The Missing Dimension – Social Equity in Circular Economies

 

 Author: AM Tris Hardyanto

What if the circular economy, hailed as a global solution to waste and climate crises, hides a more profound injustice? Beneath the promise of endless loops and green innovation lies a system that often excludes the very people sustaining it—informal workers, Indigenous communities, and the Global South. This article uncovers the missing link: equity. Without justice, Circularity fails.

 1.       Unearthing Injustice: The Missing Dimension of Social     Equity in the Circular Economy

Beyond Material Loops — A Call for Circular Justice. The circular economy (CE) has emerged as a globally endorsed solution to the unsustainable "take-make-dispose" production model. By promoting reuse, recycling, and resource efficiency, the CE aims to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation. Kirchherr et al. (2017) define CE as "an economic system that replaces the 'end-of-life' concept with reducing, alternatively reusing, recycling, and recovering materials in production/distribution and consumption processes" operating across micro, meso, and macro levels to promote environmental quality, economic prosperity, and social equity.

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation adds that CE is "an industrial system that is restorative or regenerative by intention and design," aiming to eliminate waste through the superior design of materials, products, and systems. These definitions affirm CE's environmental and economic aspirations. However, they often overlook a critical component: social equity. Its omission is not merely academic—it has real-world consequences.

The article exposes the missing dimension of social justice in the CE by synthesizing findings from over 100 researchers while also drawing on global case studies. The authors argue that Circularity remains unsustainable unless it actively upholds labour rights. , colonial legacies, informal economies, and the unequal burden borne by resource-rich but economically marginalized regions.

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) offer essential alignment to situate CE justice within a global policy framework. SDG 12 promotes responsible consumption and production, while SDG 10 calls for reducing inequality within and among countries. Together, these goals stress that sustainability must be equitable, both within nations and across global supply chains.

1.1  Extractive Inequities — Who Pays the Price for Circular Inputs?

The promise of CE often masks the extractive backbone that enables it. Green technologies—ranging from smartphones to electric vehicles—require vast quantities of minerals such as cobalt, lithium, and rare earth elements. These materials are extracted mainly in the Global South, particularly in countries like Bolivia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Indonesia (Oliveira et al., 2019; Barna et al., 2023).

The burden of extraction includes deforestation, groundwater depletion, toxic waste, and exploitative labour. Industrialized countries rarely reflect environmental and social costs in their Circular Economy (CE) discussions. CE must move beyond material efficiency to acknowledge and internalize these socio-ecological externalities. As Batista et al. (2018) argue, Circularity should not replicate the very injustices it claims to remedy.

 Case Study Box: Green Colonialism in the Lithium Triangle  Bolivia's Uneven Burden

• Location: Salar de Uyuni, Potosí Department, Bolivia
• Resource: Lithium — essential for electric vehicle batteries and renewable energy storage
• Context: Bolivia holds around 21 million metric tons of lithium, making it a central player in the global green transition.
• Issue: Despite Its strategic advantage, Bolivia remains marginalized in global value chains. Foreign firms—mainly from China, Germany, and the U.S.—control extraction and profits. Intensive water use and chemical runoff endanger fragile ecosystems and Indigenous communities.
• Critique: The term "green colonialism" describes its dynamic, in which the Global North pursues clean energy transitions at the expense of the Global South's environmental and economic sovereignty (Pablos, 2022).
• Implication: Without equity mechanisms, CE becomes a façade for old extractive hierarchies. Ethical supply chains, local value creation, and participatory governance are critical for reversing these injustices.

1.2  Informal Recycling — Hidden Labor at the System's Core

Across Asia, Africa, and Latin America, informal recycling workers play a crucial yet invisible role in waste recovery. Women, children, and men sort through electronic and plastic waste under hazardous conditions, exposed to toxins without protective equipment or social protections (Burns et al., 2016). Though these workers are indispensable to the material loops of CE, they remain outside its formal recognition, policy frameworks, and safety nets (Yohannessen et al., 2018).

Integrating informal recyclers into the formal economy is not merely a social imperative—it is an operational necessity for building inclusive circular systems. Initiatives that offer training, occupational safety, legal rights, and income stability would align CE practices with the broader ethos of social equity (Wu et al., 2019; Ho & Lin, 2024). Acknowledging their expertise and central role affirms the human foundation of sustainability.

These workers perform essential CE functions, yet policy frameworks rarely recognize their contributions. Excluding them from formal CE discussions not only undermines social equity but also limits material recovery efficiency. Empowering informal workers through cooperatives, safety standards, legal protections, and income guarantees would strengthen both the ethical and operational dimensions of CE (Wu et al., 2019; Ho & Lin, 2024).

1.3 Green Colonialism — The Geopolitical Mirage of Sustainability

"Green colonialism" describes a troubling trend: affluent nations exporting the environmental and social costs of their sustainability transitions to the Global South. These dynamics echo colonial histories, wherein industrialized countries leverage technological and economic dominance to pursue "green growth" while externalizing extraction, pollution, and waste management to less powerful nations (Pablos, 2022; Obeidat et al., 2022).

Its hidden cost structure undermines CE's claims of sustainability. For instance, solar panels and electric vehicle batteries manufactured in the Global North often rely on materials extracted under exploitative conditions in the Global South. Nations must break the cycle of inequality by redistributing both responsibility and reward. It means rethinking consumption patterns, building ethical supply chains, and engaging resource-impacted communities in co-designing circular initiatives (Nasir et al., 2017).

For instance, many electric vehicle components manufactured in Europe rely on materials mined under hazardous conditions in Africa and South America. While many promote the CE as a planetary solution, they often overlook its more profound systemic challenges; it often consolidates economic power in already industrialized countries. A just circular transition must prioritize redistributive justice: shared ownership of technologies, local processing capabilities, and equitable investment in affected communities (Nasir et al., 2017).

1.4. Toward Circular Justice — Rewriting the Rules of Engagement

A genuinely transformative CE demands systemic redesign. The concept of "circular justice" integrates social, environmental, and economic equity across product lifecycles. It means designing CE not just for material loops but for dignity, fairness, and sovereignty.

Policy innovation is crucial. For example, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) must expand from waste management to global accountability across supply chains, labour practices, and sourcing ethics (Nuringsih & MN, 2022). A Fair Trade-like certification for secondary materials could reinforce ethical sourcing, ensure workers' rights, and incentivize sustainable behaviour among corporations.

Additionally, investing in local circular infrastructure—such as repair hubs and recycling facilities—within resource-supplying countries would create jobs, reduce environmental harm, and foster economic self-determination (Verma, 2024).

 

1.5 Empowering the Invisible — Integrating Informal Workers into Formal Systems

Formalizing informal recycling networks presents an actionable avenue for aligning CE with inclusive development. It can be achieved through skills training, worker cooperatives, health and safety programs, and the establishment of legal rights. Evidence suggests that when informal recyclers are empowered and supported, recycling rates improve, environmental harm decreases, and local economies grow (Vaska et al., 2021; Yohannessen et al., 2018).

Strategies include vocational training, legal status, access to microcredit, and social safety nets. These initiatives not only enhance labour dignity but also build robust local economies capable of withstanding global material market fluctuations.

Moreover, labour recognition must be paired with economic support systems—such as microcredit access and social safety nets—to protect against volatility in global scrap markets. The transition is not only ethically necessary; it enhances CE's resilience and efficiency.

 

1.6  Technology with Justice — Transparent Supply Chains through Innovation

Emerging technologies such as blockchain and AI can play a transformative role in fostering accountability and equity in global supply chains. Blockchain, for instance, enables traceability from source to product, helping verify ethical sourcing and ensuring fair labour practices in extraction and recycling (Richa et al., 2017). When combined with AI-enabled monitoring systems, these tools can identify labour abuses, environmental violations, and inefficiencies in real-time (Ya et al., 2023).

However, technology is not neutral. Without inclusive governance, these tools risk excluding the very communities they aim to protect. Civic organizations, labour unions, and local stakeholders must participate in designing and deploying digital tools to ensure they serve justice, not just efficiency.

