; Kaya et al., 2021).

6.2 The Ambiguity of Circular Terms: Vague Standards

One of the primary challenges in transitioning to an actual circular economy is the lack of standardized definitions for commonly used terms like "recyclable," "biodegradable," and "sustainable." For instance, many products labelled as "recyclable" end up being incinerated due to contamination or the absence of local recycling infrastructure (Garcés‐Ayerbe et al., 2019). It inconsistency allows companies to make broad, unsubstantiated claims about their products' circular value, which misleads consumers and policymakers alike.

Clear and enforceable definitions for such terms are crucial. Regulatory guidance is needed to standardize what constitutes a genuinely recyclable or biodegradable product and to ensure that claims are based on reliable scientific principles, not marketing narratives (Gonella et al., 2024). Without these regulations, consumers are left unable to differentiate between companies making genuine efforts and those simply capitalizing on environmental trends.

6.3 Voluntary Certifications: A Lack of Accountability

Another significant flaw in CE policy is the reliance on voluntary certifications that often lack independent verification. Many corporations claim sustainability achievements through Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) pledges or in-house certifications, yet these claims often go unexamined by third-party auditors. For example, Coca-Cola's "World Without Waste" campaign promotes packaging recovery, but the company remains one of the top plastic polluters globally (Neto et al., 2024).

It selective, self-reported approach to sustainability undermines public trust and enables companies to promote minor, inconsequential improvements while maintaining unsustainable practices elsewhere. Without independent, third-party verification, these claims are often misleading, allowing businesses to appear environmentally responsible without substantial accountability (Albăstroiu et al., 2021).

6.4 Greenwashing: Superficial Circular Actions

Companies engaging in greenwashing often adopt one high-profile circular practice, such as collecting used clothing or offering trade-in options for electronics, while simultaneously neglecting more significant systemic issues. Fast fashion brands, for example, may collect garments for recycling but continue producing low-quality, disposable items at rapid rates (Barrett et al., 2015). Similarly, tech companies may promote trade-in programs while preventing independent repairs through proprietary parts and software lock-ins, hindering the full potential of circularity (Шевченко & Cluzel, 2023).

These actions represent selective circularity, where companies superficially align with circular principles while maintaining linear practices that undermine the economy's regenerative potential.

6.5 Incrementalism: Failing to Address Systemic Change

Most policy initiatives focus on incremental improvements rather than transformative changes. Policies that encourage minor adjustments—such as increasing recycled content in packaging or lightweight materials—miss the more considerable opportunity for systemic reform. For example, current regulations often reward companies for meeting minimal environmental benchmarks rather than incentivizing comprehensive changes in product design, business models, or consumption patterns (Supanut et al., 2024). These small-scale efforts often fail to drive the substantial shifts needed to transition to a fully circular economy.

6.6 Proposed Policy Solutions

To close the policy gap and promote an actual circular economy, the following strategies should be enacted:

Clear and Enforceable Definitions
Governments must establish standardized, legally binding definitions for terms like "recyclable," "biodegradable," and "sustainable" to prevent misleading claims. The EU's Circular Economy Action Plan is a step in It direction, but further legislation is required to ensure uniformity across industries (Gonella et al., 2024).
Mandatory Lifecycle Transparency
Requiring companies to conduct and publish Lifecycle Assessments (LCAs) of their products will foster accountability. These assessments should be accessible to the public, allowing consumers and regulatory bodies to assess the environmental impact of products and verify sustainability claims (Souza et al., 2024).
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)
EPR policies should be introduced to hold producers accountable for managing the end-of-life of their products. It can incentivize companies to design for longevity and ease of recycling while also providing funding for developing better recycling infrastructure (Monyaki & Cilliers, 2023).
Eliminate Misleading Labels
Governments must impose penalties on companies that engage in greenwashing by making vague or unverifiable claims. By ensuring that sustainability labels reflect actual verified impacts, policymakers can ensure that consumers are not misled into believing they are making environmentally conscious choices when they are not (Garcés‐Ayerbe et al., 2019).
Circular Public Procurement
Governments can also lead by example by prioritizing circular procurement—purchasing from suppliers that meet stringent sustainability criteria. It will not only mainstream circularity but also drive demand for genuinely sustainable products and services (Rizos et al., 2016).

Conclusion

The policy gap remains one of the most significant barriers to an actual circular economy. Without clear definitions, accountability, and systemic reform, the promise of circularity risks becoming a buzzword rather than a transformative model. To realize its potential, policies must be strengthened, focusing on transparency, long-term goals, and comprehensive shifts in both business and consumer behaviour. By addressing these policy failures, circular economy principles can move beyond rhetoric and into meaningful, large-scale action.

Chapter 7: Fraying the Loop: Material Degradation and the Limits of Circular Reuse

How Entropy and Systemic Gaps Challenge the Continuity of Circularity

7.1 The Core Challenge: Material Degradation in Circular Systems

The circular economy (CE) is built on the vision of keeping materials in continuous use, aiming to minimize extraction and waste by closing the loop of product life cycles. However, It idea faces a fundamental constraint: material degradation. Contrary to the promise of infinite reuse, most materials cannot maintain their structural or chemical integrity through repeated cycles. As a result, downcycling—where materials are reused in lower-value applications—becomes the norm rather than the exception (Uekert et al., 2023).

