The Circular Economy Illusion – Navigating Hype and Reality

 

Author: AM Tris Hardyanto

Circular Economy (CE) has captivated the global imagination as a blueprint for a greener future. However, behind the alluring promise of zero waste and endless reuse lies a series of critical flaws—greenwashing, systemic inequalities, and unexamined growth assumptions. Before we rush to close the loop, we must first confront these uncomfortable truths. In The Circular Economy Illusion, we go beyond the hype, exposing what is really needed for lasting, equitable sustainability.

 

1. Navigating Greenwashing, Oversimplification, and Systemic Challenges for Genuine Sustainability

The Circular Economy (CE) represents a transformative shift in economic paradigms aimed at reducing waste, conserving resources, and fostering sustainable growth. However, while the theoretical underpinnings of CE propose an idealistic vision of a closed-loop system in which materials are reused, repaired, remanufactured, and recycled, the real-world implementation reveals significant gaps and challenges. These inconsistencies highlight a troubling trend where the embrace of CE can occasionally lead to greenwashing, oversimplification of complex sustainability issues, and the perpetuation of existing inequalities rather than fostering genuine, systemic change.

Greenwashing has become a prevalent concern as corporations increasingly utilize the language of CE to enhance their branding without committing to substantive changes in their practices. A recent study identifies this trend, illustrating how many businesses integrate CE concepts superficially, leveraging the appeal of sustainability to market incremental improvements while maintaining business models that contribute to waste and resource exploitation Ting et al. (2023). This deceptive practice not only undermines the credibility of genuine CE efforts but also obscures the necessary systemic changes needed to truly address environmental degradation (Didenko et al., 2018).

Moreover, the oversimplification inherent in CE narratives often neglects the complexities surrounding waste generation and resource consumption. While CE advocates assert benefits aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) like SDG 12 (responsible consumption) and SDG 13 (climate action), Many portray the transition from a linear to a circular model as straightforward. However, extensive research indicates that the transition is fraught with systemic challenges, including technological limitations, financial barriers, and significant cultural shifts required to accommodate new consumption patterns (Filho et al., 2022; Alonso‐Almeida et al., 2020; Skvarciany et al., 2021). As such, an overly simplistic view of CE risks diminishing the urgency and intricacy of the ecological crises we face.

Furthermore, the dynamics between developed and developing nations complicate the equitable realization of CE. While the concept of circularity often emphasizes resource efficiency in high-income countries, it may simultaneously impose unsustainable burdens on countries in the Global South through waste outsourcing and resource extraction. This neo-colonial dynamic highlights the need for equitable frameworks within which all nations can share the burdens and benefits of CE. Without such considerations, the implementation of CE can exacerbate existing inequalities and perpetuate the economic inequities entrenched in global systems (Alonso‐Almeida et al., 2020; Skvarciany et al., 2021).

In addition, the intersection of CE with Industry 4.0 technologies signifies potential advancements, yet it is essential to question whether the application of advanced technologies genuinely serves the principles of circularity or reinforces existing power structures within industries. While technologies such as IoT and big data can facilitate more efficient resource management, there is a risk that their implementation could perpetuate a model of growth that aligns with corporate interests rather than transformative sustainability objectives (Filho et al., 2022).

Ultimately, for CE to achieve its intended goals, stakeholders must transition from aspirational discourse to critical reflection and action. It involves acknowledging and addressing the systemic challenges that hinder genuine sustainability—including power dynamics, the risk of greenwashing, and the fundamental inequalities in how resources are shared and consumed globally. As highlighted in the literature, a deeper engagement with the complexities of CE can drive the necessary systemic shifts toward a truly sustainable economic model—one that prioritizes ecological integrity, social equity, and long-term viability over mere profitability (Murray et al., 2015; Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Ruiz–Real et al., 2018).

In conclusion, while the potential for Circular Economy principles to contribute positively to sustainable development is significant, significant barriers, systemic challenges, and the risk of co-optation must be navigated carefully. Efforts toward genuine sustainability must incorporate a comprehensive evaluation of how we produce, consume, and relate to our resources, transcending the confines of current economic models (Ordonez & Martins, 2023; Hina et al., 2022).

2. Increasing Popularity and Perceived Benefits

Governments and corporations worldwide embrace CE as a strategic response to the climate crisis and economic resilience.