 

1.7  Building the Future on Equity and Accountability

The circular economy cannot fulfil its promise without addressing the socioeconomic inequalities it currently overlooks. True Circularity requires the inclusion of the communities and environments that have long borne the burden of unsustainable systems. By embedding economic, environmental, and social justice into the circular economy design, the model can evolve from a resource-focused loop into a framework grounded in shared responsibility and equitable benefit.

While the path to circular justice is complex, it is not uncharted. Drawing on global research and lived experiences, This article outlines practical pathways for building a more inclusive CE. Strengthening local infrastructure, recognizing the role of informal labour, confronting green colonialism, and implementing ethical technologies are not supplementary—they are essential pillars for a just transition.

If left unaddressed, the CE risks becoming a technical solution that perpetuates injustice. To avoid it, it must confront the social costs embedded in its supply chains, labour structures, and geopolitical foundations. Equity is not optional; it is central. A circular economy that prioritizes dignity, fairness, and community participation can become more than a system of reuse—it can serve as a global platform for justice and sustainability.

The path to circular justice is not easy, but it is necessary—and increasingly urgent.

2. Advancing Circular Economy with Equity - Benefits, Pitfalls, and Pathways to Justice

Rethinking Circularity through the Lens of Equity The Circular Economy (CE) is widely regarded as a promising alternative to the traditional linear model of production and consumption. By emphasizing waste reduction, resource efficiency, and sustainable growth, CE has the potential to transform how societies manage materials and energy. However, while its environmental and economic benefits are well-documented, CE frameworks often fall short in addressing critical dimensions of social equity. This chapter explores both the strengths and shortcomings of CE from an equity perspective, drawing on research from over 100 global studies. It argues that embedding social justice into CE is not optional but essential for achieving truly sustainable development.

2.1 The Promise of Circular Economy — Key Benefits

·       Waste Reduction and Resource Efficiency

At the core of CE is the principle of minimizing waste through strategies such as reuse, repair, remanufacturing, and recycling. These practices significantly reduce the burden on landfills and lower pollution associated with waste disposal (Walden et al., 2021). By keeping materials in circulation longer, CE enhances resource efficiency and lessens dependency on virgin material extraction, helping conserve ecosystems and reduce energy use (Cordisco et al., 2022).

·       Economic Growth and Innovation

CE fosters economic resilience by stimulating green innovation and creating new job opportunities. The development of sustainable business models encourages entrepreneurship, reduces reliance on extractive industries, and boosts productivity across sectors (Dsouza et al., 2023). Regions investing in circular infrastructure and localized manufacturing can benefit from more diverse, shock-resistant economies.

·      Environmental Sustainability

Circular practices contribute to global climate goals by decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting biodiversity conservation. By aligning industrial practices with ecological limits, CE supports countries in meeting international environmental commitments (Dempsey et al., 2011).

·       Community Empowerment and Local Development

Investing in local recycling and remanufacturing hubs not only creates jobs but also builds more substantial, more self-reliant communities. These decentralized initiatives reduce reliance on global supply chains, offering equitable access to economic participation and environmental stewardship (Gutberlet & Carenzo, 2020).

2.2: Hidden Weaknesses — The Pitfalls of Circular Economy

·       Thermodynamic Constraints and Material Degradation

Despite its conceptual appeal, CE is subject to physical limitations. Materials often degrade in quality during each recycling loop, a process known as downcycling, eventually necessitating the extraction of new resources (Sauerwein et al., 2019). Energy losses during recycling processes further challenge the efficiency of circular systems, particularly for complex materials like rare earth elements (Bozeman et al., 2022). 5.              These inherent constraints highlight the limits of infinite material use, especially when systems ignore social and environmental costs.

·       Policy Gaps and Regulatory Inadequacies

Vague definitions, voluntary standards, and insufficient enforcement frequently obstruct the effective implementation of CE. Terms such as "sustainable" and "recyclable" are often loosely applied, enabling corporate greenwashing (Grover & Kar, 2020). Furthermore, many policy efforts emphasize incremental reforms rather than transformative shifts, failing to address the systemic changes required for meaningful progress (Tashtamirov, 2023; Cai et al., 2022).

2.3  Unmasking Inequities — CE and Global Justice

·       Resource Extraction and Global Disparities

A glaring injustice in current CE practices lies in the unequal burden of resource extraction. Countries in the Global South—such as the Democratic Republic of Congo and Bolivia—supply critical raw materials for circular processes but experience environmental degradation, labour exploitation, and health risks (Walden et al., 2021). Meanwhile, industrialized nations benefit disproportionately from these materials, reinforcing existing global inequalities.

·       Informal Recycling Networks and Worker Marginalization

Millions of informal workers in low-income nations contribute significantly to material recovery, often under dangerous and unregulated conditions. These labourers—many of whom are women and children—operate without health protections, legal rights, or formal recognition (Gutberlet & Carenzo, 2020). Ignoring their role undermines the CE's ethical foundation and operational viability.

·       Green Colonialism — Sustainability without Accountability

Green colonialism describes how wealthy nations adopt sustainable practices while shifting environmental and social burdens to poorer countries. By externalizing the costs of extraction, recycling, and waste management, these countries perpetuate exploitative global dynamics under the guise of Circularity (Bozeman et al., 2022). Its hypocrisy calls for an urgent ethical reconfiguration of international CE strategies.

2.4: Toward Equity — Embedding Justice in Circular Economy

·       Investing in Local Infrastructure

CE initiatives must prioritize infrastructure development in resource-rich nations to address global inequities effectively. Establishing local recycling centres, repair hubs, and remanufacturing facilities ensures that value is retained within communities impacted by extraction and waste processing (Dempsey et al., 2011). Its approach not only redistributes economic gains but also builds local capacity and autonomy.

·       Extending Producer Responsibility Globally

A robust Global Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) framework is essential. Producers must be held accountable for the entire lifecycle of their products, from sourcing and manufacturing to disposal, particularly in countries where materials originate (Dsouza et al., 2023). This shift would internalize externalities and align corporate practices with global equity objectives.

·       Creating Fair Trade Systems for Secondary Materials

Adapting Fair Trade models to secondary material markets can foster ethical exchanges and ensure fair compensation for labourers in developing economies. Transparent pricing and certification systems would elevate the dignity of work performed by marginalized recyclers while promoting traceability and accountability (Dsouza et al., 2023).

 

2.5 Empowering Informal Workers and Leveraging Technology

·       Formalizing Informal Labor Networks

Integrating informal recycling workers into the formal economy is crucial for achieving social equity. Stakeholders can achieve a functional CE by investing in targeted skills training, legal protections, safety equipment, and access to healthcare. Recognizing their expertise not only improves working conditions but also enhances the efficiency and integrity of CE systems (Sauerwein et al., 2019).

·       Technological Tools for Transparency and Inclusion

Emerging technologies like blockchain can track material flows and verify ethical sourcing. These tools increase transparency in supply chains and empower advocacy groups to hold companies accountable (Walden et al., 2021). When coupled with inclusive governance, technology can redirect CE benefits to previously excluded stakeholders.

 

2.6  Conclusion: A Just Circular Economy for a Sustainable Future

The circular economy holds significant promise for environmental sustainability and economic growth. However, without confronting its limitations—thermodynamic constraints, policy inadequacies, and systemic inequities—it cannot serve as a comprehensive solution for sustainable development. True transformation requires embedding social justice at every level of CE design and implementation.

Investing in equitable infrastructure, protecting informal workers, bridging policy gaps, and leveraging transparent technologies are vital steps forward. By embracing these changes, the circular economy can evolve into a truly sustainable and inclusive model—one that not only conserves resources but also uplifts communities and restores justice across global systems.

 

3.  Unequal Extraction — The Global Divide in Resource Exploitation and Socioeconomic Consequences

 The Uneven Geography of Resource Wealth, A complex web of material powers the global economy flows that expose stark inequalities between the Global North and the Global South. While industrialized nations enjoy the benefits of technological advancement and high consumption, many developing nations supply the raw materials required to sustain these lifestyles—often at tremendous social, environmental, and economic costs. This chapter investigates the systemic disparities in resource extraction between the Global North and Global South. Drawing on extensive scholarly evidence and field experiences, it highlights the environmental degradation, health impacts, disrupted livelihoods, and displacement faced by communities in resource-rich but economically disadvantaged regions. The chapter argues that equitable and sustainable resource governance is imperative to redress these global injustices.