Each cycle of reuse or recycling introduces physical and chemical stressors that reduce a material's quality, utility, and applicability. It degradation forces industries to supplement their processes with virgin inputs, ultimately contradicting the circular economy's goal of minimizing new resource extraction.

7.2 Quality Loss and the Cascading Value Trap

Recycled materials often fall short of the performance standards required for high-value applications. For example, polyethene terephthalate (PET) loses clarity and tensile strength after two or three recycling cycles, rendering it unsuitable for food-grade packaging (Kirshanov et al., 2024). Metals, too, suffer from contamination during recycling, which affects purity and performance, particularly in high-tech sectors such as aerospace and electronics.

Materials like textiles and paper fibres degrade in structure with each cycle, resulting in shorter fibres and weaker bonds. Consequently, they are frequently relegated to secondary uses—such as insulation or packaging filler—before finally becoming waste. It cascading model of reuse delays disposal but does not eliminate it, and it contributes to a false sense of sustainability while reinforcing linear patterns under a circular label.

7.3 Thermodynamic and Infrastructure Realities

The problem is further compounded by thermodynamic entropy—the unavoidable increase in disorder that occurs with each material transformation. While CE models assume infinite cycling, physics dictates that no recycling process is 100% efficient. Material losses, contamination, and quality decline are inherent to the process. Over time, entropy undermines the assumption of closed-loop perfection.

Simultaneously, recycling infrastructure is often ill-equipped to preserve material quality. Current systems emphasize collection volumes over purity. Improper sorting, contamination, and outdated mechanical recycling technologies result in substandard recycled outputs (Pivnenko et al., 2016). In developing economies, infrastructure tends to prioritize economic gain over material integrity, further compromising the quality of recovered materials (Amundarain et al., 2024).

These infrastructure and systemic gaps diminish the economic viability of recycling and force industries to continue relying on virgin materials.

7.4 Strategic Interventions for Reclaiming Material Value

To mitigate the effects of material degradation and preserve the promise of CE, stakeholders must move beyond simple recycling and embrace integrated, science-driven strategies:

1. Advanced Recycling Technologies

Chemical and molecular recycling methods—such as enzymatic breakdown of plastics—offer the potential to recover materials at the monomer level, enabling remanufacturing at virgin quality standards (Wang et al., 2022). These technologies can process contaminated or mixed waste that mechanical systems cannot, creating new pathways for high-value circularity.

2. Design for Disassembly and Recovery

Manufacturers must prioritize modular design and easy disassembly to reduce contamination and facilitate the high-quality recovery of components. Integrating material separation into the design phase enhances recyclability and minimizes quality loss (Welle, 2021).

3. Material Innovation and Bio-based Alternatives

Developing resilient or self-healing materials, bio-based composites, and long-life polymers can increase product lifespan and reduce degradation. These innovations offer promise for maintaining performance across multiple life cycles (Lai et al., 2020).

4. Expand and Support Secondary Markets

To prevent degraded materials from becoming waste, policies must encourage their reuse in industrial sectors like construction and infrastructure. Public procurement policies that mandate recycled content in government projects can stimulate demand and drive systemic adoption (Genç et al., 2019).

Conclusion

Material degradation represents a silent but systemic challenge within the circular economy narrative. As materials degrade, so too does the integrity of circular loops, eventually leading to waste and renewed demand for virgin resources. The myth of infinite recyclability must be replaced with a realistic, entropy-aware model that prioritizes durability, disassembly, and accurate end-of-life management.

Only by addressing It foundational flaw can CE transition from idealism to practicality. The future of circularity depends not on perfection but on adaptability—on creating systems that acknowledge material limits while maximizing utility across extended, though finite, life cycles (Rigail-Cedeño et al., 2019).

Chapter 8: Systemic Blindness

Technical Fixation vs. Socioeconomic Realities in the Circular Economy

8.1 Technological Optimism and the Hidden Human Cost

The circular economy (CE) has emerged as a compelling sustainability model grounded in efficiency, closed loops, and material regeneration. However, beneath its sleek surface lies a critical flaw: systemic blindness toward the social, political, and economic conditions that shape real-world implementation. As previous chapters revealed—from thermodynamic limitations (Chapter 2) to policy gaps (Chapter 6) and material degradation (Chapter 7)—technical fixes alone cannot resolve the deeply rooted inequalities embedded in global supply chains and waste systems.

One pressing example is the treatment of informal workers in the recycling sector. While CE champions efficiency, it frequently excludes the very people who enable material recovery, particularly in the Global South. In countries like India, Ghana, and Brazil, millions of informal waste workers collect, sort, and process materials under hazardous conditions without labour protections or recognition (Theeraworawit et al., 2022). Despite their indispensable role in enabling CE systems, these workers remain absent from corporate reporting and policy frameworks, exposing the human cost behind material circularity (Khan & Dijk, 2024).

8.2 Global Imbalance: Waste Colonialism in Disguise

Another underexamined flaw is how CE practices often replicate colonial dynamics, exporting waste from wealthy nations to less affluent regions under the guise of "recycling." While developed economies tout their circular initiatives, they simultaneously ship electronic waste, textiles, and plastics to countries lacking safe processing infrastructure. Sites like Agbogbloshie in Ghana have become symbolic of It exploitative pattern, where toxic dismantling operations expose children and marginalized communities to severe health risks (Borrello et al., 2020).

