Shaping Markets and Policies for Genuine Circularity Economic

 

                                                         Author AM Tris Hardyanto

In a world dreaming of endless loops of reuse, the truth is far messier. Circularity collides with the physics of entropy, where every transformation costs energy and material degrades. Without acknowledging these limits, the circular economy risks becoming a seductive illusion, promising sustainability while ignoring the irreversible decay at the heart of nature’s laws.

 1. Entropy and Illusion — The Physical Limits of Circularity

The circular economy promises a world without waste—a seamless loop of reuse, regeneration, and resilience. However, nature operates under different rules. In a universe governed by entropy, the dream of infinite material reuse collides with the unyielding reality of irreversible decay

1.1 The Thermodynamic Truth. Why Energy and Matter Degrade

The foundations of a Circular Economy (CE) are inherently challenged by thermodynamic principles, particularly the entropic imperative defined by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which asserts that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease. .it principle fundamentally indicates that all material transformations inevitably lead to an increase in disorder, necessitating supplementary energy inputs to restore order Sumter et al. (2020) (Toni, 2023). As such, .it entropic reality presents a significant barrier to CE, the goal of infinite material reuse, where it is expected that materials could maintain their utility indefinitely through continual recycling and reuse.

Material degradation mechanisms further complicate circularity within CE. For instance, plastic polymers typically lose around 10-30% of their tensile strength with each recycling cycle, while aluminium alloys can accumulate up to 0.3% impurities (predominantly iron) during remelting processes (Dewick et al., 2020; Organization, 2020). Furthermore, paper fibres undergo severe degradation, shortening to below 0.5 mm after just five to seven recycling cycles (Barna et al., 2023). These degradation processes highlight the irreversible loss of quality and performance in recycled materials, emphasizing the limitations of achieving true circularity without accepting that material ultimately degrades towards a point of material death, necessitating mindful design strategies for component longevity (O'Born & Heimdal, 2022).

 The energy-material cost matrix presents another facet of .it entropic reality. Detailed assessments reveal substantial energy costs associated with virgin and recycled materials. For instance, the production of virgin plastic incurs an energy cost of approximately 85 MJ/kg, while the first recycling of plastic costs about 32 MJ/kg but leads to a significant loss in material quality. In stark contrast, the fifth recycling cycle dramatically raises the energy cost to 48 MJ/kg while incurring further losses in material quality, indicating that increased recycling efforts do not equate to equivalent resource utilization efficiency (Dewick et al., 2020; Toni, 2023). Understanding .it matrix is crucial for policymakers to develop more realistic benchmarks for CE operationalization.

 

1.2 Circular Dreams vs. Entropic Realities

The efficiency paradox presents a stark contrast between the hopes invested in CE and the grim realities dictated by entropic dynamics. Although technical recycling rates appear promising—metals boast a recovery efficiency of approximately 34-68%, and some niches of e-waste recycling attempt to recover valuable materials—plastics show alarmingly low actual reuse rates, ranging from 9% to 21% (Haas et al., 2015; Mashovic et al., 2022). Such discrepancies in actual recycling efficacy accentuate the potential for misleading narratives surrounding CE effectiveness and point to the urgent need for transparency in discussing the limitations imposed by the laws of nature.

Moreover, the hidden socioeconomic entropy follows a similar pattern as CEs, which are often predicated on offloading waste to developing nations. .it practice not only perpetuates cycles of exploitation, marginalization, and health hazards but also translates into diminished quality of life for informal recycling labourers working under hazardous conditions (Rizos et al., 2016). An illustrative case study of lithium battery recycling further corroborates these issues, revealing that the energy required for recovery can exceed the energy used in the original production phase—127% of the original production energy is needed for recovery processes. Additionally, cobalt recovery yields experience a striking decline from 95% after the first cycle to only 61% after the fifth cycle (Sumter et al., 2021). Worker exposure to dangerous substances underscores a critical need for socio-environmental safeguards within the CE discourse (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017).

1.3 Toward Sufficiency. Resilience Over Perpetual Reuse

Acknowledging the limitations imposed by physical and social realities leads to a reframing of the CE narrative towards Sufficiency instead of perpetual reuse. The emergent "5R "hierarchy reframes initial CE goals by emphasizing critical steps. Refusing non-essential material flows, rethinking design to achieve a minimum lifespan, enhancing reparability through modular architectures, remanufacturing while limiting material regeneration cycles, and ensuring that product returns consist solely of biodegradable materials (Kopnina, 2018). Each step moves away from an unrealistic paradigm of incessant reuse towards a model of resilience and Sustainability, promoting well-being rather than mere consumption.

Implementing resilient metrics within the CE framework becomes essential for assessing true Sustainability. The proposed resilience metrics framework can provide systemic insights that ensure CE activities align with both ecological thresholds and social equity (Ozili, 2022).

Furthermore, the policy implementation pathway must reflect a structured evolution across defined phases. The initial phase should focus on developing material passports and implementing an entropy tax to incentivize energy-efficient resource management. The subsequent phase should target modularity standards and health impacts for workers involved in recycling processes to improve overall outcomes and safety. Finally, the long-term phase should prioritize degrowth allocations and entropy budgets, steering the economy towards Sustainability while dismantling exploitative structures in resource allocation and waste management (Dimitrov & Ivanova, 2017).

The Entropic Imperative

Ultimately, realizing a genuinely circular economy necessitates recognition of the entropic imperative inherent in the natural world. The evolution of reuse cycles inevitably heads toward material death rather than infinite regeneration; therefore, strategies must be designed within the boundaries of nature and society. By bridging the gap between environmental realities and socioeconomic dynamics, we can forge a more equitable future characterized by genuine sustainability (Tashtamirov, 2023; Murti et al., 2022). A CE anchored in physical limitations, technological innovation, and social justice holds the promise of developing an economy that balances ecological integrity with human well-being.