2.1 Government Initiatives

The growing interest in implementing Circular Economy (CE) principles reflects a significant shift among governments and corporations in response to the pressing challenges of climate change and economic resilience. Policymakers worldwide, exemplified by frameworks such as the EU Circular Economy Action Plan, China's CE Promotion Law, and Finland's CE roadmap, demonstrate how CE has become integrated into national and regional strategies aimed at minimizing environmental footprints, enhancing resource efficiency and promoting innovation Siregar et al. (2023). These initiatives align closely with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 12 concerning responsible consumption and production. Moreover, evidence indicates that CE practices can contribute to achieving climate targets through waste reduction and carbon emissions mitigation (Gençer, 2019).

2.2 Corporate Engagement

Corporate engagement in CE is equally crucial, with many companies now embedding circular principles into their sustainability strategies and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) frameworks. Notable initiatives include IKEA's buy-back furniture program, which emphasizes extending product lifecycles through second-hand markets. Through such programs, corporations illustrate how CE not only serves ecological goals but also enhances brand reputation and customer loyalty. Additionally, brands like Adidas have pioneered circular designs, such as the Futurecraft Loop sneaker, crafted entirely from recyclable materials, showcasing the business potential of sustainable practices (Trică et al., 2019). Innovative business models, including Patagonia's Worn Wear and TerraCycle's Loop system, demonstrate how circular methodologies can redefine consumption patterns by promoting reuse and refill systems, ultimately alleviating waste generation and bolstering local economies (Eid & Al-Abdallah, 2024; Organization, 2020).

2.3 Summary Transition

Transitioning toward CE is gaining traction across various sectors; however, it is essential to reflect critically on the outcomes of these initiatives. While many organizations champion the benefits of circular approaches, a disconnect exists between the aspirational language of CE and its practical implementation. We must temper initial claims of success with a critical evaluation of CE's actual impacts and the challenges that remain in operationalizing its principles (Angelis et al., 2018). Research indicates that while frameworks supporting circularity offer opportunities, they also reveal complexities that can hinder true advancement toward sustainability. Barriers to effective CE implementation include limited stakeholder knowledge about circular principles, inadequate infrastructure, and the prevalence of greenwashing, where companies market themselves as sustainable without meaningful action (Rizos et al., 2016; Xiao et al., 2024).

The popularity and perceived benefits of Circular Economy principles, as reflected in both government initiatives and corporate strategies, are evident. Various national policies and corporate programs are paving the way toward a more sustainable future. However, to realize CE's full potential, stakeholders must address existing systemic challenges and organizational discrepancies between proclaimed goals and actual practices. This deeper scrutiny will reinforce the integrity of CE as a viable model for achieving both economic resilience and environmental sustainability.

3. Promises vs. Realities

The Circular Economy (CE) has generated significant enthusiasm for its potential to transform economies toward sustainability through resource efficiency, waste reduction, and new economic opportunities. However, a critical examination of its actual implementation reveals a troubling disparity between the promises heralded by CE advocates and the realities observed in practice. To understand its effectiveness thoroughly, we must address the gaps between CE's aspirational goals and its practical outcomes.

3.1 Environmental and Economic Benefits

On a theoretical level, CE offers notable environmental benefits, such as reducing raw material extraction, enhancing resource efficiency, and minimizing waste generation. These strategies align with global climate initiatives, mitigating pollution while contributing to broader climate change goals. Studies indicate that CE can lead to substantive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and pollution Perey et al. (2018) (Berry et al., 2022). Economically, the transition to a circular model can help businesses realize cost savings through decreased resource consumption and lower disposal fees. Moreover, it spurs job creation in emerging sectors focused on recycling and remanufacturing, thus enhancing local economic resilience (Asubadin-Espin et al., 2024).

3.2 Real-World Limitations

Despite its perceived benefits, CE faces significant real-world limitations that hinder its effectiveness. One prominent challenge is greenwashing, where companies exploit the language of CE to market themselves as "sustainable" without making necessary changes to their linear business practices. This superficial engagement with CE compromises its integrity, as companies often resort to selective reporting and vague metrics that obscure the actual impacts of their operations (Awan et al., 2021). Such practices not only mislead consumers but also dilute the effectiveness of genuine sustainability efforts, creating a false sense of progress while systemic issues persist.

Additionally, mainstream discussions tend to oversimplify CE narratives. The public discourse surrounding CE elevates recycling and waste management as the primary achievements, neglecting essential factors such as behavioural changes and energy efficiency improvements. Excessive reliance on technological solutions often dominates the CE conversation, downplaying the socio-economic trade-offs associated with transitioning to these new models (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). Such simplifications can lead to underestimating the complexity of behavioural changes necessary for a meaningful shift toward sustainability.