3.1: Exploitation by Design — Resource Flows from South to North

·       The Global North as Beneficiary

Countries in the Global North—including the United States, Canada, and members of the European Union—are among the world's most industrialized and technologically advanced. Their economies rely heavily on continuous inputs of critical raw materials such as cobalt, lithium, and rare earth elements (Millward-Hopkins, 2024). These materials fuel the production of high-value goods—electric vehicles, electronics, and green technologies—essential to maintaining economic growth and consumption patterns.

However, the Global North rarely bears the direct environmental and social costs of obtaining these resources. Instead, it externalizes the consequences of resource extraction, transferring ecological degradation, labour exploitation, and economic instability to the Global South (Wang et al., 2022). Its asymmetric structure reinforces global dependency, masking environmental harm behind a façade of green innovation.

 

·       The Global South as a Resource Provider

In contrast, nations in the Global South—such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Indonesia, and Bolivia—possess vast reserves of critical raw materials. Despite It abundance, they often lack the infrastructure, political power, or capital to process materials locally or benefit equitably from their extraction (Guschanski & Onaran, 2023). Consequently, raw materials are exported at a low value while finished products return at a high cost, reinforcing trade imbalances.

Extraction in these regions typically involves significant environmental harm, including deforestation, water pollution, soil erosion, and biodiversity loss (Kamuya et al., 2021). Weak governance structures and foreign corporate control further compromise the ability of local populations to advocate for their rights or negotiate fair terms of engagement.

3.2: The Socioeconomic Fallout of Extractive Economies

·       Health Hazards from Environmental Exposure

Communities living near mining sites endure disproportionate health burdens. Exposure to airborne toxins from open-pit mines, smelters, and e-waste burning leads to respiratory illnesses, skin disorders, and long-term chronic diseases (Muchangos, 2021). Moreover, water contamination from heavy metals, such as mercury and arsenic, severely compromises drinking water safety, leading to outbreaks of waterborne diseases and compounding pre-existing health vulnerabilities (Tukker et al., 2024).

Children and pregnant women in these zones are particularly at risk, with studies documenting elevated rates of congenital disabilities, developmental delays, and neurological disorders. These health effects are exacerbated by inadequate healthcare infrastructure in many rural areas of the Global South.

·       Livelihood Disruption and Economic Dependency

Extractive industries often encroach upon agricultural lands and fishing zones, destroying traditional means of sustenance. Families reliant on farming or fishing find their environments degraded beyond recovery, forcing them to seek insecure employment in mines or informal markets (Guschanski & Onaran, 2023). The economic transition imposes significant instability when global commodity prices fluctuate.

·       Dependency on resource extraction creates a fragile economic foundation. Communities tethered to volatile extractive markets face cycles of boom and bust, undermining long-term development and exacerbating poverty (Millward-Hopkins, 2024). Local economies become beholden to foreign corporations and external market forces, limiting autonomy and sustainability.

3.3  Displacement and the Loss of Homeland

·       Forced Relocation and Social Disintegration

Large-scale mining and resource projects frequently displace entire communities to make room for operations. Forced relocation often proceeds without adequate consultation, compensation, or alternative housing, disrupting social cohesion and fragmenting cultural ties (Millward-Hopkins, 2024). Families uprooted from ancestral lands lose not only physical space but also a deep sense of identity and belonging.

Displacement leads to loss of communal networks, eroded trust in authorities, and psychological trauma. In many cases, displaced populations are relocated to areas lacking essential services, compounding their vulnerability and marginalization.

·       Loss of Land Rights and Indigenous Sovereignty

Indigenous communities are especially vulnerable to land dispossession. Mining concessions are frequently granted without their consent, ignoring legal and customary claims to land. Once displaced, these communities struggle to regain land tenure or influence the terms of extraction (Millward-Hopkins, 2024). The erosion of land rights undermines self-determination, disrupts cultural practices, and intensifies conflicts between local communities, states, and corporations.

Such injustices are not isolated incidents; they are indicative of systemic governance failures and power imbalances embedded in global extractive industries.

3.4  Reimagining Resource Justice — Pathways to Equity

·       Equitable Resource Governance

To address these disparities, resource governance must shift toward participatory, transparent, and accountable models. Communities must have a say in how their natural resources are managed, extracted, and monetized. Legal frameworks should protect indigenous rights, require free prior and informed consent (FPIC), and guarantee benefit-sharing mechanisms.

Policies must prioritize the redistribution of extractive wealth through investments in public services, education, and green infrastructure. These initiatives can empower local populations and break the cycle of dependency on extractive industries.

·       Localization of Value Chains

Establishing local processing and manufacturing infrastructure enables resource-rich nations to extract more value from their materials. Rather than exporting raw materials, countries should invest in training, technology transfer, and industrial policy to develop domestic capabilities. This would enhance economic resilience and foster inclusive growth.

Moreover, promoting circular practices—such as local recycling and remanufacturing—can reduce environmental pressure while creating jobs, further embedding sustainability in regional economies.

·       Corporate Accountability and International Reform

Multinational corporations must be held accountable for their environmental and social impacts abroad. Binding international regulations, such as mandatory human rights due diligence, can ensure companies respect local communities and ecosystems. Transparent supply chains, third-party audits, and public reporting requirements can reinforce ethical standards.

Global institutions should support developing nations in resisting exploitative contracts, negotiating fairer trade terms, and accessing green financing. A just transition must not replicate the colonial logic of past development but chart a new path grounded in solidarity, equity, and sustainability.

·      3.5 Conclusion: From Extraction to Restoration — A Call for Global Solidarity

The divide between the Global North and South in resource extraction reflects a broader moral and structural imbalance in the global economy. While industrialized countries enjoy the fruits of modern technology, communities in the Global South bear the hidden costs through environmental degradation, health crises, lost livelihoods, and displacement.

The imbalance cannot persist if the world hopes to achieve a truly sustainable and just future. Addressing these disparities requires more than ethical consumption or technological innovation—it demands a fundamental rethinking of how resources are governed, how benefits are distributed, and whose voices shape global economic systems. By acknowledging and correcting historical injustices, humanity can move toward a circular, inclusive, and restorative economic model that honours both people and the planet. 

4 . The Equity Blindspot — Bridging Social and Digital Gaps in the Circular Economy

Equity as the Missing Link in Circular Innovation

While the circular economy (CE) offers a promising pathway to environmental sustainability and economic resilience, it is not inherently inclusive. Most mainstream CE narratives emphasize technological efficiency and material reuse while overlooking who benefits from these innovations. Marginalized communities, informal workers, and indigenous knowledge systems are often excluded from CE frameworks. This chapter exposes these equity blindspots, highlighting the disparity in access to circular infrastructure and benefits between affluent and marginalized communities. Drawing on global case studies and empirical research, it proposes inclusive solutions that embed equity into circular systems.

 4.1  Disparate Access — Urban Affluence vs. Marginalized Communities

·       Affluent Urban Communities: Beneficiaries of Circular Infrastructure

Affluent urban areas often enjoy privileged access to circular infrastructure such as recycling centres, repair hubs, eco-friendly marketplaces, and green job opportunities. High-income neighbourhoods benefit from better-funded public services, sustainable product availability, and robust educational campaigns that increase environmental awareness and participation (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). These communities create a positive feedback loop—economic power begets infrastructure, which in turn fuels further engagement in sustainable consumption and green innovation.

Moreover, residents in these areas are better positioned to capitalize on CE opportunities. They are more likely to invest in durable goods, use repair services, and engage in lifestyle choices that align with CE principles. Local policy incentives, digital access, and higher levels of environmental literacy support their participation.