 

  2.  Economic Barriers to Circular Practices

The transition to a Circular Economy (CE) faces formidable economic barriers that impede its broad adoption. Central to these challenges is the financial disadvantage of recycled materials in comparison to virgin materials, compounded by market preferences that favour linear economy products motivated by novelty and affordability.

The math of Sustainability often does not add up. While the planet burns and resources dwindle, it remains cheaper to dig up new materials than to recover and reuse what we have already extracted. .it is not just an economic failure—it is a policy choice and a profoundly political one.

Financial Disadvantage of Recycled vs. Virgin Materials

One of the most significant challenges in implementing circular practices is the economic appeal of virgin materials, which often outperforms recycled alternatives due to externalized environmental costs. .it discrepancy makes recycled materials less economically competitive. Several factors contribute to .it phenomenon.

1. Subsidies and Externalized Costs. Virgin materials frequently benefit from government subsidies and lack comprehensive pricing for pollution and ecosystem degradation. For instance, fossil fuel subsidies have made materials like virgin plastic significantly cheaper, while recycled plastic can cost more due to the additional processing required to ensure acceptable quality and purity. .it economic dynamic favours the continued use of virgin materials over recycled alternatives, discouraging reduced reliance on ecological resources as encouraged by CE principles (Santos et al., 2021).
2. Economies of Scale. Mass production of virgin materials gains the advantage of economies of scale, reducing costs through operational efficiencies that recycling processes often cannot match. Recycling and remanufacturing require extensive labour and can be technologically demanding, contributing to higher production costs. For example, achieving high-quality recycled metals may entail further purification processes that drive up expenses, placing recycled materials at a disadvantage in the marketplace (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017).
3. Technological Limitations. The current state of recycling technology constrains the capacity to recover materials of comparable quality to virgin versions. The additional steps required, such as sorting and refining, not only increase costs but leave many industries hesitant to opt for recycled inputs (Trică et al., 2019). As the need for quality assurance rises, so does the price of recycled materials, magnifying existing economic challenges (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017).

Implications.
The economic gap between recycled and virgin materials fosters a competitive disadvantage, deterring businesses from adopting circular practices. Companies may exhibit hesitancy in investing in the infrastructure and technologies needed for recycling, perceiving them as risky ventures with lower profit margins compared to traditional linear models (Rizos et al., 2016). Consequently, the transition to a circular economy becomes obstructed by the entrenched financial structures that favour linear production paradigms.

Market Preferences for Linear Economy Products

Consumer preferences play a notable role in shaping market dynamics, with a significant portion of the population gravitating towards the novelty and affordability often characteristic of linear economy products.

1. Novelty and Convenience. Consumer culture is driven by a generalized desire for newness; frequent updates and replacements of products are bolstered by marketing campaigns that emphasize innovation. This practice is notably prevalent in technology sectors, such as smartphones, where annual model releases encourage consumers to upgrade devices, even when their current models remain functional (Zemanová, 2023).
2. Planned Obsolescence. Many products are designed with an intentionally limited lifespan, a strategy known as planned obsolescence. .it practice is rampant in electronics, fashion, and household goods, enhancing repeat purchases and discouraging consumer engagement with durability or restoration principles (Halog et al., 2021). As a result, the perception predominates that newer products outperform older versions, undermining the broader principles of waste reduction inherent in circularity.
3. Affordability. Linear economy products often come at a lower price point due to the aforementioned economies of scale achieved through the mass production of virgin materials. Affordability remains a significant factor for consumers who prioritize budget over Sustainability, which presents substantial challenges for circular products that are often positioned at the higher end of the price spectrum (Demirel & Danışman, 2019).

Implications.
The culture of disposability, coupled with the psychological allure of newness, fuels consumer behaviour that leads to overconsumption and hampers efforts to promote reuse initiatives. Consumers may question the quality of recycled or remanufactured items, viewing them as inferior compared to their newly produced counterparts, resulting in market resistance toward circular solutions (Toni, 2023).

Addressing Economic Barriers

To overcome the economic barriers hindering the widespread adoption of circular practices, a multifaceted approach is required. Several strategies can facilitate .it transition.

1. True-Cost Accounting. Policymakers need to employ measures that internalize the environmental costs linked to virgin materials—such as carbon pricing, landfill taxes, and extraction levies. Adjusting the financial landscape would effectively elevate the costs associated with virgin materials, supporting a more equal competitive environment for recycled alternatives (Santos et al., 2021).
2. Financial Incentives. Government interventions, like offering subsidies and tax breaks for businesses adopting circular practices, can alleviate the financial burdens associated with initial investments in circular infrastructure and technology (Ting et al., 2023). Such incentives could effectively entice companies to pursue sustainable practices.
3. Consumer Education and Awareness. Public campaigns aimed at educating consumers about the benefits of circular products are essential for shifting societal preferences toward Sustainability. By emphasizing long-term advantages—environmental impact and cost savings over time—consumers may begin to prioritize circular options, enhancing market acceptance (Sysoiev, 2022).
4. Regulatory Frameworks. Implementing Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) frameworks can hold manufacturers accountable for their products across the entire lifecycle, incentivizing sustainable design and minimizing waste (Holly et al., 2023). Such legislation fosters a proactive approach among producers, pressing them to take responsibility for waste generated.
5. Innovation and Collaboration. Investment in research and development will prove critical to enhancing recycling technologies and material recovery processes, thereby improving the quality and reducing the costs of recycled materials. Furthermore, fostering collaboration among industry players, governments, and NGOs can build supportive ecosystems that facilitate shared learning and innovation (Ahmed et al., 2022).

