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

Author: AM Tris Hardyanto

 

1. Introduction – Rethinking Circularity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Uncovering Hidden Fault Lines in Circularity

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

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

2.1 Systemic Failures

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

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

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

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

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

2.2 Social Equity Gaps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.3 Economic Barriers

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

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

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

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

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

 

3. Beyond Technological Optimism

3.1 Technological Constraints

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

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

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

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

3.2 Socioeconomic Blind Spots

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Cultural Recalibration for Sustainability

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

4.1 Shifting Consumer Behavior

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

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

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

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

4.2 Revaluing Durability and Repair

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Chapter 5: Circular Ethics – A New Philosophical Framework

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

5.1 Core Principles

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.2 Prioritizing Reduction Over Recycling

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Implementing Circular Ethics

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

6.1 Multidimensional Metrics

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.2 Educational and Cultural Transformation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Global Justice and Equity

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

7.1 Fair Trade and Ethical Sourcing

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

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

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

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

7.2 International Cooperation

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

8. Practical Recommendations

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

8.1 For Policymakers

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

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

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

8.2 For Businesses

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

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

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

8.3 For Consumers

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

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

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

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

Conclusion: From Circularity to Circular Justice

From Circularity to Circular Justice or Circular Ethics ​

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

Building the Future of CE on Justice and Inclusion ​

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

Final Thoughts

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

Call to Action ​

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

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

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

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

 

References

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

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

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

D. Chau, K.Y., Hong, M.P., Lin, C., Ngo, T.Q., Phan, T.T.H., Huy, P.Q. (2023). THE IMPACT OF ECONOMIC AND NON-ECONOMIC DETERMINANTS ON CIRCULAR ECONOMY IN VIETNAM: A PERSPECTIVE OF SUSTAINABLE SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 29(6), 1587-1610. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2023.19452

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

N. Mashovic, A., Ignjatović, J., Kisin, J. (2022). Circular Economy as an Imperative of Sustainable Development in North Macedonia and Serbia. Ecologica, 29(106), 169-177. https://doi.org/10.18485/ecologica.2022.29.106.5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Shaping Markets and Policies for Genuine Circularity Economic

 

                                                         Author AM Tris Hardyanto

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

 1. Entropy and Illusion — The Physical Limits of Circularity

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

1.1 The Thermodynamic Truth. Why Energy and Matter Degrade

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

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

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

 

1.2 Circular Dreams vs. Entropic Realities

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

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

1.3 Toward Sufficiency. Resilience Over Perpetual Reuse

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

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

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

The Entropic Imperative

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

 

  2.  Economic Barriers to Circular Practices

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

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

Financial Disadvantage of Recycled vs. Virgin Materials

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

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

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

Market Preferences for Linear Economy Products

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

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

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

Addressing Economic Barriers

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

Financial Incentives to Support Circular Businesses

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

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

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

Economic Penalties for Linear Economy Practices

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Frameworks

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

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

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

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

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

Policy Integration Aligning with SDGs

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

Rwanda's E-Waste Recycling Hubs

 

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

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

Implications.

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

Indonesia's Community-Based Circular Economy Initiatives

 

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

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

Implications.

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

 

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

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

 

 

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

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

Economic Reforms

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

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

Policy Reforms

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

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

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

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

Teaser. Reorienting Technology Towards Holistic Sustainability

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

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

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

Final Thoughts

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

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

 

References

Ahmed, Z., Mahmud, S., & Acet, H. (2022). Circular economy model for developing countries. Evidence from Bangladesh. Heliyon, 8(5), e09530. https.//doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09530

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

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

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

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

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

Bernardi, P. D., Bertello, A., & Forliano, C. (2022). Circularity of food systems. A review and research agenda. British Food Journal, 125(3), 1094–1129. https.//doi.org/10.1108/bfj-05-2021-0576

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ozili, P. K. (2022). Circular economy and central bank digital currency. Circular Economy and Sustainability, 2(4), 1501–1516. https.//doi.org/10.1007/s43615-022-00170-0

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

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

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

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

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

Rizos, V., Behrens, A., van der Gaast, W., Hofman, E., Ioannou, A., Kafyeke, T., Flamos, A., Rinaldi, R., Papadelis, S., Hirschnitz-Garbers, M., & Topi, C. (2016). Implementation of circular economy business models by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Barriers and enablers. Sustainability, 8(11), 1212. https.//doi.org/10.3390/su8111212

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toni, M. (2023). Conceptualization of circular economy and Sustainability at the business level. Circular Economy and Sustainable Development, 1(2), 81–89. https.//doi.org/10.59762/ijerm205275791220231205140635

Trică, C. L., Bănacu, C. S., & Bușu, M. (2019). Environmental factors and Sustainability of the circular economy model at the European Union level. Sustainability, 11(4), 1114. https.//doi.org/10.3390/su11041114

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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