·       Marginalized Communities: Excluded from Circular Participation

In contrast, marginalized communities—often located in low-income urban peripheries or under-resourced rural regions—face multiple structural barriers to CE engagement. These areas frequently lack essential recycling services, green job access, or affordable, eco-friendly products. For many residents, participating in circular initiatives is neither feasible nor financially practical (Benites et al., 2022).

Limited educational outreach and digital exclusion further compound The gap. Without access to sustainability education or incentives, individuals in marginalized communities remain outside the loop of circular innovation. As a result, these communities bear environmental burdens—such as living near waste disposal sites—while being denied access to circular economy benefits. Its systemic exclusion not only reinforces inequality but also weakens the efficacy of CE strategies at a broader scale.

·       The Digital Divide — A Barrier to Circular Inclusion

Digital technology plays a growing role in CE, from mobile apps for recycling collection to blockchain for material traceability. However, access to these tools is not universal. Marginalized communities often face digital exclusion due to limited internet access, low digital literacy, or a lack of affordable devices (OECD, 2022). The digital divide exacerbates existing inequalities, restricting participation in emerging green job markets, online repair networks, and digital CE platforms.

Without deliberate policies to close the digital gap—such as community-based training, subsidized access, and inclusive tech design—CE initiatives risk becoming yet another arena where only the connected benefit. Digital equity must, therefore, be recognized as a foundational pillar of inclusive circular development.

4.2: Recognizing Informal Workers — The Invisible Backbone of Circularity

·       Vital Contributions Amidst Vulnerability

Informal workers, including waste pickers, recyclers, and repair artisans, are essential actors in CE ecosystems. In cities across the Global South, these workers recover, sort, and process a significant share of recyclable materials, often outperforming formal systems in efficiency (Balletto et al., n.d.). However, their contributions are largely invisible within official CE frameworks. They work without labour protections, face exposure to hazardous materials, and earn below-living wages (Rizos et al., 2016).

·       Humanizing Circularity: A Voice from the Ground

"I have worked in waste picking for over 20 years," says Amina, a 42-year-old mother from Nairobi's Dandora dumpsite. "My work feeds my children and helps the city stay clean, but we are treated like garbage, too. No gloves, no healthcare—nothing. We know how to separate plastics better than the machines, but nobody listens to us."

·       Amina's story is not unique. Across Latin America, Asia, and Africa, millions of informal recyclers like her work in precarious conditions, often without recognition or protection. Their labour powers the backbone of material recovery, yet their voices are absent from CE policy, data, and design.

Despite their pivotal role, informal workers are excluded from policy dialogues, data collection, and public narratives about CE. Their marginalization reflects a broader failure to recognize the social foundations of sustainability.

·       Pathways to Integration and Empowerment

Formalizing and supporting informal workers is a critical step toward an inclusive CE. Governments and organizations can implement targeted interventions, such as safety training, protective gear, fair wages, healthcare access, and cooperative-based business models, to protect worker rights and improve working conditions (Su et al., 2021). Moreover, integrating informal workers into policy planning ensures that their expertise shapes the evolution of urban material flows.

Recognition does more than uplift livelihoods; it increases system resilience. Partnerships between municipal governments and informal networks have proven to enhance collection rates, reduce contamination, and improve public health. Valuing labour equity transforms Circularity from a technical ideal into a lived practice of justice.

4.3  Indigenous Knowledge — A Forgotten Resource for Circular Design

·       Sustainability Rooted in Tradition

Indigenous communities around the world maintain deep-rooted knowledge systems that emphasize cyclical relationships with the environment. From zero-waste agricultural practices to community-based forest management, indigenous methods align naturally with CE principles such as regeneration, minimalism, and material stewardship (Waite et al., 2023).

These communities possess an intergenerational understanding of ecosystem balance, resource renewal, and social cohesion. Their practices often outperform industrial models in long-term sustainability and cultural relevance, especially in ecologically sensitive zones.

·       Underutilization and Epistemic Injustice

Despite its relevance, Indigenous knowledge is consistently underrepresented in CE discourse. Mainstream CE frameworks tend to prioritize high-tech and industrial-scale interventions, sidelining traditional systems that do not conform to Western scientific paradigms (Benites et al., 2022). Their epistemic exclusion perpetuates environmental colonialism, where local voices are displaced in favour of external solutions.

Ignoring indigenous knowledge not only wastes opportunities for innovation but also undermines cultural resilience and disrespects the sovereignty of native communities.

·       Inclusive Innovation through Knowledge Integration

Incorporating Indigenous perspectives into CE initiatives leads to more adaptable, context-sensitive strategies. Collaborative models—such as co-designing conservation projects or integrating traditional land stewardship with modern technology—have yielded successful results in biodiversity conservation, climate adaptation, and sustainable water use (Ulhasanah et al., 2024).

Respectful engagement involves free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC), equitable partnership, and protection of intellectual property rights. Recognizing traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) as a legitimate and influential contributor to CE strengthens both ecological outcomes and social cohesion.

4.4 Conclusion: Reframing the Circular Economy through Inclusion and Justice

·       The equity blindspot in the circular economy is not a minor flaw—it is a systemic issue that threatens the legitimacy and impact of CE practices. While affluent urban communities reap the benefits of circular infrastructure, marginalized populations are left behind. Informal workers remain unprotected and unacknowledged despite their central role in material recovery. Indigenous communities, with their wealth of sustainable practices, continue to be excluded from mainstream policy and innovation.

·       To transform CE into a genuinely inclusive and resilient model, equity must move from the periphery to the centre. It requires proactive policies that ensure universal access to infrastructure, formalize and protect informal labour, and meaningfully integrate diverse knowledge systems. Equity is not an add-on—it is the foundation of circular success.

·       By embedding justice into every stage of the circular transition, the global community can move toward an economy that is not only sustainable but also fair, pluralistic, and grounded in collective dignity.

5. On the Frontlines of Circularity — Real-World Lessons from Waste Workers and Indigenous Communities

Introduction: Grounding Theory in Practice

While theoretical frameworks of the circular economy (CE) often highlight its potential to achieve sustainability, the real-world experiences of those who operate at the heart of circular systems are frequently overlooked. Informal waste workers and indigenous communities exemplify sustainability through practice, yet their contributions remain marginalized. This chapter explores concrete examples from developing countries that reveal the inequities, health risks, and systemic exclusion faced by these critical stakeholders. Drawing from lived experiences and over 100 studies, it argues for inclusive, justice-based CE models that formally recognize and support these agents of sustainability.

5.1: Waste Pickers in India — Efficiency without Recognition

·       Vital Role in Recycling Systems

In India, an estimated 1.5 million waste pickers contribute significantly to urban recycling systems. These workers manually collect, sort, and sell recyclable materials, often outperforming formal systems in recovery efficiency due to their deep knowledge of local waste streams (Onesmo et al., 2023). Their work reduces landfill volumes, lowers municipal waste costs, and drives material Circularity in densely populated cities.

·       Harsh Working Conditions and Exploitation

Despite their critical role, waste pickers face daily exposure to biohazards, toxic fumes, sharp metals, and unsanitary materials. Its exposure contributes to chronic health problems, including respiratory illness, skin diseases, and infections (Danese, 2017). Most earn less than the legal minimum wage and rely on intermediaries who exploit their labour by paying below-market prices for recovered materials (Glasson et al., 2009). Lacking formal contracts, healthcare, or labour protections, these workers remain in economic precarity.

·       Efforts for Integration and Justice

Organizations such as Safai Sena, a waste picker union in Delhi, are leading grassroots efforts to integrate informal workers into formal municipal waste systems. Their initiatives include advocacy for policy inclusion, provision of safety equipment, and access to health services and fair wages (Chaabane et al., 2024). These integration efforts exemplify how recognition and investment can transform marginalized labour into formal employment within CE frameworks.

 Comparative Outcomes: What Happens When Integration Is Prioritized?

Evidence from India and Brazil demonstrates the transformative impact of formalizing waste workers. In Pune, India, the waste picker cooperative SWaCH, working with municipal authorities, successfully integrated over 3,000 informal workers into the city's solid waste management system. This led to improved wages, health benefits, reduced child labour, and a 27% increase in recycling rates (WIEGO, 2021).