In .it, the economic challenges confronting the transition toward a Circular Economy are multifaceted, rooted in both the cost disparities between recycled and virgin materials and prevailing consumer preferences favouring linear practices. To mitigate these issues, concerted approaches such as true-cost accounting, financial incentives, educational initiatives, regulatory frameworks, and technological innovation are required. Implementing these strategies will help pave the way to a more sustainable and equitable economic model aligned with circular principles.

 

3. Transforming Market Dynamics. Can the Circular Economy Survive in a Culture Addicted to Waste?

 

Transforming market dynamics is imperative to effectively transition from a linear economy to a Circular Economy (CE). The transformation involves creating financial incentives to support circular practices and implementing economic penalties on linear economy practices. Together, these strategies are designed to level the playing field, making circular practices more competitive and appealing to both businesses and consumers.

Financial Incentives to Support Circular Businesses

Financial incentives play a crucial role in motivating businesses to adopt circular practices. Governments can leverage various tools to facilitate the economic viability of sustainable initiatives, thereby encouraging corporate responsibility and innovation.

1. Tax Breaks. Tax incentives are an effective way for governments to motivate businesses to adopt sustainable practices. By offering tax reductions to companies that utilize recycled materials, design for durability, or invest in recycling infrastructure, the economic barrier to adopting CE practices can be significantly lowered. For instance, a firm integrating a high percentage of recycled content into its products may benefit from reduced corporate tax rates, incentivizing a shift towards more sustainable material sources Bagheri & Abdelaziz (2024).
2. Subsidies. Providing subsidies to businesses that invest in circular technologies and infrastructure can further ease the financial burden of transitioning to circular practices. These subsidies can mitigate the initial costs associated with establishing recycling facilities or implementing new sustainable production processes. For example, governmental support for companies developing advanced recycling technologies or establishing circular supply chains can be pivotal in promoting Sustainability while reducing investment risks (Bernardi et al., 2022).
3. Grants and Funding for R&D. Research and development funding can stimulate innovation within circular economy practices and improve the efficiencies of material recovery processes. Governments and international organizations could establish grant programs to support research into innovative recycling methods, such as chemical recycling or enzymatic breakdown technologies for plastics. .it support is paramount in enabling businesses to pioneer cutting-edge solutions that could fundamentally enhance circularity and Sustainability (Yu et al., 2021).

Implications.
The integration of financial incentives can lead to increased adoption of circular practices across various sectors. By lowering economic barriers, companies may feel more empowered to align their operations with CE principles, leading to the widespread implementation of sustainable initiatives. Moreover, robust financial support can drive innovation within the circular economy realm, creating business opportunities and stimulating economic growth in the green sector.

Economic Penalties for Linear Economy Practices

While financial incentives are crucial for promoting circular activities, economic penalties represent a necessary counterbalance to discourage linear economic practices that harm the environment.

1. Virgin Resource Extraction Taxes. By imposing taxes on the extraction of virgin resources—such as minerals, timber, and fossil fuels—governments can internalize the environmental costs associated with resource depletion. Consequently, these taxes can render the use of virgin materials less economically attractive, thereby encouraging companies to consider recycled alternatives. For instance, an increased tax on crude oil extraction would likely elevate the costs associated with producing virgin plastics, making recycled plastics more competitive (Enciso‐Alfaro et al., 2024).
2. Pollution and Waste Disposal Fees. Governments can levy fees on waste disposal and pollution generation activities, incentivizing companies to reduce waste and pursue cleaner technologies. A fee structure that penalizes landfill disposal rates could compel businesses to adopt more effective waste management strategies and invest in recycling infrastructure instead (Renfors, 2024). .it proactive measure creates a financial disincentive for unsustainable waste practices.
3. Carbon Pricing Mechanisms. Implementing carbon pricing—such as cap-and-trade systems or carbon taxes—can effectively internalize the environmental costs of greenhouse gas emissions. By making carbon-intensive practices more expensive, these mechanisms propel companies toward adopting low-carbon and circular economic practices. For example, a carbon tax on industrial emissions might encourage companies to invest in energy-efficient technologies, thus lowering their carbon footprints and reliance on virgin resources (Debnath et al., 2023).

Every delay in penalizing the linear economy comes at a price—paid not by corporations but by communities flooded with waste, workers exposed to toxins, and ecosystems pushed past their tipping points. We are not incentivizing Sustainability—we are subsidizing collapse.

 

Implications.
Economic penalties can catalyze behavioural changes by making linear practices financially untenable. As businesses face higher costs for environmentally damaging activities, they are more likely to explore and adopt circular alternatives. .it transformation has the potential to yield significant environmental benefits, including reduced greenhouse gas emissions and conservation of natural resources.

Transforming market dynamics through the implementation of financial incentives and economic penalties is critical for promoting the transition to a Circular Economy. Financial measures such as tax breaks, subsidies, and grants can significantly alleviate the economic challenges that businesses face in adopting sustainable practices. On the other hand, economic penalties can discourage unsustainable linear practices by making them financially burdensome.

By implementing these strategies, governments can cultivate a more equitable and competitive market environment, ultimately encouraging wider adoption of circular practices. .it approach will facilitate increased innovation, stimulate economic growth, and yield substantial environmental benefits, supporting the overarching goals of the Circular Economy.

 

4  4 Essential Policy Interventions. Who Cleans the World's Waste Water and Why Are They Invisible?

Transitioning to a Circular Economy (CE) necessitates implementing essential policy interventions that address the persistent barriers to waste management, product lifecycle accountability, and sustainable practices. Among these interventions, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) frameworks stand out as pivotal tools that can redefine accountability in product lifecycles while aligning policies with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Frameworks

Behind every discarded phone or broken appliance lies an invisible workforce—women and children in the Global South, sorting through danger for pennies. The circular economy cannot succeed by hiding its human cost. A just transition must begin by making the invisible visible.