3.3 Summary Transition

These inconsistencies clearly reveal a disconnect between the theoretical promises of CE and the ethical realities of its implementation. To illustrate this gap concretely, it is critical to assess real-world corporate examples where CE initiatives appear more as branding exercises than genuine commitments to sustainability. For example, companies may publicize ambitious recycling goals while their operations remain fundamentally linear and unsustainable, highlighting the need for more robust metrics and accountability measures to verify corporate claims (Mair‐Bauernfeind & Stern, 2017; Tran et al., 2023). Addressing these challenges is imperative for realizing the true potential of CE while ensuring that it does not devolve into mere rhetoric that lacks real-world impact.

While the Circular Economy presents significant opportunities for fostering sustainable practices and economic resilience, the practical limitations—including greenwashing and oversimplification—pose serious challenges to its realization. Acknowledging and addressing these barriers is essential to align stakeholders' actions with the genuine ideals of CE, ultimately bridging the gap between promises and realities in the pursuit of a sustainable future.

4. Case Examples: Lessons from Practice

Real-world case examples provide critical insights into the disparity between the theoretical promises of the Circular Economy (CE) and the practical outcomes observed in prominent corporate initiatives. This section discusses two significant cases: IKEA's furniture buy-back program and Adidas' Futurecraft Loop shoes. Both of these cases reveal that CE initiatives can sometimes devolve into superficial branding exercises rather than embodying the transformative potential required for sustainability.

4.1 IKEA's Furniture Buy-Back Program

IKEA has developed a furniture buy-back program that many lauds as a significant step towards circularity. This initiative involves customers returning used furniture in exchange for store credit, thereby promoting recycling and encouraging responsible consumer behaviour.

However, critics point out a paradox: while this program aims to foster a more circular model, the very scale of IKEA's continued production often undermines its effectiveness. The initiative does not address the fundamental issue of overproduction in a predominantly linear consumption model.

For meaningful progress toward sustainability, these efforts must be coupled with reduced production rates and improved durability standards in design Goyal et al. (2016) (Panwar & Niesten, 2022). Researchers have noted that the buy-back program, while commendable, emphasizes recycling at a scale that risks reinforcing rather than reducing consumption patterns (Siregar et al., 2023).

Thus, while the intentions are commendable, the practical implications raise concerns about whether such initiatives can meaningfully contribute to sustainability goals.

4.2 Adidas' Futurecraft Loop Shoes

Adidas markets Futurecraft Loop shoes as recyclable consumer products. That reflects innovative designs to promote circularity. The ambition expressed through these products demonstrates a noteworthy attempt to embed circular principles into fashion.

However, this case also highlights the complexities associated with implementing CE. Companies must address several logistical challenges to achieve the desired circularity, including establishing adequate collection infrastructure, ensuring consumer participation, and developing efficient logistics systems (Geng et al., 2009; Sumter et al., 2020).

Moreover, environmental assessments indicate that the production of recyclable materials necessitates considerable energy expenditure, which can potentially offset the sustainability gains achieved through recycling initiatives (Mathews & Tan, 2011). Therefore, while the Futurecraft Loop shoes represent a step towards innovative circularity, the challenges of infrastructure and consumer engagement risk limiting their effectiveness in enacting real, systemic change within the fashion industry.

4.3 Summary Transition

These examples illustrate that flagship CE initiatives can fall short of the transformative potential many stakeholders hope to achieve. The discrepancies between theory and practice in cases such as IKEA and Adidas reveal the need for a critical assessment of how terms like "circular" are operationalized in corporate contexts. Buzzwords and misconceptions around CE can obscure meaningful progress and ultimately detract from the urgent changes required to realize genuinely sustainable practices (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Barna et al., 2023).

As stakeholders continue to navigate challenges and opportunities in the pursuit of a circular economy, learning from these practical lessons will be critical in ensuring that CE frameworks are not merely functional as branding tools but, importantly, effectuate real environmental and social benefits.

5. Pitfalls and Misconceptions

The Circular Economy (CE) has gained momentum as a transformative concept, promising systematic change in how societies approach sustainability. However, the prevalence of specific pitfalls and misconceptions within its discourse raises significant concerns regarding its genuine efficacy.