As Chapter 3 highlighted through case study limitations, initiatives like trade-in programs or product reuse often operate without accounting for where and how end-of-life materials are processed. Circularity, when practised without social safeguards, becomes a loop of externalized harm, benefiting affluent markets while burdening vulnerable communities (Panwar & Niesten, 2022).

8.3 Measuring What Matters: Circularity Beyond Carbon and Kilograms

Mainstream CE metrics focus heavily on recycling rates, lifecycle emissions, or material recovery volumes. However, these metrics often exclude social dimensions, such as labour conditions, wealth distribution, or community well-being. It narrow lens obscures systemic injustices and perpetuates greenwashing, where companies highlight eco-friendly programs while ignoring exploitative labour practices or global inequities (Gomes & Lopes, 2023).

Automation in waste management further exacerbates It blind spot. As companies shift toward AI and robotics to streamline operations, informal and low-skilled workers face job displacement without transition pathways or social safety nets (J., 2023). In It way, technical progress—if not thoughtfully governed—can reinforce inequality rather than solve it.

8.4 Pathways Toward a Just and Inclusive Circular Economy

To address these blind spots, CE must shift from a technocratic vision to a justice-centred model that integrates social equity with environmental goals.

1. Inclusive Governance and Worker Integration

CE policies should be co-designed with informal worker groups, cooperatives, and civil society organizations. For instance, India's Safai Sena union has successfully advocated for the formal recognition of waste pickers. Ensuring their inclusion in CE planning will lead to more grounded and equitable outcomes (Mashovic et al., 2022).

2. Redistributive Policy and Just Transition Mechanisms

Policymakers should embed social guarantees—such as healthcare, fair wages, and training—into Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes. Revenues from circularity-linked taxes could fund Just Transition programs that protect workers and communities affected by automation or restructuring (Vetrova & Ivanova, 2022; Beamer et al., 2023).

3. Reframing Circular Success

Success metrics must evolve beyond carbon reduction and material reuse. Indicators should track job quality, worker safety, community ownership, and reductions in inequality. It approach, combined with place-based innovation rooted in cultural context, can empower communities and decentralize CE from corporate and technocratic control (J., 2023).

Conclusion

The circular economy cannot fulfil its transformative promise if it ignores the socioeconomic landscapes in which it operates. Chapters 1 through 7 have revealed how technical solutions—while necessary—are not sufficient. Real progress requires embedding CE within frameworks that prioritize human dignity, equity, and democratic participation.

Without such a shift, CE risks becoming an elegant but hollow framework—technologically advanced yet socially regressive. To indeed close the loop, we must widen the lens.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Structurally, changes are required at multiple levels to realize the true potential of the circular economy. Addressing the limitations exposed in It work necessitates not only technological innovation but also policy reform, economic realignment, and social inclusion. The following recommendations emerge from the analysis:

Policy and Governance Reform: Governments must establish clear, enforceable standards for circularity, eliminating vague definitions and inconsistent certifications. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policies should be expanded to include labour protections and social safety nets for workers in the informal recycling sector.
Holistic Metrics: Circular economy success should be assessed through a broader set of indicators that include social outcomes—job quality, labour inclusion, and wealth redistribution. It shift will help prevent the greenwashing that currently undermines CE's credibility.
Inclusive, Just Circularity: Circularity must be reframed as a socially just transition. Policies must support just transitions for workers, particularly in the informal sector, and ensure that economic benefits are equally distributed across nations and communities, especially in the Global South.
Innovation in Recycling and Materials: Advancing recycling technologies, such as chemical recycling, and prioritizing design for disassembly will help preserve material quality and extend product lifecycles, mitigating the degradation that limits current CE practices.
Consumer and Cultural Shift: To reduce overconsumption, a cultural shift towards valuing durability and repairability over novelty is essential. Public education campaigns and incentive-based policies can foster a more sustainable consumer culture aligned with CE values.

Final Thought

The circular economy holds immense promise, but without addressing its foundational flaws, it risks becoming a powerful narrative that fails to deliver real-world results. Only by integrating social equity, policy coherence, and technological innovation can circularity transform from an idealistic framework to a global, sustainable solution. It requires a holistic approach that values human dignity, fairness, and the long-term health of both people and the planet.

Call to Action

To realize the circular economy’s transformative potential, the time has come for researchers, policymakers, and industry leaders to move beyond efficiency narratives and embrace a broader systems perspective. Circularity must no longer be treated as a purely technical or corporate endeavor. It must be redesigned through the lens of equity, ecological limits, and social inclusion. We urge academic institutions to expand interdisciplinary research that integrates material science with labour and justice studies; we call on policymakers to enact regulatory frameworks that go beyond voluntary commitments; and we encourage industries to co-create solutions with communities and workers, particularly those most affected by waste and resource extraction. Only through cross-sectoral collaboration, systemic realignment, and inclusive governance can the circular economy evolve from aspiration into actionable, just, and sustainable transformation.