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a policy approach that assigns producers full accountability for their products throughout the entire lifecycle—from design and manufacturing to disposal and recycling. Through EPR frameworks, the burden of waste management shifts from consumers and municipalities to producers, thereby incentivizing sustainable product design and promoting circular economic practices.

1. Lifecycle Accountability. EPR frameworks enforce a model where producers must account for their products throughout their lifecycle, focusing on designing for durability, repairability, and recyclability. .it shift incentivizes manufacturers to consider end-of-life implications during the design phase. For instance, electronics manufacturers might be required to establish take-back programs for old devices, ensuring that they are properly recycled or refurbished, thus minimizing environmental impact Quartey et al. (2015)(Widyarsana & Nurawaliah, 2023; .
2. Financial Incentives. Many EPR frameworks incorporate financial incentives for producers adopting sustainable practices. These can be structured as decreased fees for products that are easier to recycle or increased fees for products generating excessive waste. For example, a fee system could allow manufacturers who create quickly recyclable products to pay lower fees than those producing complex, non-recyclable materials, promoting greener product design (Gui et al., 2013; Peagam et al., 2013).
3. Regulatory Compliance. EPR policies typically encompass regulatory requirements mandating producers to comply with established recycling targets and environmental standards. For instance, producers could be required to achieve specific recycling rates for their products and report their progress to relevant governmental authorities. Such compliance fosters accountability in the management of waste generated by their products (Widyarsana & Nurawaliah, 2023; Ono et al., 2022).

Implications.
The implementation of EPR frameworks can significantly transform product design and waste management landscapes. By compelling producers to consider Sustainability in their operations, EPR promotes.

• Sustainable Product Design. Greater focus on developing products that are easier to recycle and repair, leading to waste reduction and resource conservation.
• Waste Reduction. By reallocating responsibility for waste management to producers, EPR frameworks can drastically decrease landfill waste and enhance recycling initiatives.
• Economic Benefits. EPR can stimulate innovation in sustainable practices within the green economy, creating new business opportunities and fostering economic growth (Khan et al., 2021; Mayers et al., 2012).

Policy Integration Aligning with SDGs

Despite the potential of EPR frameworks, the broader alignment of policy interventions with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is equally vital for fostering sustainable development. By targeting goals related to economic growth and responsible production, governments can reinforce the effectiveness of circular economy strategies while addressing pervasive social, economic, and environmental challenges.

1. SDG 8. Decent Work and Economic Growth. Policies promoting the circular economy can stimulate economic growth by creating new job opportunities in recycling, remanufacturing, and sustainable product design. Investing in training programs for green jobs strengthens the workforce in CE sectors, enhancing productivity and innovation—critical components for long-term economic resilience (Turner & Nugent, 2015)(Manomaivibool & Vassanadumrongdee, 2011; .
2. SDG 12. Responsible Consumption and Production. Policies that encourage responsible production and consumption practices play a fundamental role in advancing the circular economy. Legislation that mandates transparency regarding the environmental impacts of products can incentivize companies to adopt sustainable production methods, ultimately reducing waste and resource impact (Ono et al., 2023).
3. SDG 13. Climate Action. Circular economy policies contribute directly to climate action by reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with traditional resource extraction, production, and waste disposal. Mechanisms such as carbon pricing (e.g., carbon taxes) can motivate companies to adopt low-carbon methods and technologies, further solidifying the connection between circularity and climate responsibility (Mayanti & Helo, 2023).

Implications.
Integrating circular economy policies with the SDGs cultivates a holistic approach to sustainable development, addressing interconnected challenges such as economic inequality, environmental degradation, and climate change. .it alignment fosters.

• Holistic Development. An integrated approach ensures that solutions address multiple dimensions of Sustainability, promoting resilience within economies and communities.
• Global Cooperation. Aligning policies with the SDGs fosters international collaboration, enabling countries to share knowledge and support each other in achieving collective sustainability goals (Turner & Nugent, 2015).
• Long-Term Sustainability. Policies focused on SDG integration enhance the potential for long-term Sustainability by addressing root causes of social and environmental issues, leading to resilient economies that thrive within planetary boundaries (Manomaivibool & Vassanadumrongdee, 2011; Chaerul & Indrapta, 2024).

 

The  essential policy interventions such as Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) frameworks and SDG-aligned policies play a crucial role in promoting the transition to a circular economy. EPR frameworks build accountability into product lifecycles, incentivizing sustainable practices while mitigating waste. Simultaneously, aligning policies with the SDGs ensures a comprehensive approach to sustainable development, fostering progress in economic growth, responsible production, and climate action.

By effectively implementing these policy interventions, governments can not only facilitate a supportive environment for circular practices but also drive significant innovation, economic growth, and environmental Sustainability. .it approach will yield extensive benefits, ultimately reinforcing the vision of a sustainable circular economy.

5.  5, Case Studies. Are We Globalizing Circularity—or Localizing the Burden?

As the world grapples with the mounting challenge of waste management in the context of Sustainability, innovative approaches from various countries provide important perspectives on how to transition to a Circular Economy (CE) effectively. The case studies of Rwanda's e-waste recycling hubs and Indonesia's community-based circular economy initiatives exemplify practical applications of circular economy principles, highlighting local adaptations to global challenges.

As circularity gains momentum on the global stage, a critical question emerges. Are circular solutions truly globalized—or are wealthy nations offloading responsibilities onto poorer ones in the name of Sustainability? Real solutions are rooted in local knowledge, equity, and empowerment—not extraction repackaged as green progress.

 

Rwanda's E-Waste Recycling Hubs

 

Rwanda has emerged as a significant player in the realm of e-waste management across Africa by establishing e-waste recycling hubs designed to tackle the growing problem of electronic waste (e-waste). E-waste, which contains hazardous materials like lead, mercury, and cadmium, poses considerable environmental and health risks.