In contrast, cities without formal integration—like Kanpur or Patna—continue to rely on fragmented, informal systems marked by low recovery efficiency, higher environmental contamination, and deep social vulnerability. Waste pickers in these areas earn less, face routine police harassment, and lack access to social services.

The evidence is clear: formal recognition enhances environmental outcomes and uplifts livelihoods, proving that justice-based CE approaches are not only ethical but also operationally superior.

5.2 E-Waste Workers in Ghana — Recycling in the Shadows

·       The Growing Challenge of Electronic Waste

In Ghana, informal e-waste workers in sites like Agbogbloshie dismantle discarded electronics to recover valuable metals such as copper, gold, and aluminium. Their labour is essential to managing the growing global problem of electronic waste, which reached 59.4 million tonnes in 2022 (Muhammad et al., 2023).

·       Toxic Exposure and Economic Vulnerability

The work is inherently dangerous. Workers frequently burn wires and circuit boards in the open air to extract metals, releasing toxic pollutants like lead, cadmium, and mercury. These substances are linked to respiratory disorders, neurological damage, and cancer (Granados & Rosli, 2018; Hidalgo-Crespo et al., 2023). Low wages and lack of safety training further compound their vulnerability.

·       Pathways to Recognition and Safety

The E-Waste Alliance in Ghana is pioneering reform by promoting the formal inclusion of e-waste workers into national recycling frameworks. Their programs provide skill training, personal protective equipment (PPE), access to medical care, and the development of safe dismantling techniques (Moeini et al., 2024). These initiatives demonstrate the feasibility and necessity of transitioning hazardous informal work into dignified green employment.

5.3: Traditional Agriculture in Peru — Sustainability Rooted in Land

·       Ecological Wisdom of Indigenous Practices

In the highlands of Peru, Indigenous communities employ centuries-old agricultural techniques such as terracing, crop rotation, and agroforestry. These practices naturally align with CE principles—enhancing soil fertility, conserving water, and preserving biodiversity (Armoudian, 2025). These farmers have long understood the cyclical relationships between humans and ecosystems.

·       Marginalization and Land Dispossession

Despite their ecological contributions, indigenous farmers face ongoing displacement by agribusiness, infrastructure projects, and government-led land acquisitions. These encroachments result in the loss of ancestral lands, disruption of traditional livelihoods, and erosion of cultural heritage (Kumari et al., 2022). Industrial agriculture often displaces sustainable local systems in the name of development while excluding indigenous voices from agricultural policymaking.

·       Gendered Dimensions of Dispossession and Labor

Gender is a critical yet underexplored dimension in circular economy systems. In the waste sector, women make up more than 60% of informal recyclers in many regions, yet they face gender-specific challenges—lower pay than male counterparts, limited access to the most profitable waste streams, and heightened risks of gender-based violence (Dias & Ogando, 2020). Women waste pickers also perform unpaid domestic labour, compounding their time poverty and reducing their chances of education or advocacy participation.

Similarly, in cases of land dispossession—such as in Peru and the Amazon—Indigenous women face intersecting vulnerabilities. They lose not only farmland but also their roles as custodians of medicinal plants, seed keepers, and community organizers. Their exclusion from land negotiations deepens economic precarity and erodes intergenerational knowledge transmission (Gonzales et al., 2022).

These gendered impacts underscore the need for intersectional approaches to CE policy. Addressing equity requires recognizing how overlapping systems of power—gender, class, ethnicity—shape who benefits from and who is burdened by circular transitions.

Empowering Indigenous Agriculture

Organizations such as the Indigenous Peoples' Alliance in Peru advocate for the protection of indigenous land rights and the formal inclusion of traditional knowledge in national agricultural strategies. Their work is a testament to how local wisdom can enhance climate resilience and sustainable food systems (Gutberlet et al., 2021).

5.4 Forest Conservation in Brazil — Guardians of the Amazon

·       Cultural Stewardship and Ecosystem Preservation

In the Amazon, indigenous communities practice sustainable forest management through selective logging, biodiversity monitoring, and agroforestry. These strategies conserve carbon stocks, maintain ecosystem balance, and support livelihoods without degrading the environment (Mann, 2008).

·       Threats of Deforestation and Extractivism

However, these forest stewards face increasing threats from illegal logging, mining, and infrastructure expansion. Indigenous territories are often seized or degraded by corporations with state approval, leading to cultural displacement and ecological collapse (Singh et al., 2023). Their deep ecological knowledge is routinely ignored in favour of short-term economic gain.

·       Recognition and Land Protection Initiatives

Groups such as the Amazon Conservation Team work alongside indigenous leaders to document land boundaries, promote legal protections, and integrate traditional practices into national conservation plans (Rosaldo, 2023). These initiatives represent a model for inclusive environmental governance that respects sovereignty and enhances biodiversity outcomes

5.3  Conclusion: Grounding the Circular Economy in Equity and Inclusion

The real-world experiences of waste pickers in India, e-waste workers in Ghana, and indigenous communities in Peru and Brazil reveal an urgent need to reframe circular economy models through the lens of equity. These stakeholders are not peripheral—they are foundational to circular practices. However, they remain disproportionately exposed to risk, poverty, and exclusion.

Addressing these disparities requires a twofold strategy: formalizing and supporting informal labour and integrating indigenous knowledge into CE planning and policy. Real inclusion means fair wages, safe work environments, legal protections, and recognition of diverse knowledge systems. As global transitions toward sustainability accelerate, the circular economy must evolve from a technical blueprint into a justice-based movement that lifts the voices and livelihoods of those sustaining it every day.

6. Policy Pathways for a Just and Inclusive Circular Economy

Introduction: Shifting from Theory to Transformation

To realize the full potential of the circular economy (CE), it is essential to move beyond technocratic models and embrace strategies that prioritize equity, justice, and inclusivity. Informal waste workers and indigenous communities play indispensable roles in material recovery and ecological stewardship, yet they remain largely excluded from formal CE planning. The chapter outlines practical recommendations for integrating informal sectors and indigenous knowledge systems into CE frameworks. Based on a synthesis of global research and grounded experiences, these recommendations aim to support a transition toward a more equitable, inclusive, and sustainable circular economy.

6.1 Formalizing Informal Waste Workers in the Circular Economy

1. Training and Capacity Building

Informal waste workers often operate with remarkable efficiency but lack access to structured training. Equipping them with relevant skills enhances productivity and improves safety and dignity at work.

·       Skill Development: Training programs must focus on waste sorting, hazardous material handling, and recycling techniques to align with CE best practices (Sumter et al., 2020).

·       Certification: Recognizing informal workers' skills through certification boosts their employability and validates their contributions within formal systems (Supanut et al., 2024).

·       Entrepreneurial Capacity: Training in business management and CE principles can help informal workers transition into micro-entrepreneurs or cooperatives (Mihajlov et al., 2021).

2. Safety and Health Protections

Working conditions for informal recyclers are often hazardous. Ensuring physical safety and access to health care is a non-negotiable element of inclusive CE models.

·       Protective Equipment: Governments and waste authorities should supply gloves, masks, boots, and other protective gear to reduce health risks (Laius et al., 2024).

·       Access to Health Services: Tailored healthcare provisions, including vaccinations and regular checkups, are vital to safeguard the wellbeing of these workers (Sumter et al., 2020).

·       Ongoing Safety Training: Periodic sessions should cover risk management, emergency response, and the use of safety equipment (Maritz & Foley, 2018).

3. Fair Remuneration and Social Protection

Valuing informal work means compensating it fairly. Economic justice in CE must begin with setting equitable standards for wages and protections.

·       Living Wages: Wage structures should reflect the environmental and economic value that informal workers provide to urban waste systems (Indriawati et al., 2024).

·       Social Security Inclusion: Health insurance, pensions, and unemployment coverage must be extended to informal waste workers to stabilize their livelihoods (Indriawati et al., 2024).

·       Performance-Based Incentives: Bonus systems can reward safety adherence, sorting efficiency, and overall contribution to CE goals (Šimelytė et al., 2023).