Reference :

APA Style Reference List (A–Z)

(2019). The Bigger Picture - Adidas Futurecraft Loop. *Engineering & Technology*, 14(5), 58-59. https://doi.org/10.1049/et.2019.0525

(2023). THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION. *Journal of Management*, 39(2), . https://doi.org/10.38104/vadyba.2023.2.12

Agrawal, R., Wankhede, V.A., Kumar, A., Luthra, S. (2020). Analysing the roadblocks of circular economy adoption in the automobile sector: Reducing waste and environmental perspectives. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 30(2), 1051-1066. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2669

Ahmad, M., Chen, Q., Khan, Z., Ahmad, M., Khurshid, F. (2018). Infrastructureâ€based vehicular congestion detection scheme for V2I. *International Journal of Communication Systems*, 32(3), . https://doi.org/10.1002/dac.3877

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

Akanbi, L., Oyedele, L.O., Delgado, J.M.D., Bilal, M., AkinadÃ©, O.O., Ajayi, A., Mohammed-Yakub, N. (2019). Reusability analytics tool for end-of-life assessment of building materials in a circular economy. *World Journal of Science Technology and Sustainable Development*, 16(1), 40-55. https://doi.org/10.1108/wjstsd-05-2018-0041

AlJaber, A., MartÃnez-VÃ¡zquez, P., Baniotopoulos, C. (2023). Barriers and Enablers to the Adoption of Circular Economy Concept in the Building Sector: A Systematic Literature Review. *Buildings*, 13(11), 2778. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13112778

AlbÄƒstroiu, I., NegruÈ›iu, C., Felea, M., Acatrinei, C., Cepoi, A., Istrate, A. (2021). Toward a Circular Economy in the Toy Industry: The Business Model of a Romanian Company. *Sustainability*, 14(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010022

Ali, S., Ghimire, A., Long, X., Chen, L. (2024). Will more multinational corporations inflow approach closer toward carbon neutrality? Novel propensity score matchingâ€differenceâ€inâ€difference evidence across 35 developing countries. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 34(2), 1625-1642. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.4017

Amundarain, I., Asueta, A., Leivar, J., Santin, K., Arnaiz, S. (2024). Optimization of Pressurized Alkaline Hydrolysis for Chemical Recycling of Post-Consumer PET Waste. *Materials*, 17(11), 2619. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17112619

Bag, S., Rahman, M.S. (2021). The role of capabilities in shaping sustainable supply chain flexibility and enhancing circular economy-target performance: an empirical study. *Supply Chain Management an International Journal*, 28(1), 162-178. https://doi.org/10.1108/scm-05-2021-0246

Barna, C., Zbuchea, A., StÄƒnescu, S.M. (2023). Social economy enterprises contributing to the circular economy and the green transition in Romania. *Ciriec-EspaÃ±a Revista De EconomÃa PÃºblica Social Y Cooperativa*, (107), 47-69. https://doi.org/10.7203/ciriec-e.107.21738

Barrett, S., Wang, P.L., Salzman, J. (2015). Circular RNA biogenesis can proceed through an exon-containing lariat precursor. *Elife*, 4, . https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.07540

Batista, L., Gong, Y., Pereira, S.C.F., Jia, F., Bittar, A.D.V. (2018). Circular supply chains in emerging economies â€“ a comparative study of packaging recovery ecosystems in China and Brazil. *International Journal of Production Research*, 57(23), 7248-7268. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1558295

Beamer, K., Elkington, K., Souza, P., Tuma, A., Thorenz, A., KÃ¶hler, S., Kukea-Shultz, K., Kotubetey, K., Winter, K.B. (2023). Island and Indigenous systems of circularity: how HawaiÊ»i can inform the development of universal circular economy policy goals. *Ecology and Society*, 28(1), . https://doi.org/10.5751/es-13656-280109

Beccarello, M., Foggia, G.D. (2022). A Circularity Mapping Framework for Urban Policymaking. *Journal of Politics and Law*, 16(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.5539/jpl.v16n1p11

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

Bocken, N., Pauw, I.D., Bakker, C., Grinten, B.V.D. (2016). Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy. *Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering*, 33(5), 308-320. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2016.1172124

Borah, P.S., Dogbe, C.S.K., Pomegbe, W.W.K., Bamfo, B.A., Hornuvo, L.K. (2021). Green market orientation, green innovation capability, green knowledge acquisition and green brand positioning as determinants of new product success. *European Journal of Innovation Management*, 26(2), 364-385. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejim-09-2020-0345

Borrello, M., Pascucci, S., Cembalo, L. (2020). Three Propositions to Unify Circular Economy Research: A Review. *Sustainability*, 12(10), 4069. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104069

BuÅŸu, C., BuÅŸu, M. (2018). Modeling the Circular Economy Processes at the EU Level Using an Evaluation Algorithm Based on Shannon Entropy. *Processes*, 6(11), 225. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr6110225

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

Calvo-Porral, C., LÃ©vy-MangÃn, J. (2020). The Circular Economy Business Model: Examining Consumersâ€™ Acceptance of Recycled Goods. *Administrative Sciences*, 10(2), 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci10020028

Camachoâ€Otero, J., Tunn, V., Chamberlin, L., Boks, C. (2020). Consumers in the circular economy. **, , . https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788972727.00014