5.1 Buzzword Syndrome

The overuse of CE terminology has led to a dilution of its core concepts, with many companies branding minor sustainability efforts as "circular" without committing to systemic changes. A prime example is H&M's Conscious Collection, which incorporates a limited number of eco-materials while operating within a fast-fashion model that fundamentally contradicts CE values. Despite marketing claims, the fast-fashion industry's inherent structure promotes continual consumption and waste, ultimately undermining the principles of a circular economy Siregar et al. (2023).

In a similar vein, Starbucks' reusable cup initiative has been critiqued as tokenistic, masking the broader environmental impacts of coffee production and the associated single-use plastic waste (Huttmanová et al., 2023). Such applications of CE terminology amount to greenwashing, where companies present superficial changes as comprehensive sustainability practices.

5.2 Circularity vs. Broader Sustainability

For CE to truly advance sustainability, it must align itself with broader goals, including biodiversity preservation and social justice. Current initiatives in fast fashion and agriculture often overlook systemic issues related to exploitative labour and environmental degradation (Victoria & Birca, 2020). Zulkifli et al. (2024) argue that initiatives should integrate equitable labour practices and biodiversity conservation into their core design to achieve true circularity (Marrucci et al., 2021).

The perception that CE can be divorced from these broader sustainability concerns reveals a critical gap in its operational framework. It is essential to recognize that without addressing these interconnected issues, CE initiatives may only perpetuate existing inequalities and ecological harm.

5.3 Summary Transition

To evolve the CE discourse, stakeholders must address systemic issues, challenge superficial claims, and integrate broader sustainability goals. It is imperative to move beyond mere technical fixes and vague branding. This entails addressing blind spots and confronting structural and systemic limitations inherent in CE practices. To achieve genuine sustainability, a holistic approach that integrates social justice and ecological preservation into the foundation of CE initiatives is essential.

We can only realize the opportunities afforded by a circular economy when they are grounded in comprehensive strategies that prioritize equality across all sectors of society (Kapoor et al., 2021; Gallardo‐Vázquez et al., 2024). Emphasizing the importance of integrating social dimensions into CE will help foster a more inclusive approach that genuinely addresses the multi-faceted challenges posed by sustainability.

 While CE's potential to transform economies and promote sustainable practices is significant, the current challenges and misconceptions must be critically examined. By addressing these pitfalls, stakeholders can work toward a more authentic and equitable circular framework that encompasses not only economic resilience but also ecological integrity and social justice.

6. Conclusion: Toward Critical Evaluation and Systemic Reform

In conclusion, while the Circular Economy (CE) concept presents a promising framework for reshaping our economic activities toward sustainability, it often falls short of its potential due to issues such as greenwashing, oversimplification, and a lack of alignment with broader sustainability goals. Genuine transformation necessitates a critical reevaluation of CE's principles and practices, emphasizing the need for action on multiple fronts.

Establishing clear metrics is essential to measuring the effectiveness of circular practices. Standardized indicators will facilitate the assessment of circularity and sustainability outcomes, enabling businesses to be held accountable for their claims (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). Without precise measurements, stakeholders cannot adequately gauge progress or identify areas requiring improvement.

Moreover, the establishment of robust policy and regulatory frameworks is crucial. Policymakers must enact and enforce regulations that create incentives for genuine CE practices while penalizing greenwashing and superficial efforts. Strengthening enforcement mechanisms will ensure that corporations remain accountable for their environmental impacts, encouraging a transition to sustainable business models (Kristia & Rabbi, 2023; Clube & Tennant, 2021).

In addition, embracing systems thinking in both design and operations is key to a successful circular transition. This includes promoting design-for-durability strategies, reducing overall consumption, and fostering inclusive business models that create equitable benefits for all. Through holistic approaches, organizations can redress imbalances and ensure that movements toward sustainability more comprehensively support social equity and environmental health (Säumel et al., 2022).

Finally, addressing issues of equity and inclusion is paramount to the successful realization of CE principles. Ensuring that the benefits of circularity extend across all segments of society must be integrated into the core design of CE initiatives. By prioritizing social justice and ecological preservation, CE can move beyond being an aspirational myth to becoming a tangible reality that helps create a fairer and more sustainable world (Idrus et al., 2024; Barford & Ahmad, 2021; Gutberlet et al., 2017).

 In summary, for the Circular Economy to fulfil its promise of genuine sustainability, stakeholders must dismantle illusions surrounding its implementation and confront uncomfortable truths about its limitations. Through a rigorous critical evaluation of CE strategies combined with systemic reforms, we can achieve the transition toward a truly sustainable circular model—one that addresses environmental, social, and economic dimensions holistically and respects and nurtures the planet while prioritizing human equity and well-being.