1. E-Waste Recycling Hubs. Rwanda has developed specialized facilities for the collection, dismantling, and recycling of e-waste. These hubs utilize technology to process e-waste securely and recover valuable materials. The Rwanda Green Fund (FONERWA) actively supports these initiatives, providing funding and technical assistance to ensure the hubs operate sustainably and effectively Ogutu et al. (2023). .it commitment to technological investment not only minimizes environmental hazards but also facilitates the recovery of valuable materials.
2. Job Creation. The establishment of e-waste recycling hubs has led to the creation of employment opportunities within local communities. Training programs enable workers to develop essential skills in e-waste management and recycling. Workers at these hubs receive training in safe dismantling techniques, material recovery, and proper handling of hazardous substances, enhancing their employability and contributing to local economic growth (Baah et al., 2021).
3. Environmental Benefits. Rwanda's e-waste recycling initiatives provide substantial environmental advantages by reducing the negative impacts of electronic waste disposal. By ensuring safe recycling processes, the hubs prevent soil and water contamination, ultimately contributing to reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, recovering valuable materials such as copper, gold, and aluminium reduces the need for virgin resource extraction, thereby minimizing environmental degradation (Tisserant et al., 2017).

Implications.

• Sustainable Development. Rwanda's recycling hubs align with sustainable development goals by addressing environmental challenges, creating jobs, and promoting economic growth.
• Health and Safety. Improved e-waste management practices enhance public health outcomes by reducing exposure to hazardous materials, ensuring safer disposal and recycling practices.
• Circular Economy. Rwanda's e-waste management serves as a model of circular economy principles, emphasizing resource recovery, waste reduction, and sustainable practices (Gomide et al., 2024).

Indonesia's Community-Based Circular Economy Initiatives

 

In Indonesia, various community-based circular economy initiatives have emerged, focused on empowering local communities to engage in sustainable practices, including recycling and waste management.

1. Community-Based Recycling Programs. Indonesia has established local community recycling centres where residents can deposit recyclable materials such as plastics, paper, and metals. These centres educate communities about recycling practices. An example is the Waste Bank program, which allows residents to exchange recyclables for points redeemable for goods or services, incentivizing recycling and waste reduction (Mashovic et al., 2022).
2. Sustainable Agriculture. Beyond recycling, Indonesia's initiatives encompass sustainable agriculture practices, such as composting organic waste into natural fertilizers and employing agroforestry techniques that enhance soil health and biodiversity. Training programs aim to teach farmers effective composting methods, reducing reliance on chemical fertilizers and promoting sustainable farming practices (Henry et al., 2022).
3. Local Enterprises. The support for local enterprises that produce eco-friendly goods, including reusable bags and recycled paper products, fosters economic opportunities while promoting sustainable consumption. Community cooperatives involved in producing reusable shopping bags from recycled materials reduce plastic waste while generating income for residents (O'Born & Heimdal, 2022).

Implications.

• Community Empowerment. Indonesia's community initiatives promote active participation in sustainability efforts, fostering ownership and responsibility for environmental stewardship.
• Economic Development. By facilitating local enterprises and sustainable agricultural practices, these initiatives bolster economic development, create jobs, and enhance community livelihoods.
• Environmental Conservation. Through recycling and sustainable agricultural practices, Indonesia's initiatives contribute to waste reduction, resource conservation, and ecosystem protection (Solomon et al., 2024).

 

Rwanda's e-waste recycling hubs and Indonesia's community-based circular economy initiatives serve as inspirational case studies underscoring the practical application of circular economy principles. Rwanda addresses the health and environmental challenges posed by electronic waste while fostering job creation and sustainable development. In contrast, Indonesia empowers local communities to engage in recycling, sustainable agriculture, and eco-friendly production, demonstrating the importance of localized, community-driven sustainability approaches.

These case studies illustrate that by involving local communities and providing requisite support and resources, countries can implement effective circular economy practices. Moreover, they emphasize the potential for localized solutions to effectively address environmental challenges while enhancing economic growth and social well-being. .it suggests a promising pathway toward a more sustainable and equitable global economy, wherein both circularity and local responses are harmonized.

 

 

 6. Necessity of Economic and Policy Reforms to Enable Equitable Circular Transition

The transition to a Circular Economy (CE) is not merely a technical endeavour but a profound socioeconomic transformation. To facilitate .it shift, comprehensive economic and policy reforms are essential. Such reforms are not just beneficial but necessary to ensure that the advantages of circular practices are equitably shared across all societal segments, especially among marginalized communities and developing nations.

Economic Reforms

Economic systems must undergo significant restructuring to prioritize Sustainability and equity as central tenets of their operation. Key reforms that can facilitate .it transformation include.

1. True-Cost Accounting. Implementing true-cost accounting measures is crucial for internalizing environmental and social costs associated with production and consumption. .it system would compel businesses to recognize the broader impacts of their activities, enabling them to make more informed decisions regarding Sustainability. For example, governments could introduce carbon pricing or pollution taxes that reflect the ecological costs of using virgin materials versus recycled ones. Such changes would encourage companies to invest in more sustainable practices over time.
2. Financial Incentives. It is equally essential to provide financial incentives for businesses that adopt circular practices. Tax breaks, subsidies, and grants can significantly reduce the economic burden of transitioning to sustainable practices. An example of .it could be the provision of grants for startups pioneering eco-friendly innovations or reduced taxes for firms employing recycled materials in their products. .it motive is crucial not only for facilitating initial investments but also for encouraging larger companies to reconsider their supply chain practices.
3. Investing in Local Circular Infrastructure. Governments should invest in local infrastructure that supports circular practices, such as recycling facilities, urban composting operations, and community waste collection systems. These investments not only generate jobs but also create a robust framework for a circular economy by facilitating local resource recovery and minimizing waste.