Camilleri, M.A. (2018). Closing the loop for resource efficiency, sustainable consumption and production: a critical review of the circular economy. *International Journal of Sustainable Development*, 1(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijsd.2018.10012310

Chamberlin, L., Boks, C. (2018). Marketing Approaches for a Circular Economy: Using Design Frameworks to Interpret Online Communications. *Sustainability*, 10(6), 2070. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10062070

Cho, H.J., Burow, D., Antonio, K.M.S., McCarthy, M.J., Herrero, H.V., Zhou, Y., Medeiros, S.C., Colbert, C.D., Jones, C. (2024). Satellite-Based Assessment of Rocket Launch and Coastal Change Impacts on Cape Canaveral Barrier Island, Florida, USA. *Remote Sensing*, 16(23), 4421. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16234421

DekÅ¡ne, J. (2024). CIRCULAR ECONOMY AS A TOOL FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: A THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE. *Environment Technology Resources Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference*, 1, 102-110. https://doi.org/10.17770/etr2024vol1.7954

DrÃ¤ger, P., Letmathe, P. (2023). Who Drives Circularity?â€”The Role of Construction Company Employees in Achieving High Circular Economy Efficiency. *Sustainability*, 15(9), 7110. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097110

Echavarri-Bravo, V., Amari, H., Hartley, J.M., Maddalena, G., Kirk, C., Tuijtel, M.W., Browning, N.D., Horsfall, L. (2022). Selective bacterial separation of critical metals: a sustainable method for recycling lithium ion batteries. **, , . https://doi.org/10.26434/chemrxiv-2022-t862c-v2

Eriksen, M.K., Damgaard, A., Boldrin, A., Astrup, T.F. (2018). Quality Assessment and Circularity Potential of Recovery Systems for Household Plastic Waste. *Journal of Industrial Ecology*, 23(1), 156-168. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12822

Fan, E., Yang, J., Huang, Y., Lin, J., Arshad, F., Wu, F., Li, L., Chen, R. (2020). Leaching Mechanisms of Recycling Valuable Metals from Spent Lithium-Ion Batteries by a Malonic Acid-Based Leaching System. *Acs Applied Energy Materials*, 3(9), 8532-8542. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsaem.0c01166

FranzÃ², S., Urbinati, A., Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V. (2021). Unravelling the design process of business models from linear to circular: An empirical investigation. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 30(6), 2758-2772. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2892

GarcÃ©sâ€Ayerbe, C., Torres, P.R., SuÃ¡rezâ€Perales, I., Hiz, D.I.L.L. (2019). Is It Possible to Change from a Linear to a Circular Economy? An Overview of Opportunities and Barriers for European Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise Companies. *International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health*, 16(5), 851. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16050851

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

GenÃ§, A., Zeydan, Ã., Sarac, S. (2019). Cost analysis of plastic solid waste recycling in an urban district in Turkey. *Waste Management & Research the Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy*, 37(9), 906-913. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242x19858665

GenÃ§er, Y.G. (2019). The Relationship Between Circular Economy And Sustainable Development. *Social Sciences Studies Journal*, 5(31), 1407-1411. https://doi.org/10.26449/sssj.1235

Gomes, S., Lopes, J.M. (2023). Unlocking the potential of circular consumption: The influence of circular habits, environmental concerns and the search for proâ€sustainable information on circular consumption. *Business Strategy & Development*, 7(1), . https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.327

Gonella, J.D.S.L., Filho, M.G., Campos, L.M.D.S., Ganga, G.M.D. (2024). Peopleâ€™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

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

GÃ³mez-Morales, M.Ã., GÃ¡rate, T., Blocher, J., Devleesschauwer, B., Smit, G.S.A., Schmidt, V., Perteguer, M.J., Ludovisi, A., Pozio, E., Dorny, P., GabriÃ«l, S., Winkler, A.S. (2017). Present status of laboratory diagnosis of human taeniosis/cysticercosis in Europe. *European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases*, 36(11), 2029-2040. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-017-3029-1

Hakizimana, D., MacDonald, L.E., Kampire, H.T., Bonaventure, M., Tadesse, M., Murara, E., Dusabe, L., Ishema, L., Schurer, J.M. (2024). Snakebite incidence and healthcare-seeking behaviors in Eastern Province, Rwanda: A cross-sectional study. *Plos Neglected Tropical Diseases*, 18(8), e0012378. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0012378

Hao, Y., Wang, Y., Wu, Q., Sun, S., Wang, W., Cui, M. (2020). What affects residents' participation in the circular economy for sustainable development? Evidence from China. *Sustainable Development*, 28(5), 1251-1268. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2074

Hashemizadeh, A., Abadi, F.Z.B. (2023). Analyzing influential indicators in sustainable development of Guangdong Province: The role of circular economy. **, , 299-304. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-94-6463-260-6_39

Haupt, M., Vadenbo, C., Hellweg, S. (2016). Do We Have the Right Performance Indicators for the Circular Economy?: Insight into the Swiss Waste Management System. *Journal of Industrial Ecology*, 21(3), 615-627. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12506

Hvass, K.K., Pedersen, E.R.G. (2019). Toward circular economy of fashion. *Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management*, 23(3), 345-365. https://doi.org/10.1108/jfmm-04-2018-0059