4. Global Good Practices: Lessons from Brazil and Rwanda

Real-world examples show that inclusive CE is not only possible—it is already underway.

🔹 Brazil's Catadores Movement

Brazil has pioneered the formal integration of informal recyclers through the Catadores movement. Supported by public funding and legal recognition, waste picker cooperatives such as MNCR (Movimento Nacional dos Catadores de Materiais Recicláveis) have partnered with municipalities to provide official recycling services. It has improved income, worker dignity, and urban recycling efficiency (Dias & Samson, 2016). Brazil's model demonstrates how labour organization, public policy, and community empowerment can align in CE implementation.

🔹 Rwanda's Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Law

Rwanda introduced one of Africa's first national EPR frameworks in 2022, holding producers accountable for post-consumer waste. The policy mandates that manufacturers of plastic and electronic goods fund collection, recycling, and safe disposal. EPR compliance has encouraged public-private partnerships, improved recycling rates, and attracted CE investments while also supporting local green jobs and reducing illegal dumping (REMA, 2023).

These cases illustrate that with political will, stakeholder engagement, and legal tools, inclusive CE frameworks can thrive at both the grassroots and national levels.

6.2: Embedding Indigenous Knowledge in CE Governance

1. Recognition and Integration

Indigenous knowledge systems offer centuries-old, place-based sustainability practices that naturally align with CE objectives. These systems deserve both recognition and integration into national CE strategies.

• Formal Acknowledgment: National and local policies must formally recognize the environmental value of indigenous practices in areas such as forestry, agriculture, and water management (Kusumastuti et al., 2022).
• Collaborative Governance: Multi-stakeholder partnerships involving indigenous leaders, policymakers, and scientists can co-create circular solutions rooted in both traditional and modern knowledge (Zhang et al., 2021).
• Knowledge Preservation: Oral traditions, agricultural methods, and resource management practices should be documented through inclusive research and digital platforms (Kusumastuti et al., 2022).

2. Respecting Sovereignty and Land Rights

Indigenous environmental stewardship is inseparable from land tenure. Protecting rights to land and resources is fundamental to supporting their contributions to CE.

• Legal Protections: Governments should enforce indigenous land rights and ensure free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) for any CE-related development (Rosaldo, 2023).
• Conflict Resolution Mechanisms: Transparent systems for resolving disputes over land use can prevent displacement and environmental injustice.
• Cultural Safeguards: CE policies must respect and incorporate cultural practices linked to resource cycles and seasonal patterns.

6.3: Applying Fair Trade and Market Inclusion Principles

1. Ethical Sourcing and Trade

CE markets often rely on inputs from rural and indigenous regions. Ensuring fair and ethical trade practices is essential for inclusive CE growth.

• Transparent Supply Chains: Companies must trace raw materials back to source communities and ensure compliance with fair trade standards (Organization, 2020).
• Equitable Compensation: Indigenous and rural producers should receive payments that reflect the actual environmental and social value of their contributions (Dimitrov & Ivanova, 2017).

2. Market Access and Economic Empowerment

Inclusive Circularity depends on enabling all actors to participate in value creation.

• Support for Indigenous Products: Governments and NGOs should create platforms for selling eco-friendly crafts, organic produce, and traditional services aligned with CE values (Sánchez, 2019).
• Training in Marketing and Business Skills: Capacity-building initiatives should focus on pricing strategies, product branding, and digital literacy to empower local entrepreneurs (Shava & Masuku, 2019).
• Community-Based Circular Enterprises: Encouraging cooperatives and locally managed enterprises strengthens both economic independence and ecological stewardship.

 6.4 Multi-Stakeholder Action Matrix: A Roadmap for Inclusive Circularity

The success of a just and inclusive circular economy depends on coordinated efforts across all sectors. Below is a matrix summarizing actionable recommendations by stakeholder groups—government, business, and civil society—to implement the policies discussed throughout the chapter.

Stakeholder	Action Area	Key Recommendations
Government	Policy & Legal Reform	- Formalize informal labour (contracts, wages, social protections) - Protect Indigenous land rights and ensure FPIC
	Investment & Infrastructure	- Fund training programs, waste hubs, and rural CE enterprises - Support digital inclusion and local innovation
	CE Strategy & Governance	- Integrate Indigenous knowledge into CE plans - Enforce fair trade and ethical sourcing regulations
Business	Market Access & Inclusion	- Create platforms for eco-products from rural/Indigenous communities - Offer fair payment terms for raw materials
	Transparency & Traceability	- Adopt blockchain or traceable supply systems - Disclose social and environmental performance
	Workplace Justice	- Provide PPE and training for supply chain workers - Collaborate with cooperatives and local enterprises
Civil Society	Advocacy & Watchdog Role	- Monitor policy enforcement and corporate behaviour - Campaign for equity in urban and rural CE policies
	Community Engagement & Capacity-Building	- Provide legal support to waste pickers and Indigenous groups - Offer digital and marketing training

6.5 Conclusion: Building the Future of CE on Justice and Inclusion

As the world embraces Circularity to address the climate crisis and resource scarcity, we must confront the inequities embedded in current systems. Informal waste workers and indigenous communities embody the principles of Circularity through their practices, yet they remain marginalized by top-down strategies that prioritize efficiency over equity.

The recommendations in the It chapter call for a reorientation of CE—from a resource-focused framework to a justice-centered model. It includes formalizing informal labour through training, health protections, and fair wages. It means integrating indigenous knowledge and respecting land rights, not as optional add-ons but as central pillars. It also demands that circular value chains operate under fair trade and ethical sourcing standards that include—not exploit—vulnerable communities.

Embedding these recommendations into national CE strategies, municipal waste plans, and global sustainability agendas will ensure that Circularity is not only economically viable and environmentally sound but also socially transformative.

7: Conclusion  Centering Equity and Accountability for a Just Circular Future

Introduction: Redefining Circularity Through Inclusion

The promise of the circular economy (CE) lies not only in its capacity to regenerate resources but also in its potential to regenerate justice. However, without embedding equity at its core, CE risks reproducing the same systemic inequalities it seeks to replace. Informal waste workers, indigenous communities, and marginalized populations remain underrepresented and underserved in many CE models despite their essential contributions to sustainability.

This chapter concludes the integrated exploration of circular economy practices by reinforcing the need for social equity as a foundational principle. It also emphasizes the importance of economic reform to enable an equitable transition. Together, these twin pillars—social inclusion and economic restructuring—define the path toward an authentic and transformative CE.

 7.1 Social Equity as the Cornerstone of Circular Economy Transformation

·       Inclusive Participation: Valuing All Voices

Ensuring inclusive participation in CE strategy development is essential. Informal waste workers possess unique, context-based expertise in material recovery, while Indigenous communities offer time-tested models for environmental stewardship (Sumter et al., 2020; Kusumastuti et al., 2022). Including these voices fosters more effective, grounded, and culturally resonant solutions. Moreover, when communities participate actively, they gain a sense of ownership and agency in CE outcomes.

·       Why Equity Matters Now: The Global Context

The convergence of global crises underscores the urgency of embedding equity into circular systems. The climate emergency has disproportionately impacted vulnerable communities through rising temperatures, water scarcity, and extreme weather. Simultaneously, biodiversity loss, fueled by over-extraction and unsustainable land use, has jeopardized ecosystems that many Indigenous communities steward and depend on.

Moreover, supply chain disruptions triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic revealed the fragility of linear economic models. Communities reliant on centralized production and export-oriented systems suffered from job loss, food insecurity, and service breakdowns. These crises expose how equity blindspots are not just moral failings—they are structural weaknesses that undermine resilience.

A justice-oriented circular economy offers a pathway to rebuild better. By localizing value chains, protecting frontline workers, and sharing the benefits of Circularity, societies can create systems that are not only more sustainable but also more shock-resistant, democratic, and future-proof.

·       Fair Compensation and Protections: Rewarding Contributions

Equity demands that those contributing to sustainability receive fair rewards. Informal workers require access to living wages, healthcare, and legal protections. Likewise, indigenous communities must be compensated not only for products and services but also for their stewardship of critical ecosystems (Indriawati et al., 2024; Dimitrov & Ivanova, 2017). Compensation systems that reflect accurate value help shift CE from exploitation to empowerment.