Policy Reforms

Alongside economic changes, robust policy frameworks are essential for driving the circular transition. Among the significant policies that can aid .it process are.

1. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). EPR frameworks hold producers accountable for the entire lifecycle of their products, shifting the responsibility for waste management from consumers to producers. By mandating that manufacturers design products for durability, repairability, and recyclability, EPR policies can incentivize sustainable design and waste management, ultimately reducing environmental harm. For example, electronics producers might be required to implement take-back schemes for old devices, ensuring responsible recycling practices that enhance material recovery.
2. Integration with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Policy alignment with the SDGs is integral to promoting sustainable development and equitable economic growth. .it alignment fosters a holistic approach that addresses interrelated challenges in economic growth, responsible production, and environmental Sustainability. EPR policies tied to the SDGs can create a framework that encourages responsible practices while promoting job creation and economic resilience.

Implications.
The reforms outlined above have far-reaching implications for society and the environment.

• Equitable Distribution. By ensuring that the benefits of a circular economy are shared equitably, these reforms can help reduce disparities between affluent and marginalized communities, thereby promoting social justice and enhancing local economies' resilience.
• Sustainable Development. Integrating circular principles within economic and policy frameworks enables countries to meet—and exceed—their sustainability goals by simultaneously addressing economic challenges, promoting growth, and protecting the environment.
• Global Cooperation. Policy reforms that align with global sustainability goals encourage international collaboration, enabling countries to share best practices and support one another in achieving common sustainability objectives.

Teaser. Reorienting Technology Towards Holistic Sustainability

As we progress in our exploration of the Circular Economy, it is vital to acknowledge the role of technology in fostering sustainable practices. However, technology alone is insufficient. Achieving holistic Sustainability requires a reorientation of technological innovations to tackle wider socioeconomic and environmental challenges effectively.

1. Holistic Approach. Technology must integrate into a comprehensive framework encompassing social equity, environmental stewardship, and economic resilience. For instance, blockchain technology can enhance supply chain transparency, while AI can optimize recycling processes, illustrating the dual role of technology in improving efficiency and promoting Sustainability.
2. Inclusive Innovation. Ensuring that technological advancements are accessible to all communities bridges the digital divide and empowers marginalized individuals. Educational initiatives that develop digital literacy can equip residents with the necessary skills to engage with and benefit from technological advancements in circular practices.

Implications.
Reorienting technology towards holistic Sustainability leads to enhanced systems that are both efficient and equitable. .it approach ensures that technological innovations contribute to long-term environmental and social objectives, empowering communities to engage actively in sustainability efforts and nurturing a sense of ownership over local resources.

Final Thoughts

Ultimately, economic and policy reforms are vital in enabling an equitable transition to a Circular Economy. By restructuring economic systems and implementing robust policy frameworks—such as EPR frameworks and those aligned with the SDGs—governments can create a supportive environment that encourages circular practices. Its evolution offers opportunities for innovation, economic growth, and long-term Sustainability, addressing pressing environmental challenges while enhancing social well-being.

Circularity is not a technical fix but a cultural shift—a call to reshape the very foundations of value, ownership, and progress. The question is no longer whether the world can afford .it transition. The question is whether it can survive without it.

 

References

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

Almayzhar, H. (2024). What is the impact of circular economy implementation on a country's wealth in the European Union's 27 countries? An empirical study with Eurostat data. International Conference on Social Sciences and Humanities, 157–183. https.//doi.org/10.20319/icssh.2024.157183

Arenas, C. B., Pesantes, A. A., Carpio, E. P., Torres, E. J. M., & Gómez, X. (2021). Anaerobic digestion for producing renewable energy—The evolution of .it technology in a new uncertain scenario. Entropy, 23(2), 145. https.//doi.org/10.3390/e23020145

Baah, C., Afum, E., Agyabeng-Mensah, Y., & Agyeman, D. O. (2021). Stakeholder influence on the adoption of circular economy principles. Measuring implications for satisfaction and green legitimacy. Circular Economy and Sustainability, 2(1), 91–111. https.//doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00093-2

Bagheri, N., & Abdelaziz, F. B. (2024). Efficiency rankings of economic sectors. A focus on sustainability and circularity objectives. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 18(6), 2435–2448. https.//doi.org/10.1108/ijesm-09-2023-0024

Barna, C., Zbuchea, A., & Stănescu, S. M. (2023). Social economy enterprises contributing to the circular economy and the green transition in Romania. Ciriec-España Revista de Economía Pública, Social y Cooperativa, (107), 47–69. https.//doi.org/10.7203/ciriec-e.107.21738

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

van Buren, N., Demmers, M., van der Heijden, R., & Witlox, F. (2016). Towards a circular economy. The role of Dutch logistics industries and governments. Sustainability, 8(7), 647. https.//doi.org/10.3390/su8070647

Chaerul, M., & Indrapta, H. F. (2024). Prospects of implementing the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) concept for used laptops in Bandung City, Indonesia. E3S Web of Conferences, 485, 05009. https.//doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202448505009

Cimmelli, V. A., & Rogolino, P. (2022). The role of the second law of thermodynamics in continuum physics. A Muschik and Ehrentraut theorem revisited. arXiv. https.//doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2202.01162

 

Debnath, B., Shakur, M. S., Bari, A. M., Saha, J., Porna, W. A., Mishu, M. J., Islam, A. R. M. T., & Rahman, M. (2023). Assessing the critical success factors for implementing Industry 4.0 in the pharmaceutical industry. Implications for supply chain sustainability in emerging economies. PLOS ONE, 18(6), e0287149. https.//doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287149

Demirel, P., & Danışman, G. Ö. (2019). Eco-innovation and firm growth in the circular economy. Evidence from European small- and medium-sized enterprises. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(8), 1608–1618. https.//doi.org/10.1002/bse.2336