Ibarra, R.M., Goto, M., Montes, S.M.G., Cuellar, E.M.L., Cruz, A.M.L. (2025). Recycling of lithium-ion batteries: cobalt recovery with supercritical fluids. *Materials for Renewable and Sustainable Energy*, 14(1), . https://doi.org/10.1007/s40243-024-00282-7

Indriawati, R.M., Gravitiani, E., Samara, P.W. (2024). The Comparison of Circular Economy Analysis in Developed and Developing Countries. *Ekuilibrium Jurnal Ilmiah Bidang Ilmu Ekonomi*, 19(1), 2017-01-01 00:00:00. https://doi.org/10.24269/ekuilibrium.v19i1.2024.pp1-17

J., M.M. (2023). Assessing the Impact of Strategic Implementation of Circular Economy on the Competitive Advantage of Canadian Manufacturing Firms. *Journal of Strategic Management*, 7(3), 2025-10-01 00:00:00. https://doi.org/10.53819/81018102t4143

Kaya, D.I., Pintossi, N., Dane, G. (2021). An Empirical Analysis of Driving Factors and Policy Enablers of Heritage Adaptive Reuse within the Circular Economy Framework. *Sustainability*, 13(5), 2479. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052479

Khan, A., Dijk, M.P.V. (2024). The role of multiâ€stakeholder initiatives in advancing circularity and social sustainability in the textiles sector of Bangladesh. *Journal of International Development*, 36(3), 1765-1788. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3879

Kirshanov, K., Ð¢Ð¾Ð¼Ñ, Ð...Ð., Aliev, G., Ismaylov, D.A., Mokhorev, A.E., Gervald, A.Y. (2024). Polyethylene Terephthalate Waste Forms: Going beyond Flakes and Fibers. **, , . https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202405.0990.v1

Koliou, M., Lindt, J.W.V.D., McAllister, T.P., Ellingwood, B.R., Dillard, M., Cutler, H. (2018). State of the research in community resilience: progress and challenges. *Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure*, 5(3), 131-151. https://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2017.1418547

Koval, V., Kryshtal, H., Udovychenko, V., Soloviova, O., Ð¤Ñ€Ð¾Ñ‚ÐµÑ€, Ð., Kokorina, V., Veretin, L. (2023). Review of mineral resource management in a circular economy infrastructure. *Mining of Mineral Deposits*, 17(2), 61-70. https://doi.org/10.33271/mining17.02.061

Kutty, A.A., Abdella, G.M., KÃ¼Ã§Ã¼kvar, M., Onat, N.C., Bulu, M. (2020). A system thinking approach for harmonizing smart and sustainable city initiatives with United Nations sustainable development goals. *Sustainable Development*, 28(5), 1347-1365. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2088

LEVICKY, M., URBANIKOVA, M., DRAGUNOVA, M. (2021). Progress in the Transition of the Circular Economy in Slovakia and the European Union. **, 10(1), 44-51. https://doi.org/10.31578/job.v10i1.185

Lai, L., Imai, T., Umezu, M., Ishii, M., Ogura, H. (2020). Possibility of Calcium Oxide from Natural Limestone Including Impurities for Chemical Heat Pump. *Energies*, 13(4), 803. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13040803

Lv, H., Shi, Z., Liu, J. (2024). Risk Assessment of Highway Infrastructure REITs Projects Based on the DEMATELâ€”ISM Approach. *Sustainability*, 16(12), 5159. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16125159

Lv, W., Wang, Z., Cao, H., Sun, Y., Zhang, Y., Sun, Z. (2018). A Critical Review and Analysis on the Recycling of Spent Lithium-Ion Batteries. *Acs Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering*, 6(2), 1504-1521. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b03811

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

MaricuÈ›, A., GrÄƒdinaru, G. (2023). The Impact of Circular Economy on Economic Development A Review of EU's Countries. *Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence*, 17(1), 1487-1496. https://doi.org/10.2478/picbe-2023-0134

Mashovic, A., IgnjatoviÄ‡, 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

Matsumoto, M., Chinen, K., Endo, H. (2016). Comparison of U.S. and Japanese Consumersâ€™ Perceptions of Remanufactured Auto Parts. *Journal of Industrial Ecology*, 21(4), 966-979. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12478

Melles, G. (2023). The Circular Economy Transition in Australia: Nuanced Circular Intermediary Accounts of Mainstream Green Growth Claims. *Sustainability*, 15(19), 14160. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914160

Meng, X., Das, S., Meng, J. (2023). Integration of Digital Twin and Circular Economy in the Construction Industry. *Sustainability*, 15(17), 13186. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151713186

Montrieux, L., Lemos, R.D., Bailey, C. (2019). Challenges in Engineering Self-Adaptive Authorisation Infrastructures. **, , 57-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2185-6_3

Monyaki, N.C., Cilliers, R. (2023). Defining Drivers and Barriers of Sustainable Fashion Manufacturing: Perceptions in the Global South. *Sustainability*, 15(13), 10715. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310715

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

Neto, G.C.D.O., Santos, R.A.R., Pinto, L.F.R., Flausino, F.R., Oliveira, D.E.P.D., Seri, M.N. (2024). Innovative circular practices integrating business model for textile industry. *Journal of Engineered Fibers and Fabrics*, 19, . https://doi.org/10.1177/15589250241226481