  

Teaser to Article 2

The following article will explore systemic failures further, critically examining how circularity intersects with economic structures, power dynamics, and material flows for authentic transformation.

References

Alonso‐Almeida, M.D.M., Antón, J.M.R., Bagur‐Femenías, L., Perramon, J. (2020). Sustainable development and circular economy: The role of institutional promotion on circular consumption and market competitiveness from a multistakeholder engagement approach *Business Strategy and the Environment*, *29*(6), 2803-2814. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2544

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

Asubadin-Espin, P., De-la-Cruz, R., Buele, J. (2024). A Review of Technological Innovations in Rubber Recycling *Iop Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science*, *1434*(1), 12007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1434/1/012007

Awan, U., Sroufe, R., Shahbaz, M.S. (2021). Industry 4.0 and the circular economy: A literature review and recommendations for future research *Business Strategy and the Environment*, *30*(4), 2038-2060. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2731

Barford, A., Ahmad, S.R. (2021). A Call for a Socially Restorative Circular Economy: Waste Pickers in the Recycled Plastics Supply Chain *Circular Economy and Sustainability*, *1*(2), 761-782. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00056-7

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

Berry, B., Haverkamp, J., Isenhour, C., Bilec, M.M., Lowden, S.S. (2022). Is Convergence Around The Circular Economy Necessary? Exploring the Productivity of Divergence in US Circular Economy Discourse and Practice *Circular Economy and Sustainability*, *3*(3), 1597-1622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-022-00199-1

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

Clube, R.K., Tennant, M. (2021). Social inclusion and the circular economy: The case of a fashion textiles manufacturer in Vietnam *Business Strategy & Development*, *5*(1), 2016-04-01 00:00:00. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.179

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

Eid, M.A.H., Al-Abdallah, G.M. (2024). Sustainable development through biomimicry: Enhancing circular economy practices for environmental sustainability *Sustainable Development*, *32*(6), 6045-6056. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.3010

Filho, M.G., Monteiro, L.W., Mota, R.D.O., Gonella, J.D.S.L., Campos, L.M.D.S. (2022). The Relationship between Circular Economy, Industry 4.0 and Supply Chain Performance: A Combined ISM/Fuzzy MICMAC Approach *Sustainability*, *14*(5), 2772. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052772

Gallardo‐Vázquez, D., Scarpellini, S., Aranda‐Usón, A., Fernández-Bandera, C. (2024). How does the circular economy achieve social change? Assessment in terms of sustainable development goals *Humanities and Social Sciences Communications*, *11*(1), nan. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03217-9

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

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

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

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

Geng, Y., Zhu, Q., Doberstein, B., Fujita, T. (2009). Implementing China’s circular economy concept at the regional level: A review of progress in Dalian, China *Waste Management*, *29*(2), 996-1002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.06.036

Genovese, A., Acquaye, A., Figueroa, A., Koh, S.L. (2017). Sustainable supply chain management and the transition towards a circular economy: Evidence and some applications *Omega*, *66*, 344-357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.015

Gençer, 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

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

Gutberlet, J., Carenzo, S., Kain, J., Azevedo, A.M.M.D. (2017). Waste Picker Organizations and Their Contribution to the Circular Economy: Two Case Studies from a Global South Perspective *Resources*, *6*(4), 52. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources6040052

Hina, M., Chauhan, C., Kaur, P., Kraus, S., Dhir, A. (2022). Drivers and barriers of circular economy business models: Where we are now, and where we are heading *Journal of Cleaner Production*, *333*, 130049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130049

Huttmanová, E., Chovancová, J., Steiner, M.J., Ramharter, P.M., Kočiščáková, K. (2023). Through Circularity Towards Sustainability: Assessing the Progress and Challenges of the Circular Economy in the EU and Slovakia *European Journal of Sustainable Development*, *12*(4), 366. https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2023.v12n4p366

Idrus, R.A., Sudarmanto, E., Muhtadi, M.A. (2024). Analysis of the Relationship between the Implementation of Circular Economy Principles and Financial Inclusion to Poverty Alleviation in Indonesia *nan*, *2*(4), 631-640. https://doi.org/10.58812/wsshs.v2i04.792