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

Dimitrov, D. K., & Ivanova, M. M. (2017). Trends in organic farming development in Bulgaria. Applying circular economy principles to sustainable rural development. Visegrad Journal on Bioeconomy and Sustainable Development, 6(1), 10–17. https.//doi.org/10.1515/vjbsd-2017-0002

Ellacuriaga, M., García-Cascallana, J., & Gómez, X. (2021). Biogas production from organic wastes. Integrating concepts of circular economy. Fuels, 2(2), 144–167. https.//doi.org/10.3390/fuels2020009

Enciso-Alfaro, S., Amor-Esteban, V., Araújo, D. J. C., & Sánchez, I. (2024). The usefulness of the ordinal logistic biplot. Analysis of the path taken towards a circular primary sector in Spain. Mathematics, 12(2), 322. https.//doi.org/10.3390/math12020322

Esparragoza, I., & Mesa, J. A. (2019). A case study approach to introduce circular economy in sustainable design education. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education. https.//doi.org/10.35199/epde2019.3

Fric, U. (2019). Impact of circular economy as the EU's ambitious policy. Research in Social Change, 11(2), 79–96. https.//doi.org/10.2478/rsc-2019-0010

Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The circular economy—A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 757–768. https.//doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048

Gomide, F. P. d. B., Bragança, L., & Casagrande, E. F. (2024). How can the circular economy contribute to resolving social housing challenges? Applied System Innovation, 7(2), 21. https.//doi.org/10.3390/asi7020021

Graedel, T. E., Reck, B. K., Ciacci, L., & Passarini, F. (2019). On the spatial dimension of the circular economy. Resources, 8(1), 32. https.//doi.org/10.3390/resources8010032

Gui, L., Atasu, A., Ergün, Ö., & Toktay, L. B. (2013). Implementing extended producer responsibility legislation. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 17(2), 262–276. https.//doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00574.x

Haas, W., Krausmann, F., Wiedenhofer, D., & Heinz, M. (2015). How circular is the global economy? An assessment of material flows, waste production, and recycling in the European Union and the world in 2005. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 19(5), 765–777. https.//doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12244

Halog, A., Balanay, R. M., Anieke, S., & Yu, T. (2021). Circular economy across Australia. Taking stock of progress and lessons. Circular Economy and Sustainability, 1(1), 283–301. https.//doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00020-5

Henry, M., Hoogenstrijd, T., & Kirchherr, J. (2022). Motivations and identities of "grassroots" circular entrepreneurs. An initial exploration. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(3), 1122–1141. https.//doi.org/10.1002/bse.3097

Hobson, K. (2020). The limits of the loops. Critical environmental politics and the circular economy. Environmental Politics, 30(1), 161–179. https.//doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2020.1816052

Holly, F., Kolar, G., Berger, M., Fink, S., Ogonowski, P., & Schlund, S. (2023). Challenges on the way to a circular economy from the perspective of the Austrian manufacturing industry. Frontiers in Sustainability, 4. https.//doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2023.1243374

Kara, S., Hauschild, M. Z., Sutherland, J. W., & McAloone, T. C. (2022). Closed-loop systems to a circular economy. A pathway to environmental Sustainability? CIRP Annals, 71(2), 505–528. https.//doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2022.05.008

Khan, S. A. R., Godil, D. I., Thomas, G., Tanveer, M., Zia-ul-haq, H. M., & Mahmood, H. (2021). The decision-making analysis on end-of-life vehicle recycling and remanufacturing is under the extended producer responsibility policy. Sustainability, 13(20), 11215. https.//doi.org/10.3390/su132011215

Kopnina, H. (2018). Circular economy and Cradle to Cradle in educational practice. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 15(1), 119–134. https.//doi.org/10.1080/1943815x.2018.1471724

Mankotia, K., Chohan, J. S., & Singh, R. (2024). On technological solutions for the recycling of polymer waste. A review. E3S Web of Conferences, 509, 03011. https.//doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202450903011

Manomaivibool, P., & Vassanadumrongdee, S. (2011). Extended producer responsibility in Thailand. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 15(2), 185–205. https.//doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00330.x

Mashovic, A., Ignjatović, J., & Kisin, J. (2022). The circular economy is imperative for sustainable development in North Macedonia and Serbia. Ecologica, 29(106), 169–177. https.//doi.org/10.18485/ecologica.2022.29.106.5

Mayanti, B., & Helo, P. (2023). Circular economy through waste reverse logistics under extended producer responsibility in Finland. Waste Management & Research, 42(1), 59–73. https.//doi.org/10.1177/0734242x231168801

Mayers, K., Lifset, R., Bodenhoefer, K., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2012). Implementing individual producer responsibility for waste electrical and electronic equipment through improved financing. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 17(2), 186–198. https.//doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00528.x

Mihajlov, A., Mladenovic, A., & Jovanović, F. (2021). Country in transition (Serbia) case. The circular economy starts with waste management. Environmental Research and Technology, 4(1), 83–88. https.//doi.org/10.35208/ert.853792

Moreno, M., De Los Rios, C., Rowe, Z., & Charnley, F. (2016). A conceptual framework for circular design. Sustainability, 8(9), 937. https.//doi.org/10.3390/su8090937

Murti, Z., Dharmawan, Siswanto, S., Soedjati, D., Barkah, A., & Rahardjo, P. (2022). Review of the circular economy of plastic waste in various countries and potential applications in Indonesia. IOP Conference Series. Earth and Environmental Science, 1098(1), 012014. https.//doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1098/1/012014

Ogutu, M. O., Akor, J., Mulindwa, M. S., Heshima, O., & Nsengimana, C. (2023). Implementing circular economy and sustainability policies in Rwanda. Experiences of Rwandan manufacturers with the plastic ban policy. Frontiers in Sustainability, 4. https.//doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2023.1092107