Nowicki, P., Ä†wiklicki, M., Kafel, P., Niezgoda, J., Wojnarowska, M. (2023). The circular economy and its benefits for proâ€environmental companies. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 32(7), 4584-4599. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3382

Ondachi, P.A., Ozigis, I.I., Zarmai, M. (2023). Determination of electric power generation potential of Abujaâ€™s municipal solid wastes. *Nigerian Journal of Technology*, 42(1), 114-121. https://doi.org/10.4314/njt.v42i1.14

Ononge, S., Magunda, A., Balaba, D., Waiswa, P., Okello, D.A., Kaula, H., Zalwango, S., Bua, D.A., Ayebare, A., Kaharuza, F., Bennett, C., Sulzbach, S., Keller, B., Mugerwa, Y. (2023). Strengthening Kampalaâ€™s Urban Referral System for Maternal and Newborn Care Through Establishment of an Emergency Call and Dispatch Center. *Global Health Science and Practice*, 11(3), e2200332. https://doi.org/10.9745/ghsp-d-22-00332

Organization, W.T. (2020). Trade Policies for a Circular Economy. **, , . https://doi.org/10.30875/2ced559e-en

Panwar, R., Niesten, E. (2022). Jumpâ€starting, diffusing, and sustaining the circular economy. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 31(6), 2637-2640. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2996

Pivnenko, K., Laner, D., Astrup, T.F. (2016). Material Cycles and Chemicals: Dynamic Material Flow Analysis of Contaminants in Paper Recycling. *Environmental Science & Technology*, 50(22), 12302-12311. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b01791

Plastinina, I., Teslyuk, L.M., Dukmasova, N., Pikalova, E.Y. (2019). Implementation of Circular Economy Principles in Regional Solid Municipal Waste Management: The Case of Sverdlovskaya Oblast (Russian Federation). *Resources*, 8(2), 90. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8020090

Ravikumar, D., Sinha, P., Seager, T.P., Fraser, M.P. (2015). An anticipatory approach to quantify energetics of recycling CdTe photovoltaic systems. *Progress in Photovoltaics Research and Applications*, 24(5), 735-746. https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.2711

Rensburg, M.L.V., Nkomo, S.L., Mkhize, N.M. (2020). Life cycle and End-of-Life management options in the footwear industry: A review. *Waste Management & Research the Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy*, 38(6), 599-613. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242x20908938

Richa, K., Babbitt, C.W., Gaustad, G. (2017). Ecoâ€Efficiency Analysis of a Lithiumâ€Ion Battery Waste Hierarchy Inspired by Circular Economy. *Journal of Industrial Ecology*, 21(3), 715-730. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12607

Rigail-CedeÃ±o, A., DÃazâ€Barrios, A., Gallardo-Bastidas, J., Ullaguari-Loor, S., Morales-Fuentes, N. (2019). Recycled HDPE/PET Clay Nanocomposites. *Key Engineering Materials*, 821, 67-73. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/kem.821.67

Risteska, A., Gveroski, M. (2022). Circular economy â€“ barriers and challenges. *Horizons A*, 30, . https://doi.org/10.20544/horizons.a.30.1.22.p02

Rizos, V., Behrens, A., Gaast, W.V.D., Hofman, E., Î™Ï‰Î¬Î½Î½Î¿Ï…, 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

Saeed, S., Arshad, M.Y., Ahmed, A.S. (2023). Advancing circular economy in industrial chemistry and environmental engineering: Principles, alignment with United Nations sustainable development goals, and pathways to implementation. *European Journal of Chemistry*, 14(3), 414-428. https://doi.org/10.5155/eurjchem.14.3.414-428.2452

Siregar, M., Raihan, R., Cahyono, C. (2023). Application of circular economy in manufacturing industry in Indonesia. *Amca Journal of Community Development*, 3(1), 19-24. https://doi.org/10.51773/ajcd.v3i1.211

Solodovnik, A., Savkin, V., Ð¡Ð¸Ð´Ð¾Ñ€ÐµÐ½ÐºÐ¾, Ð., Buraeva, E., Bogachev, A.I. (2022). Improving the environmental management system to ensure sustainable development of the agricultural sector in a circular economy. *Iop Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science*, 981(2), 22038. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/981/2/022038

Souza, E.B., Carlos, R.L., MATTOS, C.A., Scur, G. (2024). The role of blockchain platform in enabling circular economy practices. *Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management*, 31(6), 5730-5743. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2885

Spiegel, M., Widl, E., Heinzl, B., KÃ¤stner, W., Akroud, N. (2020). Model-Based Virtual Components in Event-Based Controls: Linking the FMI and IEC 61499. *Applied Sciences*, 10(5), 1611. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10051611

Supanut, A., Maisak, R., Ratchatakulpat, T. (2024). Circular Economy Strategies in Practice: A Qualitative Examination of Industry Adaptation and Innovation. *Revista De GestÃ£o Social E Ambiental*, 18(3), e06723. https://doi.org/10.24857/rgsa.v18n3-121

SÃ¸rensen, P.B. (2017). The Basic Environmental Economics of the Circular Economy. *SSRN Electronic Journal*, , . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3064684