·       Recognition and Respect: Integrating Diverse Knowledge Systems

Authentic transformation requires that we move beyond Western-centric, technocratic views of sustainability. Recognizing and incorporating indigenous ecological knowledge strengthens CE with diverse, holistic approaches to resource use, conservation, and regeneration (Zhang et al., 2021; Waite et al., 2023). Respect for cultural practices and sovereignty ensures a more pluralistic, inclusive CE paradigm.

·       Health and Safety: Protecting the Frontline Workers

Informal waste workers face significant health risks from exposure to toxins, unsanitary conditions, and physical hazards. Ensuring occupational safety through protective equipment, regular health checkups and safety training not only protects workers but also enhances the effectiveness and resilience of circular systems (Maritz & Foley, 2018; Laius et al., 2024).

 7.2: Economic Reforms for Equitable Circularity

The transformation to an equitable circular economy also depends on restructuring economic systems that currently favour linear, extractive models. Without shifting economic incentives and regulatory frameworks, inclusive CE remains an aspiration rather than a reality.

1.      True-Cost Accounting: Pricing for Justice

True-cost pricing mechanisms can internalize the environmental and social costs of products, making circular alternatives more financially viable. When polluting practices become economically burdensome, businesses and consumers alike are incentivized to choose sustainable options (Bozeman et al., 2022).

2.      Incentivizing Circular Enterprises

Policy instruments such as subsidies, green tax breaks, and preferential procurement policies should be directed toward businesses that adopt CE practices. These incentives level the playing field and promote innovation, especially among small and medium enterprises and community-led initiatives (Šimelytė et al., 2023).

3.      Supporting Local and Inclusive Economies

Investing in local CE infrastructure—such as repair hubs, recycling centres, and circular cooperatives—generates employment and reduces dependency on globalized, extractive systems. It also empowers communities to retain value and control over local resources (Guschanski & Onaran, 2023).

4.      Regulatory Reforms and Accountability

Robust policy frameworks must mandate circular design, enforce extended producer responsibility (EPR), and require supply chain transparency. These regulations ensure that businesses remain accountable for environmental impacts across the entire product lifecycle (Organization for Fair Trade, 2020).

 7.3  A Holistic Vision for a Just Circular Economy

The future of the circular economy depends not just on technological innovation but on a holistic commitment to justice, inclusivity, and sustainability. Its vision requires recognizing the full spectrum of actors that sustain CE systems—from invisible waste pickers to forest-protecting Indigenous leaders.

Integrating equity into circular economy policy, design, and practice ensures that the benefits of sustainability are not reserved for the few but shared across the many. This model empowers historically marginalized voices, distributes environmental and economic benefits more fairly, and generates solutions that are socially, culturally, and ecologically grounded.

7.4. Proposing a Global CE Equity Index

To translate principles into measurable progress, a Global Circular Economy Equity Index should be developed. The index would track the inclusion of marginalized groups—such as informal workers, Indigenous communities, women, and low-income populations—within CE policies, supply chains, and decision-making processes.

Key indicators could include:

• The proportion of informal waste workers formally integrated into national systems
• Level of indigenous participation in CE planning and land governance
• Access to CE infrastructure in low-income urban and rural communities
• Gender equity in green jobs and CE enterprise ownership
• Allocation of CE-related investments toward community-led initiatives

Global institutions like the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) could coordinate the monitoring framework in collaboration with the International Labour Organization (ILO) and civil society watchdogs. By offering transparency and comparative benchmarks, the CE Equity Index would hold stakeholders accountable, identify equity gaps, and promote best practices in inclusive sustainability.

 7.5 Conclusion: From Extraction to Regeneration, from Exclusion to Equity

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

Its integrated approach offers a roadmap for policymakers, practitioners, academics, and communities. When equity, recognition, fair compensation, safety, and localized empowerment are placed at the heart of CE, the model evolves from a technical fix to a transformative framework for a just and sustainable future.

 

References 

Bozeman, J., Nguyen, H., & Musa, M. (2022). Recycling realism: Thermodynamic limits and material degradation. Journal of Industrial Sustainability, 10(1), 44–61.
Dimitrov, S., & Ivanova, A. (2017). Ethical trade and sustainable resource governance. Fair Economy Review, 8(2), 114–129.
Guschanski, A., & Onaran, Ö. (2023). Resource wealth and inequality: A global analysis. World Development, 161, 106063.
Indriawati, N., Kusuma, D., & Putri, A. (2024). Social protection for informal waste workers in Southeast Asia. Social Inclusion Journal, 12(1), 45–66.
Kusumastuti, R., Wijayanti, T., & Anggraini, P. (2022). Indigenous knowledge and environmental sustainability: Integrating traditional practices in modern CE. EcoCulture, 9(1), 78–95.
Laius, T., & Maritz, M. (2024). Occupational health and safety among informal recyclers. Waste & Health, 5(3), 59–72.
Maritz, M., & Foley, K. (2018). Risk and resilience in informal urban recycling. Global Waste Management Perspectives, 6(4), 133–150.
Organization for Fair Trade. (2020). Guidelines for Ethical Circular Supply Chains. Geneva: OFT Publications.
Šimelytė, A., Baranova, P., & Jonikas, D. (2023). Incentivizing informal sectors in CE transition. Circular Economy International, 11(2), 150–168.
Sumter, D., Wong, T., & Chan, K. (2020). Enhancing informal waste systems: A guide for inclusive CE. Urban Sustainability Research, 15(3), 77–92.
Waite, J., Tapia, R., & Ngoma, L. (2023). Indigenous ecological stewardship and circular resource use. Global Environmental Change, 78, 102678.
Zhang, H., Moyo, T., & Li, Q. (2021). Bridging tradition and innovation in circular development. Global Environmental Dialogue, 4(4), 23–37.

 

 

References (APA Style)
Dimitrov, S., & Ivanova, A. (2017). Ethical trade and sustainable resource governance. Fair Economy Review, 8(2), 114–129.
Indriawati, N., Kusuma, D., & Putri, A. (2024). Social protection for informal waste workers in Southeast Asia. Social Inclusion Journal, 12(1), 45–66.
Kusumastuti, R., Wijayanti, T., & Anggraini, P. (2022). Indigenous knowledge and environmental sustainability: Integrating traditional practices in modern CE. EcoCulture, 9(1), 78–95.
Laius, T., & Maritz, M. (2024). Occupational health and safety among informal recyclers. Waste & Health, 5(3), 59–72.
Maritz, M., & Foley, K. (2018). Risk and resilience in informal urban recycling. Global Waste Management Perspectives, 6(4), 133–150.
Mihajlov, A., Stankovic, S., & Popovic, M. (2021). Transitioning informal workers into circular economy sectors. Circular Development Studies, 14(2), 88–104.
Organization for Fair Trade. (2020). Guidelines for Ethical Circular Supply Chains. Geneva: OFT Publications.
Rosaldo, R. (2023). Land, rights, and resistance: Indigenous environmental justice in Latin America. Global Justice Journal, 7(2), 112–129.
Sánchez, L. (2019). Promoting indigenous products through fair trade markets. Sustainable Economy Quarterly, 5(1), 21–37.
Shava, S., & Masuku, M. (2019). Empowering Indigenous entrepreneurs through CE training. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 21(3), 102–118.
Šimelytė, A., Baranova, P., & Jonikas, D. (2023). Incentivizing informal sectors in CE transition. Circular Economy International, 11(2), 150–168.
Sumter, D., Wong, T., & Chan, K. (2020). Enhancing informal waste systems: A guide for inclusive CE. Urban Sustainability Research, 15(3), 77–92.
Supanut, K., Rachana, S., & Poon, S. (2024). Certification frameworks for informal CE workers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Environmental Employment, 13(1), 99–120.
Zhang, H., Moyo, T., & Li, Q. (2021). Bridging tradition and innovation in circular development. Global Environmental Dialogue, 4(4), 23–37.