Ono, S., Hewage, H. T. S. A., & Visvanathan, C. (2023). Towards plastic circularity. Current practices in plastic waste management in Japan and Sri Lanka. Sustainability, 15(9), 7550. https.//doi.org/10.3390/su15097550

Organization, W. T. (2020). Trade policies for a circular economy. World Trade Organization Reports. https.//doi.org/10.30875/2ced559e-en

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

Ozili, P. K. (2022). The role of banks in the circular economy. World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, 19(1), 17–23. https.//doi.org/10.47556/j.wjstsd.19.1.2022.2

Peagam, R., McIntyre, K., Basson, L., & France, C. (2013). Business-to-business information technology user practices at the end of life in the United Kingdom, Germany, and France. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 17(2), 224–237. https.//doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12017

Popović, A., & Radivojević, V. (2022). The circular economy. Principles, strategies and goals. Economics of Sustainable Development, 6(1), 45–56. https.//doi.org/10.5937/esd2201045p

Quartey, E. T., Tosefa, H., Danquah, K. A. B., & Obršálová, I. (2015). Theoretical framework for plastic waste management in Ghana through extended producer responsibility. Case of sachet water waste. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(8), 9907–9919. https.//doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120809907

Renfors, S. (2024). Education for the circular economy in higher education. An overview of the current state. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 25(9), 111–127. https.//doi.org/10.1108/ijshe-07-2023-0270

Rizos, V., Behrens, A., van der Gaast, W., Hofman, E., Ioannou, A., 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

Santos, H. H. D., Marques, V. N., & Paschoali, L. F. F. (2021). The analysis of barriers to implementing circular economy practices using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Revista Gestão da Produção, Operações e Sistemas, 16(3), 99. https.//doi.org/10.15675/gepros.v16i3.2793

Schlitter, J. (2018). The second law of thermodynamics is the force law. Preprints. https.//doi.org/10.20944/preprints201802.0074.v1

Shahsavari, S. (2021). The basic equation for the different coupled equations between the first and second laws of thermodynamics at strong coupling. Asian Journal of Applied Sciences, 9(1). https.//doi.org/10.24203/ajas.v9i1.6495

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

Solomon, N. O., Simpa, P., Adenekan, O. A., & Obasi, S. C. (2024). Circular economy principles and their integration into global supply chain strategies. Finance & Accounting Research Journal, 6(5), 747–762. https.//doi.org/10.51594/farj.v6i5.1133

Sumter, D., Koning, J. de, Bakker, C., & Balkenende, R. (2020). Circular economy competencies for design. Sustainability, 12(4), 1561. https.//doi.org/10.3390/su12041561

Sumter, D., Koning, J. de, Bakker, C., & Balkenende, R. (2021). Key competencies for design in a circular economy. Exploring gaps in design knowledge and skills. Sustainability, 13(2), 776. https.//doi.org/10.3390/su13020776

Suzuki, A., & Taira, H. (2018). Representation of the fundamental laws of thermodynamics in quantum mechanics. Journal of Modern Physics, 9(14), 2420–2436. https.//doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2018.914155

Sysoiev, O. (2022). Trends in sustainable circular education transformation. A case of Finland. Education. Modern Discourses, (5), 142–151. https.//doi.org/10.37472/2617-3107-2022-5-11

Tashtamirov, M. (2023). The circular economy and regional economic development. E3S Web of Conferences, 431, 07003. https.//doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202343107003

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

Tisserant, A., Pauliuk, S., Merciai, S., Schmidt, J., Fry, J., Wood, R., & Tukker, A. (2017). Solid waste and the circular economy. A global analysis of waste treatment and waste footprints. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(3), 628–640. https.//doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12562

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

Trică, C. L., Bănacu, C. S., & Bușu, 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

Turner, J. M., & Nugent, L. M. (2015). Charging up battery recycling policies. Extended producer responsibility for single-use batteries in the European Union, Canada, and the United States. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 20(5), 1148–1158. https.//doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12351

Valero, A., & Valero, A. (2019). Thermodynamic rarity and recyclability of raw materials in the energy transition. The need for an in-spiral economy. Entropy, 21(9), 873. https.//doi.org/10.3390/e21090873

Watari, T., Nansai, K., Giurco, D., Nakajima, K., McLellan, B., & Helbig, C. (2020). Global metal use targets are in line with climate goals. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(19), 12476–12483. https.//doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c02471

Widyarsana, I. M. W., & Nurawaliah, H. (2023). Understanding the factors influencing extended producer responsibility in Indonesia. Research Square. https.//doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3683935/v1

Xue, T., & Guo, Z. (2023). Correspondence of the symmetry of thermodynamic properties of matter with the symmetry of equations of state. Entropy, 25(11), 1532. https.//doi.org/10.3390/e25111532

Yu, Z., Khan, S. A. R., & Umar, M. (2021). Circular economy practices and industry 4.0 technologies. A strategic move in the automobile industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(3), 796–809. https.//doi.org/10.1002/bse.2918

Zemanová, V. (2023). Circular economy implementation from the perspective of benefits and barriers. Transactions of the University of Liberec, (31). https.//doi.org/10.15240/tul/009/lef-2023-31

Zhang, X., Zhao-hui, Z., Zong-Jun, X., Hai-yan, Y., & Ke-Fang, Z. (2013). Developmental mode for circular economy in the Yellow River Delta. International Journal of Environmental Science and Development, 4(5), 662–667. https.//doi.org/10.7763/ijesd.2013.v4.434

Zocco, F., Smyth, B., & Sopasakis, P. (2021). Thermodynamical material networks are used for modelling, planning, and controlling circular material flows. arXiv. https.//doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2111.10693