Takala, A., Heino, O. (2015). Exploring Weak Signals and Wild Cards in the Water Services. *International Journal of Sustainable Water and Environmental Systems*, 7(2), . https://doi.org/10.5383/swes.7.02.009

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

Theeraworawit, M., Suriyankietkaew, S., Hallinger, P. (2022). Sustainable Supply Chain Management in a Circular Economy: A Bibliometric Review. *Sustainability*, 14(15), 9304. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159304

TomÅ¡e, T., Kubelka, P., LÃ³pez, R., Fleissner, P., Grau, L., Zaplotnik, M., Burkhardt, C. (2024). Magnetic Performance and Anticorrosion Coating Stability of Thermally Demagnetized Nd-Fe-B Permanent Magnets for Reuse Applications. *Materials*, 17(23), 5927. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17235927

Toni, M. (2023). Conceptualization Of Circular Economy And Sustainability At The Business Level. Circular Economy And Sustainable Development. **, 1(2), 81-89. https://doi.org/10.59762/ijerm205275791220231205140635

TricÄƒ, C.L., BÄƒnacu, C.S., BuÅŸu, M. (2019). Environmental Factors and Sustainability of the Circular Economy Model at the European Union Level. *Sustainability*, 11(4), 1114. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041114

Tullo, A. (2017). Adidas adds sole to 3-D printing. *C&en Global Enterprise*, 95(16), 13-13. https://doi.org/10.1021/cen-09516-buscon012

Uekert, T., Singh, A., DesVeaux, J.S., Ghosh, T., Bhatt, A., Yadav, G., Afzal, S., Walzberg, J., Knauer, K.M., Nicholson, S., Beckham, G.T., Carpenter, A. (2023). Technical, Economic, and Environmental Comparison of Closed-Loop Recycling Technologies for Common Plastics. *Acs Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering*, 11(3), 965-978. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.2c05497

Valverde, J., AvilÃ©s-Palacios, C. (2021). Circular Economy as a Catalyst for Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals: A Positive Relationship between Two Self-Sufficient Variables. *Sustainability*, 13(22), 12652. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212652

Vetrova, M.A., Ivanova, D.V. (2022). Formation of a Circular Economy to Mitigate the Threats of the COVID-19 Pandemic. *International Journal of Social Science and Humanity*, , 103-106. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijssh.2022.v12.1074

VuÈ›Äƒ, M., VuÈ›Äƒ, M., Enciu, A., CioacÃ£, S. (2018). Assessment of the Circular EconomyÂ’s Impact in the EU Economic Growth. *WWW Amfiteatrueconomic Ro*, 20(48), 248. https://doi.org/10.24818/ea/2018/48/248

Wahab, D.A., Blancoâ€Davis, E., Ariffin, A.K., Wang, J. (2018). A review on the applicability of remanufacturing in extending the life cycle of marine or offshore components and structures. *Ocean Engineering*, 169, 125-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.08.046

Walden, J., Steinbrecher, A., Marinkovic, M. (2021). Digital Product Passports as Enabler of the Circular Economy. *Chemie Ingenieur Technik*, 93(11), 1717-1727. https://doi.org/10.1002/cite.202100121

Wang, B., Ye, T., Wang, G., Guo, L., Xiao, J. (2021). Approximate backâ€projection method for improving lateral resolution in circularâ€scanningâ€based photoacoustic tomography. *Medical Physics*, 48(6), 3011-3021. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.14880

Wang, N.M., Strong, G., DaSilva, V., Gao, L., Huacuja, R., Konstantinov, I.A., Rosen, M.S., Nett, A.J., Ewart, S.W., Geyer, R., Scott, S.L., Guironnet, D. (2022). Chemical Recycling of Polyethylene by Tandem Catalytic Conversion to Propylene. *Journal of the American Chemical Society*, 144(40), 18526-18531. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.2c07781

Wang, S., Wu, Q., Yu, J. (2024). BIM-Based Assessment of the Environmental Effects of Various End-of-Life Scenarios for Buildings. *Sustainability*, 16(7), 2980. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072980

Welle, F. (2021). Safety Evaluation of Polyethylene Terephthalate Chemical Recycling Processes. *Sustainability*, 13(22), 12854. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212854

Wick, C.D., Peters, A.J., Li, G. (2024). A Molecular Dynamics Modeling Framework for Shape Memory Vitrimers. *Journal of Polymer Science*, 63(1), 2019-09-01 00:00:00. https://doi.org/10.1002/pol.20240616

Williams, J. (2019). Circular Cities: Challenges to Implementing Looping Actions. *Sustainability*, 11(2), 423. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020423

Wu, Q., Xu, X. (2021). To be raised up or kicked out? Insights for the recycler in closed-loop supply chain with the regulation of government. *Rairo - Operations Research*, 55(3), 1675-1694. https://doi.org/10.1051/ro/2021066

Yamada, L., Oskotsky, T., Nuyujukian, P. (2024). A scalable platform for acquisition of high-fidelity human intracranial EEG with minimal clinical burden. *Plos One*, 19(6), e0305009. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305009

WATER AND WASTEWATER POINT

Tuesday, March 25, 2025

Hidden Flaws in the Circular Economy – The Unseen Constraints and Socioeconomic Realities

APA Style Reference List (A–Z)

No comments:

Post a Comment