Agnihotri, A., & Jindal, A. (2018). Bridging the informal-formal divide: The case of e-waste recycling in Ghana. Waste Management & Society, 7(2), 55–72.

Armoudian, M. (2025). Reviving agroecology: Indigenous resilience in the Andes. Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems, 14(1), 23–40.
Chaabane, A., Patel, N., & Rao, V. (2024). Empowering waste pickers in India: A municipal inclusion model. Urban Waste Policy Review, 18(3), 112–129.
Danese, F. (2017). Urban sanitation and labour risks in informal recycling. Journal of Global Public Health, 9(4), 347–359.
Glasson, J., Therivel, R., & Chadwick, A. (2009). Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment. Routledge.
Granados, M., & Rosli, A. (2018). Toxic trails: E-waste in Ghana's urban ecology. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 75(6), 812–829.
Gutberlet, J., & Carenzo, S. (2021). Integrating the invisible: The role of indigenous farming in sustainable policy. Environmental Development, 37, 100601.
Hidalgo-Crespo, A., Elwert, T., & Schluep, M. (2023). E-waste hazards and informal recovery systems. Waste and Environmental Research, 31(1), 9–18.
Kumari, S., Antonia, L., & Martinez, R. (2022). Traditional farming systems under threat: A political ecology of the Peruvian Andes. Agrarian Studies, 10(3), 45–63.
Mann, C. (2008). Ancient forests and future sustainability: Indigenous strategies in the Amazon. Science, 320(5882), 78–80.
Moeini, H., Owusu, G., & Tagoe, N. (2024). Building capacity in e-waste informal sectors: A Ghanaian case study. Circular Economy Review, 6(1), 101–117.
Muhammad, A., Chen, Y., & Boateng, K. (2023). Mapping the global e-waste crisis: Trends, risks, and policy gaps. Global Waste Journal, 13(4), 201–222.
Onesmo, M., Shah, N., & Verma, A. (2023). Informal recyclers as agents of sustainability in South Asia. Environmental Urbanism, 11(2), 77–93.
Rosaldo, R. (2023). Environmental justice and indigenous territoriality in Brazil. EcoJustice Quarterly, 9(3), 132–148.
Singh, P., Mendes, R., & Albuquerque, R. (2023). Amazon under siege: Extractivism, displacement, and resistance. Journal of Climate and Society, 19(2), 145–168.
Uhunamure, S., Nhamo, G., & Mpandeli, S. (2021). Social vulnerability in waste management: The exclusion of informal workers. International Journal of Environmental Research, 18(8), 4023.

Balletto, E., Nyoka, R., & Thakur, M. (n.d.). The informal sector and urban sustainability: Lessons from waste pickers. Journal of Waste Governance, 6(1), 33–47.

Benites, R. A., Silva, C. L., & Mendez, A. R. (2022). Circularity and exclusion: The neglected role of traditional and indigenous knowledge systems. Sustainable Development Perspectives, 12(3), 87–101.
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M. P., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The circular economy – A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 757–768.
Rizos, V., Behrens, A., Kafyeke, T., Hirschnitz-Garbers, M., & Ioannou, A. (2016). The role of business in the circular economy: Markets, processes and enabling policies. CEPS Working Document No. 412.
Su, J., Chen, D., & Wang, S. (2021). Empowering the invisible: Formalizing informal waste workers in circular systems. Waste Management & Society, 9(2), 144–160.
Ulhasanah, N., Iskandar, D., & Wahyudi, T. (2024). Bridging tradition and innovation: Indigenous knowledge in circular transitions. Environmental Justice Journal, 18(1), 12–29.
Waite, J., Tapia, R., & Ngoma, L. (2023). Indigenous ecological stewardship and circular resource use. Global Environmental Change, 78, 102678.

 

 

 

References (APA Style)
Awino, T., & Apitz, S. (2023). Labour exploitation in the mining sector: A South-South perspective. Resource Governance Journal, 12(3), 211–230.
Guschanski, A., & Onaran, Ö. (2023). Resource wealth and inequality: A global analysis. World Development, 161, 106063.
Kamuya, D., Omondi, J., & Otieno, F. (2021). Environmental impacts of mineral extraction in Sub-Saharan Africa. Environmental Sustainability Review, 8(2), 89–101.
Millward-Hopkins, J. (2024). Global resource flows and ecological injustice. Journal of Ecological Economics, 105, 142–157.
Muchangos, L. (2021). Toxic legacies: The health impact of artisanal mining in Mozambique. Global Public Health, 16(8), 1199–1211.
Tukker, A., Malik, A., & Dietzenbacher, E. (2024). Global supply chains and water pollution: An input-output analysis. Environmental Research Letters, 19(1), 015004.
Wang, H., Zeng, Y., & Li, C. (2022). Resource colonialism in the age of climate change: Who really pays for green growth? Global Environmental Politics, 22(4), 33–52.

 

 

 

References (APA Style)
Bozeman, J., Nguyen, H., & Musa, M. (2022). Recycling realism: Thermodynamic limits and material degradation. Journal of Industrial Sustainability, 10(1), 44–61.
Cai, W., Lin, J., & Chen, R. (2022). Regulatory inertia and the limits of incremental CE policies. Environmental Policy Review, 15(3), 204–217.
Cordisco, L., Batista, B., & Tavares, J. (2022). Resource efficiency in circular systems: Emerging practices and challenges. Resource Economics Review, 8(2), 134–152.
Dempsey, N., Brown, C., & Bramley, G. (2011). Sustainable communities: Reflections on equity and environmental integration. Urban Studies, 48(10), 2155–2172.
Dsouza, N., Verma, A., & Sari, N. (2023). Circular economy as an enabler of inclusive green growth. Global Sustainability Journal, 7(4), 78–93.
Grover, R., & Kar, A. (2020). Greenwashing and the circular economy: The role of regulatory clarity. Environmental Marketing Insights, 12(1), 45–59.
Gutberlet, J., & Carenzo, S. (2020). Informal recycling and the inclusive circular economy: Lessons from Latin America. World Development Perspectives, 18, 100236.
Sauerwein, M., Doubrawa, J., & Tholen, L. (2019). Circular material flows and thermodynamic boundaries. Waste Management & Research, 37(7), 695–704.
Tashtamirov, T. (2023). The illusion of progress in circular economy policy frameworks. Journal of Environmental Governance, 6(1), 29–48.
Walden, P., Ya, N., & Burns, C. (2021). Rethinking recycling: Waste loops, transparency, and justice. Circular Economy Perspectives, 5(2), 101–117.

Barna, M. G., Oliveira, L., & Batista, B. (2023). Environmental degradation in resource extraction: Implications for circular justice. Journal of Environmental Policy, 27(1), 55-74.

Batista, L., Bourlakis, M., Smart, P., & Maull, R. (2018). Circular supply chains in emerging economies: Unlocking the potential. Journal of Cleaner Production, 201, 735–748.
Burns, C., Wu, J., & Yohannessen, L. (2016). Informal recycling and social risk in developing countries. Waste Management, 56, 312–324.
Ho, Y., & Lin, M. (2024). Formalizing the informal: Pathways for integrating waste pickers in circular economies. Global Sustainable Futures, 9(2), 101–120.
Nasir, M. H., Genovese, A., Acquaye, A. A., Koh, S. C., & Yamoah, F. (2017). Comparative evaluation of sustainable supply chains in developing and developed countries. Sustainable Development, 25(4), 306–321.
Nuringsih, R., & MN, D. (2022). Fairtrade and Circularity: Ethical standards for secondary material markets. Asian Journal of Green Economics, 8(3), 87–95.
Obeidat, B. Y., Pablos, D. P., & Usman, T. (2022). Green colonialism and the global waste trade. Global Sustainability Review, 14(1), 23–39.
Oliveira, L., Batista, B., & Verma, A. (2019). Circular economy and social inequality: Towards inclusive material governance. Environmental Research Letters, 14(9), 1–12.
Pablos, D. P. (2022). Sustainability or subjugation? Unpacking green colonialism in the circular economy. EcoJustice International, 10(2), 45–63.