Jain, S., Jain, N.K., Metri, B. (2018). Strategic framework towards measuring a circular supply chain management *Benchmarking an International Journal*, *25*(8), 3238-3252. https://doi.org/10.1108/bij-11-2017-0304

Kapoor, N., Jauhari, D., Maheshwari, D. (2021). Understanding of Circular Processes and Its Impact on Indian Economy *Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government*, *27*(3), nan. https://doi.org/10.47750/cibg.2021.27.03.256

Kristia, K., Rabbi, M.F. (2023). Exploring the Synergy of Renewable Energy in the Circular Economy Framework: A Bibliometric Study *Sustainability*, *15*(17), 13165. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151713165

Mair‐Bauernfeind, C., Stern, T. (2017). Cascading Utilization of Wood: a Matter of Circular Economy? *Current Forestry Reports*, *3*(4), 281-295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-017-0067-y

Marrucci, L., Iannone, F., Daddi, T., Iraldo, F. (2021). Antecedents of absorptive capacity in the development of circular economy business models of small and medium enterprises *Business Strategy and the Environment*, *31*(1), 532-544. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2908

Mathews, J.A., Tan, H. (2011). Progress Toward a Circular Economy in China *Journal of Industrial Ecology*, *15*(3), 435-457. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00332.x

Milios, L. (2017). Advancing to a Circular Economy: three essential ingredients for a comprehensive policy mix *Sustainability Science*, *13*(3), 861-878. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0502-9

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

Norouzi, N. (2022). A Practical and Analytic View on Legal Framework of Circular Economics as One of the Recent Economic Law Insights: A Comparative Legal Study *Circular Economy and Sustainability*, *2*(3), 961-986. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-022-00147-z

Nußholz, J.L. (2017). Circular Business Models: Defining a Concept and Framing an Emerging Research Field *Sustainability*, *9*(10), 1810. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101810

Ordonez, M.L., Martins, C. (2023). Current Scenarios of Circular Economy in Brazil and Ecuador *Regional and Business Studies*, *15*(2), 17-36. https://doi.org/10.33568/rbs.4685

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

Padilla‐Rivera, A., Russo-Garrido, S., Merveille, N. (2020). Addressing the Social Aspects of a Circular Economy: A Systematic Literature Review *Sustainability*, *12*(19), 7912. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197912

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

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

Perey, R., Benn, S., Agarwal, R., Edwards, M. (2018). The place of waste: Changing business value for the circular economy *Business Strategy and the Environment*, *27*(5), 631-642. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2068

Pradhananga, P., ElZomor, M. (2023). Revamping Sustainability Efforts Post-Disaster by Adopting Circular Economy Resilience Practices *Sustainability*, *15*(22), 15870. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215870

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

Ruiz–Real, J.L., Uribe-Toril, J., Valenciano, J.D.P., Gázquez‐Abad, J.C. (2018). Worldwide Research on Circular Economy and Environment: A Bibliometric Analysis *International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health*, *15*(12), 2699. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15122699

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

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

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

Skvarciany, V., LapinskaitÄ—, I., VolskytÄ—, G. (2021). Circular economy as assistance for sustainable development in OECD countries *Oeconomia Copernicana*, *12*(1), 1934-11-01 00:00:00. https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2021.001

Sumter, D., Koning, J.D., Bakker, C., Balkenende, R. (2020). Circular Economy Competencies for Design *Sustainability*, *12*(4), 1561. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041561

Säumel, I., Reddy, S., Wachtel, T.L., Schlecht, M.T., Ramos‐Jiliberto, R. (2022). How to feed the cities? Co-creating inclusive, healthy and sustainable city region food systems *Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems*, *6*, nan. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.909899

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

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

Tran, T.Y.A., Kieu, K.T., Herat, S., Kaparaju, P. (2023). Implementing EPR as a Tool for Addressing Environmental Issues in Vietnam *International Journal of Environmental Science & Sustainable Development*, *8*(2), 73-92. https://doi.org/10.21625/essd.v8i2.1041

Trică, C.L., Bănacu, C.S., Buşu, 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

Victoria, G., Birca, I. (2020). EUROPEAN CIRCULAR ECONOMY - A REAL MODEL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ECONOMY OF THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA *European Journal of Accounting Finance & Business*, *8*(3), nan. https://doi.org/10.4316/ejafb.2020.836

Xiao, S., Zhou, P., Zhou, L., Wong, S. (2024). Digital economy and urban economic resilience: The mediating role of technological innovation and entrepreneurial vitality *Plos One*, *19*(6), e0303782. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303782